The 10 weirdest things in physics!!!

[RolandCuthbert]

I have worked on this MyTake for some time. Back in the old days when we used to discuss a more diverse array of topics, I started this. I decided to finish it because of a member who expressed an interest in topics involving science. So I will take my crack at what I think are the most interesting things in physics today. If anyone wants to challenge my assertions, please step up to the plate. But let's get to it, shall we?

1. The Speed of Light is ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL. It is incredibe that that time, space, the speed of light, mass, energy, etc. are all related. That there is some underlying symmetry that explains these relationships. I mean think about it. Why would the passage of time care about the speed of light? What does mass have to do with space? But physics has traced and documented these relationships. We just do not know why the relationships exist nor exactly what the underlying foundation for the relationship is. And from Einstein we know that we all move at the speed of light. . .through spacetime. It is one of Einstein’s most brilliant observations. Every piece of matter moves through spacetime at the speed of light. And that speed is conserved, if you move through space at a higher speed, then your speed through time is slower. To the point where a photon moves at the speed of light, so it has no forward motion through time. The result of course is that for the purposes of the universe, the speed of light is fundamental, not gravity, not electromagnetism or any of the other forces.

2. Black Holes. Of course. Once you get past the obvious stuff, like black holes are a point in space time from which there is no return. There is no physical surface to a black hole. You start to get a little scared because you realize that black holes are rotating but the rotation is not of matter. It is of space time itself. I don’t know exactly who can get their head around that. But here is the weirdness, in human experience, if you fill a plastic bag with water, its volume will increase in direct proportion to how much water you put into it. But unlike everything else we know of, A BLACK HOLE’S SURFACE AREA INCREASES IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO THE AMOUNT OF MATTER THAT HAS FALLEN INTO IT AND IN PROPORTION TO ITS VOLUME. And that is the craziest thing I have ever heard of. It is almost as if, all the essential information of matter falling in it has been scraped off and written onto the non-existence surface. That’s too many crazy things to say in one sentence. So the internal structure of the black hole means nothing. Everything essential about it is written on the surface that isn’t really a surface.

3. The universe is simply described by galaxies, galaxy formation and galactic clusters. I guess it is hard for folks to understand the implications of this. When physicists say more spacetime is constantly being generated in the universe. They are talking about exclusively about the space between galaxies. The vast majority of galaxies are moving away from each other. Physicists are not talking about the space within a galaxy or in planetary systems. The universe in certain areas is expanding faster than the speed of light. And that does not violate Einstein’s laws because according to Einstein, the space between galaxies is fundamentally different or at least functions differently than the space inside of a galaxy. In other words, galactic movement is described as an expansion of spacetime. Movement within a galaxy is described as movement through spacetime. That to me, is crazy.

4. Nova, Supernova explosions are caused by a collapse. That just sounds crazy. That these huge explosions of stars are not because the star just blows up. They come from the star collapsing in on itself. When the star collapses because the energy needed to keep its integrity is gone, all matter falls to the center. This creates a rebound effect. Matter runs into itself and rebounds violently sending all parts of the star out in every direction. To say nothing of the fact that stars are strange things anyway. They are just a battle between gravity and energy. Gravity of course eventually wins. Which leads to gravity;

5. Gravity. What the hell is this thing? Newton describes it as a force. Einstein came along and proved him wrong. But we talk about it as a force because it is easier to think about it in those terms. But it appears to be a feature of spacetime. Well, that is my favorite theory. That it is an emergent feature of having space, time, and energy/mass in the universe. It isn’t really a force. Einstein talks about it as simply space curving and telling matter how to move through the fabric of spacetime. Einstein’s second brilliant insight in my opinion. He proposed that the natural state of any object is freefall, the feeling of weightlessness. I am sitting at my desk right now, the only reason why I do not feel weightless is because I am in a building on the sixth floor. The floor keeps me from going into freefall and feeling weightless. So for Einstein that’s why gravity is not a force, without the earth for us to fall to, we would just continue to fall forever or until we fell into orbit around some object in space. Physicists say the Standard Model suggests a quantum description for it. The closest any theory comes to explaining gravity is String theory. But the LHC has not given even a hint that String theory is correct. I don’t think we will ever get an actual quantum description of how gravity works. I just don’t think it is possible. I don’t think It can be described in those terms.

