Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles
Title: Physicists manage to 'breed' Schrodinger's cat in breakthrough that could help explain the quantum world
Source:
Daily Mail Online
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet ... -s-cat-breakthrough-study.html
Published: May 2, 2017
Author: Cheyenne MacDonald
Post Date: 2017-05-02 07:39:35 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 24853
Comments: 75
Scientists have developed a way to 'breed' Schrodinger's hypothetical cat in a breakthrough experiment that could bridge the gap between the quantum and the visible - or classical - worlds. The cat in the famous thought experiment can be alive and dead at the same time, in a quantum phenomenon known as superposition. But, whether this effect translates to larger objects has long remained a mystery. Physicists have now created a way to amplify pairs of classical states of light to generate 'enlarged' cats, in effort to uncover the limit (if there is one) of the quantum world. 'One of the fundamental questions of physics is the boundary between the quantum and classical worlds,' says CIFAR Quantum Information Science Fellow Alexander Lvovsky. 'Can quantum phenomena, provided ideal conditions, be observed in macroscopic objects? 'Theory gives no answer to this question – maybe there is no such boundary. 'What we need is a tool that will probe it.' In the new experiment, the researchers 'bred' the physical analogue of the Schrodinger cat. This, in this case, is the superposition of two coherent light waves, in which the fields of the electromagnetic waves point in opposite directions at once. Based on an idea first proposed over a decade ago by researchers in Australia, the team bred these states to create optical 'cats' of higher amplitudes. 'In essence, we cause interference of two 'cats' on a beam splitter,' said Anastasia Pushkina, co-author and University of Calgary graduate student. 'This leads to an entangled state in the two output channels of that beam splitter. 'In one of these channels, a special detector is placed. 'In the event this detector shows a certain result, a 'cat' is born in the second output whose energy is more than twice that of the initial one.' Doing this, the researchers converted a pair of negative squeezed 'cats' of amplitude 1.15 to a single positive 'cat' of amplitude 1.85. Doing this, the researchers converted a pair of negative squeezed 'cats' of amplitude 1.15 to a single positive 'cat' of amplitude 1.85. Entangled particles are illustrated above Over the course of the experiment, they generated several thousand of these enlarged cats. According to the researchers the experiment has implications for future work in quantum communication, teleportation, and cryptography. 'It is important that the procedure can be repeated: new 'cats' can, in turn, be overlapped on a beam splitter, producing one with even higher energy, and so on,' says lead author Demid Sychev, a graduate student from the Russian Quantum Center and the Moscow State Pedagogical University. 'Thus, it is possible to push the boundaries of the quantum world step by step, and eventually to understand whether it has a limit.' Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment created by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. In the hypothetical experiment a cat is placed in a sealed box next to a radioactive sample, a Geiger counter, and a bottle of poison. The observer cannot know whether or not an atom of the substance has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the vial has been broken, releasing the poison and killing the cat, until the box is opened. This means the cat is both dead and alive inside the box, a mixture of both states, until the box is opened. 'One of the fundamental questions of physics is the boundary between the quantum and classical worlds,' says CIFAR Quantum Information Science Fellow Alexander Lvovsky. 'Can quantum phenomena, provided ideal conditions, be observed in macroscopic objects? 'Theory gives no answer to this question – maybe there is no such boundary. 'What we need is a tool that will probe it.' In the new experiment, the researchers 'bred' the physical analogue of the Schrodinger cat. This, in this case, is the superposition of two coherent light waves, in which the fields of the electromagnetic waves point in opposite directions at once. Based on an idea first proposed over a decade ago by researchers in Australia, the team bred these states to create optical 'cats' of higher amplitudes.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
No. Quantum phenomena ride on probability waves. Those waves collapse upon observation. The double-slit experiment proves this. A coin can be heads or tails -- until you look at it.
Poor cat
Maybe. Maybe not.
A coin can be heads or tails -- until you look at it. In The liberal - liberTardian lsd world The caT is Talking To Them The zodiac kiTTy Telling Them what To do nexT love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Maybe. Maybe not. He is in two states at the same time. I think this thread is promising. Cultural learnings of the quantum world.
