I was going to respond until this caught my eye. In ODEs there is Picard’s existence and uniqueness principle. It means that if a solution or set of solutions exists to an ODE then not only does the solution(s) but it is the only set(s) of solutions.
Make of that what you will, but I wanted to add Picard’s theorem and comment that QM explanations as most see them are just interpretations and it’s important remember that interpretations of math is all it is. It’s hard to create interpretations of math that is a consequence of phenomena that is so fundamentally weird which leads to a lot of confusion.
What I’m trying to say is that even after 2 classes on QM I have not much of a greater fundamental understand(at least I feel this way) than the laymen conceptual explanations. What it did do for me is show that these explanations stem from the math, and unless you have a PHD in this stuff and you’ve been doing it for years the true insight is hard to gain. Even then, I have doubts. The math exists and can be done, but the interpretations of it that we actuallu talk about can be much less clear and difficult to understand.
With that said, my interests lay with rockets and not QM, so the time I spent “solving”(I say that with apprehension since the basics have been solved for nearly a century now) these equations were frustrating boring and more something to just get it over with. It’s all approximations and computer simulations these days so there’s not much to do except how to manually solve these suckers and that’s what QM really is. At least to me, when I think of it I don’t think of as spooky action at a distance or any other of the weird repercussions, but the transmission or reflectration rates of your particle. It’s just really annoying diffeq and stats that rivals E&M in how frustrating it is to solve.
I’m not really sure what this response was supposed to mean or say but there it is. That math sucked and to assign a real world interpretation to it seems ridiculously difficult even after having done that basic century old math and seeing how hard it is to create an explanation from the result first hand.
Researchers say an anomaly in the orbits of distant Kuiper Belt objects points to the existence of an unknown planet orbiting the sun. Here’s what we know of this potential “Planet Nine.”
With the data that’s coming up around Planet 9, the fact that there is a population of KBOs whose orbits have all become aligned really evokes something suspicious. They’re not randomly scattered by some single event; their orbits have likely been gradually curated over time by the gravitational effects of some unseen object. They’re also is a suggestion that Planet 9 is a possible reason for the six degree tilt of the sun.
The object is not confirmed to meet IAU criteria for designation of planet. It’s not a planet, yet. Might get demoted like Pluto.
It just goes to show we still hardly know anything about our own solar systems objects and near planet sized balls in crazy orbits taking them an age to pass near us. Who knows what else we’ve still to discover. The next couple of decades should be very interesting discovery wise.
It’s got a silly name. The chances of anything happening with it at all are so far-fetched that the fact it has a silly name is the most important thing about it.
It’s on the same level as: “It would be cool if everyone had Hoppy Hoppers to fly around with.” That they’re being called ‘Hoppy Hoppers’ instead of Jetpacks is the more important thing to take away from it.
I cannot begin to describe how much I hate the name ‘Asgardia’.
I think it was originally posted in the awesome thread…it’s certainly interesting but it gives off a Mars one vibe. If you had people who are actually working in the industry I could see it going places but these are just people with PhDs. Some may be in the space sciences some probably aren’t.
Nothing against people with PhDs, but usually they are only very intelligent in the topic of their thesis. Outside of their niche they are still smart, but might know what’s best. Perfect example is Neil Degrass Tyson. No doubt he knows his stuff about astronomy and stellar formation and whatever he researched, but with respect to to the economics and engineering of human travel I have to disagree and with clear evidence to the contrary of his opinions.
TLDR: 99.9% probably bunk 00.1% possibly not bunk. (It’s a distant outsider.)
Wait till someone has spent money on sending one into space to prove if it’s bunk or not before even thinking about getting exited.
(And discuss over in that thread as people tend to get a little tetchy with it.)
Slightly meta post but I’d argue that this is more of general science discussion rather than speculation. This thread was created with the em drive in mind which is most probably error whereas emergent gravity is a legitimately posted scholarly article.
I didn’t remember a thread where to post it, instead of here. But I agree… maybe we could just speculate on this new theory to legitimate my post ?
I am personally glad to see some serious work in this direction. Dark Matter … I do not like the use of such artifices to justify behaviors not foreseen by our equations … and I love the idea Einstein didn’t see Everything, it’s exciting
And the EM Drive has its own thread (I created it)
