1

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 15/12/2018 15:21:52 »

Our measurements show us that light consistently travels at the same speed through space (for a given depth in a gravity well, and that it varies in a predictable way at different heights in a gravity well). In that, we already see that space and time must be extremely consistent things - they give us the same results for experiments over and over again. We run experiments which show us the functionality of clocks being slowed by movement through space (and by depth in a gravity well).

That is well said, and I agree. One point of consistency between us is the speed of light through space is invariant, relative to the position in a gravity well (or as I phrase it, relative to the local gravitational wave energy density profile of space at that location).

When I speak of clocks measuring the rate that time passes, the variable aspect is caused by their positions in the gravity well (i.e., by the relative frequency of the sum of all of the gravitational waves arriving there that have been emitted and traveled there from all of the distant surrounding sources. Those sources are all of the particles and objects out there that have mass, and that are in relative motion to each other). The way I suggest that the invariant natural laws of the universe pull that off is by the precise way that the gravitational wave energy density varies as you change position in a gravity well. After all, any change in position, in any direction, is subject to the gravity well analogy.

...
As we send two lots of light round different paths to get from A to B, we get predictable results - time isn't speeding up and slowing down in random ways in different places, and space maintains separations predictably rather than having distances between two things continually vary in random ways. There's a very precise mechanism in play behind everything we see.

I strongly agree. We are referring to the invariant laws of nature after all, lol. (let me know if you disagree with me about the concept of the “invariant laws of nature”).

If time was behaving in unpredictable ways, we'd see distortions in space between ourselves and distant stars and galaxies.

No one is saying that time is behaving in unpredictable ways, but you seem to be predicting that if time wasn’t absolute, we’d see distortions. That supposition can't be your only basis for invoking absolute time, can it? If so, what is the evidence that there would be your predicted distortions?

Can time run slow for some clocks if those clocks run slow?

We agree that if there was such a thing as absolute time, and that if a given clock itself was running slower than an identical clock in the same position in a gravity well (i.e., where the gravitational wave energy density was the same for both clocks), then if one of the two identical clocks runs slower in the same position in the "well", it is because of some sluggishness or manufacturing imperfection in that peculiar individual clock, and not due to a physical difference in the position in the gravity well (i.e., not due to a difference in the local gravitational wave energy density).

Not if it's a moving clock - we can see the mechanism by which the clock runs slow and we know that the light in a moving light clock is still moving at the same rate through space as it would if the clock was stationary, so we are not fooled by the clock running slow. If we put a clock down a gravity well, we are not fooled by it running slow either because the speed of light is slower down there - we know that time is not running slow there, but that the clock is. We also know that the clock isn't taking a shortcut into the future by being in a gravity well - it is simply ticking more slowly while passing through the same amount of time as a clock right at the top of the well, and we can check this by moving them apart and then moving them back together - ...

We are in agreement in regard to the variable rate that identical clocks would display the difference in the rate of time passing at different “depths” in a gravity well. My view is to say that time simply passes every where, but that the difference shown by clocks measuring it is a function of their relative positions in the gravity well, and therefore due to a difference in the gravitational wave energy density profile of their local space. That thinking doesn't convert to being a suggestion that there is an absolute rate of time passing, as measured by a clock, somewhere out in the deepest possible space; there isn't any place in the universe, as I know it, that time could be measured to pass at some absolute rate, so there is no rate that can be used as a "standard" or absolute rate that all clocks can be measured against, or converted to. This is a strong logical argument, and you should feel obligated to refute it convincingly.


I do want to point out another area where your absolutes seem to break down, and that comes to light when you refer to “moving them (the clocks) apart and then moving them back together”.

I remember asking you about a coordinate system that could allow you to detect exact physical locations in space. If you move the clocks apart and then back together, assuming you intend to move them back to the exact location where they started, over the same paths, how do you determine the exact coordinates of the starting location, and how do you determine that you have returned the clocks, over the same paths, to their exact starting locations?


That is a logical question/argument that comes up in regard to absolute space. As far as I know you have no way of marking the start position, plotting the exact paths, and returning to the exact starting positions (barring @jimbobghost ’s interesting suggestion of leaving bread crumbs; just not sure yet how to make them say put?).

... if one of them had taken a shortcut into the future, we would see an event-meshing failure and the laws of physics would break because we see them meeting up and can knock them against each other, but a shortcut into the future would mean that the one that took the shortcut would fail to collide with the other clock because that other clock wouldn't be there yet when the shortcut taker arrives at the reunion point.

