Astronomers have found evidence for a large population of hidden supermassive black holes in the universe.

Using NASA’s Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) satellite observatory, the team of international scientists detected the high-energy x-rays from five supermassive black holes previously clouded from direct view by dust and gas.

The research supports the theory that potentially millions more supermassive black holes exist in the universe, but are hidden from view.

The findings were presented today (July 6) at the Royal Astronomical Society’s National Astronomy Meeting, at Venue Cymru, in Llandudno, Wales.

The scientists pointed NuSTAR at nine candidate hidden supermassive black holes that were thought to be extremely active at the center of galaxies, but where the full extent of this activity was potentially obscured from view.

High-energy x-rays found for five of the black holes confirmed that they had been hidden by dust and gas. The five were much brighter and more active than previously thought as they rapidly feasted on surrounding material and emitted large amounts of radiation.

Such observations were not possible before NuSTAR, which launched in 2012 and is able to detect much higher energy x-rays than previous satellite observatories.

Lead author George Lansbury is a postgraduate student in the Centre for Extragalactic Astronomy, at Durham University. Lansbury said:

For a long time we have known about supermassive black holes that are not obscured by dust and gas, but we suspected that many more were hidden from our view.

Thanks to NuSTAR for the first time we have been able to clearly see these hidden monsters that are predicted to be there, but have previously been elusive because of their ‘buried’ state.

Although we have only detected five of these hidden supermassive black holes, when we extrapolate our results across the whole Universe then the predicted numbers are huge and in agreement with what we would expect to see.

Bottom line: An international team of astronomers Using NASA’s Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) satellite observatory, have detected the high-energy x-rays from five supermassive black holes previously clouded from direct view by dust and gas. The research supports the theory that potentially millions more supermassive black holes exist in the universe, but are hidden from view.

Read more from the Royal Astronomical Society

7-8-15 Copied from reference to my subscription July 2015 Scientific American:

# What if Dark Matter Is Stranger Than We Thought? [Video]

One of the biggest mysteries in science today is what makes up dark matter—the plentiful, invisible material that swarms throughout the universe, exerting its gravitational lure on regular matter. Physicists have traditionally surmised that dark matter is a single type of particle that rarely interacts with the rest of the particles in nature, such as the normal electrons and quarks that make up the atoms in our bodies. But that picture is not the only option.

Lately another theory, sometimes called complex dark matter, has been gaining prominence. This scenario posits not just one category of particle composing dark matter but many—and it includes the possibility that some of these particles could combine to form composites akin to dark atoms. Complex dark matter could act and group in different ways than the simple dark matter particle is thought to do. It could, for example, form structures that mirror and overlap with the disks of spiral arms in galaxies.

Physicists Bogdan Dobrescu and Don Lincoln, both of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois, describe the possibilities of complex dark matter in the latest issue of *Scientific American*. Read their article *here*. Lincoln also details the idea in a recent video, below:

*The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of* Scientific American.

Turbocad_Dwg_2_save_as_pdf.pdf My J_Aether-Paradigm Theory is complex , J_Waves along J_Strings are J_Dark Matter and J_Dark Energy that are the creation of J_Mass J_Gravity and J_Aether.

7-8-15 I pasted Quora Rahul Garg conservation with me. He is interested in simplifying Physics and minimising Math usage. I WILL TRY TO PUBLISH MY CONCEPTS WITH HIS HELP.

7-11-15 I uploaded the above Turbocad Dwg 2 file saved as pdf yesterday. I tryed to email it to Rahul Garg like I did by pasting in to his email address copied from Turbocad like I did Dwg 1 which I think he got. No way would it email even this pdf file. He dad asked me to use his email befor I sent him Dwg 1. I will reply to the next email I get from him.

7-14-15 TurboCad Dwg 3 pasted i wordpad:

TurboCad_Dwg_3_J_String_with_J_Waves_h_length.docx

Continue to excel SS on equal area in J_String with J_Waves:

J_String_with_137_J_Waves__scaled_up_to_mm.xlsx

7-16-15 Copied from Physics Digest My Email:

*extracts energy*from such motion.

The motion of electrons about the nucleus did present a serious problem for classical mechanics. The problem was that a negative point-like particle (the electron) orbiting a positive nucleus should, unlike the case of a planet orbiting a star, act like an electric current and radiate energy. This radiation would indeed cause the electron's orbit to decay and nothing would stop it colliding with the nucleus.