6. Quantum theory. All of it. I think most people think they understand how weird Quantum Theory is. The fact is, that it is beyond strange. It is stranger than the weirdest science fiction novel and the greatest minds in physics don’t understand it. Einstein famously hated Quantum Theory even as he was one of the major contributors to its evolution. Quantum Theory alludes to the possibility that things only exist because we are conscious beings and we happen to be observing them. I had a debate here in this forum about the wave collapse phenomenon in QT. The poster was insistent that wave collapse happened solely because of the interaction with light. And in order to observe the wave/particle, one has to use light to “see”, what is going on. Well, that’s only for experiments where you are using light for observation. In experiments, where you are using particle behavior to “know” if the wave function has collapsed, you run into the same thing.

7. There are stars in the Milky Way older than the proposed age of the Universe. And this crap keeps happening all the time. Astronomers think they are getting more and more accurate about pinpointing the time the universe came into being. They have it around 13.8 billion years. But we see stars that are millions of years older than that. And that makes no sense. The star Methuslah is 200 million years older than the proposed age of the universe. I can’t tell you how big an issue this is. It isn’t just that the star is older, it is that it would take a billion years or so for a star like that to have a chance at being born. That’s crazy! So somebody screwed up something.

8. Unified Theory. Back when I was a shorty, I would sit down and watch different science shows. And I would hear that term, “Unified Theory” a lot. I wondered what in the world it was. Then when I got into college, it was explained. Einstein wrote these beautiful theories about gravity and the speed of light. They described the motion of planets, stars, and galaxies. He explains the way time and space, mass and energy are all related. But Quantum Mechanics, the theory no one understands, is the most accurate theory in the history of mankind. The biggest problem in physics is. . .THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH EACH OTHER. Quantum Theory claims that gravity must be quantized in some fashion. Einstein says that gravity isn’t a force. It is the simple curvature of spacetime itself. We know Einstein isn’t completely right because Relativity fails at the smallest distances. But every prediction for resolving this issue of quantized gravity has absolutely hasn’t worked. And then we see no evidence of supersymmetry. And there really isn’t any help on the horizon. Liberal scientists want to build another collider to try to resolve the issues. And there is no promise that we will resolve anything in the next thousand years.

9. Dark energy and dark matter. As Neil Degrasse Tyson said, we might as well call them Wilma and Fred Flintstone. Because nobody knows what the hell this stuff is. It is weird that Dark Energy is called Dark Energy. But it is not Dark nor is it Energy. We were looking for the missing mass in the universe. And found most of the missing mass in the expansion rate of the universe. But we have no idea why the universal expansion is accelerating. We don’t know if it will continue. We don’t know is it just a local phenomenon. We see the expansion so it isn’t dark and we were looking for missing mass. . .not energy. Go figure. Now dark matter. Who knows what this horseshit is? We think it is a particle because it is it were just us miscalculating gravitational effects it would be something evenly distributed. We would see the same error everywhere. We don’t. We see gravitational lensing and gravitational effects in specific areas. Like our area of the galaxy is probably has high concentrations of dark matter. Because dark matter generally cloaks galaxies in a type of halo. But no one has no idea what this stuff is. We talked about a fifth fundamental force in a previous take. The dark force. But the problem is what we observed isn’t dark matter, but a candidate for mediating interactions between dark matter and the observable universe. REMEMBER THIS UNKNOWN STUFF ACCOUNTS FOR 95% OF THE UNIVERSE WE KNOW OF.