The fact that you acknowledge the difficulty of pulling off the act of separating the clocks, and then getting them back to their original places, your demonstration is not a convincing argument. You can certainly adjust the act of returning the clocks together by cheating, to use your argument, meaning by adjusting the act of returning the clocks to their start positions using visual assistance in regard to the relative positions of the clocks as you move them, and adjusting the return path visually until they are back together. Still, there is no evidence that when they are brought back together even using visual assistance, that they are back to their original positions in absolute space, is there?

It's really simple to demonstrate this with a simulation, but all the people who simulate theories without absolute time have to sneak it into the simulation to coordinate the action while pretending they haven't done so. Their models simply cannot work the way they claim, and it's extraordinary that they're able to get away with cheating like that even after they've been found out, but so few people can get their head round this stuff that they simply aren't capable of checking the facts. Those who are so sure they're right though have an obligation to show a working simulation of their model that doesn't cheat by smuggling in absolute time. They refuse to do so.

The simple demonstrations you suggest will not work, in my world view. They won’t work, not only because there is no absolute time or space in any practical situation, but if there were, you are facing the fact that without bread crumbs and visual “assistance” (which you would call cheating, lol), you cannot pull off the simple demonstrations.

2

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 15/12/2018 12:21:27 »

To be honest this should be a strict policy. Only people with a positive attitude allowed to join ISU 

I wish . 


But in the ISU everything is relative to something else. I guess we have to face the fact that the ISU rules are the invariant natural laws of the universe, and they're already set. On the other hand, our personal philosophy of life allows us to set our own rules to live by. That is good because we can decide to require a positive attitude, and we can decide when to change our philosophy, lol.

3

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 15/12/2018 01:29:00 »

That would be wonderful 

If I didn’t mention it, part of the philosophy of the ISU includes maintaining a positive attitude, lol.

4

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 15/12/2018 00:44:09 »

Given that life has already existed for an infinite amount of time, certain life forms would be so advanced and developed that any possible method of transportation has been learned and mastered, any knowledge about this universe has been acquired, they must be so high tech that they consider us modern humans as how we consider bacteria.

They would also probably be laughing at our feeble technology 

Maybe, but possibly high evolution involves a process of cleaning up the human genome, and the human flaws that we all know about might be filtered out of the mix in the genome of those highly advanced and developed life forms.

I’m sure there would still be some humor seen in the slow struggling progress of man, but I think from such a perspective, there comes an appreciation for the struggle. There are odds that any single intelligent life form like ours faces, and maybe the posture of the super-advanced is to cautiously lend a hand.

5

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 14/12/2018 18:28:03 »

"Thank you, I always appreciate creative writing, it is a powerful way to send a message"


I concur.


I encourage Bogie to find a musician with whom to collaborate; and release the next great religious/pop hit!

Not going to happen, not even an inkling in my eye, lol.


My interest is in evolving the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model, as a layman science enthusiasts cosmology of the universe. In its current version, having evolved since its earliest inklings which I would place in 2001, it has always been both a quantum mechanical wave-energy scenario (Quantum Wave Mechanics), and a philosophy (Eternal Intent) derived from the mechanical scenarios.




An old poem about the ISU
Meteorites, the poem


The Universe, a quiet place, is home to our existence,
But surely the perspective skews when viewed from such  a  distance.
Big Bangs blast out the building blocks of life's regeneration,
In places far, imponder'ble, beyond imagination.


No start of time, no end of space; a wave energy domain,
A place where God and Universe seem essentially the same.
What guides your acts; your own freewill, to be cast responsibly,
Take caution then, false words and deeds, affect life predictably.


Yet life is so undaunted that perpetually its found there,
Created or evolved it seems to spring form almost nowhere.
From galaxies,  to holes of black, dark matter and neutrinos,
Where endlessly life's dice are tossed in cosmic class casinos.


Explosions then, great cataclysms, booms, its an inferno,
Our beings shoot like meteors, traversing space eternal.
The roles that we have just disposed are not the final curtain,
We'll  star as sparkling meteorites, leading roles  for certain.

6

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 14/12/2018 01:40:02 »

Applies to both @David Cooper @Bogie_smiles
Advice On Absolutes, a poem




Life is a learning institute
Where no class bells will chime
But not one fact brings no dispute
And certainly not time.