It required the apparatus of

**Quantum Theory**to resolve this problem. The electron becomes a probabilistic cloud rather than a point-particle. It exists in certain quantum levels which have probabilistic distributions rather than orbits and no two electrons can have the same quantum state (the

**Pauli Exclusion Principle**).

As you can see your intuition of an electron "moving" around the nucleus no longer applies. Indeed anyone's intuition no longer really applies. You simply have to grind out the mathematics of the

**Schrödinger Equation**and the like: something which has turned out to be the most accurate scientific theory we have ever developed!

Share9

7-17-15 The Spread Sheet excel roughly indicates d1 of J_Spiral J_Rod diameter is approx 95 mm when 137 J_Waves are 1 Planck length h 16.162 x 10^-36 m = 16.162 x 10^-33 mm. lp=Square-Route(hG/c^3)=1.616199(97) x 10^-35 m. The Turbocad rough drawing of J_String inner J_Rod dia 95 mm the scale needs to be corrected a Planck length is much smaller than (Bohrs length* Pi) circumference. I will redo dimensions in the above 3 drawings links.

7-20-15 Scale Factor Needed:

Scale_Factor_betweenJ_String-Bohr_radius.xls

7-22-15 The Scale Factor for Rough Sketch Dwg 2 & Dwg 2 above is approximate 1.50124 E+23 to scale up from Planck value to mm values of rough sketches.

7-30-15 The keyboard on my mac pro isn't working right, shift key doesn't work, so to get uppercase i have to use caps lock key and i can't use uppercase symbols. To get the at symbol i have to find it somewhere in saved text and copy it.

The above entries in july are Pryor art and my getting info on what is needed to publish on another website or publisher.

7-31-15 The Planck length J_WaveLength x 137 the inverse of fine structure for J_Electron and J_Photon at rest J_Energy in a J_Hydrogen J_Atom.

8-8-15 Entered using Windows 10 software I downloaded last night and this morning

Copied from Quora My Email Science

And no, this is not a philosophical answer, we have a strong reason to claim this. But first, let's see how amazing our brain is, and then we could appreciate it when we say we can.

What we see is actually a perception created by our brain from what's actually being captured by our eye. For one thing, eye's light receptors are not smoothly distributed, and it has a big hole roughly in the center of it. If our brain doesn't modify it, we would see things as being distorted and has a big hole in the center of it. But we don't! So the magic of the brain is it's capable to patch them up and create a perception of a smooth view. How does the brain do it? It patches up from our experience of how a view supposed to be. Really.

If you find this hard to believe, see this following picture:

*The color of the rectangles marked A and B are actually the same, but our brain gives a perception that they have a different color!*

See the cylinder and its shadow. These two things fit our perception nicely of how they should appear and affect the look of the checker box. By then, our brain concludes that the rectangle B must have a darker color, because it's being covered by the shadow from the cylinder. But our brain also knows that it cannot be too dark as it must be the whiter part of the checker box. Thus even though rectangle A and B have the same color, our brain decides that we must look a whiter look of rectangle B. Hence we perceive it as having a different color. It looks very very convincing, but they're not! Check out the proof at the end of this answer to convince yourself more about this. (

*Or simply prove it yourself by using color picker tool.*) Yes, our brain is that amazing!

While we're still in awe, quick, ask this question: what is brain? It's an isolated organ, protected in our skull. It can't see, it can't smell, it can't taste, it can't hear, basically, it can't do any thing but receive and send electrical signals all the time. For our brain, all those colors, shapes, smells, touches, etc, are just combination from bunches of electrical signals in its trillions of synapses. It builds its perception only from those electrical signals.

**Thus it has no problem to build whatever perceptions and models it needs to, as for the brain itself, they are no more than something like a mathematical model.**Certainly we could use them to build as many as higher dimensional model we like, or even whatever model we like, as we could do the same thing mathematically. (

*Just don't forget its limited capacity!*)

Now, back to the question. The problem is: in our daily experience, we accustom to only 3D space of reality. Thus it's effortless for us to have the feeling of depth when we see things, even though it's only a 2D picture, and what our eye captures is actually no more than a 2D picture every time. But it's obviously not the case with higher dimensional spaces.

**So it's not that our brain is not capable of building a higher dimensional perception, but we never train it to be!**

For some people, like mathematicians trained in higher-dimensional-spaces works, they are more capable than the rest of us to visualize it in their brain.

