It feels like Management doesn't understand that producing proper papers takes time and is only used to "Traditional Office-Work" and have never done any real R&D, testing, & Validation.
The Nature of the Universe, Time Travel and More...
- Thread starter Will The Serious
- Start date
Ironically, when it comes to academic research, the bean counters require things they can measure rather than intangibles. I suspect many great researchers from the past would not thrive today.
This is why upper management in Academic Research should never be run by "Bean Counters".
It should be a former or existing Academic Researcher who runs the management side.
We all saw how disastrous Boeing became when the "Bean Counters" started taking over.
You can't have leadership run by accounting, that's a recipe for disaster.
Leadership is only handed over to the Bean counters when sales staff is unavailable. My experience is it is Sales, or the scientific equivalent (grant writers, fundraisers, endowment, etc.), that drives R&D, production, AND the bean counters. As a former engineer for a manufacturing company, the promises made to make a sale were often insane.
However, as has been discussed above, there are plenty in the scientific community that thrive on intangible non-deliverables. Often, even a well informed manager doesn't understand the full details of the concepts being researched.
-Will
https://www.quantamagazine.org/is-g...ng-long-shot-idea-gets-another-look-20250613/
Is Gravity Just Entropy Rising? Long-Shot Idea Gets Another Look.
"the idea that gravity is a collective effect — not a fundamental force, but the outcome of swarm behavior on a finer scale — still compels physicists."
Interesting thought. If this is the case, perhaps there might be cases where all the elements of the collective are not present and gravity might behave differently.
"Earlier this year, a team of theoretical physicists put forward(opens a new tab) what might be considered a modern version of those 17th-century mechanical models. “There’s some kind of gas or some thermal system out there that we can’t see directly,” said Daniel Carney(opens a new tab) of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who led the effort. “But it’s randomly interacting with masses in some way, such that on average you see all the normal gravity things that you know about: The Earth orbits the sun, and so forth.” "
Getting awfully close to an aether. The Michelson-Morley experiment supposedly disproved aether. Maybe there is an aether, but it doesn't interact with light. It doesn't seem likely that there is an aether-like substance that causes gravity, but doesn't interact with light. But, maybe.
"...Entropic Gravity, pegs that deeper physics as essentially just the physics of heat. It says gravity results from the same random jiggling and mixing up of particles — and the attendant rise of entropy, loosely defined as disorder"
"The new model has the virtue of being experimentally testable — a rarity when it comes to theories about the mysterious underpinnings of the universal attraction."
Gotta love that.
"when physicists used quantum mechanics to study what happens in the distorted space-time around a black hole, they find that black holes give off energy like any hot body. Because heat is the random motion of particles, these thermal effects suggest to many researchers that black holes, and the space-time continuum in general, actually consist of some kind of particles or other microscopic components."
It is difficult to suggest something like space and/or time can warp without a physical presence.
-Will
Is Gravity Just Entropy Rising? Long-Shot Idea Gets Another Look.
"the idea that gravity is a collective effect — not a fundamental force, but the outcome of swarm behavior on a finer scale — still compels physicists."
Interesting thought. If this is the case, perhaps there might be cases where all the elements of the collective are not present and gravity might behave differently.
"Earlier this year, a team of theoretical physicists put forward(opens a new tab) what might be considered a modern version of those 17th-century mechanical models. “There’s some kind of gas or some thermal system out there that we can’t see directly,” said Daniel Carney(opens a new tab) of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who led the effort. “But it’s randomly interacting with masses in some way, such that on average you see all the normal gravity things that you know about: The Earth orbits the sun, and so forth.” "
Getting awfully close to an aether. The Michelson-Morley experiment supposedly disproved aether. Maybe there is an aether, but it doesn't interact with light. It doesn't seem likely that there is an aether-like substance that causes gravity, but doesn't interact with light. But, maybe.
"...Entropic Gravity, pegs that deeper physics as essentially just the physics of heat. It says gravity results from the same random jiggling and mixing up of particles — and the attendant rise of entropy, loosely defined as disorder"
"The new model has the virtue of being experimentally testable — a rarity when it comes to theories about the mysterious underpinnings of the universal attraction."
Gotta love that.
"when physicists used quantum mechanics to study what happens in the distorted space-time around a black hole, they find that black holes give off energy like any hot body. Because heat is the random motion of particles, these thermal effects suggest to many researchers that black holes, and the space-time continuum in general, actually consist of some kind of particles or other microscopic components."
It is difficult to suggest something like space and/or time can warp without a physical presence.
-Will
Mavity actually /shttps://www.quantamagazine.org/is-g...ng-long-shot-idea-gets-another-look-20250613/
Is Gravity Just Entropy Rising? Long-Shot Idea Gets Another Look.
