Thermodynamics Suggests Creation

[durangodawood]

But we already understand energy can neither be created or destroyed. It isnt the energy that is undergoing entropy, but the matter itself....

So? Entropy doesnt imply a change in the amount of matter either.

 

[sjastro]

http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf

Frumiousbandersnatch:

Interesting Einstein’s eq (1) of the paper has the Schwarzschild metric in isotropic coordinates.

The Schwarzschild metric when expressed in non isotropic coordinates,
ds² = (1- μ/2r) dt² - dr²/(1- μ/2r) - r²(dθ² +sinθdφ²) leads to the conclusion the speed of a photon moving in radial direction is different to a photon in a circular orbit.

To transform to isotropic coordinates requires the transformation of the radial coordinate r.
The trouble is in isotropic coordinates the radial coordinate has no physical significance.
Einstein had made the mistake of refuting a mathematical model rather than a physical model.

Fortunately Einstein’s mistakes were few and far between.
Another Einstein mistake along similar lines which was fortunately picked up by Howard Robertson one of the main players in the development of the Big Bang theory involved gravitational waves.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf

Frumiousbandersnatch:

Interesting Einstein’s eq (1) of the paper has the Schwarzschild metric in isotropic coordinates.

The Schwarzschild metric when expressed in non isotropic coordinates,
ds² = (1- μ/2r) dt² - dr²/(1- μ/2r) - r²(dθ² +sinθdφ²) leads to the conclusion the speed of a photon moving in radial direction is different to a photon in a circular orbit.

To transform to isotropic coordinates requires the transformation of the radial coordinate r.
The trouble is in isotropic coordinates the radial coordinate has no physical significance.
Einstein had made the mistake of refuting a mathematical model rather than a physical model.

Fortunately Einstein’s mistakes were few and far between.
Another Einstein mistake along similar lines which was fortunately picked up by Howard Robertson one of the main players in the development of the Big Bang theory involved gravitational waves.

When one introduces these values of the functions f in the expression (9) of the line element
and goes back to the usual polar co-ordinates one gets the line element that forms the exact solution of Einstein’s problem:

Which as his original paper shows is not even remotely the same metric you have come to know as the Schwarzschild metric. What is claimed today as his metric is not even his metric, but is the corrupted version by others.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9905030.pdf

That's all any of them are. Mathematical models..... None of them are physical models.....

http://www.ptep-online.com/2006/PP-05-10.PDF

"What the theoreticians routinely fail to state clearly is that the black hole comes from a solution to Einstein’s field equations when
treating of the problem of the motion of a test particle of negligible mass in the vicinity of a single gravitating body. The gravitational field of the test particle is considered too small to affect the overall field and is therefore neglected. Therefore, Hilbert’s solution is a solution for one gravitating body interacting with a test particle. It is not a solution for the interaction of two or more comparable masses. Indeed, there is no known solution to Einstein’s field equations for more than one gravitating body. In fact, it is not even known if Einstein’s field equations actually admit of solutions for multi-body configurations. Therefore, there can be no meaningful theoretical discussion of black hole binaries or colliding black holes, unless it can be shown that Einstein’s field equations contain, hidden within them, solutions for such configurations of matter. Without at least an existence theorem for multi-body configurations, all talk of black hole binaries and black hole collisions is twaddle"

Not to mention all black hole solutions set the energy tensor to zero. This means the black hole is alone in a universe devoid of all other matter. Einstein’s equations require an energy tensor describing the gravitational field for all bodies of mass.

This is what made it even a theoretical possibility in the first place. It was alone in a universe devoid of all other matter. Hence the term coined “singularity”. Single, one, etc.

They also require an asomptotically flat universe. The second you add another black hole it is no longer asomptotically anything. And also is not compatible with elucidian space.....

 

[SkyWriting]

Where this initial blob came from is unknown - there are numerous hypotheses consistent with the underlying physical models that describe our universe. The 'singularity' produced by extrapolating back to the start indicates that GR alone is not sufficient to describe this state - we need to integrate it with quantum mechanics (a complete quantum theory of gravity). It doesn't mean the universe came from nothing, but that we can't yet describe it earlier than those moments.