10. Consciousness is unexplained. So the biggest and the scariest is the last. We created this science called physics to understand the nature of reality. It has enabled us to be successful in navigating the natural world. The problem is there are so many things we can’t understand and it seems as if the universe has conspired to keep us from understanding its most basic mechanisms. The thing that has happened over the last decade or so is that we have realized that a huge obstacle to understanding more about the universe is that we have pretended that our presence in it does not need to be apart of the calculation. We pretend that we can do our physics and write our equations as though everything would work the same if we are not here. Quantum Mechanics proves that we cannot do that. It proves that measurement causes elementary particles to change their behavior. And our best theories on Quantum Mechanics say that the universe exists in an undetermined state until we observe it. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle has proven to be more accurate than any competition to it. All these atheists at GaG who make the claim that religion is for fools have no explanation for why consciousness matters when it comes to explaining how the universe works on most fundamental levels. In the Quantum Eraser Delayed Choice experiment. . . the results change based upon whether or not the status of the wave function can be known. And that is beyond crazy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs

[vald9inches]

We can't say black holes don't have a surface or for that matter describe anything that doesn't interact with the outside of a black hole because there is no way to get that information outside of the black hole lol

[RolandCuthbert]

Black holes are beyond our ability to observe. But I don’t understand the statement. We know that black holes are defined as a point in space time from which there is no return. We have theories about what could be happening in the interior. But realistically, Godzilla and King Kong could be fighting on the other side. We have no idea. But how does the definition of
a point of no return suggest a surface or suggest we know about the interior?

Let me break this down. This is theory was first proposed as a solution to Hawkings claim of the black hole information paradox. Well Susskind and a team of theoretical physicists, came up with a solution. It was called holography. And it was proven not through observing a black hole, but they were able to prove this is how any sliver of 3D space time works. The critical information about anything inside it is written on its surface. And this discovery is called the holographic principle.

The thing is the surface still is defined as a surface. It is still defined as a point from which you cannot return.

https://youtu.be/CQAcLW6qdQY

[vald9inches]

I am saying it could have a surface or it could not we can never know because we will never be able to see it or stand on it's surface and live to tell about it lol. It very well could be that all information is printed on a 2d plane on it's surface as it's volume increases when matter falls into it but at the end of the day it's still a theory. It very well could behave like a neutron star and be made up of strange matter but we will never know lol

[RolandCuthbert]

How do we know that black holes exist? Oh, because Einstein's equations showed they existed. Einstein didn't even think we would be able to observe or to prove their existence. But we found a way. We simply looked at other objects in space orbiting something we could not see. And based upon the speed and distortion of these orbits, we could infer the mass of the unseen object. Upon getting back those results, we could infer that the hidden object had to be a black hole. We know of no other object fitting that description.

Now maybe you are onto some other physics. That's cool! But it isn't where most of the scientific community is. You can still say that black holes are unproven. Because truthfully we have never observed one. But you would be going against a theory that has proven accurate against every test or experiment we can conceive of. We just know that at the smallest distances it breaks down.

That theory says, black holes have no surface. That theory also says black holes exist.

If they do not exist or if they have a surface, well that is some new physics.

But Einstein says there is no surface and at the center of this object if something beyond our ability to describe. The singularity.

[vald9inches]

I never said black holes don't exist lol it pretty obvious they exist because of their gravitational interaction with other celestial objects. And we did actually observe black holes and take a picture of them namely a super gigantic black hole in the center of a galaxy. I am just saying the statement that black holes don't have a surface is false because it's unproven. Till now all we have are theories of what black holes are. We know how they come to existence and what their approximate masses are and how they distort time and space but we know nothing about their makeup and other physical properties such as surface or lack off.

[vald9inches]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zUyH3XhpLTo

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't understand that statement. We took a photos of matter around a black spot. You can explain that black spot with different physics. I mean, you know that we get black holes from Einstein's equations, right?

And no, we do not understand how supermassive black holes form. The Eddington limit is a problem. Certain researchers are trying to get around it by playing around with dark matter. . . something again. . we have no clue about. So I just want to get the record straight there.

You keep talking about the statement on a black hole's surface is unproven without realizing that by proxy black holes become unproven.

You can't see that the description of a black hole is tied to it existence. If you can't describe it. . . then it does not exist. We know black holes have three things. It is an AREA of mass, spin, and entropy.

That's it.

