The two different conceptions of reality are those of general relativity and quantum field theory. How to reconcile the two is still a mystery.
Tullio

---

I think I disagree. It is a tenant of faith in physics that somehow relativity and quantum theories have to be combined. But why should that so? Perhaps these two different depictions of reality are both correct and complete in and of themselves.. It is only the human desire for things to be neat and tidy that makes us think that there must be some grand theory that explains both.

Experience teaches that the universe is neither neat nor tidy.

Reminds me of the old Earth-center theory that depended on concentric crystal spheres to explain the movement of heavenly bodies. Each new discovery needing ever more complex mechanizations to keep the spheres in place. Today we have physicists comping up with ever-more complex mechanizations to somehow unite relativity and the quantum. But if both theories are fundamentally correct as they are, we are only responding to some need to keep the 'crystal spheres' spinning then physics is heading in the wrong direction.

Yes,

It is not earth shaking to realize that we have disparities at the very small and the somewhat large. Scientists have been trying to unify special relativity with Quantum theory for well over a hundred years. It can easily be seen that there is a difference with what is happening on the sub-atomic level and what we observe in both everyday and astronomical experience.

For instance: the atom is overwhelmingly composed of free space; yet, my hand can't pass through my desktop. This we say is due to electrical charge repulsion. Both very different views of a common phenomenon.

The world is composed of tiny "Things" with granular and quantized lumps of energy and I suspect of length.

In time we will understand better, but: we can only make analogies to what we already know and think is correct. We may know How and What; but may never get to WHY. The uncaused cause would imply that things always existed without a beginning--what that is we may never know.

but may never get to WHY.

That's humanities' field of expertise...(or religion for that matter)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

but may never get to WHY.

That's humanities' field of expertise...(or religion for that matter)

Since when has spiritualism or religion ever had expertise in any field?

but may never get to WHY.

That's humanities' field of expertise...(or religion for that matter)

Since when has spiritualism or religion ever had expertise in any field?

That's what you are saying...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

but may never get to WHY.

That's humanities' field of expertise...(or religion for that matter)

Since when has spiritualism or religion ever had expertise in any field?

That's what you are saying...

That's what I am asking, as are many others. The more people that ask that question, the better.

but may never get to WHY.

That's humanities' field of expertise...(or religion for that matter)

Since when has spiritualism or religion ever had expertise in any field?

That's what you are saying...

That's what I am asking, as are many others. The more people that ask that question, the better.

True...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Logically our universe isn't infinite, - Olbers paradox.


[url]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox[/url]


That said, your original point still stands 13 billion years is no small amount of time.

Logically our universe isn't infinite, - Olbers paradox.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox


That said, your original point still stands 13 billion years is no small amount of time.

Fixed that link for ye, bluealien :)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

The real reason is that even at 100,000 miles diameter a star can be many trillions of miles away and would subtend an arc when viewed from Earth that would essentially be a singular point to our eye. Others are too far away to be seen.

If the universe is static and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night.

That of course totally ignores the fact that we can only see or detect a certain distance from earth as the origin of the viewpoint. The night sky would not be completely bright because every star that exists would to too far away to shed any meaningful light on the earth anyway.

Sheesh ....

Say what?

What is wrong with the original is that is doesn't also state the infinite universe also has to be infinitely old or that light hasn't gotten to earth yet.

---

I always thought the Universe wasn't infinite and that the observable Universe is about 46 billion light years in radius.

[edit] Found an interesting link: http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112787040/universe-not-infinite-after-all-021913/

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I've read it but the Higgs boson's mass is not around 126 MeV but GeV. We at Test4Theory@home are still working to determine its spin, which should be zero according to the Standard Model.
Tullio

---

The sad point what if we are the only beings that communicate with artificial machines. Other species will be different from us maybe the smartest and oldest beings be beyond any means to communicate by mear thoughts. They could be whales on a water world with no need for communication at all in space other than their own world. I cant belive that we are the only beings in the universe, that would be a sad thing. The human race couldnt populatye a new earth domewhere else. We need a million years of technology to gain the stars only if we dont blow ourselves up.We have to be more than an infestation on on the surface of a planet.

It would be truly sad and totally unbelieveable if it is true that the earth,out of the entire universe, is the only planet with "intelligent" life and once we have passed into history there would be no one left to ponder it's mysteries.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

+1000!!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

From the late, great George Carlin:

"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little."

---

It would simply be arrogant to think we are the only ones!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures