Change your thinking, change your life!

Spring-And-Loop Theory takes on

Wikipedia's
List Of Unsolved Problems In Physics

YouTube [88min] | MP3 [88min]

by Floyd Maxwell, BASc

Spring-And-Loop Theory takes on

Wikipedia's
List Of Unsolved Problems In Physics

 


NOTE: This page began life as Wikipedia's List Of Unsolved Problems In Physics
NOTE: Page formatting, links and content have been preserved
NOTE: The References section has been removed as were are no questions in it
NOTE: Chevrons (i.e. >>> & <<<) bookend content added to the original page
NOTE: Text from the original page appears like this
NOTE: Questions from the original page appear like this
NOTE: Spring-And-Loop Theory answers appear like this
NOTE: Quotes from other sources appear like this


 


Contents


 

Unsolved problems by subfield

The following is a list of unsolved problems grouped into broad area of physics.[1]

1.1 Cosmology, and general relativity

Cosmic inflation
Is the theory of cosmic inflation correct, and if so, what are the details of this epoch? What is the hypothetical inflaton field giving rise to inflation? If inflation happened at one point, is it self-sustaining through inflation of quantum-mechanical fluctuations, and thus ongoing in some impossibly distant place?[2]

>>>

Q_0001 - Is the theory of cosmic inflation correct?

No.

And that "Cosmic_inflation" wikipedia page is 14,000 words of nonsense.

"Consequences Of A Spring-And-Loop Theory 1: the Speed of Light" covered this subject, predicting that the Speed of Light was greater in the past, negating the need for this inflationary hack.

Q_0002 - , and if so, what are the details of this epoch?

This epoch is like any other. Space continues to expand.

Q_0003 - What is the hypothetical inflaton field giving rise to inflation?

Hypothetical (like the question, and link, say).

Q_0004 - If inflation happened at one point, is it self-sustaining through inflation of quantum-mechanical fluctuations, and thus ongoing in some impossibly distant place?

No.

<<<

Horizon problem
Why is the distant universe so homogeneous, when the Big Bang theory seems to predict larger measurable anisotropies of the night sky than those observed? Cosmological inflation is generally accepted as the solution, but are other possible explanations such as a variable speed of light more appropriate?

>>>

Q_0005 - Why is the distant universe so homogeneous, when the Big Bang theory seems to predict larger measurable anisotropies of the night sky than those observed?

Never mind the "distant" universe, the entire universe is homogeneous because the "big bang" is not behind the expansion of space.

Q_0006 - Cosmological inflation is generally accepted as the solution, but are other possible explanations such as a variable speed of light more appropriate?

Inflation is not accepted by Spring-And-Loop Theory (because it is a ludicrous fudge factor, and not needed).

Yes, there are other possible explanations. "COASALT 1: the Speed of Light" predicts and calculates a variable speed of light.

<<<

Future of the universe
Is the universe heading towards a Big Freeze, a Big Rip, a Big Crunch or a Big Bounce? Or is it part of an infinitely recurring cyclic model?

>>>

Q_0007 - Is the universe heading towards a Big Freeze ...?

Yes. Space will continue to expand without end. There has never been enough mass, or mass density, to slow the expansion.

Q_0008 - Is the universe heading towards a ... Big Rip ...?

No. The expansion will not accelerate. If anything it will slow down, in the same way that a balloon inflates slower as it gets bigger.

Q_0009 - Is the universe heading towards a ... Big Crunch ...?

No. There is no reason for space to contract at all, let alone all the way back to a "singularity".

Q_0010 - Is the universe heading towards a ... Big Bounce?

No. A Big Bounce is the least likely of the four theories, as it assumes each universe comes from a previous one.

Spring-And-Loop Theory can think of no way or reason for this to be the case.

Q_0011 - Or is it part of an infinitely recurring cyclic model?

This would be infinite bounces. So, no.

<<<

Gravitational wave
Can gravitational waves be detected experimentally?[4][5]

>>>

Q_0012 - Do gravitational waves exist?

Gravitational waves are a prediction, of a theory.

So the proper pre-question would be "Do they exist?"

"COASALT 5: Gravity" thinks that gravitational waves are possible.

Q_0013 - Can gravitational waves be detected experimentally?

Gravitational waves happen when a change in gravity occurs. This happens when mass appears, disappears or alters its form (i.e. fission or fusion). But when mass changes, the change in energy is literally "the speed of light, squared" more than the change in gravity. And both of these propagate through the same spring system.

So, no, it is effectively impossible to measure a gravity wave.

Just as it would be impossible to measure a hummingbird's heart beat, when that bird is at the center of a nuclear explosion.

<<<

Baryon asymmetry
Why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?

>>>

Q_0014 - Why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe

Spring-And-Loop Theory has a different conception of what "matter" is.

Matter is stabilized loops of energy, within a Universal Matrix of energy springs. Spring-And-Loop Theory would explain "antimatter" as a type of loop (or spring-loop system) that, when combined with a loop, causes the two things to unroll, going back to energy.

In other words, "anti" matter is just another type of loop (i.e. matter).

Spring-And-Loop Theory can think of no reason why there should have been equal amounts of matter and "antimatter" created during a "big bang".

<<<

Cosmological constant problem
Why does the zero-point energy of the vacuum not cause a large cosmological constant? What cancels it out?

>>>

Q_0015 - Is this a reasonable question?

Not really.

First we have to agree on what the zero-point energy is.

Wikipedia says it is:
"the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state."

So, the z.p.e. refers to a physical system. Of which "space" has none.

Q_0016 - Why does the zero-point energy of the vacuum not cause a large cosmological constant?

So now an unreasonable question has "of the vacuum" tacked onto it.

Where the vacuum is normally defined as free of matter, i.e. free of physical things.

So the question still does not make sense...

Q_0017 - Why is the measured vacuum energy a tiny fraction of the calculated vacuum energy?

If we re-word the question to one of measured versus calculated vacuum energy then Spring-And-Loop Theory can answer this.

We measure temperature of matter systems. A thermometer requires atoms to hit it in order to record a temperature. When you put the thermometer in space, no atoms hit it, so the thermometer radiates away heat until it reaches the temperature of space -- a fraction of a degree Kelvin -- and that is the temperature we measure.

But Spring-And-Loop Theory says that the universe is composed entirely of energy (i.e. springs), with a relatively few matter loops. If you take away the loops, you still have the ultra intense spring energy.

But how can you measure it?

If the comic book character "Flash" existed on Earth, how would we measure him?

The something we are trying to measure is one hundred billion billion times smaller than the smallest parts of "us", and it moves at the speed of light.

How do we plan to measure that?

Our instruments are, and forever will be, too crude.

Q_0018 - What cancels it out?

Nothing. It is there, but we are unable to measure it.

<<<

Dark matter
What is the identity of dark matter?[3] Is it a particle? Is it the lightest superpartner (LSP)? Do the phenomena attributed to dark matter point not to some form of matter but actually to an extension of gravity? The results obtained by the Large Underground Xenon (LUX) experiment that took place in 2013 at Sanford Underground Research Facility place a lower bound on the LSP mass; at this point light supersymmetric particles that are the main candidate for dark matter in the lower mass sector are excluded with 90% confidence.[6]

>>>

Q_0019 - What is the identity of dark matter?

Spring-And-Loop Theory says that "dark matter" -- the phrase for our ignorance -- is caused by the difference between how we think gravity works, and how it actually works.

See "COASALT 5: Gravity" for more.

Q_0020 - Is [dark matter] a particle?

Difficult to say, until we use a better model of gravity. We will need to iterate, using a better theory, until we eventually can reproduce (in equations and computer simulations) what we can measure. Or not.

If we use Spring-And-Loop Theory's model of gravity, and still detect orbital discrepancies, then Spring-And-Loop Theory would assume the difference is from other particles.

Spring-And-Loop Theory can conceive of particles smaller than those we currently know of, with sizes down to the Planck scale, so it has no reason to speculate further on "dark matter" at this time.

Q_0021 - Is it the lightest superpartner (LSP)?

Well, this question is really asking "Do you believe in supersymmetry?"

Short answer: no.

Longer answer: Spring-And-Loop Theory has no need or reason to speculate on particle families, since it does not require them to stay self-consistent.

Spring-And-Loop Theory prefers to ever-more-accurately simulate & iterate. After beginning with a much simpler, and more sound, foundation.

Q_0022 - Do the phenomena attributed to dark matter point not to some form of matter but actually to an extension of gravity?

Yes and no.

Spring-And-Loop Theory does not need dark matter, so "yes".

But "no", an extension of gravity will not work. What is needed is a completely different conception of what gravity is.

Spring-And-Loop Theory provides this "right out of the box".

The results obtained by the Large Underground Xenon (LUX) experiment that took place in 2013 at Sanford Underground Research Facility place a lower bound on the LSP mass; at this point light supersymmetric particles that are the main candidate for dark matter in the lower mass sector are excluded with 90% confidence.

Not a question.

<<<

Dark energy
What is the cause of the observed accelerated expansion (de Sitter phase) of the Universe? Why is the energy density of the dark energy component of the same magnitude as the density of matter at present when the two evolve quite differently over time; could it be simply that we are observing at exactly the right time? Is dark energy a pure cosmological constant, or are models of quintessence such as phantom energy applicable?

>>>

Q_0023 - What is the cause of the observed accelerated expansion of the Universe?

Spring-And-Loop Theory says that the Universe is composed of ultra intense energy. Dubbed the Universal Matrix, it is most easily thought of as vibrating springs.

Spring-And-Loop Theory says the ubiquitous spring-like energy is constantly expanding the size or dimensions of the Universe but questions whether the observed expansion is in fact accelerating.

If anything, Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks the opposite is occurring -- that there is (and always has been) a gradual decrease in the expansion rate as (1) the thing that is expanding gets bigger and (2) the total energy of the system remains constant.

Q_0024 - Why is the energy density of the dark energy component of the same magnitude as the density of matter at present when the two evolve quite differently over time;

This is another trick question that wants you to implicitly agree that there is a "dark energy component" in addition to, I guess, "non-dark" components? Like from a big bang or something?

Spring-And-Loop Theory doesn't think that things got where they are today because of a big bang that supposedly occurred some dozen plus billion years ago.

