Fundamental Physics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter33
  • Start date Start date
Peter33
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
How did you find PF?
There was an interesting discussion online, and a link led me to this forum.
Here, many issues are discussed without bias—unlike in mainstream science.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter33 said:
Here, many issues are discussed without bias—unlike in mainstream science.
Welcome, but please note that your statement conflicts with the first rule of Physics Forums:
  • We wish to discuss mainstream science. That means only topics that can be found in textbooks or that have been published in reputable journals.
 
This is, in fact, standard cosmology in its purest form. The problem of the cosmological constant and vacuum energy density is "the mother of all physics problems"—a subject that is widely discussed within the field (and described in almost every cosmology textbook).
 
Peter33 said:
This is, in fact, standard cosmology in its purest form. The problem of the cosmological constant and vacuum energy density is "the mother of all physics problems"—a subject that is widely discussed within the field (and described in almost every cosmology textbook).
From A Study in Scarlet, Watson itemises the limits of Sherlock Holmes' knowledge, including:

3. Knowledge of Astronomy: Nil

When Watson asks about the Solar System, Holmes replies:

"What the deuce is it to me?: you say we go round the Sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a penny-worth of difference to me or my work."
 
The topic of Holmes's knowledge of astronomy is not being raised here. Standard cosmology faces widely recognized, fundamental problems regarding vacuum density—and, consequently, regarding what exactly this nearly zero-density cosmological vacuum is capable to expand. These issues—along with a host of others—are routinely discussed in textbooks and in the most rigorous academic papers. As an administrator, however, you appear to be strongly opposed to such discussions. If that is indeed the case, then simply state it explicitly: that this forum is not the appropriate venue for discussing all these well-known problems.
 
Peter33 said:
The topic of Holmes's knowledge of astronomy is not being raised here. Standard cosmology faces widely recognized, fundamental problems regarding vacuum density—and, consequently, regarding what exactly this nearly zero-density cosmological vacuum is capable to expand. These issues—along with a host of others—are routinely discussed in textbooks and in the most rigorous academic papers. As an administrator, however, you appear to be strongly opposed to such discussions. If that is indeed the case, then simply state it explicitly: that this forum is not the appropriate venue for discussing all these well-known problems.
I'm not an administrator and even if I had objections to discussing dark energy, that would be irrelevant.

This thread is for you to introduce yourself. Your Sherlock Holmes avatar was noted.
 
I wonder who exactly reached the conclusion regarding the topic I proposed—namely, that "… please note that your statement conflicts with the first rule of Physics Forums"—given that my topic actually addresses, one might say, the most pressing and widely discussed problem in cosmology? And how can this frivolous decision be overturned?

The primary criterion—aside from ensuring that the topic truly aligns with the forum's focus—should be solely the quality of the published threads. In the article I referenced, the caliber of the arguments presented—including the mathematics—is quite high.