I think once we finally get this all sorted out, future humans will find it hilarious that so many people were convinced that dark matter was real and particles we could not detect made up 80% of the universe.
I find such thoughts exciting. In the future, children will be taught basic facts that, to us in the first half of the 21st century, are some of the most complicated questions of the universe.
I think knowledge about universe will be mostly the same but streamlined. In our modern day science we have a lot of concepts that exist only because of the path we took to get to where we are now.
Most of these interpretations will be cut out once a better ways to proper undestanding is found. I imagine electrons shells, wave function collapse, pseudo-vectors, relativistic mass, xyz ... will go away quickly to be replaced with more suitable concepts previously (and still) held back by necessity of humans to be able to do some math with pen and paper.
Not going away. It's based too directly in quantum mechanics principles, and the same tools are used in too may other problems with good results. If you talk to a hard core physicist, they may explain some minor corrections, but the simple model is 99% accurate and the corrections quite technical. Perhaps there is a better theory in the future, but it will be very weird, you really don't want to know it.
> wave function collapse
It's going away, but it may take 500 years. Nobody likes wave function colapse. There is people working to eliminate it, but we have no clue if it's hard, very hard or impossible. I think that a combination of the so-called-many-worlds-interpretation and something-something-decoherence will solve it in 50 years, or 100 years or 500 years. I'm optimistic, but it may take a while......
> pseudo-vectors
Solved? The problem is drawing normal vectors that are 1-forms and pseudo-vectors that are mostly 2-forms in the same space. Most pseudo-vectors are like a tiny surface area instead of a tiny arrow. But people love to draw all of them as arrows and that causes the problem. Also, in special relativity the electric field (vector) and magnetic field (pseudo-vector) are combined in a single weird entity that fixes the problem. There is still the problem with the weak force, but I think it's solved once you replace mass with the Higgs boson. So it's "solved" if you like to use a little more math and want to translate it to everyone else that likes arrows.
> relativistic mass
Solved. Most modern Special Relativity books try to avoid relativistic mass. The problem is that you need number to accelerate to one side and a different number to accelerate to the front/rear. So it's better to skip it and use other equations. The usual "relativistic mass" is good for accelerations to one side to get circular movements, so it's nice for some problems.
Has almost nothing to do with actual orbitals. "Filling electron shells", "octets" are just idiotic old rule of thumb ideas only accidentally aligning with reality.
> wave function collapse
I think it's going away pretty fast as we exprimentally find quantum behaviors in increasingly macroscopic objects. At some point it will become clear that nothing collapses into particles and it's just that through interaction wavefunctions narrow down when they exchange some energy and momentum. But other interactions can spread them apart back again. We are gonna create consistent description of the process in both directions.
> pseudo-vectors
they are still used but they are gonna be replaced by bivectors as they are more natural
> relativistic mass
true that it's partially sovled, but we need a generation or two of people not mentioning at all in educational context or metioning it negatively for it finally go away ... today it's still treated as "useful educational metaphor" which it is not
> xyz
Basically breaking down math calculations to coordinate wise caluclations
People will stop doing that because most symbolic maths in education is going to be done with computers and rarely anyone will be doing any element-wise transforamtions on anything.
It's a good rule of thumb for hand waving chemistry. It's not good enough to predict protein folding, but it's good enough to understand how amino acids connect. I don't expect it to disappear.
> wave function collapse
I disagree because I expect a different solution to the problem.
> pseudo-vectors -> bivectors
I agree. We only have to convince the other 7999999998 persons :) .
> relativistic mass
Another good rule of thumb, but I'm not sure for whom. This days nobody has to make a DIY synchrotron at home. It can probably go away, but it will resurface from time to time like a clever trick in a YouTube video.
> xyz
I like covariant equations, so I agree. Anyway, at work we sometimes use some non-covariant approximations but we add a search to optimize the base to get the best one were we can apply to nasty coordinate tricks.
Anyway, I needed like 10 years to understand the difference between a matrix and a linear transformation. 20yo probably only can use coordinates until they grow up.
Dark energy is the force that counteracts the combined gravity of our enormous universe. It also keeps the electrons flowing around the nucleus, but not into it.
The universe started with a single Big Bang, but is maintained by an interrelated force continually applied that keeps allowing it to resist collapse, the resulting system allowing local minima such as Earth's sweet spot of smallish sun + gentle orbit.
It's almost like it was designed to be perfect, with nicely balancing counterforces, all set in a sea of brutal extrema, and all set to mathematically clockwork precision that is discoverable by intelligent inhabitants, whose bodies, themselves, operate under those same physical laws. Almost ;-)
> It also keeps the electrons flowing around the nucleus, but not into it.
Asa cautionary note to other readers, this statement is not consistent with any theory of which I am aware, and it’s certainly not a concept accepted by mainstream physics
Boltzmann had a whole lot of math backing up his assertions. Among the many issues with what you posited, I highly doubt you have bothered to actually check to see if the force necessary to keep electrons from colliding with the nucleus would also be commensurate with what’s needed to counteract gravity at cosmological scales.
Your theory is analogous to saying that we don’t need to invoke gravity to explain why the earth doesn’t spiral into the sun, because it could just be explained with solar photon pressure.
Sorry to have confused you, but the force that keeps atoms from imploding is (IIUC) of a different nature than that which keeps the universe expanding. They are both "dark energy", but I do not think they are the same "force".
I apologize for not making that clear, but I only know of their very basic nature, not their mathematical-physics relationships and differences. That's not my area of expertise. I'm a general systems person, so I have some very basic knowledge of how such systems behave. This is due to my curiosity about the universe and my own self, which has given me access to persons much more deeply connected than myself.
Note that Eugene Parker, too, had a lot of maths to back his claims up, but that didn't help him convince his peers. Only when we sent a probe up that could measure the solar wind did his detractors begin to stand down. That is always the way new levels of understanding are treated by the status quo.
The Schoedinger equation is a partial diferential equation. When you solve it, you get the eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
The eigenvalues are the energies. The differences if energies are easy to measure experimentaly looking at the light of discharge lamps. Most of the science of early 20th century is triying to find a theory that explains the colors in that light.
The eigenvectors of the Schoedinger equations are the clouds distributions of the electrons. I'm not sure how difficult is to measure them directly, but they are important to get the size and shape of molecules and the positions of atoms inside crystals and a lot of other stuff.
The same theory that explains the the light of discharge lamps and the electronic clouds also explains the leds in the screen and the transistors in the procesor of yoyr phone.
And dark energy is not used in any of these calcuñations.
No, our current models (the basis for the calculations) do not incorporate dark energy.
Sure, the Schoedinger Equation describes the electron cloud, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't account for why it is moving, and not spiraling into the nucleus. It can't. Put a different way, describing something's movement does not explain why it's moving. Still the SE is as amazing achievement, but it is descriptive of effects, not causes.
Any life in the universe that evolved on Uranus-style systems will similarly be grateful not to be here on Earth. Their religions might go on about the perfect conditions compared to those scorchingly hot ones closer to the Sun.
Hell, penguins don’t even like the tropics on the same planet.
I don't think there is enough heat energy on Uranus to facilitate the kind of brain that facilitates human-level thinking and behaving. Earth has vigorous blooms of life around our deepsea volcanic vents, but those life forms are not going to reach any where near our level of evolution. Its environment is too limited.
Technical chops has never been Google's problem. Gemini for all the hype Google has thrown at it, has continued the recurring trend of G not knowing how to win with their product launches.
Heh, I reached out to that same email literally earlier today to complain about their abysmal Android support, and I'm already a paying customer. I'm not happy with their non-response automated email and will be looking for a good alternative.