Nothing existed before Big Bang: Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking says 'nothing' was around before origin of universe

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's just the problem in reality isn't it. General relativity which is indeed well tested, Ill go so far as to say with a 99.8% accuracy, needs not a single speck of that differently behaving "stuff" where it has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy. It's only when you then attempt to apply this 99.8% accurate theory to the matter that makes up the other 99.9% of the universe does one need to add 96% of differently behaving stuff. None of the "stuff" was needed where it tested to a 99.8% accuracy......

It's not a question of what GR 'needs', but what has been tested. Relativistic quantum mechanics didn't 'need' positrons when Dirac predicted their existence.

Don't try to tie quantum theory to GR. There exists no quantum theory of gravity that produces any useful results.....

I wouldn't dream of it - but a lot of people who are qualified for such things are trying.

"QFT was previously believed to be truly fundamental; however, it is now believed, primarily because of the continued failures of quantization of general relativity, to be only a very good low-energy approximation, i.e. an effective field theory, to a more fundamental theory.[4]"


Which fundamental theory will rule out those weird "stuff"......

"The first achievement of quantum field theory, namely quantum electrodynamics (QED), is "still the paradigmatic example of a successful quantum field theory"

Yes; and?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But we already understand energy can neither be created or destroyed. It isnt the energy that is undergoing entropy, but the matter itself....

Not really - entropy is about the statistical distribution of energy and matter. Even distributions, e.g. heat-death, have high entropy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How would they know since it's not part of our "observable" universe?????

Inference. We can use observation to infer things we cannot directly observe, just as you can infer that the Earth is larger than the visible horizon.

For example, we observe that the most distant light appears to be 13.8 billion years old, and we also observe that the universe has been expanding since that time. Therefore we can infer that those galaxies must now be much further away - estimates suggest at least 46.5 billion light-years, which makes the universe a minimum 93 billion light-years across, without assuming space beyond the observable universe.

There are other ways of estimating what's out there, such as the curvature of spacetime; GR suggests that it can be positively curved, negatively curved, or flat. Only the first option would imply a closed, spatially finite universe. A number of different observations suggest that the topology of our universe is flat to a precision of 0.25%, which implies it could be spatially infinite - but if it was not infinite, it would have to be at least 250 times bigger than the observable volume (or we'd measure a greater curvature). This makes it at least 23 trillion light years across, containing at least 15 million volumes the size of the observable universe ('Hubble volume'). 15 million isolated Hubble volumes makes it a minimal candidate for a cosmological multiverse.

There are also arguments that imply the universe may be significantly larger, but these depend on hypotheses about the causes of the big bang, e.g. inflation theory, that are somewhat speculative.

The observable universe is also much larger than we thought in another sense - the number of galaxies. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field suggested estimates of around 200 billion galaxies, but more recent studies based on Hubble data put it at at least 10 times more than that, i.e. two trillion galaxies; again without assuming space beyond the observable volume.

 

[sjastro]

When one introduces these values of the functions f in the expression (9) of the line element
and goes back to the usual polar co-ordinates one gets the line element that forms the exact solution of Einstein’s problem:

What incomprehensible blather are you going on about?
Expression (9) in Einstein’s paper is not a line element but a component of the Einstein tensor Guv.
The polar coordinate equations which are defined below equation (2) define r as the radius.
The problem with the paper is that in equation (1) r is not a physical radius but in isotropic coordinates defined by the transformation r → r(1+m/2r)².
For space-time that is for intents and purposes flat such as in our solar system beyond Mercury’s orbit, or when it becomes asymptotically flat at large distances from the gravitational source, the isotopic version of r is the same the radius r but not so in the case of black holes.

Which as his original paper shows is not even remotely the same metric you have come to know as the Schwarzschild metric. What is claimed today as his metric is not even his metric, but is the corrupted version by others.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9905030.pdf

That's all any of them are. Mathematical models..... None of them are physical models.....

http://www.ptep-online.com/2006/PP-05-10.PDF

"What the theoreticians routinely fail to state clearly is that the black hole comes from a solution to Einstein’s field equations when
treating of the problem of the motion of a test particle of negligible mass in the vicinity of a single gravitating body. The gravitational field of the test particle is considered too small to affect the overall field and is therefore neglected. Therefore, Hilbert’s solution is a solution for one gravitating body interacting with a test particle. It is not a solution for the interaction of two or more comparable masses. Indeed, there is no known solution to Einstein’s field equations for more than one gravitating body. In fact, it is not even known if Einstein’s field equations actually admit of solutions for multi-body configurations. Therefore, there can be no meaningful by theoretical discussion of black hole binaries or colliding black holes, unless it can be shown that Einstein’s field equations contain, hidden within them, solutions for such configurations of matter. Without at least an existence theorem for multi-body configurations, all talk of black hole binaries and black hole collisions is twaddle"

You are not fooling anyone in providing links that are clearly beyond your level of understanding.