At this point Spring-And-Loop Theory tolerates the concept of a big bang, since this is how, supposedly, the magical ratios of hydrogen and helium were made. [And since Spring-And-Loop Theory has yet to devote much time to finding a way to completely rule out a big bang.]

Spring-And-Loop Theory does not think there are two components so they don't have to be (or can't be) reconciled.

Q_0025 - could it be simply that we are observing at exactly the right time?

Many physicists would answer with "this is so unlikely that it rules out" ...something they would like to get rid of.

Some would gladly rule out dark energy itself, but then they would still need to insert some other fudge factor in its place.

Spring-And-Loop Theory has already answered the larger question, and so has no need to be involved with this question.

Q_0026 - Is dark energy a pure cosmological constant, [?]

Ok, first we need to decipher the question, translating it into the language of Spring-And-Loop Theory as:

"Is the Universal Matrix of ultra high energy springs a pure cosmological constant?"

Spring-And-Loop Theory is still bothered by "pure" and "constant".

The Universal Matrix of ultra high energy springs is by no means one-dimensional. It is the ether that propagates all electromagnetic particles, waves and energies. It, in combination with graviton loops, is what creates matter. Similarly, spring-loop interactions create the strong and weak forces, and gravity.

So, no to the first part.

No to the second part as well, in that the Universal Matrix is not "constant". It is very uniform, as the CMB measurements confirm, but it is the largest "living breathing thing" there is.

Q_0027 - or are models of quintessence ... applicable?

Wikipedia says that quintessence is hypothesized as a "fifth fundamental force", and is "not constant".

Spring-And-Loop Theory has no need for the concept of quintessence, and is able to explain "dark energy" using Spring-And-Loop Theory itself.

No changes to Spring-And-Loop Theory are needed. No forces need to be added, or removed.

So, no.

Q_0028 - or are models of ... phantom energy applicable?

Wikipedia's paltry "phantom energy" page says:
"Phantom energy is a hypothetical form of dark energy that is even more potent than the cosmological constant at increasing the expansion of the universe".

So "phantom energy" is "some other dark energy".

Spring-And-Loop Theory has no need for "dark energy", under that or a different name.

So, no.

<<<

Ecliptic alignment of CMB anisotropy
Some large features of the microwave sky, at distances of over 13 billion light years, appear to be aligned with both the motion and orientation of the Solar System. Is this due to systematic errors in processing, contamination of results by local effects, or an unexplained violation of the Copernican principle?

>>>

Q_0029 - Some large features of the microwave sky, at distances of over 13 billion light years, appear to be aligned with both the motion and orientation of the Solar System. Is this due to systematic errors in processing, contamination of results by local effects, or an unexplained violation of the Copernican principle?

The CMB is perhaps the most over-leveraged thing physicists play around with, not counting the Big Bang.

They seriously need to stop doing this.

So, yes.

<<<

Shape of the Universe
What is the 3-manifold of comoving space, i.e., of a comoving spatial section of the Universe, informally called the "shape" of the Universe? Neither the curvature nor the topology is presently known, though the curvature is known to be "close" to zero on observable scales. The cosmic inflation hypothesis suggests that the shape of the Universe may be unmeasurable, but since 2003, Jean-Pierre Luminet et al. and other groups have suggested that the shape of the Universe may be the Poincaré dodecahedral space. Is the shape unmeasurable; the Poincaré space; or another 3-manifold?

>>>

Q_0030 - What is the 3-manifold of comoving space, i.e., of a comoving spatial section of the Universe, informally called the "shape" of the Universe?

If Spring-And-Loop Theory understands this question, it thinks the question is:

"When you factor out the fact that the universe is expanding, what does it look like?"

Spring-And-Loop Theory answers with "no different".

Q_0031 - Neither the curvature nor the topology is presently known, though the curvature is known to be "close" to zero on observable scales. The cosmic inflation hypothesis suggests that the shape of the Universe may be unmeasurable, but since 2003, Jean-Pierre Luminet et al. and other groups have suggested that the shape of the Universe may be the Poincaré dodecahedral space.   Is the shape unmeasurable [?];

Yes it is unmeasurable, especially with our present non-understanding of gravity.

To get anywhere close to understanding the universe at the "billions of light years" scale, we will first have to be able to model our own galaxy.

Once we can do that, we should be able to scale things to the next galaxy, etc.

Our understanding will grow with our models. Whether we will ever be able to actually measure the shape of the universe is a coin...in a pot...at the end of the rainbow. A rainbow we currently can't even see.

Q_0032 - the Poincaré space[?];

Spring-And-Loop Theory would like to warn readers against following the above Poincaré link on the grounds that it appears to be math, er, stimulation, and therefore NSFW.

So, no.

Q_0033 - or another 3-manifold?

Same warning.

So, no.

<<<

Quantum gravity

Vacuum catastrophe
Why does the predicted mass of the quantum vacuum have little effect on the expansion of the universe?

>>>

Q_0034 - Why does the predicted mass of the quantum vacuum have little effect on the expansion of the universe?

Because every theory of mass, and gravity, is wrong? Yes, because of that.

I foolishly thought I wanted to understand the question, so I clicked on the humorously named "Vacuum_catastrophe" link (and was taken to the more sanely named "Vacuum_state" page). Once there I searched for the word "mass", and found this humdinger of a paragraph:

If the quantum field theory can be accurately described through perturbation theory, then the properties of the vacuum are analogous to the properties of the ground state of a quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator (or more accurately, the ground state of a QM problem). In this case the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of any field operator vanishes. For quantum field theories in which perturbation theory breaks down at low energies (for example, Quantum chromodynamics or the BCS theory of superconductivity) field operators may have non-vanishing vacuum expectation values called condensates. In the Standard Model, the non-zero vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field, arising from spontaneous symmetry breaking, is the mechanism by which the other fields in the theory acquire mass.

Fans of paragraph with lots of links in them will be all atwitter at the fifteen links contained in those four run-on sentences. Mind you, "ground state" "perturbation theory" and "vacuum expectation value(s)" were linked to twice, so better make it twelve links.

All I needed to see was "Higgs" to know it was a question not worth an answer.

Higgs : Standard Model :: Calabi-Yau shapes : String Theory

As mentioned earlier, Spring-And-Loop Theory actually has a working theory of gravity, so does not need to inhale from the Higgs bong.

<<<

Quantum gravity
Can quantum mechanics and general relativity be realized as a fully consistent theory (perhaps as a quantum field theory)?[8] Is spacetime fundamentally continuous or discrete? Would a consistent theory involve a force mediated by a hypothetical graviton, or be a product of a discrete structure of spacetime itself (as in loop quantum gravity)? Are there deviations from the predictions of general relativity at very small or very large scales or in other extreme circumstances that flow from a quantum gravity theory?

>>>

Ok, first of all, I counted 8 questions there. Just saying.

Q_0035 - Can quantum mechanics ...be realized as [part of] a fully consistent theory [?]

Spring-And-Loop Theory acknowledges that quantum mechanics (QM) has had a place in physics to date. A lot has been theorized, and engineered, by a lot of people. QM works, and plays fairly well with others.

But gravity? Not part of the theory. Wikipedia's QM page says:
It has proven difficult to construct quantum models of gravity
with a level of understatement I lack, apparently.

Spring-And-Loop Theory would add that QM will ultimately be supplanted by a better model of the smallest scales. Probability clouds will become city-sized models, with matchbox-sized springs and building-sized matter loops.

Q_0036 - Can general relativity ...be realized as [part of] a fully consistent theory [?]

Spring-And-Loop Theory will replace relativity.

It has already matched it, and extended  beyond it.

Like much of physics, relativity is too complicated, blows up at end points and fails to provide a simple model of how things actually work.

Q_0037 - [Is] a quantum field theory [the answer]?

Wikipedia's QFT page says there is "an underlying physical field" and that particles are "field quanta".

Basically, Quantum Field Theory (QFT) gets things exactly backward. as mentioned in "COASALT 4: The Ether".

So, no.

Q_0038 - Is spacetime fundamentally continuous or discrete?

I am not sure what theory thinks it is continuous.

Ok, apparently relativity does -- thanks, Wikipedia -- while QM thinks it is discrete.

Spring-And-Loop Theory sides with QM on this one.

Q_0039 - Would a consistent theory involve a force mediated by a hypothetical graviton,

A consistent theory, as opposed to the near infinity of inconsistent theories we have today? It would be nice.

Well, first of all, as some have said, gravity is not a force.

Mistake number one with "gravitons" is to imagine them as independent particles that fly around occasionally bumping into things.

Mistake number two (made by "classic physics" apparently) is to consider gravitons as massless. That can only lead to something else providing mass...don't make me mutter the Higgs oath again.

Spring-And-Loop Theory does refer to its loops as gravitons. If you want Spring-And-Loop Theory to stop, it can.

The important point is that in Spring-And-Loop Theory gravitons (i.e. loops) don't "mediate" anything. They interact with springs, causing them to contract in size, creating an effect felt in the entire Universal Matrix.

So, "no" to the way "classic physics" thinks of gravitons.

Q_0040 - or be a product of a discrete structure of spacetime itself (as in loop quantum gravity)?

No. LQG gets it wrong in the same way the other field theories do.

Intuitive proof of this can be found in the LQG page itself -- too many words, far too many formulas -- and a closer read reveals sentences like:
  LQG is based only on quantum theory and general relativity and its scope is limited to understanding the quantum aspects of the gravitational interaction.

Since neither relativity nor QM understand how gravity works, LQG has no chance either.

But I like how Lee Smolin thinks, if that counts for anything.

Q_0041 - Are there deviations from the predictions of general relativity at very small [...] scales or in other extreme circumstances that flow from a quantum gravity theory?

General relativity deviates from itself when it comes to small scales.

So, yes.

Q_0042 - Are there deviations from the predictions of general relativity at very [...] large scales or in other extreme circumstances that flow from a quantum gravity theory?

General relativity's wiki page lists some issues under the "singularities" heading.

I think another deviation from general relativity is the speed of stars orbiting the super massive black hole at the center of a galaxy. Their speeds do not drop off with distance from the black hole, hence the introduction of the dark matter crutch.

So, yes.