**So, don't assume that people can't, some of us, can!**

*Here is the proof that the colors of those two rectangles are the same*:

+ r e- Derivation of Bohr’s Equations for the One-electron Atom Bohr set about to devise a model that would explain the observed line spectra of oneelectron atoms, such as H, He+ , Li2+. The model Bohr used was based on Rutherford’s conclusion from his gold foil experiments that the negative electrons in an atom are a great distance away from the positive charge in the nucleus. Bohr began with a classical mechanical approach, which assumes that the electron in a one-electron atom is moving in a circular orbit with a radius, r, from the nucleus. The movement of an electron in its orbit would create a centrifugal force, which gives it a tendency to fly away from the nucleus. This force is given by Fcentrifugal = -mv2 /r where m is the mass of the electron, and v is its velocity. In order to have a stable atom, it was assumed that this centrifugal force was exactly matched by an opposing centripetal force, drawing the electron inward through the coulombic attraction between the electron’s negative charge and the positive charge in the nucleus. This coulombic force of attraction is given by Fcoulombic = -Ze2 /r 2 Equating these two forces, we have (1) mv 2 r ' Ze 2 r 2 We can rearrange equation (1), solving for r, to obtain the following expression: (2) r ' mv 2 r 2 Ze 2 2 If we multiply the right side of equation (2) by m/m, this becomes (3) r ' m 2 v 2 r 2 mZe 2 ' (mvr) 2 mZe 2 Written in this way, the numerator is the electron’s angular momentum squared, (mvr) 2 . At this point, Bohr made an assumption that departs radically from concepts of classical mechanics. Bohr’s assumption, called the quantum hypothesis, asserts that the angular momentum, mvr, can only take on certain values, which are whole-number multiples of h/2π; i.e., mvr = nh/2π n = 1, 2, 3, ... where h is Planck’s constant. Substituting nh/2π for mvr in equation (3) we obtain the Bohr expression for the radius: (4) r ' n 2 h 2 4π2 mZe 2 For the hydrogen atom (Z = 1), the smallest radius, given the symbol ao, is obtained from equation (4) when n = 1: ao ' (5) h 2 4π2 me 2 ' 0.529 D This is called the Bohr radius. Using the definition of ao in equation (5), we can rewrite equation (4) to obtain a more compact form of the radius equation for any one-electron atom: r ' (6) n 2 ao Z Since ao is a constant, equation (6) predicts that the radius increases in direct proportion to the square of the quantum number, n2 , and decreases in inverse proportion to the atomic number, Z. Thus, the sizes of the orbits in hydrogen are predicted to be ao, 4ao, 9ao, 16ao, 25ao, etc. Furthermore, the orbits in He+ (Z = 2) for any value of n are predicted to be half as large as the comparable orbits in H. Although the radius equation is an interesting result, the more important equation concerned the energy of the electron, because this correctly predicted the line spectra of oneelectron atoms. The derivation of the energy equation starts with the assumption that the electron in its orbit has both kinetic and potential energy, E = K + U. The kinetic energy, which arises from electron motion, is K = ½mv2 . The potential energy, which arises from the coulombic attraction between the negative charge of the electron and the positive charge in the nucleus, is given by U = –Ze2 /r. Thus, 3 E ' ½mv (7) 2 & Ze 2 r We have seen that in Bohr’s model the coulombic force is assumed to be equal and opposite to the centrifugal force [equation (1)]. We can rearrange equation (1) to obtain an expression for mv2 : mv (8) 2 ' Ze 2 r Substituting this into the first term in equation (7) we obtain E ' (9) 1 2 Ze 2 r & Ze 2 r ' & 1 2 Ze 2 r ' & Ze 2 2r The negative sign in equation (9) indicates a favorable energy of attraction, which must be overcome to remove the electron to an infinite distance from the nucleus. We can eliminate r from equation (9) by substituting equation (4): E ' (10) &2π2 mZ 2 e 4 n 2 h 2 If we gather all the constants to define a single constant, B, equation (10) can be written most simply as E ' & (11) BZ 2 n 2 As equation (11) shows, the energy becomes more favorable (negative) in direct proportion to the square of the nuclear charge, and less favorable (less negative) in inverse proportion to the square of the quantum number. For the one-electron atom (H, He+ , Li2+, etc.), the lowest energy occurs when n = 1. This energy state is called the ground state. If the atom receives sufficient energy, as in a gas discharge tube, its electron may jump to a higher orbit (n > 1) with corresponding higher energy. This represents an excited state. The only way the atom can assume a lower-energy state is through emission of energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation. The energy of this radiation is equal to the energy difference between the high state and the lower state: Elight = *Efinal - Einitial* = *Elow - Ehigh* In terms of the Bohr energy equation [equation (11)], the energy of the emitted light should be (12) Elight ' * &BZ 2 n 2 low & &BZ 2 n 2 high * ' BZ 2 1 n 2 low & 1 n 2 high 4 We assume that nhigh is always at least one integer value greater than nlow; i.e. nhigh > nlow. The lower state, nlow, may be either the ground state (n = 1) or any other excited state with a lower value of n than the original state, nhigh. Since the energy of electromagnetic radiation is conventionally not given a sense of sign, equation (12) has been formulated here in terms of absolute value. From Planck we know that E = hν, so if we divide through equation (12) by h we can write an expression for the frequencies of the emitted light: (13) ν ' BZ 2 h 1 n 2 low & 1 n 2 high For hydrogen (Z = 1), the constants outside the brace equal the Rydberg constant in units of hertz (Hz = s-1) ; i.e., BZ2 /h = U. This general equation predicts the frequencies of the Balmer series, if the low state is nlow = 2: (14) ν ' BZ 2 h 1 n 2 low & 1 n 2 high ' U 1 4 & 1 n 2 n ' 3, 4, 5, ... Equation (14) is equivalent to the equation Balmer deduced empirically. It represents the frequencies for the series of transitions from various excited states to the same lower state for which nlow = 2. Substituting other values of nlow in equation (13) gives frequencies that predict other series of line spectra for hydrogen, which had not been observed at the time Balmer did his experiments. Balmer’s elucidation of the series for which nlow = 2 was simply a result that visible light was the most readily observed kind of electromagnetic radiation with the spectroscopes available in the late nineteenth century. Other series predicted by equation (13) fall either in the ultraviolet or infrared regions, which are more difficult to observe experimentally. With better instrumentation and the impetus of the Bohr equation, the following line-spectra were subsequently discovered, in addition to the Balmer series: 5 nlow Region Series Name 1 ultraviolet Lyman 2 visible Balmer 3 infrared Paschen 4 infrared Brackett 5 infrared Pfund The ability to predict the frequencies of these series gave credibility to the Bohr model. However, all attempts to extend this approach to multi-electron atoms failed. More significantly, its “particle-only” view of the atom and its exact predictions for the location and momentum of the electron were contrary to the subsequent understandings of wave-particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. By the 1930's, most physicists (including Bohr) had abandoned this model in favor of the wave mechanical approach formulated by Irwin Schrödinger.