Unbeknown to you have contradicted Crothers’ paper in the second link by claiming General Relativity works in our solar system.
The “corrupt” or Hilbert version of the Schwarzschild metric goes beyond being a model for a static black hole but also explains the perihelion advance of Mercury’s orbit, predicted the gravitational bending of light and gravitational redshift of emission lines in the laboratory both of which have been confirmed by observation and experiment respectively.
The reason why it works in our solar system is that most of the mass resides with the Sun and any two body problem involving the Sun and a planet, the planet can be approximated as a point mass of a test particle.
General relativity being a non linear theory will only work for a two body problem if the mass difference is considerable.
Since the 1960’s much work has been done on linear approximations to General Relativity which have been successful in describing the interaction of bodies of similar masses such as black holes and neutron stars which produce gravitational waves.

Not to mention all black hole solutions set the energy tensor to zero. This means the black hole is alone in a universe devoid of all other matter. Einstein’s equations require an energy tensor describing the gravitational field for all bodies of mass.

This is what made it even a theoretical possibility in the first place. It was alone in a universe devoid of all other matter. Hence the term coined “singularity”. Single, one, etc.

They also require an asomptotically flat universe. The second you add another black hole it is no longer asomptotically anything. And also is not compatible with elucidian space.....

Do you actually understand what you write or simply paraphrase Crothers’ nonsense because of some vague ideological/religious connection?

Crothers' mistake is using Newtonian gravity in his line of argument. The notion of gravity in General Relativity is very different. Newtonian gravity has only one source, mass. General relativity has two sources mass and the gravitational field itself. We can illustrate the differences using small masses as there is an overlap between Newtonian physics and General Relativity for weak gravitational fields.

The equations that describe Newtonian gravity are linear. The theory would predict that if we measure the gravitational force between two small masses, we would find that if one of the masses was broken up into pieces, the sum of the forces between each piece and the unbroken mass would equal the total force between the two unbroken masses.

In General Relativity the equations are non linear. General Relativity would predict the sum of the forces to be greater than the total force between the masses.
In fact the sum of the masses of the pieces would be greater than the combined mass. The "missing mass" m is taken up by the binding energy E required to break up the mass into smaller pieces. The relationship between the missing mass and binding energy is the well known equation E=mc².
This has been confirmed experimentally. We find the atomic mass of atoms to be less than the sum of the masses of the individual protons, neutrons and electrons.
We can conclude the energy E is a source of gravity.

We can extend this idea to the field equations Guv=0.

These equations are non linear and tells us the gravitational field is also a source of gravity. Hence we don't need to include a mass term to have a gravitational field as claimed by Crothers. In fact to do so contradicts the Schwarzschild metric which excludes the mass source as it is defined as an exterior solution.

The second problem is that if we put a mass term into the right hand side of the equation as Crothers suggests, the resulting field is acting externally on the intrinsic field. This mass term does not generate the intrinsic field. Since the mass occupies space time, the geometry of space time is no longer flat as is indicated by the non zero term.

Since you naively believe that this can be all explained by an Electric Universe model try answering a question that every other EU enthusiast has run away from over the years; how can a three body problem involving only electromagnetic forces be stable?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So? Entropy doesnt imply a change in the amount of matter either.

Sure it does. If the cold of dirt eventually decays into energy, there is less dirt. Don’t confuse mass (energy) with matter.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What incomprehensible blather are you going on about?
Expression (9) in Einstein’s paper is not a line element but a component of the Einstein tensor Guv.
The polar coordinate equations which are defined below equation (2) define r as the radius.
The problem with the paper is that in equation (1) r is not a physical radius but in isotropic coordinates defined by the transformation r → r(1+m/2r)².
For space-time that is for intents and purposes flat such as in our solar system beyond Mercury’s orbit, or when it becomes asymptotically flat at large distances from the gravitational source, the isotopic version of r is the same the radius r but not so in the case of black holes.

Expression 9 in Swartzchilds paper, your confused...