Some will say time is absolute
Just like they’ll say of space.
But then surely some will refute   
Theres Absolutes in place.


So stand your line, and don’t stay mute,
Or make apology.
Stand up for things beyond refute,
In your cosmology

7

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 13/12/2018 18:11:37 »

as long as the contract is less than a billion years, sign me up.

There is a saying in the ISU:

Anything finite In the ISU is almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never, relative to the Infinite!

8

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 13/12/2018 17:35:47 »

And the annual dues are reasonable, too! In fact, you aren’t allowed to leave the ISU, let alone get rejected.

9

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 13/12/2018 16:34:13 »

i'm all kind of teary and choked up.

That’s great.

I just pushed the Actions button, an then Reply, and can now post a response, which is, “Lol”.

10

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 13/12/2018 14:46:50 »

@ATMD Thanks for appreciating my poetry. Sometimes I just can’t stop, lol.



@NakedScientist @chris
The Naked Scientists, a poem


The Naked Science Forum, wow!
It is a perfect place,
For answers to hard science now,
Or you can speculate.


Post a question on your mind,
An expert will reply.
But set aside discussion time
’Cause chat they don’t deny.


Host your images that go
Along with what you post,
And link to them when they apply
To topics they will host.


Change your mind about what’s said.
Or a correction needs to be,
Just click the box that always says
Action: Modify, you see?


But don’t play them for the fool
Naked Scientists are keen
About their science learning school,
It's not a place to scheme.


So thank you Chris and NS team
For giving us this site,
Where we can post away all day,
And even through the night!
 

11

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 13/12/2018 13:28:58 »

If you like Bohemian Cosmology, there is still some hope for you in the ISU!

12

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 13/12/2018 12:55:11 »

@ATMD, It was under 1000 words, and lots of them were used multiple times. Give me an example of something difficult in the dark matter scenario. Waves carrying energy converge in space, form "spots" of energy density that have a hint of mass, and all of those tiny hints of mass add up to cause the "missing mass" effect attributed to some mysterious dark matter. What could be easier? I'm smiling when I say that, lol.


Did you recognize the Freddy Mercury lyrics? I’m calling the new ISU poem, “Bohemian Cosmology”. I like the bohemian nature of the ISU.

13

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 13/12/2018 06:08:52 »

No problem imagining that someone might have thought, “Gee Bogie, you really nailed that Dark Energy post. You should use that when you explain Dark Matter …”.

To which I would say:
In the ISU model, the explanation of dark energy is an easy scenario, compared to the explanation of dark matter. But I’ll try to do it in about 1000 words; but don’t start counting until after we define dark matter:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dark-matter
Let’s use the above link as an OK source for the definition of dark matter. Here is the gist of the definitions:
 

• Matter that emits little or no detectable radiation. Gravitational forces observed on many astronomical objects suggest the significant presence of such matter in the universe, accounting for approximately 23 percent of the total mass and energy of the universe. Its exact nature is not well understood, but it may be largely composed of varieties of subatomic particles that have not yet been discovered, as well as the mass of black holes and of stars too dim to observe. Also called missing mass.
• A Closer Look: What is the universe made of? We know that galaxies consist of planets, stars, and huge gas and dust clouds-all of these objects are observable by the radiation they give off, such as radio, infrared, optical, ultraviolet, x-ray, or gamma-ray radiation, and all can be observed using various kinds of telescopes. But there are reasons to suspect the existence of far more matter than this, matter that is not directly observable. Evidence for such dark matter comes from observations of certain gravitational effects. For example, astronomers have found that galaxies rotate much faster than they would be expected to rotate based solely on their observable mass-in fact, they should be flying apart. One explanation for this apparent anomaly is to assume that the galaxies have much more mass than we can see, and this invisible mass holds them together gravitationally. Various theories of the composition of this invisible dark matter have been proposed, from exotic yet-to-be discovered particles to planet-sized objects made of ordinary matter that are too small or far away to be detected by present-day instruments. But none of these theories are entirely satisfactory, and the fundamental question of what makes up most of the universe remains unanswered.

[Start counting]
What they say is that there is not yet a generally accepted explanation for the observed “dark matter” defined above.


To introduce dark matter from the perspective of the ISU:
Another ISU poem (Maybe I’ll call it, “Bohemian Cosmology), using something borrowed, and something new:


The borrowed parts are in Bold


Is this the real life? https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/queen/bohemianrhapsody.html
Is this just fantasy?
Does Bogie spend his whole life,
Bemused by his cosmology


Caught in a landslide,
No escape from reality.
From Places that you dare not hide,
To places that you cannot see.