8-9-15 See page Equations also for these Bohr Model and Bohr Equations where the difference is also in J_Paradigm J_Aether Integral part of J_Electron.

8-10-15 Yesterdays above Bohr Theory Equations & Model and the today was copied from internet Wikipedia and below from Quora in My email:

We do not know whether string theory can be experimentally confirmed or not. The issue is that string theory is (possibly) the theory at the shortest distance scale. There is a property of physical theories known as decoupling, which says that as a function of distance, the effects of short distance physics behave as

δOO∝(ℓshortℓO)N

where O is some observable and l_short is the short distance scale and l_O is the distance scale associated with the observable and N is some power that is strict >=0. Frequently N=2 or 4 -- which means that if l_string is 10^18 GeV and l_O = 1000 GeV (LHC observations), we're talking about immeasurable small discrepancy.

There are a classes of observables where N=0. This is obviously good, but you must come up with processes where _only_ string theory contributes to the observable. So far we don't know of any.

Finally, the cosmic microwave background radiation can have imprints from inflation, which if the BICEP-2 results are correct, took place at a distance scale that is only a factor of 100 or so from the string scale. This is one of the excitement about the BICEP-2 result -- it would indicate the shortest distance scale probe of physics that we will ever have.

Non-falsifiability refers to ideas that cannot, even in theory, be disproven. Like the idea that a giant purple llama follows you everywhere you go, only it ducks behind corners whenever you turn around and everybody else is too polite to talk about it. (Conspiracy theories in general are famous for being non-falsifiable.)

I swear, I don't have a dog in the whole "beyond the standard model" fight, but the Loop Quantum Gravity guys did science a real freaking disservice with their unfounded accusations about string theory. Cuz you don't have a dog in that fight, either, and neither does practically anybody else on Quora, but the only thing anybody knows about string theory is that a bunch of jackasses pointed out that it can't be tested (unlike, say, their own theory which... uh, wait, it can't be tested either).

So say it with me: String theory

*is*falsifiable. If you know only one thing about string theory (and I'm pretty sure you don't), make it that.