What you are talking about is a real object. . . something Einstein says does not exist. It is like you read the equation and think that this object is a rotation of material or of. . ."something". The mass and the rotation of this object IS OF SPACETIME ITSELF. NOT OF MATTER.

When matter falls into a black hole it is disconnected from the rest of this universe. We have no information about it. We only know it fell into a region that has mass, rotation, and entropy. I can repeat that again. Einstein's equations show no "surface".

[vald9inches]

That's the thing with our human understanding of math we come to the conclusion that it doesn't exist because the math shows everything leading up to infinity but I would be silly to assume that black holes don't exist because they do infact have mass and interact with our universe true or false?

[vald9inches]

That's why it's all called a theory or the theory of everything

[RolandCuthbert]

You keep doing the same thing. Einstein has a theory. It is called General Relativity. We are told in this theory gravity is just a feature of mass and energy being present in spacetime.

This theory makes a prediction. That an object called a black hole can form. We observe something that meets with this description.

But you don't like the description that Einstein states. You just like the concept. To me that is incredible.

If this object is some kind large naked singularity. . . which makes nonsense. . well okay, you can believe that. Or if it is some other structure, that is not anywhere in Einstein's theory.

There are other theories sir. One is Expansion theory. Another is the Electric Universe. Yes, in those theories they describe what is happening in totally different terms. None of these theories can compete with Einstein.

You post Veratasium just like he supports some view that the black hole could have a surface. I don't even know how to make the concept make sense. The video explains how light can orbit a black hole and what we can see if we looked at one from various angles.

[vald9inches]

You seem like a smart guy so let's just keep it simple!
1. Do black holes exist in our universe Yes or No?

[RolandCuthbert]

We have objects that exist in the universe fitting the description. . . yes.

Why are you asking this question? You are the one claiming that Einstein's description is wrong. You posted a video by Veratasium. . . THE ENTIRE VIDEO IS BASED UPON EINSTEIN'S DESCRIPTION OF A BLACK HOLE.

I don't think you understand that. It is like you are saying, you like one part of Einstein's theory, but this other part, you want to throw out.

[vald9inches]

Thanks for the mho by the way! So again let's keep it simple. You agreed that black holes exist ok so my second question is:
2. Do black holes interact with objects in our universe?

[RolandCuthbert]

No, I did not say black holes exist. I said we have objects in our universe that meet with Einstein's description of a black hole. If you are going to play this game, play it right. Take me at my word and I will take you at yours.

We know what Einstein describes. A point in space time from which there is no return. He does not describe an object with a surface.

You are talking about interaction. You are using terms in the wrong way. Because that can be misinterpreted.

We know that a black hole can affect things around it. But when you use a term like interaction, you make it seem as if something inside the black hole can interact with something outside of it. We know that not to be true. THROUGH EINSTEIN.

A black hole can affect things around it. Even as it is not an object in the traditional sense. I keep telling you. . . it is a region. That region is described in Einstein's field equations.

[vald9inches]

So what you are saying is that it's possible we have misidentified Einstein's theoretical black hole? Either case we have objects of immense mass that are born after the collapse of massive stars. And these objects have so much mass in a small amount of volume that their gravitational influence can bend space time and even light cannot escape them. Is this correct?

[RolandCuthbert]

We have not mis-identified anything. We know that we do not understand exactly how the universe works. We have "descriptions" of how the universe works. We know that Einstein isn't quite right. For all of his brilliance, for all of his ingenuity, the best he could do is give us an analogy.

We use that analogy because it is 99.9% accurate when it comes to describing the behavior we see around the universe. But his theory breaks down at the smallest distances to the point where it becomes unusable.

Let me ask you this question. Because you keep using terms and descriptions Einstein never uses. Why does Einstein's relativity predict black holes? And if you disagree with is prediction, why don't you just say so?