"the idea that gravity is a collective effect — not a fundamental force, but the outcome of swarm behavior on a finer scale — still compels physicists."
Interesting thought. If this is the case, perhaps there might be cases where all the elements of the collective are not present and gravity might behave differently.
"Earlier this year, a team of theoretical physicists put forward(opens a new tab) what might be considered a modern version of those 17th-century mechanical models. “There’s some kind of gas or some thermal system out there that we can’t see directly,” said Daniel Carney(opens a new tab) of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who led the effort. “But it’s randomly interacting with masses in some way, such that on average you see all the normal gravity things that you know about: The Earth orbits the sun, and so forth.” "
Getting awfully close to an aether. The Michelson-Morley experiment supposedly disproved aether. Maybe there is an aether, but it doesn't interact with light. It doesn't seem likely that there is an aether-like substance that causes gravity, but doesn't interact with light. But, maybe.
"...Entropic Gravity, pegs that deeper physics as essentially just the physics of heat. It says gravity results from the same random jiggling and mixing up of particles — and the attendant rise of entropy, loosely defined as disorder"
"The new model has the virtue of being experimentally testable — a rarity when it comes to theories about the mysterious underpinnings of the universal attraction."
Gotta love that.
"when physicists used quantum mechanics to study what happens in the distorted space-time around a black hole, they find that black holes give off energy like any hot body. Because heat is the random motion of particles, these thermal effects suggest to many researchers that black holes, and the space-time continuum in general, actually consist of some kind of particles or other microscopic components."
It is difficult to suggest something like space and/or time can warp without a physical presence.
-Will
Here’s what Paul Harvey would call a “strange:”
phys.org
New theory proposes time has three dimensions, with space as a secondary effect
Time, not space plus time, might be the single fundamental property in which all physical phenomena occur, according to a new theory by a University of Alaska Fairbanks scientist.
I remember something similar being hypothesised in the early 1980s. However, I don't remember anything else about it other than it featured three time dimensions.Here’s what Paul Harvey would call a “strange:”
New theory proposes time has three dimensions, with space as a secondary effect
Time, not space plus time, might be the single fundamental property in which all physical phenomena occur, according to a new theory by a University of Alaska Fairbanks scientist.
Other than as a mental construct, or impression on our senses, instead of an actual solid 3D space, I can not imagine how a three dimensional time can have a consequential creation of space.
-Will
-Will
While we can intuit orthogonality of 2-D and 3-D space, orthogonality of 3-D time seems a truly bizarre concept. When I first went to a grad school talk about it in the 80s, a theoretician commented to me about the attractive aspects of the notion - none of which points I remember. I don't know if this new theory bears any relation to the old one.
How would one tell time in three dimensions? In one dimension, it's so many hours, minutes, seconds, from a point, either before or after that point. In two dimensions, it's not just to express our distance in time from a point on a second axis, but what could we experience and therefore describe as the passage of time in an additional dimension?, would we described this as a type of simultaneous-ness? Then there would be an additional simultaneous-ness (the 3rd dimension) that allowed for an infinite variation of the infinite simultaneous variations already described by the second dimension. To have a third dimension of time seems redundant.
I do feel like I am arguing physical dimensions into existence out of multi-dimensional time. I'm beginning to see a picture emerge. Then, we are back to space-time; four dimensions, x, y, z, t, vs t, x, y, z (or is it: t¹, t², t³, x?). What would be difference between the two perspectives of the same thing? Because, otherwise they seem identical.
-Will
I do feel like I am arguing physical dimensions into existence out of multi-dimensional time. I'm beginning to see a picture emerge. Then, we are back to space-time; four dimensions, x, y, z, t, vs t, x, y, z (or is it: t¹, t², t³, x?). What would be difference between the two perspectives of the same thing? Because, otherwise they seem identical.
-Will
I can see Time being "2D" where "Normal Time Flows Foreward (+)" and "Anti-Time Flows Backwards(-)" AKA Time-Travel.
Assuming Time-Travel is possible and we just are no-where close to figuring out how to do it, I still don't see how Time can be considered 3D unless you count branching time-lines and the ability to control where you're visiting by crossing to different branches of the same time-line at will.
The time we experience appears to be 1-D and we experience it as increasing only - much like linear and rotational spatial movement is constrained in spacetime metrics near black holes. I have no idea what higher dimensional time would seem like. If the hypothesis makes testable predictions, all well and good. Otherwise, it's just more academic babble that will disappear into obscurity until someone resurrects the notion in a slightly different form.
Or until they come up with a math that works to support predictions based on that model.
Going backwards in time is still 1D. It remains on the single axis of the timeline, forward or backwards.
-Will