You are not fooling anyone in providing links that are clearly beyond your level of understanding.

Apparently just beyond yours since you confused line elements in Swartzchilds original paper to be the Einstein equations.....

Unbeknown to you have contradicted Crothers’ paper in the second link by claiming General Relativity works in our solar system.
The “corrupt” or Hilbert version of the Schwarzschild metric goes beyond being a model for a static black hole but also explains the perihelion advance of Mercury’s orbit, predicted the gravitational bending of light and gravitational redshift of emission lines in the laboratory both of which have been confirmed by observation and experiment respectively.

Unbeknownst to you apparently, there exists no singularity in the solar system..... so why the straw man?

All tests confirmed in the solar system without additional ad-hoc theory added. But the second one applies it to the rest of the universe one needs add 96% ad-hoc theory that was just tested to a 99.8% accuracy without them. Including mathematical singularities......

I would suggest you simply try to deduce what laws of physics is missing in the theory in a universe 99.9% plasma. You might want to study plasma physics for that answer.....

The reason why it works in our solar system is that most of the mass resides with the Sun and any two body problem involving the Sun and a planet, the planet can be approximated as a point mass of a test particle.
General relativity being a non linear theory will only work for a two body problem if the mass difference is considerable.
Since the 1960’s much work has been done on linear approximations to General Relativity which have been successful in describing the interaction of bodies of similar masses such as black holes and neutron stars which produce gravitational waves.

Agreed, it works wonderfully describing the behavior of planets (non-ionized matter) or .1% of the universe.

Do you actually understand what you write or simply paraphrase Crothers’ nonsense because of some vague ideological/religious connection?

Do you? Apparently we both agree it works in describing the orbits of planets, of clouds of plasma around the galaxy, not so much.....

Crothers' mistake is using Newtonian gravity in his line of argument. The notion of gravity in General Relativity is very different. Newtonian gravity has only one source, mass. General relativity has two sources mass and the gravitational field itself. We can illustrate the differences using small masses as there is an overlap between Newtonian physics and General Relativity for weak gravitational fields.

Except in the weak gravitational field GR converts to Newtonian physics.....

The equations that describe Newtonian gravity are linear. The theory would predict that if we measure the gravitational force between two small masses, we would find that if one of the masses was broken up into pieces, the sum of the forces between each piece and the unbroken mass would equal the total force between the two unbroken masses.

In General Relativity the equations are non linear. General Relativity would predict the sum of the forces to be greater than the total force between the masses.
In fact the sum of the masses of the pieces would be greater than the combined mass. The "missing mass" m is taken up by the binding energy E required to break up the mass into smaller pieces. The relationship between the missing mass and binding energy is the well known equation E=mc².
This has been confirmed experimentally. We find the atomic mass of atoms to be less than the sum of the masses of the individual protons, neutrons and electrons.
We can conclude the energy E is a source of gravity.

Except that has already been demonstrated to be incorrect.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10apr_moondustinthewind

“We've had some surprising results," says Abbas "We're finding that individual dust grains do not act the same as larger amounts of moon dust put together. Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of moondust don't apply to the moondust at the single particle level."

We can extend this idea to the field equations Guv=0.

These equations are non linear and tells us the gravitational field is also a source of gravity. Hence we don't need to include a mass term to have a gravitational field as claimed by Crothers. In fact to do so contradicts the Schwarzschild metric which excludes the mass source as it is defined as an exterior solution.

The second problem is that if we put a mass term into the right hand side of the equation as Crothers suggests, the resulting field is acting externally on the intrinsic field. This mass term does not generate the intrinsic field. Since the mass occupies space time, the geometry of space time is no longer flat as is indicated by the non zero term.

Since you naively believe that this can be all explained by an Electric Universe model try answering a question that every other EU enthusiast has run away from over the years; how can a three body problem involving only electromagnetic forces be stable?

Who said only electromagnetism was involved. Apparently you missed the part about “dominant” forces.

Why just a three body system? Let’s add hundreds of particles.

So first you need to explain why you decided to try to twist what I said "dominating force" into the "only force"?

Then you need to explain why you want me to solve a three body problem when gravitational theories can't either?????

http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/10/q-what-is-the-three-body-problem/

"The three body problem is to exactly solve for the motions of three (or more) bodies interacting through an inverse square force (which includes gravitational and electrical attraction).

