What Are Junk Miles

[Grouse]

Enlighten you? Now you're talking Grasshopper...

[fozzy]

Nobody understands quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an attempt to understand something.

Whilst I would conceed that very few people understand Quantum Mechanics fully, I wouldn't say nobody.

However your second comment is exactly right.

[Grouse]

Wow that's some bright seven year old kid.

[Grouse]

It's still concedes, but at least you two agree on something.

[fozzy]

It's still concedes, but at least you two agree on something.

Yes, of course, you are correct. When I get on a roll, I sometimes make the odd spelling error. Even those of us with PhDs occasionally do it!

[wormstone]

So, this Einsteinberg character - did he do much running or not?

[Grouse]

But how can you understand something that is an attempt to understand i.e. a model of somethng that actually doesn't fit with other models? I'm not being deliberately obtuse here (for a change) but I'm interested. And even in deep space, in the absence of any particles - i.e. a vacuum, isn't there spacetime? And is it true that (as far as we know) before the big bang there was not space time, so in that sense there was nothing? Or was there infinite energy? Or don't we know? I got GCE chemistry and maths - so come on. Sock it to me.

[Grouse]

Eisensteinburger said the faster you run the older you get.

[fozzy]

But how can you understand something that is an attempt to understand i.e. a model of somethng that actually doesn't fit with other models? I'm not being deliberately obtuse here (for a change) but I'm interested. And even in deep space, in the absence of any particles - i.e. a vacuum, isn't there spacetime? And is it true that (as far as we know) before the big bang there was not space time, so in that sense there was nothing? Or was there infinite energy? Or don't we know? I got GCE chemistry and maths - so come on. Sock it to me.

The truth is that before the big bang, we do not know what was there. Physics cannot tell us that, because the laws of Physics were created at the point of the big bang. Here will have to resort to Philosophy. However, there are Physicists and mathematicians who are working on ideas that get round this problem, but there is still a large dose of philosophical arguments in their reasoning (M-theory, string theory etc). At the exact moment of the big bang, there was an infinite amount of energy (hence big bang!) present. We know this. What we do not know is where this energy came from, or what caused the big bang or even if there was a "before" (time was also created in the big bang).
Space-time is one of those concepts that is still not fully understood (to the best of my knowledge), and yes you are right, it is everywhere - it goes into the aforementioned string and M-theories. I know very little about these - I haven't read enough about them and I don't know the mathematics.
As to your first question above, the theory or model is an attempt to put the thing we are trying to describe into terms that we can understand. Some theories describe very specific things, for example a simple spring-lattice molecule, where all the molecules are connected by "springs" can be used to describe some solids, like ice, but this doesn't fit in with Quantum mechanical descriptions of the same solids. This is because although the spring-lattice model describes simple beahviour well, it is too simple to describe more complicated behaviour, and is a "coarse-graining" of the more detailed model to allow us to understand it more clearly.
Most physical models are continuously adapted and modified to represent new discoveries and findings.
When two theories are said to contradict each other, then it is generally because they are two established theories that are well grounded and we haven't worked out how to combine the two. This is sometimes very difficult, which is why a Grand Unified Theory (Or Theory of Everything) still eludes us.

[Filippo Acciaiuoli]

Apologies to everyone else by the way, but if Mr Leigh will argue with me about Physics!....

I think Mr Leigh will argue about anything: he has quanta of time and energy.

However I don't think he argues with intellectual credibilty on any subject.

Hence when challenged he ducks and weaves, changes the subject, his ground, his tenets, allocates statements to others that have not been asserted & etc.

And throws in a few gratuitous insults to universally well respected people like Sarah R. Where's the benefit there?

Now this is mostly good knock-about-fun on a Forum for fell runners; but we really should not be taking the utterances from anyone who cannot distinguish between affect and effect too seriously.

And his silly views on drugs? Well no one can be so self-aggrandising with hubris around the corner so it must all be a huge joke to pass the time of day. But, as I reflected this mornng when I heard a child tell a joke that I would tell at primary school, after a while even the best jokes pall.

Arrivederci!