No. This is a common misconception by people who don't understand the issue. The cat is only potentially in one of two states and physicists use this duality to solve certain classes of problems in physics. The cat either is or is not dead. But for the larger purposes of theory, you must treat it as though it is in an undetermined state. There is a fundamental vanity to the common misconception of Schrodinger. We presume that the state of something actually changes depending on whether a human observer is watching. But, if that is true, is Schrodinger's cat still either dead or alive depending on whether another cat sees it? How about a dog? Of course, it is nonsense. Anything that grants to mere human observation something akin to godlike powers is nothing but nonsense. And any physicist would tell you this, that you are greatly misrepresenting Schrodinger's work and that his cat is, indeed, either alive or dead at any given moment in space-time. But for theoretical constructs and calculation, we do need to assume it is both alive and dead at any given time so we can achieve higher-order theoretical constructs without having to worry about whether some guy's cat is alive or dead inside a box. Given my opinion, you can imagine how annoyed I get when people pose philosophical questions like "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" It's more nonsense like the common misunderstandings of non-physicists about Schrodinger. Again, the tree has fallen and it has made the same sound regardless of whether a human being heard it or not. Nevertheless, physicists do discuss this issue. I personally disbelieve this legend. Both Bohr and Einstein were too smart to take such a question seriously. Neither believed that, as a matter of physics, that human beings were the center of the universe and of reality itself. It's nothing but arrogance (and weak-minded lazy philosophy) to think otherwise.
No. This is a common misconception by people who don't understand the issue. Cats are different. How do you know, may I ask?
Because I don't fall for cheesy sophomoric pseudo-philosophy masquerading as physics. Let's return to the falling tree. Let us posit that the tree fell and that, by coincidence, someone had a sound recording device present which recorded the sound that the tree may (or may not) have made when it fell. If a human being has never heard that recording of the falling tree, did it make a sound at all? If a human being finally does hear that recording 100 years later, would we say that the tree made no sound when falling but that it finally made a sound when the recording was played 100 years later? This entire line of argument devolves into this kind of nonsense when you examine it. It is a profoundly anti-scientific view, one that denies so many other sound fundamental scientific principles. My friend, you have a vastly overinflated opinion of the importance of human beings and of observers (both human and non-human) in general. This is fundamentally an argument about the primacy of human beings to other human beings, not a serious argument about physics.
Instruments are an extension of human senses. According to one great philosopher who liked to use Occam Razor principle, the real real beings are just souls, and God would not waste his creative energies for the making material (superfluous and epistemologically inaccessible) substrate, for the perceptions and phenomena. He delivers impressions directly to the souls. And He keeps track and integrity in His mind, so recording device will get its stuff all right. What are your arguments to repudiate this?
A falling tree disturbs the air. If that air disturbance is detected by our ears -- now or later -- it is called "sound". If not, it's simply air disturbance.
So what? If a recording is made of the falling tree and not played until a thousand years after the tree fell, then did the sound occur a thousand years earlier (when the tree fell) or did the sound occur a thousand years after the tree fell (when a human being finally listened to that recording? Well, I would try to answer you but you seem to have confused yourself enough already. You have to be joking. This is ignorance on steroids. If you (and all other living persons) have never heard a live performance by the opera singer Enrico Caruso from a century ago, would you then say that Caruso never sang at all despite the many written accounts of his performances? If you do listen to that recording by Caruso, then can Caruso finally be considered to have sung Ave Maria only now, a century later? Or can you rely on rumors and opinions held by others that Caruso did indeed sing Ave Maria? Or did Caruso finally exist for you when you finally heard him sing that song (because God kept all His electrons in line)? Good thing that God is keeping all these pesky details straight for you because you seem far too confused to sort any of it out. OTOH, my practical opinions have no such problems and do not require massive intervention from God to create grammophones, and recording devices and conversions to digital formats and the creation of the internet, all so that I can hear Caruso (or that Caruso can finally be considered by me to have sung Ave Maria). My framework requires only classical physics and an ordinary human agency. Any time you conceive the universe as some great Clockwork that only God can keep wound up and running so it won't collapse upon itself, you have not found a special wisdom or insight. A true god does not have to wind His clock(s) because He does not subject Himself to the mere physical constraints of His own creation or the grossly inadequate understandings of his own (allegedly) intelligent creations.