<<<

Black holes, black hole information paradox, and black hole radiation
Do black holes produce thermal radiation, as expected on theoretical grounds? Does this radiation contain information about their inner structure, as suggested by Gauge-gravity duality, or not, as implied by Hawking's original calculation? If not, and black holes can evaporate away, what happens to the information stored in them (quantum mechanics does not provide for the destruction of information)? Or does the radiation stop at some point leaving black hole remnants? Is there another way to probe their internal structure somehow, if such a structure even exists?

>>>

Q_0043 - Do black holes produce thermal radiation, as expected on theoretical grounds?

The premise for black hole thermal radiation is the notion of a particle-antiparticle pair being created near the event horizon, with one of them ultimately escaping the black hole's gravity.

QM likes the idea of spontaneously creating particle-antiparticle pairs. Spring-And-Loop Theory does not.

Spring-And-Loop Theory says that if a particle is created, modified or unrolled, then it happens due to something acting on it. Not to the random effects of the "quantum foam".

It is interesting to read that:
 The simplest models of black hole evaporation lead to the black hole information paradox.

So one problem's "solutions" lead to another problem.

The perpetual motion machine of modern physics is a great provider for those who get paid to speculate.

Q_0044 - Does this radiation contain information about their inner structure, as suggested by Gauge-gravity duality,

"Gauge–gravity duality" redirects to String_theory...

String Theory explains nothing whatsoever, acting more like an elaborate test of one's patience.

So, no.

Q_0045 - or not, as implied by Hawking's original calculation?

Answered already.

So, no.

Q_0046 - If not, and black holes can evaporate away, what happens to the information stored in them (quantum mechanics does not provide for the destruction of information)?

Spring-And-Loop Theory has stated that a black hole is where information goes to die.

A black hole is an edge case that relativity does not properly handle.

"COASALT 2: Black Holes" provides more on this subject.

Q_0047 - Or does the radiation stop at some point leaving black hole remnants?

No remnants. No radiation. No information retention.

So, no.

Q_0048 - Is there another way to probe their internal structure somehow, if such a structure even exists?

Yes. By modelling it.

Spring-And-Loop Theory will make a good foundation for such a model.

<<<

Extra dimensions
Does nature have more than four spacetime dimensions? If so, what is their size? Are dimensions a fundamental property of the universe or an emergent result of other physical laws? Can we experimentally observe evidence of higher spatial dimensions?

>>>

Q_0049 - Does nature have more than four spacetime dimensions?

Spring-And-Loop Theory has no need for higher dimensions.

So, no.

Q_0050 - If so, what is their size?

Already answered.

Q_0051 - Are dimensions a fundamental property of the universe or an emergent result of other physical laws?

Fundamental.

Q_0052 - Can we experimentally observe evidence of higher spatial dimensions?

No.

<<<

The cosmic censorship hypothesis and the chronology protection conjecture
Can singularities not hidden behind an event horizon, known as "naked singularities", arise from realistic initial conditions, or is it possible to prove some version of the "cosmic censorship hypothesis" of Roger Penrose which proposes that this is impossible?[9] Similarly, will the closed timelike curves which arise in some solutions to the equations of general relativity (and which imply the possibility of backwards time travel) be ruled out by a theory of quantum gravity which unites general relativity with quantum mechanics, as suggested by the "chronology protection conjecture" of Stephen Hawking?

>>>

Q_0053 - Can singularities not hidden behind an event horizon, known as "naked singularities", arise from realistic initial conditions, [?]

Wikipedia says:
The theoretical existence of naked singularities is important because their existence would mean that it would be possible to observe the collapse of an object to infinite density.

Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks the notion of "infinite density" is about as wrong as relativity gets.

So, no.

Q_0054 - or is it possible to prove some version of the "cosmic censorship hypothesis" of Roger Penrose which proposes that this is impossible?

Spring-And-Loop Theory is not all that interested in a theory attempting to disprove a theory that Spring-And-Loop Theory already thinks is false.

So, don't care.

Q_0055 - Similarly, will the closed timelike curves which arise in some solutions to the equations of general relativity (and which imply the possibility of backwards time travel) be ruled out [?]

Tell you what, you answer the "How many monkeys does it take to randomly produce every work of Edward de Vere?" and Spring-And-Loop Theory will answer this one.

Q_0056 - [or be ruled out] by a theory of quantum gravity which unites general relativity with quantum mechanics, [?]

We need more than the unification of two deficient theories.

So, no.

But yes to Spring-And-Loop Theory, a new theory that explains gravity (and that could be called a theory of quantum gravity, if one was both unoriginal and inordinately obsessed with preserving past relics.)

Q_0057 - as suggested by the "chronology protection conjecture" of Stephen Hawking?

Time travel is like thinking you will win the lottery. A billion times in a row.

Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks that physicists indulge far too much in time travel scenarios.

For what it is worth, Spring-And-Loop Theory does not specifically preclude time travel.

<<<

Locality
Are there non-local phenomena in quantum physics? If they exist, are non-local phenomena limited to the entanglement revealed in the violations of the Bell Inequalities, or can information and conserved quantities also move in a non-local way? Under what circumstances are non-local phenomena observed? What does the existence or absence of non-local phenomena imply about the fundamental structure of spacetime? How does this relate to quantum entanglement? How does this elucidate the proper interpretation of the fundamental nature of quantum physics?

>>>

Q_0058 - Are there non-local phenomena in quantum physics?

First of all, there is a Quantum nonlocality Wikipedia page that is twice as long and doesn't have a "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards" banner. Not sure why it wasn't linked to here instead of the "Principle_of_locality" page.

Spring-And-Loop Theory does not think "entanglement" happens, frankly. That it will ultimately be explained by other phenomena.

So, no.

Q_0059 - If they exist, are non-local phenomena limited to the entanglement revealed in the violations of the Bell Inequalities,[?]

Already answered. And not relevant in a Spring-And-Loop Theory explained world.

Q_0060 - or can information and conserved quantities also move in a non-local way?

Already answered. Not relevant in a Spring-And-Loop Theory explained world.

Q_0061 - Under what circumstances are non-local phenomena observed?

Already answered. Not relevant in a Spring-And-Loop Theory explained world.

Q_0062 - What does the existence or absence of non-local phenomena imply about the fundamental structure of spacetime?

The absence of non-local phenomena implies that space works in a simpler, more local way, than "Quantum nonlocality" would suggest.

Q_0063 - How does this relate to quantum entanglement?

Already answered. Not relevant in a Spring-And-Loop Theory explained world.

Q_0064 - How does this elucidate the proper interpretation of the fundamental nature of quantum physics?

It shows that QM produces the same kinds of dilemmas as relativity.

<<<

High energy physics/particle physics

See also: Beyond the Standard Model
Higgs mechanism
Are the branching ratios of the Higgs Boson consistent with the standard model? Is there only one type of Higgs Boson?

>>>

Q_0065 - Are the branching ratios of the Higgs Boson consistent with the standard model?

Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks the Higgs -- particle, field and Boson -- is flawed (as mentioned above, and here).

So, don't care.

Q_0066 - Is there only one type of Higgs Boson?

Let's hope so.

<<<

Hierarchy problem
Why is gravity such a weak force? It becomes strong for particles only at the Planck scale, around 1019 GeV, much above the electroweak scale (100 GeV, the energy scale dominating physics at low energies). Why are these scales so different from each other? What prevents quantities at the electroweak scale, such as the Higgs boson mass, from getting quantum corrections on the order of the Planck scale? Is the solution supersymmetry, extra dimensions, or just anthropic fine-tuning?

>>>

Q_0067 - Why is gravity such a weak force?

Spring-And-Loop Theory says that gravity is the only force that is not a direct spring-loop interaction. Rather, it is an effect propagating through the Universal Matrix of springs, when a loop is introduced (or removed).

When you clamp part of a fish net, there is a small effect felt everywhere in the net. That small effect is gravity, propagated.

Considering that analogy further, the act of clamping the fish net is the strong force. Removing the clamp is the weak force. And the net itself is the electromagnetic force.

Clearly the gravity effect is many times smaller than any of the other three forces.

Q_0068 - It becomes strong for particles only at the Planck scale, around 1019 GeV, much above the electroweak scale (100 GeV, the energy scale dominating physics at low energies). Why are these scales so different from each other?

Gravity is a small (in fact Planck scale) change in the spring matrix.

An analogy used in the original explanation of Spring-And-Loop Theory is a dance floor. During a chaotic dance (like rock music at Woodstock), each dancer takes up a fair bit of space. Change the music to a slow dance, and pairs of dancers take the floor, with their dancing taking up less space.

The change in dancers (i.e. the introduction of a gravity-creating loop) is substantial at the smallest scale. But move one atom distance away -- at the scale of dancers, that would put the next pair about one million light years away -- and the effect of the slow dancers is almost non-existent.

The weak force is the spring lashing around, on being released from a spring-loop bond. Behaving like a firehose, it creates an effect over a wide area, due primarily to the raw power of the spring-like energy.

We know the weak force is behind the atomic bomb, so compare the force of an atomic bomb to that of two lovebirds dancing. Only when you get inside the lovebirds' world is their love dominant. But one atomic bomb can ruin their whole day.

Q_0069 - What prevents quantities at the electroweak scale, such as the Higgs boson mass, from getting quantum corrections on the order of the Planck scale?

Higgs? Bah humbug.

Nonsense theory is nonsense.

Answered earlier, with the words "don't care".

Q_0070 - Is the solution supersymmetry,[?]

To the Higgs? No.

The solution to the Higgs is to get rid of that nonsensical theory.

Q_0071 - [Is the solution] extra dimensions,[?]

Extra dimensions are a major problem (i.e. a spectacularly bad hack) in themselves.

They solve absolutely nothing.

Away with them. And the Higgs.

So, no.

Q_0072 - [Is the solution] just anthropic  fine-tuning?

"Anthropic fine-tuning" = "hack the model to fit your weird theory."

Knock yourself out.

<<<

Magnetic monopoles
Did particles that carry "magnetic charge" exist in some past, higher energy epoch? If so, do any remain today? (Paul Dirac showed the existence of some types of magnetic monopoles would explain charge quantization.)[10]

>>>

Q_0073 - Did particles that carry "magnetic charge" exist in some past, higher energy epoch?

Did magnetic monopole particles exist in the past? No.