Because I don't know where you are getting your information. Einstein says, black holes come from the extreme warping of time and space. A black hole is a region of warped space time you cannot return from. This is a very simple video that shows how Einstein predicted black holes. He didn't just think "hmmm. . . there is this object that will warp space time so much". He was thinking about how gravity is not a force. . . and that space time is warped due to the presence of gravity. If that is true, simply decreasing the size of the object causing the gravity becomes a problem! That's why a black hole isn't a neutron star. It isn't just a dense object. It basically is a region created by an object that Einstein describes as a singularity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjUkFeD8-XU

[RolandCuthbert]

Sorry. I was typing too fast. "Spacetime is warped by mass". And when you decrease the size of the matter that is causing the distortion that leads to a black hole. Because. . . a singularity is an object that is infinitely dense. That is what causes the shroud we call a black hole.

[vald9inches]

Sorry for the late reply was traveling. Ok so I can see where the confusion is. By your definition a Black Hole = Event Horizon the point of no return and the shroud that is hiding the singularity is that correct?

[RolandCuthbert]

Yes, exactly as it is described in Einstein's theory. That's why that video is so important. It shows the simple relationship between a massive object and the spacetime around it. And as you increase that object's density by decreasing its size, you see how violently distorted the spacetime becomes in the immediate vicinity. To the point where it becomes so distorted that light cannot find a way out, because there is no path leading out.

That is what we perceive to be a black hole in Einstein's theory. That area of spacetime that has lost communication with the universe due to the distortion caused by that concentration of mass.

There are other descriptions out there. And maybe there are some who claim black holes have a surface.

That is not Einstein.

[vald9inches]

Again sorry for the late reply... So I guess what I am trying to say is that those 'black holes" that we observe in the universe may not be Einstein's Black Holes and there may never be a way to confirm that for sure.

[RolandCuthbert]

Absolutely. The problem is if you come up with a different description for a black hole and find a way to verify your "theory", how then can you make the same predictions Einstein made with respect to the other 99% of observed phenomena? We have no replacement theory for Einstein. That's why we accept his explanation of Black Holes.

[vald9inches]

Some of his predictions hold true but we can't say for certain the rest of his predictions regarding black holes are for certain without actually traveling past the Event Horizon which would be the point of no return and no way to relay any information outside unless we find a way to communicate via Hawking radiation lol 😂

[RolandCuthbert]

I mean wow.

How many times must I say, we know Einstein is wrong?

It is just even as he is wrong, for over 100 years no one has put together a replacement theory. They can only succeed in poking holes in his. That isn't a replacement theory. And until then we use his descriptions.

And his description describes a black hole as an "area". It is not an object. When ever you find two minutes, please watch the video I posted that defines black holes. It is a very simple explanation that relates the distortion of spacetime to the size of the object creating the distortion. The smaller the object, the more disturbed the spacetime around it becomes.

It was a simple insight, where Einstein made the claim that gravity was not a force. Veratasium can explain this to you in detail. It just isn't sufficient enough to say Einstein is wrong without providing a theory that explains and makes the same predictions he does. Remember, we are still proving Einstein theories correct, decades after he is gone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU

[vald9inches]

I definitely will watch that video tomorrow. And don't get me wrong I have a lot of respect for Einstein all I am saying is he didn't go into a black hole and come back to us with and tell us all his theories lol maybe he right maybe he is not. The truth is until we decide some kind of technology that allows us to study a black hole past the Event Horizon no scientist will ever be able to say for sure what is beyond the event horizon.

[vald9inches]

Until we devise*

[RolandCuthbert]

But that isn't saying anything. Because no one has. And no one has a theory that explains a black hole and then makes all the predictions Einstein made along with establishing a way to prove itself through observation.

I know of no theory that allow for a person to observe what is happening inside of a black hole and then report that information anywhere.

Do you?

So it isn't saying anything that Einstein didn't build a rocket ship in 1915 to verify his theory. We have verified Relativity a million different ways. Einstein predicted black holes, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, time dilation, spacial contraction, the destruction of simultaneity. . . I mean I can literally fill up the page with all the predictions of Relativity that we have verified. And the latest greatest one was just four years ago. Remember Einstein published this in 1915.

I just don't understand the interest in his descriptions of black holes, when we have absolutely nothing else to test or to verify against his predictions.

And your test isn't a test. You need physics sir.