Open your eyes,
You’ll see an in’fin’i’ty.
Look up to the skies and see,
Wave energy is … (wait for it) …spun’ gee!


Ok, not golden globes material I guess, so let’s move on to some key words in the ISU dark matter scenario:


Infinite, Eternal, Universe, Wave-energy, Quantized, Massive, Gravitational, Directional, Source, Imbalanced, Spongy, Convergences, Hints of Mass




1) The Infinite Spongy Universe consists of an infinite and eternal, multiple big bang arena action landscape.


2) The universe has always existed, and on a grand scale, is essentially the same now as it has always been and will always be.


3) Space is infinite, and is filled with an infinite amount of wave-energy.


4) Light waves and gravitational waves carry energy directionally through space, direct from the source, to every spherical point within the infinite reach of gravity (barring natural interruptions).


5) Light waves, i.e., electromagnetic radiation, is wave-energy emitted by photons at frequencies that range across the electromagnetic spectrum (photons have mass in the ISU).


6) Gravitational radiation, is wave-energy emitted by all occurrences of mass, including wave-particles, objects composed of wave-particles, and all sub-quantum convergences of wave-energy that intersect/overlap in open space (Those open-space convergences, called momentary high energy density spots, aka hints of mass, are the dark matter).


7) Each wave convergence, regardless of size (and they range from the tiniest wave convergences in the oscillating background of space, to the big bang arenas waves that play out across the landscape of the greater universe), has a momentary mass effect (some moments are longer than others, lol).


8 ) Gravitational waves are coming and going, to and from all directions, everywhere in space, giving each point in space a net energy value equal to the sum of all energy carried to that spot by waves that converge at that point. Therefore, the energy value at each point in space varies in intensity, depending on the directional distribution of the distant massive source objects that are emitting the gravitational waves that are converging at that point.


9) It is important to emphasize that there is a directional aspect to the inflowing gravitational waves that arrive at each point in space. That directional inflow of wave-energy that is arriving at every point in space, points to a distant massive source from which the wave energy originated.


10) It is just as important to note that there is a net directional imbalance to the inflowing gravitational wave-energy arriving at each point in space. That net directional imbalance points toward the net highest directional source of gravitational wave-energy arriving at that point from all distant sources.


11) With those things being said, in the ISU model, mass is quantized, and the presence of mass is represented by the number of quanta contained in the particles that make up the massive objects.


12) The wave-energy content of each of those quanta is continually being refreshed. There is a continual spherical out flow of gravitational wave-energy from fundamental particles generated by the jointly pulsing action of the mass of quanta that the particle is composed of, and jointly, that the object is made up of; pulses are out flowing spherical waves, and the energy emitted must be replaced from the energy arriving from all directions from the gravitational wave-energy density profile of space.


13) Quanta are simply the high energy density spots that make the momentary convergences of the directionally inflowing gravitational waves, and the value of the energy that qualifies as local convergence to be a quantum of energy is governed by the exchange rate between the out flowing and inflowing gravitational wave-energy of the size required to be utilized by the wave structure at the surface of the wave-particle or object (I am willing to offer a few thousand more words to clarify that point, upon request) (I feel safe that I won’t be called upon to do that).


14) Space is filled with these convergences, both as quanta within objects with mass, and convergences occurring in the space surrounding all massive objects, whether in the vicinity of a massive object or at a distance, and there is no limit to the distance that a convergence can be separated from the massive object in question, because the out flowing wave energy has an infinite reach through space.


15) Dark matter consists of the wave-energy convergences popping in and out of existence, that each have a hint of mass. They are frequent occurrences, virtual particles, everywhere in space. The local density of the convergences that make up what is referred to as dark matter varies, relative to the net value of the energy making up the mass at all different distances from the point in question, because each convergence has sources from all directions, at various distances, and the relative intensity of the waves from those sources is variable.

14

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 11/12/2018 22:04:19 »

That's Ok, it is just an acknowledgement that shows up when you look at Who's Online. I just started trying it out. I'm going to add Jimbob too.

15

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 11/12/2018 21:38:25 »

Ok, I'm adding u to my buddy list until you stop smiling.

16

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 11/12/2018 19:17:54 »

Don't worry Jimbobghost, don't let my broken sarcasm meter affect your day. I hope you are having a great day at the moment. May your humor continue to shine through.