Spring-And-Loop Theory says that magnetism is a propagated effect. An effect that would not have changed since shortly after a big bang (if such a thing occurred).

Q_0074 - If so, do any remain today?

Only in the minds of physicists.

Q_0075 - (Paul Dirac showed the existence of some types of magnetic monopoles would explain charge quantization.)

Good for him.

That "quantization" mention is a tip-off to this being another QM problem/solution.

Spring-And-Loop Theory is a more fundamental explanation than QM, and is no more troubled by monopoles than by the diseases of the super rich.

<<<

Proton decay and spin crisis
Is the proton fundamentally stable? Or does it decay with a finite lifetime as predicted by some extensions to the standard model?[11] How do the quarks and gluons carry the spin of protons?[12]

>>>

Q_0076 - Is the proton fundamentally stable?

Hard to say. The Spring-And-Loop Theory model will need to be built up to the point that we can determine this.

Q_0077 - Or does it decay with a finite lifetime as predicted by some extensions to the standard model?

Answered already.

By the way, does it matter, other than backing up some old flawed theory?

Q_0078 - How do the quarks and gluons carry the spin of protons?

Spring-And-Loop Theory hopes to talk about this in a future paper.

<<<

Supersymmetry
Is spacetime supersymmetry realized at TeV scale? If so, what is the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking? Does supersymmetry stabilize the electroweak scale, preventing high quantum corrections? Does the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) comprise dark matter?

>>>

Q_0079 - Is spacetime supersymmetry realized at TeV scale?

Stop wasting money on ever-larger particle smashing boondoggles!

And no.

SUSY is what happens when you take a theory too far.

Like the alleged information paradox in a black hole. Only more costly.

Q_0080 - If so, what is the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking?

Supersymmetry is broken. Like the Higgs. That needs SUSY.

So get rid of SUSY first and the Higgs will fall on its own sword.

Q_0081 - Does supersymmetry stabilize the electroweak scale,[?]

Answered.

So, no.

Q_0082 - [Does supersymmetry] prevent high quantum corrections?

SUSY prevents progress in physics.

So, fight the power.

And fight SUSY, even if you have to bite.

Q_0083 - Does the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) comprise dark matter?

Of course it does.

Now can we go back to watching American Gladiators?

Or, no.

<<<

Generations of matter
Why are there three generations of quarks and leptons? Is there a theory that can explain the masses of particular quarks and leptons in particular generations from first principles (a theory of Yukawa couplings)?

>>>

Q_0084 - Why are there three generations of quarks and leptons?

Great question. The second best question so far. [Why is gravity weak? ... was the first.]

Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks there are three generations of quarks and leptons (i.e. only three) because of stability issues. In short, there happen to be three, but beyond that the building blocks get too flimsy.

Simulations based on Spring-And-Loop Theory will be required before more can be said.

Q_0085 - Is there a theory that can explain the masses of particular quarks and leptons in particular generations from first principles[?]

Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks it can do this, in time.

Watch for a future talk on this, but don't hold your breath waiting for hard numbers.

Q_0086 - (a theory of Yukawa couplings)?

Yukawa couplings are a descriptive tool that appears to be used mainly to prop up SUSY and the Higgs. Grrr.

So, no.

<<<

Electroweak symmetry breaking
What is the mechanism responsible for breaking the electroweak gauge symmetry, giving mass to the W and Z bosons? Is it the simple Higgs mechanism of the Standard Model,[13] or does nature make use of strong dynamics in breaking electroweak symmetry, as proposed by Technicolor?

>>>

Q_0087 - What is the mechanism responsible for breaking the electroweak gauge symmetry, giving mass to the W and Z bosons?

Clicking on that "Electroweak_symmetry_breaking" link redirects you to the "Higgs_mechanism" page.  Insert #Expletive_du_Jour.

Spring-And-Loop Theory says "If you have a mass question, think loops."

By the way, life is too short for the Higgs. Consider a root canal instead.

Q_0088 - Is it the simple Higgs mechanism of the Standard Model,[?]

That was funny. The way you used "simple" and "Higgs" in the same sentence.

So, no.

Q_0089 - or does nature make use of strong dynamics in breaking electroweak symmetry, as proposed by Technicolor?

I caught Technicolor at the Hollywood Bowl in 1987...

In fairness, Technicolor theories are trying to move beyond the standard model (and the Higgs), so "God bless them, every one".

But, no.

<<<

Neutrino mass
What is the mass of neutrinos, whether they follow Dirac or Majorana statistics? Is mass hierarchy normal or inverted? Is the CP violating phase 0?[14][15][16]

>>>

Q_0090 - What is the mass of neutrinos,[?]

Third great question. And a real stumper...

In the original paper, Spring-And-Loop Theory speculated that maybe neutrinos are in the shape of a ball.

While matter loops interact with energy springs, it is easy to imagine an enclosed ball having little to no interaction with either.

Q_0091 - [Do neutrinos] follow Dirac ... statistics?

Spring-And-Loop Theory would say "no" simply because neutrinos are totally different than all other particles, including electrons.

Q_0092 - [Do neutrinos] follow ... Majorana statistics?

As answered earlier, Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks "anti" matter is just another type of loop (i.e. matter). Admittedly one that happens to be able to unroll both itself and another spring-loop system at the same time.

So, no.

Q_0093 - Is mass hierarchy normal or inverted?

Is the question poorly worded, or vague?

The neutrino page does not even list the word hierarchy...

...but the SUSY page does. Right before mentioning the Higgs boson.

So, a non-issue to Spring-And-Loop Theory.

Q_0094 - Is the CP violating phase 0?

Another symmetry question.

Another non-issue to Spring-And-Loop Theory.

<<<

Asymptotic confinement
Why has there never been measured a free quark or gluon, but only objects that are built out of them, like mesons and baryons? How does this phenomenon emerge from QCD?

>>>

Q_0095 - Why has there never been measured a free quark or gluon, but only objects that are built out of them, like mesons and baryons?

Q. Why is it almost impossible to produce, store and look at pure fluorine?
A. Reactivity.

Same with gluons (i.e. springs), only one hundred billion billion times more so.

Mind the children when unattached springs are about.

Q_0096 - How does this phenomenon emerge from QCD?

It is one thing to be asked for theories to explain things we don't understand.

It is quite another to be asked to fix broken theories, like Quantum Chromodynamics.

It is left as an exercise for the reader to read the first screen of the QCD page to find the answer to this question.

<<<

Strong CP problem and axions
Why is the strong nuclear interaction invariant to parity and charge conjugation? Is Peccei–Quinn theory the solution to this problem?

>>>

Q_0097 - Why is the strong nuclear interaction invariant to parity and charge conjugation?

This is a particle/antiparticle symmetry-breaking concern and a big deal for QCD. In fact, it appears to bust QCD.

Spring-And-Loop Theory is undaunted.

Q_0098 - Is Peccei–Quinn theory the solution to this problem?

Fix your own broken theory.

<<<

Anomalous magnetic dipole moment
Why is the experimentally measured value of the muon's anomalous magnetic dipole moment ("muon g-2") significantly different from the theoretically predicted value of that physical constant?[17]

>>>

Q_0099 - Why is the experimentally measured value of the muon's anomalous magnetic dipole moment ("muon g-2") significantly different from the theoretically predicted value of that physical constant?

This seems to impact QED, not QCD.

Pretty much the same "Fix your own borked theory" comments as for the previous two questions.

Sigh. If only there was a more fundamental theory available...

<<<

Proton Size Puzzle
What is the true charge radius of the proton?

>>>

Q_0100 - What is the true charge radius of the proton?

First of all, there does not appear to be a "Proton_Size_Puzzle" page on Wikipedia so the hyper link on this page has been changed to a Wikipedia search for "Proton_Size_Puzzle".

On reading the brief "Charge_radius" page, there is a brief mention of a proton charge radius discrepancy...in "muonic hydrogen".

Spring-And-Loop Theory assumes that "muonic hydrogen" is sufficiently different from the hydrogen in your morning cup of coffee to make a difference. Proving once again that different things are different.

Heh, if you don't like the answer, fix the question.

<<<

Astronomy and astrophysics

Accretion disc jets
Why do the accretion discs surrounding certain astronomical objects, such as the nuclei of active galaxies, emit relativistic jets along their polar axes?[18] Why are there quasi-periodic oscillations in many accretion discs?[19] Why does the period of these oscillations scale as the inverse of the mass of the central object?[20] Why are there sometimes overtones, and why do these appear at different frequency ratios in different objects?[21]

>>>

Q_0101 - Why do the accretion discs surrounding certain astronomical objects, such as the nuclei of active galaxies, emit relativistic jets along their polar axes?

The fourth good question so far.

Spring-And-Loop Theory says that springs emit/transmit electromagnetic radiation.

A black hole is a runaway implosion. Older readers may recall being cautioned to not kick your television as it might implode. The implication being that something would come flying out from the implosion.

As to why the jets come out the poles of the black hole, the bottom line is the alignment of springs when they are inclined to emit. If you squeeze something, it comes "out" where you are not squeezing. The poles are the least squeezed place in a black hole -- i.e. the least mass there to do the squeezing.

The springs of the Universal Matrix are inherently omnidirectional, so if you squeeze them here, they will naturally want to pop out there.

Q_0102 - Why are there quasi-periodic oscillations in many accretion discs?

Everything is connected, by its mass (i.e. by gravity). Things going into the spinning black hole unevenly would cause an uneven spin.

Toss stuff unevenly onto a spinning merry-go-round and you will cause its speed to vary.

Spring-And-Loop Theory imagines "quasi-periodic oscillations" of black holes are the rule, not the exception.

Q_0103 - Why does the period of these oscillations scale as the inverse of the mass of the central object?

Ok, so "period of these oscillations" = "time between oscillations"

Restating:
"Why does the time between oscillations decrease as the black hole mass increases?

So the emitted frequency goes up with the black hole mass...

More black hole mass equals more gravity.
More gravity equals "crush stuff up faster".
Faster equals higher frequency.

Q_0104 - Why are there sometimes overtones,[?]

Wikipedia says "An overtone is any frequency higher than the fundamental frequency of a sound."

This could be caused by stuff falling in at a different rate.

Are these overtones constant for a given black hole?

Assuming they are, then maybe there are two or more things being "eaten up" at the same time.