Find some physics.

I will wait.

[Brainsbeforebeauty]

Very great take!! Interesting to read! And refreshing change of topic from overasked questions and takes! Thank you for sharing!

[RolandCuthbert]

Why thank you madam!

[Brainsbeforebeauty]

No, thank you sir! Stuff like this is what makes GAGa good place sometimes, just sad so many people try to ruin it for others

[Brainsbeforebeauty]

Thanks for mh

[abc3643]

The speed of light is not fundamental.
The speed of light is computed by this equation:
c= (μ * ε) ^ (-0.5)

μ is the magnetic permeability of the material.
ε is the electric permittivity of the material.

This implies that the speed of light varies with the material in which the light is traveling.

μ0 is the magnetic permeability of a vacuum aka "free space".
ε0 is the electric permittivity of a vacuum.

Right now, science has values for μ0 and ε0 but are we certain that these values hold throughout the universe? The farthest thing from this solar system is Voyager 1 and it is less than 200 astronomical units (AU) away. That's nothing in the scale of the universe. Making an assumption that we know the physical properties of the universe billions of lightyears away is like bug scientists living in a wheat field in Kansas assuming that the universe is a flat field made of wheat. They can't even imagine trees, mountains, or oceans.

There are physicists who suspect that the speed of light in a vacuum may actually vary in the universe depending upon other aspects of the universe.

What SHOULD blow your mind are that:

1. Inverse-square laws are exactly inverse-square... power of -2, an integer, and not something a real number AND that it is an inverse square for more than one force. For example, like -2.587349 for the coulomb force and -2.1293879817 for gravitation. In reality, it's -2 for both and that's it.

2. Gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same value.

3. Motion minimizes the action integral. Why should Nature engage in an optimization process?

[RolandCuthbert]

1. Well, you know what I meant by the "speed of light". You know I mean the speed of information. So we can get technical about this if we need to. The Speed of Information, which we refer to as the speed of light is absolutely fundamental.

2. I never said that we knew the physical properties of universe that we have not received any information about. It would be the same as saying I know what is inside of a black hole. I don't and I have never made that claim. My point was based upon the physics we know about and have established as basis for understanding our small part of the universe. Or whatever this "thing" is.

3. Ah. . . but we know the speed of light for purposes of this discussion isn't the issue. The speed of information is. We cannot know about an event faster than the speed that information can travel across a specific distance.

4. It is fascinating, but I don't think it is counter-intuitive like some of the other baffling things about physics.

5. It isn't specifically covered, but isn't this Einstein's greatest insight? Acceleration and gravity as basically the same thing?

6. The universe seems to "care" about a lot of things that we can't find explanations for in just plain ole' natural law. That is very interesting.

[abc3643]

This:

"the speed of light is absolutely fundamental."

No, it's not.
Wave speed is dependent on material... and that includes a vacuum.

Many may BELIEVE that mu-nought and epsilon-nought are fundamental constants of the universe, but we cannot be sure of this yet and, just like dark energy and matter, variable speed of light ("VSL") theories are being proposed to help explain inconsistencies in cosmology.

For instance, here is a recent paper:
www.researchgate.net/.../331660319_Evidences_for_Varying_Speed_of_Light_with_Time
Evidences for Varying Speed of Light with Time
January 2019
Journal of High Energy Physics Gravitation and Cosmology
05(02):395-411
DOI: 10.4236/jhepgc.2019.52022
Authors:
Giuseppe Pipino

Here's the actual paper which you can read.
file:///media/fuse/drivefs-fccb526bb250dc6d874ab3d9c92e117b/root/Evidences_for_Varying_Speed_of_Light_with_Time. pdf

[RolandCuthbert]

Just so we are discussing the same thing, we are talking about the speed of information. Of course some physicists use VSL to replace the theory of cosmic inflation by Guth. I am not saying it is wrong. But there are a lot of theories out there that could explain these issues we have with the Big Bang.

But you first mentioned the speed of light by referring to photons traveling through a medium, which of course has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Now you seem to be alluding to the proposals we are looking at to explain why the visible universe looks the same in all directions.