You're debating semantics. No matter what we call it, it still exists. When the tree falls, the air does vibrate and, due to its innate physical properties as a gas composite, it does conduct what we call "sound" even if you think you are getting somewhere by calling it an "air disturbance". You're just hiding behind a synonym. Things do exist, no matter what we call them. And whether we are present to observe them or not.
In the double-slit experiment, setting up a detector with a recorder at the slits forced the collapse of the probability wave and there was no interference.
It depends on how you define "sound". I say it's an air disturbance detected by our ears. We can hear on the range of 20 to 20,000 Hz. If the tree fell and created an air disturbance of 50 kHz, would it make a sound? 50 MHz? No. We could stand right next to the tree and we wouldn't "hear" it.
It detected the collapse under certain very artificial conditions. And keep in mind that a probability wave is only a mathematical construct for us to measure and discuss the likelihood of an outcome. In reality, there is no such thing as a "probability wave" of any sort. It's just how we choose to conceptualize and discuss the concept (which may or may not be helpful to progress in physics). Ever asked yourself why there are no practical applications of such science, why we seem to make little progress of any kind in quantum physics? Or even the existence of dark matter and (especially) dark energy? 100 years from now, I think people will look at our misunderstandings of the outcome of double-slit and similar experiments as rather quaint, humorous even. Have you considered that a double-slit experiment is nothing more than a special case in physics and not some fundamental principle of the universe? Perhaps these double-slit experiments cannot achieve any meaningful progress in theoretical physics because we are engaging in double-slit experiments and observing (or not observing) the results! What quantum physics needs is a few more Feynmans to clear out the babble and clutter and make some meaningful progress.
No. We could stand right next to the tree and we wouldn't "hear" it. And if the person standing next to the tree was deaf? What then? As you must know, a person can sense a strong enough sound directly through air pressure on their skin. The sound of, for instance, an airplane crashing or a building being demolished with explosives can be felt directly thought the intense air pressure wave on the exposed skin. So if you only "feel" the very loud sound, is that considered to be the same as having "heard" it with your ears? Let's consider that the deaf person standing next to the tree had a dog who was frightened by the sound of the tree crashing to the ground and the dog ran away, forcing his master to chase him down. Are you saying that there was no sound and that therefore the dog ran for no reason and that his master chased him for no reason? Or would some third party have to see and hear all of it for it to have happened at all? These are bootless questions. I feel like I'm chatting with special ed students that people think these are questions that can be debated seriously.
When you can't understand something, simply create antimatter to explain it. They did that with black holes -- which nothing can escape, even light. Well, Hawking radiation can. What is Hawking radiation? Well, particles and antiparticles are created outside the event horizon. One particle falls into the black hole and the other escapes as Hawking radiation. Ta-da!
Write on a piece of paper and show it to him, "Did you hear that sound?" Then let him tell you the answer to that. If he can talk, that is. "So if you only "feel" the very loud sound, is that considered to be the same as having "heard" it with your ears?" You answered your own question by describing the sensation of the disturbance two different ways. "Are you saying that there was no sound and that therefore the dog ran for no reason" No. The dog heard a sound his master didn't.
As always, you should ask: WWFD (What Would Feynman Do)? (see RF at 09:00 for the discussion of the two slits experiment) Since I'm lazy and stupid, I'll just stick with Feynman. It's the safe bet. : ) It is worth recalling that Bohr almost drove himself insane trying and failing to resolve the contradictions of quantum physics. Feynman fixed those problems and revolutionized (virtually invented) modern quantum mechanics. Not Bohr or Einstein who both applied themselves to the same problems.
You forgot the other handy dodges: string theory and the multiverse. It drives me crazy when people invent these elaborate unfalsifiable theories and won't admit they just don't know.
The word for most of that activity before 1700 was "religion".
Maybe so. We, of course, can take comfort in the certainty that the answer to life, the universe and everything is...42.
It was a good presentation as far as it went. But if electrons (or photons) were fired one at a time, they would still create an interference pattern and he had no explanation for that.