Q_0105 - and why do these appear at different frequency ratios in different objects?

Different sized objects, being sucked into different sized black holes will create different frequencies.

<<<

Coronal heating problem
Why is the Sun's Corona (atmosphere layer) so much hotter than the Sun's surface? Why is the magnetic reconnection effect many orders of magnitude faster than predicted by standard models?

>>>

Q_0106 - Why is the Sun's Corona (atmosphere layer) so much hotter than the Sun's surface?

Good question number five.

Spring-And-Loop Theory says that heat we can measure requires loops (i.e. matter) changing. In the sun, loops are being unrolled (when the proton goes away) and rolled (when neutrons are created). So loops are changing.

Relativity says "when mass is loss, energy is created". Spring-And-Loop Theory says "when a loop is unrolled, and a new smaller loop created, the net effect is springs are released, and more available to vibrate, and this vibration is detected as energy."

So, inside the Sun the number of loops is decreasing. So there is a net freeing up of springs. But by themselves, springs emit no heat we can detect -- hence the "coldness" of "empty space".

But when those additional springs are freed up, they want to clamp onto stuff (i.e. loops). Inside the Sun this is already happening to a near maximum extent, due to the extreme pressure -- the hydrogen is compressed to ten times the density of lead.

Summary? The uncompressed atmosphere of the Sun, to newly released springs, is like additional oxygen to a fire. As in a bunsen burner, the hottest point is some distance from where the fuel first meets the flame.

This is where simulating Spring-And-Loop Theory will come in handy, bringing an understanding of this process to a wider audience.

Q_0107 - Why is the magnetic reconnection effect many orders of magnitude faster than predicted by standard models?

Spring-And-Loop Theory imagines that this process is one of the most spring-dominated processes there is. And springs are ultra energetic -- far beyond "particle" energies -- so it is easy to imagine such a process happening faster than less spring-dominated processes.

Physicists today do not yet work with springs. They should.

<<<

Diffuse interstellar bands
What is responsible for the numerous interstellar absorption lines detected in astronomical spectra? Are they molecular in origin, and if so which molecules are responsible for them? How do they form?

>>>

Q_0108 - What is responsible for the numerous interstellar absorption lines detected in astronomical spectra?

Wikipedia says:
"the strength of diffuse interstellar bands is broadly correlated with the interstellar extinction -- i.e. absorption and scattering of electromagnetic radiation by dust and gas between an emitting astronomical object and the observer."

Seems reasonable.

Q_0109 - Are they molecular in origin,[?]

Seems reasonable.

Q_0110 - and if so which molecules are responsible for them?

To be determined.

Q_0111 - How do they form?

Well, first find out what molecules are doing this. The number of ways to make a thing are limited. Propose some theories. Test them. Confirm or discard your theory(s).

Then go have a (root)beer -- there are more important things to think about.

<<<

Gamma ray bursts
How do these short-duration high-intensity bursts originate?[13]

>>>

Q_0112 - How do these short-duration high-intensity bursts originate?

Physicists seem to have a pretty good handle on this one.

Spring-And-Loop Theory would add the basic point that the greatest energies come from the unrolling of loops. So that would narrow it down to stellar implosions (and explosions), and black hole activities.

<<<

Supermassive black holes
What is the origin of the M-sigma relation between supermassive black hole mass and galaxy velocity dispersion?[22] How did the most distant quasars grow their supermassive black holes up to 109 solar masses so early in the history of the Universe?

>>>

Q_0113 - [What is the M-sigma relation ?]

Wikipedia says:
"The M–sigma relation is an empirical correlation between the stellar velocity dispersion of a galaxy bulge and the mass M of the supermassive black hole at the galaxy's center."

"...some kind of feedback ...maintains the connection between black hole mass and stellar velocity dispersion..."

Q_0114 - What is the origin of the M-sigma relation between supermassive black hole mass and galaxy velocity dispersion?

Not sure if this is of general interest...

For those interested, keep working on it, you may figure it out.

Q_0115 - How did the most distant quasars grow their supermassive black holes up to 109 solar masses so early in the history of the Universe?

Much better question.

Spring-And-Loop Theory is not a prisoner of the "big bang" theory. A theory that says that pretty much only hydrogen and helium were created "in the beginning".

Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks it quite probable that, when the universe was much younger, there were big clumps of stuff. And unless these clumps burned, they would ultimately stay together forever, due to gravity.

So, what stuff doesn't burn? The elements heavier than carbon.

So, Spring-And-Loop Theory would say that at some earlier time there were clumps of heavier-than-carbon elements. That stayed together. And became black holes, due to the amount of material involved.

<<<

Kuiper Cliff
Why does the number of objects in the Solar System's Kuiper Belt fall off rapidly and unexpectedly beyond a radius of 50 astronomic units?

>>>

Q_0116 - Why does the number of objects in the Solar System's Kuiper Belt fall off rapidly and unexpectedly beyond a radius of 50 astronomic units?

The dynamics of the solar system seem to dictate what ends up where.

Some areas seem to be more unstable, while others seem to be more stable.

Model the solar system and figure it out, if that be your pleasure.

<<<

Flyby anomaly
Why is the observed energy of satellites flying by Earth sometimes different by a minute amount from the value predicted by theory?

>>>

Q_0117 - Why is the observed energy of satellites flying by Earth sometimes different by a minute amount from the value predicted by theory?

Because our present theories of gravity lack...substance?

Spring-And-Loop Theory includes an actual model of how gravity works.

Try using it to simulate satellite flyby paths.

If it produces better results, you will have used Spring-And-Loop Theory to makes its author rich. If it produces worse results, this answer will be deleted.

<<<

Galaxy rotation problem
Is dark matter responsible for differences in observed and theoretical speed of stars revolving around the center of galaxies, or is it something else?

>>>

Q_0118 - Is dark matter responsible for differences in observed and theoretical speed of stars revolving around the center of galaxies, [?]

Yes, our ignorance is responsible.

Spring-And-Loop Theory, now with less ignorance.

Q_0119 - or is it something else [responsible for differences in observed and theoretical speed of stars revolving around the center of galaxies]?

The "something else" is our wrong/inaccurate model of gravity.

Spring-And-Loop Theory can do better.

<<<

Supernovae
What is the exact mechanism by which an implosion of a dying star becomes an explosion?

>>>

Q_0119 - What is the exact mechanism by which an implosion of a dying star becomes an explosion?

Not sure how exact you want it...

Basic principles say that, when you compress something (or heat it up), reactions take place more quickly.

In the case of a star, as it reaches the end of its life -- having gone through its hydrogen, helium and carbon fuel -- it starts to fuse things into iron. Unfortunately, this process takes energy, rather than liberating it.

The star proceeds to use up all its heat to drive the "lighter stuff into iron" reaction.

As the heat gets used up, the volume of the star must decrease (by more basic principles).

In the case of a star, this last reaction happens very quickly. So quickly that it is an explosive collapse; taking on the order of a second or less.

The explosive collapse forces things together under more intense pressure than before. Much like how the atomic bomb works.

The ingredients -- a bunch of iron, carbon, helium and hydrogen -- and the unusually intense pressure, causes new elements to form.

Spring-And-Loop Theory imagines that, at some point, the things being created take up more space than they have been given. Like what happens inside a hand grenade after you pull the pin.

A supernova is the result.

<<<

Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray
Why is it that some cosmic rays appear to possess energies that are impossibly high (the so-called OMG particle), given that there are no sufficiently energetic cosmic ray sources near the Earth? Why is it that (apparently) some cosmic rays emitted by distant sources have energies above the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin limit?[3][13]

>>>

Q_0120 - Why is it that some cosmic rays appear to possess energies that are impossibly high (the so-called OMG particle),[?]

As interesting as the story of that one OMG particle is, we need a whole lot more than one measurement -- one tall tale -- before we rush to the presses with our new theories.

Q_0121 - given that there are no sufficiently energetic cosmic ray sources near the Earth?

Answered already. Wait for more OMGs, or go back to watching the football game.

Q_0122 - Why is it that (apparently) some cosmic rays emitted by distant sources have energies above the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin limit?

Answered already.

<<<

Rotation rate of Saturn
Why does the magnetosphere of Saturn exhibit a (slowly changing) periodicity close to that at which the planet's clouds rotate? What is the true rotation rate of Saturn's deep interior?[23]

>>>

Q_0123 - Why does the magnetosphere of Saturn exhibit a (slowly changing) periodicity close to that at which the planet's clouds rotate?

Earth has a molten (and/or solid) iron core, so it creates a relatively centralized and stable magnetic field.

Saturn is mostly gas. Maybe some of that gas, due to its composition, is able to create a magnet field.

Well the gas is rotating sympathetically with the planet's rotation. So the field will as well.

Q_0124 - What is the true rotation rate of Saturn's deep interior?

Only Saturn's hairdresser knows for sure.

Look, it is mostly a gas. Who says the "interior" does anything different than any other part of it?

Putting on its wild speculation spectacles, Spring-And-Loop Theory says that Saturn has exactly 1.26 gillion tons of rock salt at its core. That is a mere 26,000 furlongs in diameter. With the remainder of its hairdo being a mix of American and Swiss cheese.

Does this question really belong on this page?

<<<

Origin of magnetar magnetic field
What is the origin of magnetar magnetic field?

>>>

Q_0125 - What is the origin of magnetar magnetic field?

Excellent question.

Spring-And-Loop Theory would say that such extreme magnetism is some form of spring effect. And hopes to take a better stab at it in the future.

Best guess: liberated springs creating a higher-than-normal spring density in the region of the magnetar. The springs have nowhere to go (other than trying harder than normal to push space apart) and so they send out very frequent and very high intensity pulses that appear to observers as extreme magnetism.

<<<

Space roar
Why is space roar six times louder than expected? What is the source of space roar?

>>>

Q_0126 - Why is space roar six times louder than expected?

Ah, the space roar. Spring-And-Loop Theory first covered this when it presented the original theory.

Short answer: because we have not been correctly modelling what "space" is.

Q_0127 - What is the source of space roar?

Spring-And-Loop Theory says that, fundamentally, the space roar comes from the ultra intense energy of the Universal Matrix of springs.

Maybe "space" (i.e. springs) really do create those virtual particle pairs, and then they collide with each other, creating sound.

