Relativity, quantum physics, heart?

Question

Scientists have done great work because of which have learnt so much about the nature.

For a moment if we just try to forget about the all that has been discovered about the nature, share your thoughts about the following (what does your heart say?).

1. Do you think the nature will be as complex as described by quantum physics?

2. Lets say BigBang was not the cause of the universe, what else do you think could have caused the current universe?

3. Do you believe man will be able to find the "Grand unification theory"?

4. What could be the top 5 discoveries w.r.t physics say in the next 50 years?

Answer 1

1) Very hard to believe the nature is so complex. Always nature takes an easy path. with such a repeatable physical properties for millenniums are not valid and uncertainties arise in the quantum theory.

2) Energy imbalance is the primary cause as an alternate possibility. Hardly any crediable evidence that support the bigbang theory except statements

3) No. I certainly feel even the current theory of relativity will be found incorrect in the future. There is lots of holes. Once example will be mass increases when an object reach near light speed. Mass can not be created. So where does the mass come from. Doesn't explain

4.1 Light is particle not wave

4.2 light speed is not an upper limit for travel

4.3 Valid Explanation of gravity

4.4 Controlable Fusion

4.5 Better energy extractor from Sun

Answer 2

1) I believe nature us more complex then what is described by Q.M. In fact, we know this. There are problems with QM that we know of and resolving them will require additional complications.

2) The question of what caused the universe is a question of philosophy not physics. The big bang is just a theory that describes the first few moments of the universe but not what caused it. The answer to what caused the universe is the same as what caused the big bang. As to what that thing is, I have little clue.

3) Yes I believe man will find a GUT, but we will soon discover a new layer of depth full of tons of new exciting mysteries to be solved.

4) My guess to the top 5 discoveries are (in any order)
i. Room temperature superconductors
ii. Solid Metallic Hydrogen
iii. The Higgs boson
iv. Experimental evidence that either supports or denies sting theory
v. Quantum Computers

Answer 3

Complexity of nature: Very. I can barely keep up with immunology theory now, and compared to some stuff, that's simple.

Big bang: there are no competing theories at present, and given the state of the evidence, none are likely.

Grand unification: eventually. But the problems are horrendous, and it will not be soon.

Top five discoveries: I have no idea. Certainly, useful discoveries could include room temperature superconductivity that persists at high magnetic fields, and how to build a workable thermonuclear reactor. We aren't close to either of these, notwithstanding all the work that has been done on them. Fifty years hence, the prize will most likely go to things that we have not even thought of now, such as the transistor would have been considered in 1940.

Answer 4

1. Can't answer. I have no idea what you mean by "the nature".
If you meant to say "that nature". I can tell you nature has already proven to be more complex than dscribed and defined by quantum physics.

2. Instead of the big bang, how about the Grand Ejaculation theory?

3. Do you mean Einstein's Unified Field Theory? Eventually yes, but we're still in kindergarten when it comes to string theory and other quantum theories.

4. My guesses
1. Faster than light propulsion.
2. The inertial dampening that must be used with FTL drives.
3. The matter-anti-matter bomb
4. Beam weapons
5. Power supplies with giga-watt outputs that are no larger than a car. (Fusion generators)

Answer 5

Very interesting topic!

When I was at primary school I thought space was discrete, i.e. between two marks on a ruler there were only a finite number of points. I thought a lot about the consequences of my idea. If you travel from one point to another, it would have to be by means of a finite number of steps. Each would have to be infinitely fast: since there were no points between the two stepping stones, it had to take no time to go from one stepping stone to another (the possibility that time was also discrete did not occur to me). The illusion that we have about continuous motion was just that.

I also thought that repelling forces were caused by emission of microscopic particles. So two positive magnetic poles blow each other away in the same way as you can blow small objects away by "emitting" air molecules at them. I had a hard time explain attractive forces such as gravity but I was convinced it was possible.

Answer 6

I'll just stick to #1. It's not that complex. It's just strange. Why should it be otherwise? Do you believe the universe was created for humans?

Answer 7

let's not and say we did