I think he did. Wiki: Feynman, Richard P.; Robert B. Leighton; Matthew Sands (1965). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 3. Obviously, Feynman did think about the double-slit experiment a great deal. But his greatness was how much he advanced the entire field through practical theoretical work, especially his diagrams. Feynman had a camper in the Seventies that he had painted with his diagrams, just for fun. He was a little quirky. While traveling with the family, they came out of a restaurant. A university physics student was blinking at the van as they came out and then said to them, "Hey, why is your van covered with Feynman diagrams?". Mrs. Feynman said, "Because we're the Feynman's." and they jumped in the van and drove off. In recent years, the van was brought out of storage and restored.
His presentation showed that photons and electrons behaved like waves until they were tampered with by observation. Then they acted like particles. But there are experiments that negate these effects, demonstrating that observation alone collapses the probability wave.
I always thought that there is no probability collapse at all. There are particles that can behave as waves in some circumstances. Or maybe waves that can behave as particles. : ) Of course, this is the sort of thing that makes frustrated science guys try to cheat by inventing stuff like wavicles.
Not in the same experiment.
I think, you still live in Newtonian universe. And that for you everything is obvious and there is no mystery. But even Newton said "to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me"
It's by far the better bet. It yields by far the most meaningful increases in human knowledge. Quantum mechanics may eventually provide some more complete view of the natural universe but we are nowhere near it. We probably know far less of any value than of anything meaningful about this realm of theory. The present state of understanding quantum physics is comparable to the state of alchemy as a science several centuries back. Quantum physics needs some truly revolutionary advances to compare to the contributions of Newton and Einstein. It's the simple truth. Just look at all the "thought experiments" upon which so much of quantum physics relies as its conceptual framework. Undead cats? Endless unproveable debates about string theory? A multiverse? Give me a ping when any of that leads to a meaningful advance. Complain about Newton and Einstein if you like but almost everything we know of science comes from them. And we can prove their work. You can't say any of that for the present state of quantum physics (which is already nearly a century old).
Yes, and the answer I have come up with is that there are not really four fundamental forces, there is only one: the expansion of things, expressed in two spaces: atomic and subatomic. Gravity as such - force at a distance - does not exist. There is the surface acceleration of expanding objects (this is why gravity cuts off at the edge of the atmosphere, when there is nothing more to act as a piston pushing up on the bottom of the fuselage of things. There are ways to test this, and there are real physical effects of this that can be seen in the world, but it's very subtle. Einstein was essentially correct when he observed that, to a man in a box, acceleration upwards and gravity feel like the same thing. That's because they ARE the same thing. Things that orbit each other are really moving in tandem in a corkscrew through space, and the orbital distance is the distance at which their expansion towards each other is cancelled out by their velocity. It's difficult to see, because whatever you use to measure with ALSO expands, and mass remains constant. Anyway, I don't feel like an argument.
The fundamental problem with all such experiments is the ability to count the number 1.
I think Einstein had largely that same view of space-time and how gravity wells work. However, Einstein and other physicists would undoubtedly insist that gravitational attraction certainly operates meaningfully across the solar system. I can't imagine anyone positing that the earth lacks gravitational pull on the moon. I know you're into it because you express these ideas pretty consistently but I've never seen any major physicist proposing those ideas. Perhaps they have done so but I'm too dull to grasp it. But I think I have read a decent amount about the various theoretical constructs so I should have heard of it by now. I would say, offhand, that we shouldn't be any more impressed with an expanding universe than we would be with a static one. And we can't be sure that the universe is actually expanding any more than we can know if the universe is infinite in scale. Perhaps we are too low on the mental food chain to grasp the fundamental nature of the universe. That has been my thinking for a long time. Still, we've discovered some incredible things, considering what limited beings we really are.
The earth exerts no gravitational pull on the moon, or vice versa. There is no gravity at a distance. only the surface effect. Gravity does not exist. Perhaps in our lifetime people whom you respect will reveal this. Until then, tuck it into your "absolutely nuts" file.
Gravity does drop off sharply but still exists even at great distances. You break a lot of physics if you try to pretend it doesn't. Are you going to just revoke all the accepted and proven work on the three-body problem? As you know, Kepler formulated the basics in his work 400 years ago and Newton used Kepler's discoveries in his own theory of gravity. Hence the classic representation of gravity wells in space-time, like a planet. You actually have to have working solutions that provide correct answers to these thorny problems if you intend to discard the entire basis of classical and modern physics. You can't wave a wand and make them disappear. You have to have something better. Is it okay if I tell people I knew you "when"? LOL
Isn't this like it's not news unless CNN and Hufpo report it?