I think we need to establish a framework. The speed of information is what we are talking about. The speed of photons through different mediums is not compelling. What is compelling is the maximum speed at which information can be known. And that exceeding that speed is impossible for something having mass. And exceeding that speed is effectively moving backwards in time. Why should the universe care. . . if I know about speed as which I can know about an event elsewhere in the universe?

Even the proposal of VSL while it proposes that the speed of information could have been different in the past, does not make that claim that this limit could be violated. We just know that nothing with mass can attain that speed.

[RolandCuthbert]

Sorry. That was messy.

WHY SHOULD THE UNIVERSE CARE ABOUT THE SPEED WITH WHICH I CAN KNOW ABOUT AN EVENT SOMEWHERE ELSE?

IT IS JUST KNOWLEDGE. IT ISN'T EVEN THE ABILITY TO INFLUENCE SOMETHING.

[abc3643]

What is the "speed of information"?
I am not so sure that is a constant of the universe either because:
1) things propagate
2) the physical properties of what is propagating and what it is propagating in may be dependent on factors which vary.

There is no way to be certain that any fundamental constant of the universe is a fundamental constant other than those from mathematics.

[RolandCuthbert]

1. Of course.
2. But why would knowledge need a speed at which to propagate? And we believe that speed is the speed of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum. The speed of casuality seems to be identical to the speed of light. We don't know if that relationship holds in the past or if it will continue to in the future. We are going on what we can observe currently.

www.sciencealert.com/watch-why-the-speed-of-light-is-not-about-light

www.youtube.com/watch

Well, we can talk forever about what we can be certain of. We are certain that the Theory of Relativity isn't a complete description. But we use it because of its accuracy. We don't have a replacement theory yet.

[JoJoiLL]

I love this stuff :D

One of my favs is the concept that the universe is expanding. The obvious question is - Expanding into what. The answer is, nothing. But not nothingness, it's just not expanding into anything. Which is incredibly hard for a mind that understands everything in 3 dimensions to understand. One explanation I read that tries to make better sense of it was - If you were able to travel continuously in a single direction in space, you would eventually end up back at the same place you started. Bonkers! :D

[RolandCuthbert]

Well. . . the craziness just gets crazier. We do not see any evidence that the universe is curved. And we have the Planck image of the Microwave Background now. So if there is no curvature, that means the universe is flat. Which is really a mystery if it is not infinite.

[RolandCuthbert]

I forgot to attach the Planck image!

[JoJoiLL]

Even with an image, it's still too much for my tiny brain to understand :D

[Liam_Hayden]

Fun stuff. One perplexity herein. Well probably a slew, but this one is really intriguing.

"without the earth for us to fall to, we would just continue to fall forever or until we fell into orbit around some object in space."

What if there is nothing close enough to exert any gravitational effect? Do we still fall or just float in place? If we "fall" how and why?

[RolandCuthbert]

Liam, what Einstein noticed is that, we are always in motion. If we "feel" stationary, that's because of some force. The Earth in his view. . . pushes up on us, to keep us from falling. Remove it and we feel weightless, which is basically the same feeling as falling. Think about how you would feel in a falling elevator. You would feel weightless with respect to the elevator. That is the natural state of every single object in the universe. And you will feel that until you fall into orbit around some body, crash into another object. . . or you will just go on forever "falling".

How that man came to these insights, just sitting around in a room thinking to himself, is beyond my ability to understand. Start at 2:40.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9pkjHWAZLs

[Liam_Hayden]

I know. I was thinking more theoretically. If you are the only gravity source are you actually moving?

[RolandCuthbert]

In Relativity, you can only talk about movement in "relation" to something. With nothing to relate to, you are not moving. In fact, you may not even exist.

One of the baffling things about our universe is that we can't seem to find the one fundamental particle, force or truth that underlies everything else.

Think about your question for a second. We see a single photon traveling at 186,000 miles per second. But from its perspective, its own speed is zero. It does not understand distance. Or this thing called time. It goes nowhere and everywhere in no time at all. So simultaneously, moving at the fastest speed possible is the same as being perfectly still with no motion.