Model it with Spring-And-Loop Theory and see what you find out.

<<<

Age-metallicity relation in the Galactic disk
Is there a universal age-metallicity relation in the Galactic disks? A sample of 229 nearby thick disk stars has been used to investigate the existence of an age-metallicity relation (AMR) in the Galactic thickdisk. The results indicate that that there is indeed an age-metallicity relation present in the thick disk.[24][25]

>>>

Q_0128 - Is there a universal age-metallicity relation in the Galactic disks? A sample of 229 nearby thick disk stars has been used to investigate the existence of an age-metallicity relation (AMR) in the Galactic thickdisk. The results indicate that that there is indeed an age-metallicity relation present in the thick disk.

The heading lacked a link so this one was used.

Also, "thickdisk" must be a typo. Just as "that that" is.

Furthermore, it seems a better question to ask is "Why is there such a relation?"

Spring-And-Loop Theory doesn't much care, in that this is a high-level question whereas physics today is stuck with low-level problems.

<<<

Nuclear physics

The "island of stability" in the proton vs. neutron number plot for heavy nuclei?

>>>

Q_0129 - The "island of stability" in the proton vs. neutron number plot for heavy nuclei?

Grammatically not a question.

The question might be "Why does the "island of stability" observation correlate with how some heavy elements are more stable than others?"

Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks the "island of stability" concept is the "thin edge of the wedge". With the wedge being a better understanding of stuff at the Planck scale.

In other words, things are more "physical" at the lowest level. As opposed to "particles" that magically "do" things, things happen because of mechanics.

The sooner we turn to modelling, instead of "firing stuff at stuff", the sooner we begin to make actual progress in understanding Planck-scale stuff.

"Build with atomic bricks" .GT. "destroying with atomic guns".

<<<

Quantum chromodynamics
What are the phases of strongly interacting matter, and what roles do they play in the cosmos? What is the internal landscape of the nucleons? What does QCD predict for the properties of strongly interacting matter? What governs the transition of quarks and gluons into pions and nucleons? What is the role of gluons and gluon self-interactions in nucleons and nuclei? What determines the key features of QCD, and what is their relation to the nature of gravity and spacetime? Do glueballs exist? Do gluons acquire mass dynamically despite having a zero rest mass, within hadrons? Does QCD truly lack CP-violations?

>>>

Q_0130 - What are the phases of strongly interacting matter,[?]

Such a poorly worded question...

Apparently, "phases of strongly interacting matter" is a buzzphrase on this page.

Spring-And-Loop Theory has already expressed its thinly-veiled contempt for QCD.

So, this question has already been answered.

In that Spring-And-Loop Theory has a completely different way of modelling "phases of strongly interacting matter".

Q_0131 - and what roles do they play in the cosmos?

Hamlet, and King Lear?

Q_0132 - What is the internal landscape of the nucleons?

If QCD is such a great theory, why do __the__ most important parts of this attempt-at-being-a-"unifying"-theory-of-the-strong-force end up on this page, as questions to one and all?

 "Ah, yeah, so like we have figured out how flactoids work.
 Except for their shape, and size and how they go together."

Q_0133 - What does QCD predict for the properties of strongly interacting matter?

Nothing, apparently.

But boy we could sure use some answers.

Anyone?

Q_0134 - What governs the transition of quarks and gluons into pions and nucleons?

Research dollars?

Q_0135 - What is the role of gluons and gluon self-interactions in nucleons and nuclei?

Define $Wisecrack
Insert $Wisecrack

Q_0136 - What determines the key features of QCD,[?]

GOOD QUESTION.

Q_0137 - and what is their relation to the nature of gravity... [?]

Don't you dare.

Don't even think about mentioning gravity in the same breath as QCD.

I think I officially dislike QCD more than the Higgs. Which is saying something. (And a lot more than QCD theory does, apparently.)

Q_0138 - and what is their relation to the nature of ...spacetime? [?]

Incestuous.

Q_0139 - Do glueballs exist?

Yes. Check the underside of your chair.

Q_0140 - Do gluons acquire mass dynamically [?]

Wow, the third time "gluons" is linked, in one paragraph. Why?

Nevermind.

So, yes. Make that no. Or yes.

Q_0141 - [Do gluons have] zero rest mass,[?]

Even the poorly defined rest mass gets muddier when linked to the mighty QCD river of brown.

Q_0142 - [Do gluons have] zero rest mass, within hadrons[?]

This must be what it was like to be called before McCarthy.

Q_0143 - Does QCD truly lack CP-violations?

QCD truly lacks balls.

<<<

Nuclei and Nuclear astrophysics
What is the nature of the nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons into stable nuclei and rare isotopes? What is the origin of simple patterns in complex nuclei? What is the nature of exotic excitations in nuclei at the frontiers of stability and their role in stellar processes? What is the nature of neutron stars and dense nuclear matter? What is the origin of the elements in the cosmos? What are the nuclear reactions that drive stars and stellar explosions?

>>>

Q_0144 - What is the nature of the nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons into stable nuclei and rare isotopes?

Good question. [Mind you, after that QCD fiasco, if you had asked me "What time is it?" I think I would still want to jump up and hug you.]

Spring-And-Loop Theory would say "geometry". Or "mechanics".

You need to model. With a good theory (like Spring-And-Loop Theory). And you will find out it is indeed a geometric, mechanical, inevitability.

Q_0145 - What is the origin of simple patterns in complex nuclei?

Spring-And-Loop Theory would say "simple building blocks".

The only kind Spring-And-Loop Theory has.

Q_0146 - What is the nature of exotic excitations in nuclei at the frontiers of stability...[?]

Uh, something exotic?

Q_0147 - [What is the role of exotic excitations in nuclei] in stellar processes?

Seriously?

Something exotic, and far away.

Q_0148 - What is the nature of neutron stars [?]

When you visit the Wikipedia page on Neutron_stars...

...you find no controversy. No "problems" section.

So what the heck is the question? I mean, doesn't this excerpt say it all?:
Neutron stars are the end points of stars whose mass after nuclear burning is greater than the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarfs, but whose mass is not great enough to overcome the neutron degeneracy pressure to become black holes.

Q_0149 - [What is the nature of] dense nuclear matter?

Answered already. With "poor question".

Q_0150 - What is the origin of the elements in the cosmos?

Costco?

Q_0151 - What are the nuclear reactions that drive stars and stellar explosions?

Revenge against Greenpeace?

<<<

Atomic, molecular and optical physics

Hydrogen atom
What is the solution to the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom in arbitrary electric and magnetic fields?[26]

>>>

Q_0152 - What is the solution to the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom in arbitrary electric and magnetic fields?

The quality of questions on this page has definitely deteriorated...

This appears to have been answered ninety years ago, when Einstein "enthusiastically endorsed" Schrödinger's 1926 paper.

<<<

Helium atom
The helium atom is the simplest three-body problem in quantum mechanics; while approximations to a solution to the Schrödinger equation for He exist,[27] can an exact solution be found?[28]

>>>

The helium atom is the simplest three-body problem in quantum mechanics;

Is the helium atom the simplest three-body problem in quantum mechanics?

It appears to be the simplest. That we know of.

Spring-And-Loop Theory can envisage a near infinity of "bodies", most either small and/or unstable. Modelling will ultimately determine their relative stabilities, and properties.

Q_0153 - while approximations to a solution to the Schrödinger equation for He exist, can an exact solution [to the Schrödinger equation for the helium atom] be found?

Spring-And-Loop Theory is more interested in working on the problem with a better theory than Quantum Mechanics.

Spring-And-Loop Theory : Quantum Mechanics :: LCD : CRT

<<<

Muonic hydrogen
Is the radius of muonic hydrogen inconsistent with the radius of ordinary hydrogen?

>>>

Q_0154 - Is the radius of muonic hydrogen inconsistent with the radius of ordinary hydrogen?

Already answered.

So, yes.

Different things are still different.

<<<

Condensed matter physics

High-temperature superconductors

What is the mechanism that causes certain materials to exhibit superconductivity at temperatures much higher than around 25 kelvin? Is it possible to make a material that is a superconductor at room temperature?[13]

>>>

Q_0155 - What is the mechanism that causes certain materials to exhibit superconductivity at temperatures much higher than around 25 kelvin?

This field, and thus humanity, will benefit from the modelling of Spring-And-Loop Theory.

But Spring-And-Loop Theory believes that companies should pay for their own research.

Q_0156 - Is it possible to make a material that is a superconductor at room temperature?

Yes it is. Any camel that recently passed through the eye of a needle knows this.

<<<

Amorphous solids
What is the nature of the glass transition between a fluid or regular solid and a glassy phase? What are the physical processes giving rise to the general properties of glasses and the glass transition?[29][30]

>>>

Q_0157 - What is the nature of the glass transition between a fluid or regular solid and a glassy phase?

It is of the nature of something happening at a tiny scale that we do not have a good model of. Although these guys might disagree.

Q_0158 - What are the physical processes giving rise to the general properties of glasses ...?

Small ones.

Q_0159 - What are the physical processes giving rise to the general properties of ... the glass transition?

Those same small ones.

<<<

Cryogenic electron emission
Why does the electron emission in the absence of light increase as the temperature of a photomultiplier is decreased?[31][32]

>>>

Q_0160 - Why does the electron emission in the absence of light increase as the temperature of a photomultiplier is decreased?

Great question.

An effect first noticed 50 years ago yet Wikipedia has no page on the subject.

Spring-And-Loop Theory would suggest that the photomultiplier -- a device designed to detect extremely small quantities of photons -- i.e. spring bumps -- could be simply picking up "bigger than average" spring bumps. One hundred year waves.

<<<

Sonoluminescence
What causes the emission of short bursts of light from imploding bubbles in a liquid when excited by sound?[33]

>>>

Q_0161 - What causes the emission of short bursts of light from imploding bubbles in a liquid when excited by sound?

When you crack a whip, the tip moves at the speed of sound.

Springs move at the speed of light.

When you "crack" a bubble (i.e. the bubble pops), the long chain soap molecules whip around.

Spring-And-Loop Theory can imagine one or more of the bubble molecules moving some part of itself at light speed due to this microscopic whip-cracking effect.