We all go through testing times.

Like me, right now. Testing times …

I expect to get some response like, Gee Bogie, you really nailed that Dark Energy post. You should use that when you explain Dark Matter …

Oh wait, I was going to move on to dark matter, but how can I now? How can I get over the shame of a bunch of jokes and humor after I pour my heart out on dark energy? How? HOW?





ATMD, I hope this helps you reclabrate you sarcasm meter, lol.
[/humor]

17

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 11/12/2018 14:22:36 »

@jimbobghost, it is true. They say that laughter is the best medicine.

Often though, my tries to be funny are me saying that I shouldn’t be taken too seriously. And that goes with the territory of being a compulsive layman science enthusiast posting in a reputable science forum like TNS. Thank you for reading my musings.

For example, why is dark energy such a mystery, given the Big Bang version of cosmology? After all, who doesn’t come up with a picture of the Big Bang as being a hot dense ball of energy, expanding out of a big bang event, during which exotic particles would form in the earliest moments? It seems obvious, given such an event, that rapid expansion would lead to rapid cooling, the earliest exotic particles would decay into a natural set of fundamental particles, filling the expanding volume of the big bang connected arena wave, and spreading in space as the wave encompasses more and more volume.

So isn’t it logical that as those fundamental particles, forming in an expanding, cooling wave energy environment, would have “separation momentum” relative to each other, imparted to them as they form? Wouldn’t they generally be moving away from each other as the volume of local space occupied by the expanding arena increases?

Sure, there is gravity in play. I have to believe that with the formation of particles, that the force of gravity is a natural consequence, and I expound on all of that in my threads, but this post is about comedy, compulsion and cosmology, lol. I’m heading for my layman science enthusiast’s alternative explanation for dark energy by asking the question, “Why is dark energy such a mystery”?.

1) We have a Big Bang event that features the rapid expansion of dense-state energy; a hot dense ball of energy in the form of a plasma wave.

2) We have initial, very massive exotic particles that formed during the rapid expansion and cooling of the dense-state energy, as the plasma wave breaks down.

3) We have the fundamental particles that form from the decay of those very massive exotic particles, and fill the young, expanding arena wave with the fundamental particles that are the building blocks of atoms and molecules.

4) We have separation momentum imparted to fundamental particles that causes them to be moving away from each other at the instant that they form.

5) We have the simultaneous advent of the force of gravity as the particles come into existence, and that sets up the interplay of the opposing forces of gravity and separation momentum.

6) In close quarters, the particles clump, form atoms, and the atoms are moving away from each other as the expansion and cooling continues.

7) We have the force of gravity at work to cause the atoms to clump and form huge hydrogen stars, which also conserve the separation momentum of the particles from which they formed, and so the huge first round stars are separating from each other as well.

8 ) The arena wave is filled with the first round of giant hydrogen stars which burn rapidly, go to supernovas all across the arena, filling the arena with dust clouds composed of heavy nuclei, atoms, and fundamental particles.

9) A second round of more stable stars form, which also display the conserved initial separation momentum that was imparted to the earliest particles, while the force of gravity is beginning to meaningfully impose itself as it causes the second round of stars to clump into the cosmic structures that we observe today. What we observe is that the galaxies and galactic structure are moving apart at an accelerating rate as the arena wave continues to expand, meaning that separation momentum is still winning out over gravity.

10) We attribute that observed separation of galaxies to a mysterious dark energy, but why not see it in the context of these ten steps in the natural progress of a big bang event, explaining why it shouldn’t be thought of as such a mystery?

Hoping for some comments on this scenario, lol.

18

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 08/12/2018 21:23:50 »

I like it too

Then I will consider that an acknowledgement that, to the extent you find it agreeable, you are in.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the Universe heading for a Big Crunch?

« on: 29/10/2018 21:16:37 »

The only place in the universe to get enough energy and matter for the Big Bang is the Big Crunch.

I see your logic, and can agree with you that our apparently expanding big bang "arena" quite possibly was initiated by the collapse/bang of a preceding big crunch.

So the universe must be cyclical?

I appreciated that you put a question mark at the end of that statement, because it seems at least as likely that our big crunch was not the result of gravitationally caused contraction of the galactic structure in an earlier cycle, but might instead be the result of the swirling rendezvous (convergence) of two or more separate expanding big bang arenas across a larger (why not potentially infinite) big bang arena landscape of the greater universe.