Interesting. . . is it not?

[MountAverage]

Yeah, those things are crazy. I read about all of these topics to some extend at least at some point in my life and still enjoy learning about it (in very basic terms). I was studying physics for two semesters at one point, before I had to give up because math just hates me. I switched it for biology then.
But anyway, I'm an Atheist (at least by strict definition, it's not a label I care about using for myself) but I get what you meant at the end.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, physics and mathematics are two different things. As one of my favorite physicists says, she feels the science suffers because physicists keep claiming a theory must be mathematically beautiful and elegant for the theory to be worth pursuing. I love Sabine. Because for her, the science must explain observations. That is the sole purpose for the research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtGSkhEKh6o

[MountAverage]

Yeah, but if you suck at math, you can't get any degree in physics. And i suck at math, so I had to choose another path.

[goaded]

Sorry for the delay in responding, I'm still trying to get my mind around point number one. Great take!

[RolandCuthbert]

Yeah, I begin with a bang and end with one. It is crazy that the speed of light is the constant. It is the building block for our reality. Everything is defined by it or by its variance from it.

[Massageman]

Thank you for not asking if we prefer big books or small ones! A breath of fresh air, traveling at the speed of light, apparently.

I'll have to bounce this off my older cousin, too, a retired Math and Quantum Physics professor. Thanks again for the effort!

[Massageman]

* big boobs - (these typos are getting worse!)

[Kaazsz]

This is why I am going to school for physics. The most mind blowing thing of all is when you apply some math to the way things work in reality it, and it’s just perfect. It’s beautiful.

[monkeynutts]

Yeah astronomy and physics are like a new mystical religion. It’s hard to not be in Awe of the universe.

[Tea-Spaghetti]

It's a good run-through of some cool things in cosmology. I wouldn't say all of physics because there are some cool physics that doesn't have to do with the entire universe.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, you're right!

[kingofthellamas]

Awesome take amigo! With your passion for physics if you don't work in the field you need to switch careers now.

[OddBeMe]

Isn’t the speed of light affected by gravity? Thus black holes exist.

[RolandCuthbert]

I would say it is likely they exist. We have things in this universe that fit Einstein's description.

But there is an explanation that challenges the assertion that they are "real" objects.

And that explanation involves time dilation. Have you head the paper by Mersini-Houghton?

We are not just looking at an event in space. We are looking at a black hole across a google of years. In other words, as Hawking speculates, a black hole would evaporate trillions upon trillions of years in the future. So if you orbited close to one at a speed that kept you from falling in, wouldn't you be able to look up and see the universe's history playing out at superspeed?

[Texaskid1]

Super interesting Mytake.

[RolandCuthbert]

Wow. . . thanks.

[The_unknown_memer]

Bro where did you get all this? , it's amazing

[RolandCuthbert]

I have been passionate about physics since grade school. And I can't help doing whatever I can to follow the latest developments. Anton Petrov is this russian guy I have been following lately. He is such a good guy. He is brilliant. He was recently homeless and was still posting videos on physics from Russia. I follow him. I love Veratisium and of course PBS Spacetime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt1ygf5AAuM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4RNGRyzt10&t=586s

[The_unknown_memer]

Yeah I only recently started looking these type of YouTube channels

Their called "make you smarter " , I just found one more channel , I want to know your thoughts about it.
It's called riddle

[ChefPapiChulo]

We’re just living in a matrix

[RolandCuthbert]

haha! It is hard to dispute your conclusion. I mean using the physics we know of, the universe we live in is totally improbable. The cosmological constant is fine tuned to 1 to the power of 120. No one thinks that is accidental and no one thinks that our current physics even comes close to explaining why that number is so precise.

Leonard Susskind at 3:55

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4T2Ulv48nw

[ChefPapiChulo]

That’s because it’s all a simulation and everything is predetermined.

[Ally247]

Enjoyed reading this

[RolandCuthbert]

Why thank you. It was done a rush. So forgive some of the grammar issues.

[Ally247]

I was too engrossed to notice if there were any