Only to people who think Newton and Einstein were ignorant. : ) Who knew you could get this many replies on a physics thread at LF? LOL
We don't know if so called "gravity" does exist. What we know is that concept of gravity helps up to organize and visualize some data or stuff. We know nothing. BTW, I studied continental philosophy at MA level, beside natural science at MS level. In addition I did a lot of my own thinking what is more important. "His reputation as a philosopher, literally meaning 'a lover of wisdom', soon spread all over Athens and beyond. When told that the Oracle of Delphi had revealed to one of his friends that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens, he responded not by boasting or celebrating, but by trying to prove the Oracle wrong. So Socrates decided he would try and find out if anyone knew what was truly worthwhile in life, because anyone who knew that would surely be wiser than him. He set about questioning everyone he could find, but no one could give him a satisfactory answer. Instead they all pretended to know something they clearly did not. Finally he realized the Oracle might be right after all. He was the wisest man in Athens because he alone was prepared to admit his own ignorance rather than pretend to know something he did not. "
We know we can solve a great many practical problems in astronomy and space flight using this awful "gravity" idea. It underpins so much of physics that I can't begin to list its uses in theoretical constructs vital to the entire field. I'd like to see you name some top-rank physicists in the last 300 years who don't believe in this #FakeGravity thing.
This is what I mean. Nothing more nothing less. Do you really need to lean on an authority? OK, one example: "University of Amsterdam string theorist Erik Verlinde provided a totally new perspective for understanding the effect that has been called gravity. He is convinced that it is not an independent force at all." https://www.icr.org/article/5548/ Or read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Personally I am partial to the Arthur Schopenhauer answer to Kant. Or at least 'As if' approach of Hans Vaihinger.
No string theorist has ever produced a single piece of new theoretical work that is widely accepted or that has an experimental demonstration of its merit. However, practical applications of gravity have yielded countless theoretical advances (starting with Newton and Einstein and all the physics stars) and has had its merits demonstrated in experiments and real-world applications like space flight. OTOH, you can find a string theory flake who will say anything. Apparently, you have. You may as well tell me that you found someone on Infowars or a UFO site that doesn't believe in that darned #FakeGravity. This discussion is so stupid that I can feel it killing my brain cells just to have to type this.
Comments (41 - 75) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Can quantum phenomena, provided ideal conditions, be observed in macroscopic objects?"
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
#3. To: A Pole (#2)
Poor cat
#4. To: misterwhite (#3)
(Edited)
No. Quantum phenomena ride on probability waves.
boris
#5. To: misterwhite, Deckard, Vicomte13, ConservingFreedom, Willie Green, hondo68, calcon, TooConservative (#3)
Poor cat
#6. To: A Pole (#5)
He is in two states at the same time.
Albert Einstein is reported to have asked his fellow physicist and friend Niels Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, whether he realistically believed that 'the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it.' To this Bohr replied that however hard he (Einstein) may try, he would not be able to prove that it does, thus giving the entire riddle the status of a kind of an infallible conjecture—one that cannot be either proved or disproved.
#7. To: Tooconservative (#6)
He is in two states at the same time.
Again, the tree has fallen and it has made the same sound regardless of whether a human being heard it or not.
#8. To: A Pole (#7)
How do you know, may I ask?
#9. To: Tooconservative (#8)
Let us posit that the tree fell and that, by coincidence, someone had a sound recording device present which recorded the sound that the tree may (or may not) have made when it fell. If a human being has never heard that recording of the falling tree, did it make a sound at all?
#10. To: Tooconservative (#8)
#11. To: A Pole, redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#9)
Instruments are an extension of human senses.
According to one great philosopher who liked to use Occam Razor principle, the real real beings are just souls, and God would not waste his creative energies for the making material (superfluous and epistemologically inaccessible) substrate, for the perceptions and phenomena. He delivers impressions directly to the souls.
And He keeps track and integrity in His mind, so recording device will get its stuff all right.
Ave Maria
#12. To: misterwhite (#10)
A falling tree disturbs the air. If that air disturbance is detected by our ears -- now or later -- it is called "sound". If not, it's simply air disturbance.
