Does Vacuum Really Exist or Is It Just an Illusion?

[dextercioby]

That's a simple question.SM doesn't include gravity.It cannot account for what gravity is and means and how the the gravity field's energy is not well defined and actually any subject related to gravity.

Next question.

Daniel.

 

[p53ud0 dr34m5]

ok. higgs physics. i don't even think the particles explained in this area of physics exists. physicists made up this part of physics in attempt to explain why matter has mass. i found this area to be sketchy. why do physicists have to make up stuff to cover their blunders. the fallacies associated with their reasons are beyond ignorant. they are making things more complicated than needed.

 

[dextercioby]

ok. higgs physics. i don't even think the particles explained in this area of physics exists. physicists made up this part of physics in attempt to explain why matter has mass. i found this area to be sketchy. why do physicists have to make up stuff to cover their blunders. the fallacies associated with their reasons are beyond ignorant. they are making things more complicated than needed.

I believe that Higgs boson will be found someday and that will be as a supreme confirmation of the model.
It's not fair to make assumptions when u don't have the proof.Namely Higgs boson do not exist.

Daniel.

PS.What do you mean "they are making things more complicated than needed?"Give an example.

 

[p53ud0 dr34m5]

theyve already lost hope in detecting the particles. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1649

The legendary particle that physicists thought explained why matter has mass probably does not exist.

thats just the first sentence.

something that is more complicated than it needs to be is the explanation of gravity. two theories are out to explain them. neither of the two answer the question; yet, they both contain much math and scientific terminology to clutter it up and appear like the theory explains what it is meant to.

 

[dextercioby]

theyve already lost hope in detecting the particles. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1649

My friend,the article is from 2001.It hardly mentions LHC.It couldn't have mentioned results regarding LHC,as it's not completely built.So until LHC particle physicists give us an answer,u may say what u want to...

something that is more complicated than it needs to be is the explanation of gravity. two theories are out to explain them. neither of the two answer the question; yet, they both contain much math and scientific terminology to clutter it up and appear like the theory explains what it is meant to.

I should say Quantum gravity is meant to be complicated,since both GR and QFT are not simple...Why do you think this theory needs to be simple??Just because Einstein thought that fundamental equations need not be wider than an inch??

Daniel.

 

[p53ud0 dr34m5]

yes, dated in 2001, but not much advancement since then. i hear now they are using the idea of quantum entanglement to try and explain mass. they leap from one theory to another. i know that what development in scientists is all about, but its annoying.

there is obviously no good model for gravity. why? with gravity being a pull, it is hard to make sense of it. why does gravity have to have two objects pulling on each other? why does gravity have to have one object falling into another objects inclination of space-time? why does gravity have to be explained as a leaking through many dimensions? I am only 17, and I am sure you can probably see i don't have much of a basis for my thinking. I am thinking and thinking and thinking, and i hope to have more backing for my thoughts.

 

[hypermorphism]

yes, dated in 2001, but not much advancement since then. i hear now they are using the idea of quantum entanglement to try and explain mass. they leap from one theory to another. i know that what development in scientists is all about, but its annoying.

there is obviously no good model for gravity. why? with gravity being a pull, it is hard to make sense of it. why does gravity have to have two objects pulling on each other? why does gravity have to have one object falling into another objects inclination of space-time? why does gravity have to be explained as a leaking through many dimensions? I am only 17, and I am sure you can probably see i don't have much of a basis for my thinking. I am thinking and thinking and thinking, and i hope to have more backing for my thoughts.

Science doesn't seek to explain "why" things happen in the manner that you want it to. It seeks to model how phenomena occur in a way that produces a measurable result that is as accurate as possible in balance with simplicity of theory. While you may point to modern string theory as a deviation from this axiom, it is really an exercise in trying to unify theories that do make accurate predictions into a framework that seems to be simpler (after a fashion) than the current splintered theories.

 

[Yapper]

I have a question? Are there particles that cause magnetic fields to attract things? Are they a result of warping of spactime? If so why then do some materials not get attracted at all? Is it like a different type of warping then gravity? Where gravity warping attracts mass and magnetic warping attacts just metal?





Im a noob