The problem with the 3-body problem is that it can’t be done, except in a very small set of frankly goofy scenarios (like identical planets following identical orbits)."



You see, I just understand that the theories for large bodies of matter don’t apply to small particles...... The dominating force is different in the different states of matter. Being dominant does not mean all other forces are non-existent.

But then I’m not the one here suggesting we ignore plasma physics in a universe 99.9% plasma and consider only the theory that correctly predicts large bodies of matter behavior. Even when you should know that theory can not be used to correctly predict the charge or behavior of those single particles....

But perhaps, just perhaps if some excellent mathematician were to combine those forces, not use one or the other, a solution could be found. But everyone always trys to solve them independently, without any other forces contributing. The EU is as guilty of this as is the FUBARE'd mainstream theories.....

Your first mistake was to try to put the words only into my mouth when that isn't what I said. Your second mistake is to ask something of me you can't do either. Your third mistake is to think I agree with everything the EU says.....

Seems you are full of mistakes today....

The three body problem doesn't exist in nature....... That's why you can't solve for it.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think that this distinction is philosophically viable.

Ha. Here's the thing: every time something revolutionizes sciences, it rarely is something "philosophically viable".

The problem is that philosophy, when used in that way, is just words. Evidence trumps mere words.

Before quantum mechanics, it wasn't "philosophically viable" that things could be in 2 places at once. Before relativity, it wasn't "philosophically viable" that time slows down relative to the observer as a moving object speeds up.

The point is: empirical reality trumps whatever "philosophy" conjures up, in that sense.

"The Universe" is another way of saying "all that exists" which would include matter and energy.

In layman's terms.
In physics, that's not the case. There it is about the space-time continuum.
Which itself might exist in a larger pool of universes or whatever. So this universe, wouldn't be "all that exists".

See, this is the problem when you start arguing from "definitions". You end up with philosophical masturbation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Even if somebody manages to extrapolate back to T +.0000001 with a billion others zeros before the 1, there must still be a cause. Hence we end up with Newton's Third Law: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Causality requires and is dependend upon temporal conditions.
At T = 0, such conditions do not exist.
In fact, physics as we know it, break down. That includes causality.

Assuming for the briefest second that they are real, there can be no reason that a singularity would ever go bang.

That you know of.
Appealing to ignorance again.

The correct statement is that we don't know how it could bang.
Nevertheless, the fact is though, that all the evidence indicates that something, somehow went bang at T = 0

It's gravitational forces prevent even light from escaping. No known physical cause could overcome it's force

Exactly. No known physical cause.
Hence why it is an unknown.

. And back to the metaphysical we go......

No. That's what you apologists do.
I'ld just say that we don't know, instead of simply inventing things or going with some religion that I happen to have been born into by geographic accident, for example.

There is one force that is 10^36 Powers stronger at subatomic scales (singularity scales), but astronomers and cosmologists ignore this force.......

Right, right. And you know all about it and actually know better then all those astronomers and cosmologists (but they just won't listen), I bet?

And why do I need to consider mathematical artifacts or gravity when I can just consider the physics for 99.9% of the universe?

See 2:30 On the timeline.....

You can consider anything you want, it's a free country.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Causality requires and is dependend upon temporal conditions.
At T = 0, such conditions do not exist.
In fact, physics as we know it, break down. That includes causality.

Exactly, so physical laws can not be used to describe the creation, which I already understand...... Others seem to still be unaware of this....

That you know of.
Appealing to ignorance again.

That you know of too since all your laws of physics break down. There you go appealing to ignorance again........

The correct statement is that we don't know how it could bang.
Nevertheless, the fact is though, that all the evidence indicates that something, somehow went bang at T = 0

No, the correct statement is that the laws of physics can't explain how it could bang..... Nevertheless we do agree that something caused the Bang regardless, just not anything that can be described by the laws of physics. I agree wholeheartedly, 100%......

Exactly. No known physical cause.
Hence why it is an unknown.

Exactly, no known physical cause, which does not rule out a cause beyond physics.....

No. That's what you apologists do.
I'ld just say that we don't know, instead of simply inventing things or going with some religion that I happen to have been born into by geographic accident, for example.

We agree, no known physical event could have caused it, which leaves the religion that happens to be born into a geographical purpose, the only plausible explanation of the non-physical....