#13. To: Tooconservative (#6)
"We presume that the state of something actually changes depending on whether a human observer is watching."
#14. To: Tooconservative (#12)
#15. To: misterwhite (#13)
(Edited)
In the double-slit experiment, setting up a detector with a recorder at the slits forced the collapse of the probability wave and there was no interference.
In this Feynman diagram, an electron and a positron annihilate, producing a photon (represented by the blue sine wave) that becomes a quark–antiquark pair, after which the antiquark radiates a gluon (represented by the green helix).
#16. To: misterwhite (#14)
We can hear on the range of 20 to 20,000 Hz. If the tree fell and created an air disturbance of 50 kHz, would it make a sound? 50 MHz?
#17. To: Tooconservative (#15)
"What quantum physics needs is a few more Feynmans to clear out the babble ..."
#18. To: Tooconservative (#16)
"And if the person standing next to the tree was deaf?"
#19. To: misterwhite (#13)
(Edited)
In the double-slit experiment,...
#20. To: misterwhite (#17)
When you can't understand something, simply create antimatter to explain it.
#21. To: Tooconservative (#20)
It drives me crazy when people invent these elaborate unfalsifiable theories and won't admit they just don't know.
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#21)
#23. To: Tooconservative (#19)
#24. To: misterwhite (#23)
It was a good presentation as far as it went. But if electrons (or photons) were fired one at a time, they would still create an interference pattern and he had no explanation for that.
The double-slit experiment (and its variations) has become a classic thought experiment, for its clarity in expressing the central puzzles of quantum mechanics. Because it demonstrates the fundamental limitation of the ability of the observer to predict experimental results, Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible […] to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery [of quantum mechanics]." 
#25. To: Tooconservative (#24)
"Because it demonstrates the fundamental limitation of the ability of the observer to predict experimental results"
#26. To: misterwhite (#25)
But there are experiments that negate these effects, demonstrating that observation alone collapses the probability wave.
#27. To: Tooconservative (#26)
"There are particles that can behave as waves in some circumstances. Or maybe waves that can behave as particles."
#28. To: Tooconservative (#26)
#29. To: A Pole (#28)
I think, you still live in Newtonian universe.
#30. To: Tooconservative (#15)
Ever asked yourself why there are no practical applications of such science, why we seem to make little progress of any kind in quantum physics? Or even the existence of dark matter and (especially) dark energy?
#31. To: Tooconservative (#24)
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
(Edited)
Gravity as such - force at a distance - does not exist.
Things that orbit each other are really moving in tandem in a corkscrew through space, and the orbital distance is the distance at which their expansion towards each other is cancelled out by their velocity.
#33. To: Tooconservative (#32)
I can't imagine anyone positing that the earth lacks gravitational pull on the moon.
#34. To: Vicomte13 (#33)
There is no gravity at a distance. only the surface effect. Gravity does not exist.
Perhaps in our lifetime people whom you respect will reveal this. Until then, tuck it into your "absolutely nuts" file.
#35. To: Tooconservative (#11)
If you do listen to that recording by Caruso, then can Caruso finally be considered to have sung Ave Maria only now, a century later? Or can you rely on rumors and opinions held by others that Caruso did indeed sing Ave Maria? Or did Caruso finally exist for you when you finally heard him sing that song (because God kept all His electrons in line)?
#36. To: redleghunter (#35)
(Edited)
Isn't this like it's not news unless CNN and Hufpo report it?
#37. To: Tooconservative (#34)
Gravity does drop off sharply but still exists even at great distances.
#38. To: A Pole (#37)
We don't know if so called "gravity" does exist. What we know is that concept of gravity helps up to organize and visualize some data or stuff. We know nothing.
#39. To: Tooconservative (#38)
We know we can solve a great many practical problems in astronomy and space flight using this awful "gravity" idea.
I'd like to see you name some top-rank physicists in the last 300 years who don't believe in this #FakeGravity thing.
#40. To: A Pole, redleghunter (#39)
"University of Amsterdam string theorist Erik Verlinde provided a totally new perspective for understanding the effect that has been called gravity. He is convinced that it is not an independent force at all."
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]