There is an observation that some have interpreted to point to that possibility:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/17/first-evidence-multiverse-scientists-think-cold-spot-space-could/
In 2015, astrophysicists discovered a strange barren area of the universe which was much colder than the rest of space, and seemed to be missing 10,000 galaxies.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_30_10_18_2_31_37.jpeg

20

New Theories / What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?

« on: 29/08/2018 23:41:25 »

What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?

The topic of this thread and its content is intended to be kept appropriate for the hard science sub-forum, Cosmology. I will utilize the “edit” feature of the NS software to revise my posts and analytical notes as study into the topic and member comments make that appropriate.

The question, what are they saying about Quantum Gravity, is intended to be a learning experience for me, and hopefully the content will not be over the heads of us layman science enthusiasts. But let’s consider the thread open to both a general discussion on the topic, and to technical content as long as they are accompanied by comments to explain them in terms a layman can hope to understand.

Here is a Wiki link, and the opening paragraph to start things off:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

“Quantum gravity (QG) is a field of theoretical physics that seeks to describe gravity according to the principles of quantum mechanics, and where quantum effects cannot be ignored,^[1] such as near compact astrophysical objects where the effects of gravity are strong.”

You see right off that this is a topic that involves theoretical physics, so it may require some technical analysis. Being an interested party, I may offer my personal analysis of and comments about linked material, but my comments are strictly layman level and are not intended to be relied on as known fact, but instead they are intended for discussion and to encourage opposing comments, corrections, and elaborations.

“The current understanding of gravity is based on Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which is formulated within the framework of classical physics. On the other hand, the other three fundamental forces of physics are described within the framework of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, radically different formalisms for describing physical phenomena.^[2] It is sometimes argued that a quantum mechanical description of gravity is necessary on the grounds that one cannot consistently couple a classical system to a quantum one.^{[3][4]:11–12}”

Analytical note: As stated in the Wiki, QG research seeks to describe gravity in environments where quantum effects cannot be ignored, and that means where the effect (force) of gravity is strongest, and were the curvature of space must be the greatest if general relativity is the answer. But GR isn’t the answer in those environments because of known quantum effects that are not yet compatible with GR, referring to the postulates of Quantum Mechanics and the particles of the Standard Model of Particle Physics. The standard model assigns the effect of gravity to the missing graviton particle. So the Standard Model and the Graviton particle will be topics that have to be better understood and reconciled in the QG discussion.

“While a quantum theory of gravity may be needed to reconcile general relativity with the principles of quantum mechanics, difficulties arise when applying the usual prescriptions of quantum field theory to the force of gravity via graviton bosons.^[5] The problem is that the theory one gets in this way is not renormalizable and therefore cannot be used to make meaningful physical predictions. As a result, theorists have taken up more radical approaches to the problem of quantum gravity, the most popular approaches being string theory and loop quantum gravity.^[6] Although some quantum gravity theories, such as string theory, try to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces, others, such as loop quantum gravity, make no such attempt; instead, they make an effort to quantize the gravitational field while it is kept separate from the other forces.”

You can see we are getting into some pretty technical material already, but I don’t think it will hurt to follow the Wiki links and get familiar with the terms and topics.

“Strictly speaking, the aim of quantum gravity is only to describe the quantum behavior of the gravitational field and should not be confused with the objective of unifying all fundamental interactions into a single mathematical framework. A theory of quantum gravity that is also a grand unification of all known interactions is sometimes referred to as The Theory of Everything (TOE). While any substantial improvement into the present understanding of gravity would aid further work towards unification, the study of quantum gravity is a field in its own right with various branches having different approaches to unification.”

That paragraph is helpful, and limits the scope of the QG topic, but still the scope is challenging. I am going back over the Wiki and its links some more, so any analysis I offer is subject to reanalysis as we go, but if you are on top of the topic, feel free to jump in anytime.

“One of the difficulties of formulating a quantum gravity theory is that quantum gravitational effects only appear at length scales near the Planck scale, around 10⁻³⁵ meter, a scale far smaller, and equivalently far larger in energy, than those currently accessible by high energy particle accelerators. Therefore physicists lack experimental data which could distinguish between the competing theories which have been proposed.^[7][8]”


That is a problem when it comes to keeping the content here in line with NakedScientist guidelines, because there isn’t yet much that is known-science when it comes to QG. I will try to keep my comments and analysis within expected parameters, and ask the any participants do the same. Let’s learn together.