Right, right. And you know all about it and actually know better then all those astronomers and cosmologists (but they just won't listen), I bet?

Why not, look throughout history. The prevailing theory has been overturned again and again and again, despite the majority believing it was true......

You can consider anything you want, it's a free country.

Agreed, you are free to ignore the physics for 99.9% of the universe, despite all the laboratory experiments for the last 200+ years. You have the complete right to ignore however much of the universe you need to and make up as much Fairie Dust as you like. But then I am free to refuse to accept your ignoring 99.9% of the universe.... and consider it instead.....

 

[Brightmoon]

All true. And I continuously ask the "Natural" people
what laws of nature suggest that life should form
and they draw blanks every single time.

The same with the creation of matter.
They just walk away mumbling, cursing
their grade school teachers for not covering
this very important subject.

that’s because neither abiogenesis nor Big Bang cosmology are grade school subjects . You'd have to have a decent understanding of basic chemistry to understand both and basic physics to understand the Big Bang .

 

[SkyWriting]

that’s because neither abiogenesis nor Big Bang cosmology are grade school subjects . You'd have to have a decent understanding of basic chemistry to understand both and basic physics to understand the Big Bang .

I've had College Physics and Chemistry.
Big Bang inflation physics is far beyond undergrad levels.
Inflation theory is still just an idea with data to support it
yet is impossible to recreate or test.

I continuously ask the "Natural" people
what laws of nature suggest that life should form
and they draw blanks every single time.
What LAWS OF NATURE even hint that life should exist?
For what reason does life exist?
What laws of nature are being satisified by life existing?
What Grade School idea explains why life exists?
What Grad School idea explains why life exists?
What would be a good place to be if you wanted to know why life exists?
Mars, the moon, the surface of the sun.....what would be best?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The problem is that philosophy, when used in that way, is just words. Evidence trumps mere words.

Before quantum mechanics, it wasn't "philosophically viable" that things could be in 2 places at once. Before relativity, it wasn't "philosophically viable" that time slows down relative to the observer as a moving object speeds up.

The point is: empirical reality trumps whatever "philosophy" conjures up, in that sense.

You have never actually observed two objects occupying the same space. That is theoretical, or shall we say philosophical. And then we need to bring in Relativity and simultaneity, in which an event or events that happen at different times can seem to appear simultaneously or events that happen simultaneously, appear to happen at different times.......

In layman's terms.
In physics, that's not the case. There it is about the space-time continuum.
Which itself might exist in a larger pool of universes or whatever. So this universe, wouldn't be "all that exists".

Sounds like you are arguing first against the philosophical argument and now for the philosophical argument, since no larger pool of universes has ever been empirically observed.....

See, this is the problem when you start arguing from "definitions". You end up with philosophical masturbation.

Better than every person deciding what they want the definitions to mean at any given time. You would end up with scientific masturbation..... to use your words....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

that’s because neither abiogenesis nor Big Bang cosmology are grade school subjects . You'd have to have a decent understanding of basic chemistry to understand both and basic physics to understand the Big Bang .

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/19421-if-you-can-t-explain-it-to-a-six-year-old


“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein↑

Apparently Albert thought 6 year olds could understand his theory..... or that he couldn't explain it to them and so didn't understand it himself.... Take your pick....

Since he admitted he really didn't understand his theory, that could be interpreted to mean he couldn't explain it to a 6 year old.... but I make no judgement call on this one.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's not a question of what GR 'needs', but what has been tested. Relativistic quantum mechanics didn't 'need' positrons when Dirac predicted their existence.

And what has been "tested" is that it needs none of the Fairie Dust where it has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy. What it "needs" outside the solar system is a whole new ballgame.........

There is no valid quantum theory of gravity, so your point is moot by appealing to quantum electrodynamics.....

"The paper did not explicitly predict a new particle but did allow for electrons having either positive or negative energy as solutions....... The positive-energy solution explained experimental results, but Dirac was puzzled by the equally valid negative-energy solution that the mathematical model allowed."

So it isn't really needed to explain experimental results, just what is dreamed about by mathematicians.....

 

[Herman Hedning]

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein↑

Apparently Albert thought 6 year olds could understand his theory..... or that he couldn't explain it to them and so didn't understand it himself.... Take your pick....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

View attachment 237414

Exactly, like in that he supported singularities.....

And E wasn't a man to use vulgarity, so I doubt he said that......