<<<

Turbulence
Is it possible to make a theoretical model to describe the statistics of a turbulent flow (in particular, its internal structures)?[13] Also, under what conditions do smooth solutions to the Navier–Stokes equations exist? This problem is also listed as one of the Millennium Prize Problems in mathematics. Alfvénic turbulence in the solar wind and the turbulence in solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and magnetospheric substorms are major unsolved problems in space plasma physics.[34]

>>>

Q_0162 - Is it possible to make a theoretical model [?]

Eventually, yes.

Spring-And-Loop Theory is authored by a chemical engineer, who "gets" that turbulence is one of those "holy grail" subjects to a CHML.

Still, we will have to do the first works first.

So do your homework, and brush your teeth, kids.

Q_0163 - [Is it possible to make a model] to describe the statistics of a turbulent flow [?]

Answered.

Q_0164 - [Is it possible to model the internal structures of] turbulent flow [?]

Answered.

Q_0165 - Also, under what conditions do smooth solutions to the Navier–Stokes equations exist?

Answered.

Q_0166 - This problem is also listed as one of the Millennium Prize Problems in mathematics. Alfvénic turbulence in the solar wind and the turbulence in solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and magnetospheric substorms are major unsolved problems in space plasma physics.

Answered.

<<<

Topological order
Is topological order stable at non-zero temperature? Equivalently, is it possible to have three-dimensional self-correcting quantum memory?[35]

>>>

Q_0167 - [What] is topological order [?]

Click the linked phrase above to read the answer.

Q_0168 - Is topological order stable at non-zero temperature?

On clicking the linked phrase above, the author discovered a page full of complex concepts and theories. One theory -- the one the page is named for -- being newer than the rest.

These types of questions should be grouped within a section. And as soon as one can show that the section has major flaws, then none of the sub-questions need to be answered and in fact the whole section can be removed, or moved.

Working theories, people, working theories.

Q_0169 - Equivalently, is it possible to have three-dimensional self-correcting quantum memory?

I was just about to ask that.

<<<

Fractional Hall effect
What mechanism explains the existence of the v = 5/2 state in the fractional quantum Hall effect? Does it describe quasiparticles with non-Abelian fractional statistics?[36]

>>>

Q_0170 - [What is the] fractional quantum Hall effect?

See the answer to the previous question.

Q_0171 - What mechanism explains the existence of the v = 5/2 state in the fractional quantum Hall effect?

See the answer to the previous question.

Q_0172 - Does it describe quasiparticles ...?

See the answer to the previous question.

Q_0173 - Does it describe quasiparticles with non-Abelian fractional statistics?

No. Only David Letterman can describe those.

<<<

Bose–Einstein condensation
How do we rigorously prove the existence of Bose–Einstein condensates for general interacting systems?[37]

>>>

Q_0174 - How do we rigorously prove the existence of Bose–Einstein condensates for general interacting systems?

Another poorly written question.

Visiting the "Bose–Einstein_condensation" page reveals that everyone is fine with BECs. They can be created, have properties and go away when you sneeze.

Rather than "rigorously proving" the existence of them, don't you want to know how they work? If so, you need a model. One that understands basic stuff like...you know...gravity.

<<<

Liquid crystals
Can the nematic to smectic (A) phase transition in liquid crystal states be characterized as a universal phase transition?[38][39]

>>>

Q_0175 - [What is] the nematic phase transition?

Something that Wikipedia explains, with pretty pictures?

Q_0176 - [What is] the smetic (A) phase transition?

Also something that Wikipedia explains, with pretty pictures?

Q_0177 - Can the nematic to smectic (A) phase transition in liquid crystal states be characterized as a universal phase transition?

The question writer linked the word "universal" above to a Wikipedia page on "Background_independence". And when you go there, the word "universal" does not appear.

What gives with the questions in the latter half of this page?

Spring-And-Loop Theory still thinks companies should pay for their own research.

<<<

Semiconductor nanocrystals
What is the cause of the nonparabolicity of the energy-size dependence for the lowest optical absorption transition of quantum dots?[40]

>>>

Q_0178 - What is nonparabolicity?

Wikipedia doesn't have a page on this word.

Q_0179 - What is energy-size dependence?

Wikipedia doesn't have a page on this phrase.

Q_0180 - What is the lowest optical absorption transition?

Wikipedia doesn't have a page on this phrase.

Q_0181 - What are quantum dots?

All of that craptacular verbiage for something Wikipedia defines as:
A quantum dot is a nanocrystal made of semiconductor materials that are small enough to exhibit quantum mechanical properties.

I mean really, what's the point?

Could there be a simpler concept?

Mind you, someone could make a good buck off a better understanding of semiconductors...

Q_0182 - What is the cause of the nonparabolicity of the energy-size dependence for the lowest optical absorption transition of quantum dots?

Termites?

Do your own research, semiconductor company X.

<<<

Electronic band structure
Why can band gaps not accurately be calculated?

>>>

Q_0183 - [What are] band gaps?

Ok, Wikipedia does a pretty good job explaining what they are.

Q_0184 - Why can band gaps not accurately be calculated?

Because the theories being used are not right?

Try discarding the good old physics, that has as many flaws as the single bullet theory.

Try modelling. With Spring-And-Loop Theory.

<<<

Biophysics

Stochasticity and robustness to noise in gene expression
How do genes govern our body, withstanding different external pressures and internal stochasticity? Certain models exist for genetic processes, but we are far from understanding the whole picture, in particular in development where gene expression must be tightly regulated.

>>>

Not a physics question.

<<<

Quantitative study of the immune system
What are the quantitative properties of immune responses? What are the basic building blocks of immune system networks? What roles are played by stochasticity?

>>>

Not a physics question.

<<<

Homochirality
What is the origin of the preponderance of specific enantiomers in biochemical systems?

>>>

Not a physics question.

<<<

Other problems

Entropy (arrow of time)
Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past, resulting in the distinction between past and future and the second law of thermodynamics?[13] Why are CP violations observed in certain weak force decays, but not elsewhere? Are CP violations somehow a product of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or are they a separate arrow of time? Are there exceptions to the principle of causality? Is there a single possible past? Is the present moment physically distinct from the past and future or is it merely an emergent property of consciousness?

>>>

Q_0185 - Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past,[?]

Let's reference page 63 of Sean Carroll's "From Eternity To Here" for some numbers:
Sean puts the entropy at 1088 in the "early" universe, at about 10101 today and says it could rise to maximum of about 10120 if everything in the Universe was in a single black hole.

Spring-And-Loop Theory is not comfortable with the "big bang" theory. A very substantial component of it -- the inflationary phase -- is quite obviously ludicrous.

The only reason Spring-And-Loop Theory tolerates the "big bang" concept at all, is that (supposedly) the magic amounts/ratios of hydrogen and helium in the universe today can only be explained by a big bang happening 13.5B years ago.

That being said, Spring-And-Loop Theory has no reason to try to reconcile a theoretic entropy figure of 1088 in the past, with today's figure.

That is for big bang fans to try to justify.

Q_0186 - [If the universe had such low entropy in the past, did this] result in the distinction between past and future and the second law of thermodynamics?

Spring-And-Loop Theory sees no connection between a theory of what allegedly happened 13.5B years ago, and today's world. Let those who make theory X defend theory X.

Besides, this question is quite backwards.

It gives precedence to a wild theory, and then asks if today's more "reasonable" appearing world is the result of this wild theory.

So, no.

Q_0187 - Why are CP violations observed in certain weak force decays, but not elsewhere?

Spring-And-Loop Theory has talked about the deficiencies of other theories.

It is somewhat amusing to see how many times their issues appear on this page.

Look, you can either hack your weak weak force theory, or adopt a new one.

Spring-And-Loop Theory will wait over there for you to decide.

Q_0188 - Are CP violations somehow a product of the Second Law of Thermodynamics,[?]

I blame the Federal Reserve. Did you know it is a private corporation?

Q_0189 - [Are CP violations] a separate arrow of time?

Let's ask Robin Hood, shall we?

On a slightly more serious note, there has been a recent rash of books about time. This is quite odd, considering how flawed our current understanding is of more important things like gravity, and dark things and energies, and such.

Physics in the year 2014 (or 2013 or ...) is in the doldrums.

Patch, or fantasize, seem to be the two main choices for the "publish or perish" crowd.

Spring-And-Loop Theory has taken the third choice of "introduce a new theory, built on extremely basic and fundamental things, test and expand upon it, and watch how it grows firm and tall despite the hurricane-force winds of nonsense swirling around it."

But Spring-And-Loop Theory understands the risks involved in the introduction of a new order.

The Spring-And-Loop Theory tree could quite easily be trampled on, uprooted or stolen-then-rebranded. Such is the way of this world. The world of the 1%.

Q_0190 - Are there exceptions to the principle of causality?

No. But boy do we love to think otherwise.

"Can I drink alcohol, and not suffer?"

"Can I lie, steal or cheat and not take a karmic hit?"

"Can I be part of the group controlling the world? The group that takes lying to a new level. That is quite content to turn their collective backs on a billion hungry souls each day. But is not content with controlling 99% of the money supply, so has to vote itself trillion dollar bailouts."

So, no again.

Q_0191 - Is there a single possible past?

Yes. And there are also more important questions to wrestle with.

Q_0192 - Is the present moment physically distinct from the past and future or is it merely an emergent property of consciousness?

Physically distinct from the past and future.

<<<

Quantum mechanics in the correspondence limit (sometimes called Quantum chaos)
Is there a preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics? How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the superposition of states and wavefunction collapse or quantum decoherence, give rise to the reality we perceive? Another way of stating this is the Measurement problem – what constitutes a "measurement" which causes the wave function to collapse into a definite state?

>>>

Q_0193 - [What is] the correspondence limit[?]

Wikipedia says "The conditions under which quantum and classical physics agree are referred to as the correspondence limit"

Q_0194 - [What is] Quantum chaos[?]

Not at all related to the "correspondence limit", despite how they are equated in the sentence above.

The way the statement above is worded is somewhat like "...the rule of law (sometimes called the rule of war)..."

How about we deal with those two things separately, shall we?

By the way, isn't it interesting how much war -- humans killing humans -- is inserted into our lives? Truly a ubiquitous campaign. Probably 90% of movies involve killing, murder, murder mystery, war, future wars, past wars, super heroes fighting each other, men and women fighting, swearing and being dishonest with each other.

"Give me a child until it is 5 years old, and I will make it love war for life."

So, what is quantum chaos? War. War is quantum chaos.

Q_0195 - Is there a preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics?

"Could you, you know, go through my theory and choose what you think are the best parts, then just sort of sweep the other parts into the trash?"

Spring-And-Loop Theory would prefer each theory make its own bed, and sleep in it.

Q_0196 - [What is] the superposition of states?

Three out of five wikipedia links in this section have top banners complaining about the issues within said pages.

Wiki: "Please clean your room."
QM: "I don't want to."

Alrighty then.

Q_0197 - [What is] wavefunction collapse[?]

Sneaky -- the complaint banner is half way down the "wavefunction collapse" page...

Q_0198 - [What is] quantum decoherence[?]

TWO complaint banners on quantum decoherence page.
TWO complaint banners on quantum decoherence page.

Q_0199 - How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the superposition of states and wavefunction collapse or quantum decoherence, give rise to the reality we perceive?

Tenuously.

Unless you have faith.

And a big stick.

To beat the non-believers with.

Q_0200 - [What is] the Measurement problem[?]

No complaint banner!

It helps that the page is the shortest in this group.

And that it defines the problem, rather than trying to fix it.

Still, an admirable achievement for QM.

Q_0201 - what constitutes a "measurement" which causes the wave function to collapse into a definite state?

Personally, I blame Woodrow Wilson. He seems to have felt quite bad after he realized what he had done.

Heh, how 'bout them Bears?

<<<

Theory of everything ("Grand Unification Theory")
Is there a theory which explains the values of all fundamental physical constants?[13] Is the theory string theory? Is there a theory which explains why the gauge groups of the standard model are as they are, why observed space-time has 3 spatial dimensions and 1 dimension of time, and why all laws of physics are as they are? Do "fundamental physical constants" vary over time? Are any of the particles in the standard model of particle physics actually composite particles too tightly bound to observe as such at current experimental energies? Are there fundamental particles that have not yet been observed and if so which ones are they and what are their properties? Are there unobserved fundamental forces implied by a theory that explains other unsolved problems in physics?

>>>

Q_0202 - Is there a theory which explains the values of all fundamental physical constants?

Not at present, no.

Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks it can get closer than older, slower theories. Mainly by tripping them up.

Q_0203 - Is the theory string theory?

String Theory is a lovely theory. For all the other theories.

"Your theory stinks."
"Heh, at least I'm not String Theory."
"Good point."

"You should be thankful. Your dad had to study String Theory when he was a kid, and it was uphill, both ways."
"Thanks, daddy, for sacrificing so much for us!"

"String Theory is the best theory ever invented."
"Except for all the others."

So, no.

Q_0204 - Is there a theory which explains why the gauge groups of the standard model are as they are,[?]

Won't someone please clean up the mess for us?

Q_0205 - [Is there a theory which explains] why observed space-time has 3 spatial dimensions and 1 dimension of time,[?]

How about we just accept it?

Consider this the "The emperor is in fact wearing clothes." response.

Because what you are really saying is "Our theory requires more dimensions, so that we can prop up our theory with one or more truly egregious hacks. So if you could make way, dimensions-wise, we would surely appreciate it."

Q_0206 - [Is there a theory which explains] why all laws of physics are as they are?

Spring-And-Loop Theory.

For most of the laws, anyway.

Some laws that don't take into account edge effects -- for example, information loss in a black hole -- will have to be revised.

Other "laws" that declare the Speed of Light to be a constant will have to be flat-out changed.

So, yes. Yes there is.

Q_0207 - Do "fundamental physical constants" vary over time?

The speed of light does.

So, yes.

Q_0208 - Are any of the particles in the standard model of particle physics actually composite particles too tightly bound to observe as such at current experimental energies?

Let me fire up the old microscope and have a look...

Hmmmmm.

It says here "If you can read this, you must have Planck-ray vision."

So, probably. [See what I did there?]

Q_0209 - Are there fundamental particles that have not yet been observed[?]

Yes.

Q_0210 - What fundamental particles have not yet been observed [?]

Those ones over there.

Q_0211 - what are the properties [of the fundamental particles that have not yet been observed]?

Boardwalk and Park Place?

Q_0212 - Are there unobserved fundamental forces implied by a theory that explains other unsolved problems in physics?

I hereby bestow the "Priceless question of the page" award on this very question.

Wear it proudly my friend.

<<<

Yang–Mills theory
Given an arbitrary compact gauge group, does a non-trivial quantum Yang–Mills theory with a finite mass gap exist? This problem is also listed as one of the Millennium Prize Problems in mathematics.

>>>

Q_0213 - Given an arbitrary compact gauge group,[?]

Ok, first the good news -- no mention of the Higgs on that g.g. page!

But we did encounter Yet Another Thinly Disguised Attempt By A Flawed Theory To Get Someone Else To Repair It.

A YATDABAFTTGSETRI sighting!

Call the EPA.

Q_0214 - does a non-trivial quantum Yang–Mills theory with a finite mass gap exist? This problem is also listed as one of the Millennium Prize Problems in mathematics.

More gauge sightings, and a Higgs mention.

Bailiff, I want this question removed!

<<<

Physical information
Are there physical phenomena, such as wave function collapse or black holes, which irrevocably destroy information about their prior states? How is quantum information stored as a state of a quantum system?

>>>

Q_0215 - Are there physical phenomena, such as wave function collapse ..., which irrevocably destroy information about their prior states?

YATDABAFTTGSETRI.

Q_0216 - Are there physical phenomena, such as ...black holes, which irrevocably destroy information about their prior states?

Yes, as discussed here.

Q_0217 - How is quantum information stored as a state of a quantum system?

By a quantum theorist.

And carefully.

<<<

Quantum Computation
Is David Deutsch's notion of a universal quantum computer sufficient to efficiently simulate an arbitrary physical system?[41]

>>>

Q_0218 - Is David Deutsch's notion of a universal quantum computer sufficient to efficiently simulate an arbitrary physical system?

Yes. Several times.

<<<

Dimensionless physical constant
At the present time, the values of the dimensionless physical constants cannot be calculated; they are determined only by physical measurement.[42] What is the minimum number of dimensionless physical constants from which all other dimensionless physical constants can be derived? Are dimensionful physical constants necessary at all?

>>>

Q_0219 - At the present time, the values of the dimensionless physical constants cannot be calculated; they are determined only by physical measurement. What is the minimum number of dimensionless physical constants from which all other dimensionless physical constants can be derived?

e(iπ) + 1

Q_0220 - Are dimensionful physical constants necessary at all?

Google returned 54,100 pages containing "dimensionful". I had no idea, and shall endeavour to use the word dimensionful more often.

Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks there is only one dimensionful physical constant -- the speed of light.

Planck's constant, a dimensionful constant that relates energy to frequency, is related to the speed of light (i.e. spring-spring bump speed) and frequency (i.e. spring-spring bump speed).

Gravity, another dimensionful constant, is similarly derivable by Spring-And-Loop Theory.

By the way, there is a wikipedia page for Dimensionful. Or, at least a page that "Dimensionful" redirects into. Anyway, the strange thing about the dimensionful page, is that it only mentions dimensionful twice. With the first mention of dimensionful barely counting, as it appears at the top of the "Dimensional analysis" page, in brackets, as "(Redirected from Dimensionful)".

You see, if you go directly to the "Dimensional_analysis" page, that "Dimensionful" redirects into, there is no "(Redirected from Dimensionful)", at the top. So, I'll let you decide if that counts as a mention of Dimensionful, or not. If it doesn't then Wikipedia itself only uses the word "dimensionful" once. On the dimensionful page!

So, yes, dimensionful physical constants are necessary.

<<<

Problems solved in recent decades

<snip>

Solar neutrino problem (2002)
Solved by a new understanding of neutrino physics, requiring a modification of the Standard Model of particle physics—specifically, neutrino oscillation.

>>>

Q_0221 - [Does] neutrino oscillation [solve the Solar_neutrino_problem[?]

Spring-And-Loop Theory enjoys thinking about neutrinos, primarily because it is one of the few truly unsolved problems in physics. Despite it appearing in this "solved" section.

For example, just this month, phys.org had a story about "sterile" neutrinos. Yes, a new kind.

Quoting:
"A new kind of neutrino, called 'sterile' because it has no interaction with other known neutrinos. A sterile neutrino does have mass, and so could be responsible for the missing dark matter."

So Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks we will be pondering neutrinos for quite some time to come.

And that is a good thing...because new physics is fun.

<<<

Age Crisis (1990s)
The estimated age of the universe was around 3 to 8 billion years younger than estimates of the ages of the oldest stars in our galaxy. Better estimates for the distances to the stars, and the recognition of the accelerating expansion of the universe, reconciled the age estimates.

>>>

Q_0222 - [Do] better estimates for the distances to the stars, and the recognition of the accelerating expansion of the universe, reconcile the [3 to 8 billion years younger original] age estimates[?]

For what it is worth, Wikipedia doesn't appear to be completely happy with that Age_crisis page...

Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks that the estimated age of the universe, like many other "big picture" subjects, will continue to change over time.

Enjoy the ride.

<<<

The five other solved problems, and the "References" section have been <snipped>

 


 
Two stories came out just as I was finalizing this talk and video:

(1) Computing a Winner, Fusion a Loser In US Science Budget

Backing up my repeated mention of the value of simulations to the future of physics.

(2) The Rise and Fall of Supersymmetry

The LHC, i.e. the latest atom smasher, has failed to support Supersymmetry (i.e. SUSY). Time to stick a fork in it. It's done.

 

 


 

COASALT

Introduction

The Speed Of Light   Black Holes   Einstein's Equation   The Ether   Gravity
222 Answers   The Atom   Quantum World   Neutrino   Black Holes Revisited
The Comedy Of Science   et=mc3   Comparing Physics Theories
Diffuse Interstellar Bands   Einstein's Ether Talk   No Strong Force
The Electron   Relativity   Unification   Assumptions
 


 


Spring-And-Loop Theory by Floyd Maxwell is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Other subjects   Site Map   Contact
 

Quotes provided by:

Click here (then click Join Group) to subscribe