String theory starts by studying a one dimensional object as the fundamental object, rather than a point (that is, it's the theory of strings). As an mathematical check of internal consistency, the conformal anomaly is computed. This is a possible failure of the theory to maintain it's conformal symmetry, and so it is required to be zero. In order for it to be zero, we find that the dimension has to be fixed (at 26). But this version of string theory has tachyons, particles with imaginary mass that travel backwards in time. Presumably, these are not physical, so we don't allow it. Instead, we find that if we add supersymmetry to it, there are no longer any tachyons, and the dimension is now fixed at 11. This is now a mathematically sound theory, perfectly internally consistent. But it's not consistent with observed reality, since we observe 4 dimensions and no superpartners (at least, not yet).

Getting around this problem is as elegant as it is clunky. By "curling up" the extra dimensions, one can make an 11 dimensional space that appears at longer distances to be 4. Even better, this introduces enough opportunities for symmetry breaking that one can make the supersymmetric particles too heavy to have been detected in any experiment, and thus we simultaneously make the theory consistent with the observed dimension, and the observed particles. Through this, there seems to be enough freedom to match all currently observed phenomena, so in principle it's a powerful framework for model building.

At some point, you may have asked "how do we know the extra dimensions are curled up?". The answer is that we don't know what string theory says the shape of space needs to be. In the above formulation, the shape of spacetime is up to the theorist to decide. There are some restrictions, but they don't give us a manageable number of choices; some estimate that there are 10^500 possibilities. Because of this, we aren't sure what

*isn't**predicted by this model, because we haven't studied every possible background spacetime, and never will. String theorists are still searching for a background that correctly models the standard model as observed, although they've found some that are pretty close.

All of this looks bad, where string theory seem unable to give us any kind of prediction because it gives us too many possibilities. But there are many signs in the theory that there is a more fundamental theory underlying all of this, which would also predict the background spacetime (and therefore make predictions for everything else). This is typically referred to as M-theory. M-theory sounds great, but no one knows how to formulate it. All we know is that it should be important for the highest energies, and that in certain limits it should appear as various forms of string theory.

**And finally, the answer to your question is here:**

String theory has some generic features that should appear at very high energies, such as non-point like behavior of fundamental particles, but no generic features at low energies. At these very high energies string theory also requires M-theory to take over. But since we don't know what M-theory is, we also don't know then what is being predicted at high energies. Thus, since we don't know what it predicts at any energy, it doesn't predict anything in it's current state. Hopefully this will change for the better soon.

*Actually, we do know some things that aren't predicted by string theory, but they tend to be considered very unlikely.

If you can produce Planck scale energy you can directly verify particle's stringy nature. The simple minded view that any observation is consistent with string theory is plain ridiculous. This is the kind of false propaganda that has immensely harmed physics in the last decade.

An answer-er claims here that anything is consistent with string theory since there is a huge landscape with roughly 10^500 vacua. This is silly. If he can show that in one single vacuum of them Lorentz invariance or equivalence principle is violated string theory will be instantly falsified.

What experimental evidence may support string theory? Well within the currently feasible energy scale the evidence of super symmetry will be a strong boost in support of it even though it is not an exclusive feature of string theory. However it is unlikely since super-symmetry may not show up in the LHC scale. Same is with the prediction of extra dimensions of string theory.

Although we can not test the theory in very high energy scale we can look for the evidence in the sky. The early universe had conditions which may have left some signature which may be a direct evidence of string theory.

Already, there are strong circumstantial evidence in support of string theory. It is a theory which is finite in all order and free of anomalies with absolutely no adjustable parameter and you call it vague?? It has already derived the correct area extensive Bekenstein-Hawking formula for black hole entropy for a class of black holes. This is a strong evidence of its correctness for most of the sane physicists.

One of the problem is there is no selection rule to select one unique vacuum out of its multiple possible vacua. Maybe there is none in nature. We simply don't know. We can't a priory insist that there must be one. But even if there is a landscape of solutions it does not mean string theory has no predictive power. There are common features which is predicted by string theory. One of them is the prediction (or post-diction) of gravity. It is an achievement of highest merit to incorporate gravity in a theory which describes other interactions in the same language.

Last but not the least, the journey of string theory has just began even it is 30/40 years old. It is the 21st century physics and it will dominate physics in the coming years notwithstanding critique's propaganda. The excitement has just began.

The predictions of string theory are ridiculously precise and extremely nontrivial, at ridiculous energies we will never be able to attain. If we could build a Planck scale accelerator, string theory would relate the high-energy scattering to the structure of our vacuum, which is also what gives us the low-energy matter, and all the couplings. So with a certain finite number of measurements, about as many as you need to fix the structure of the solar system, you can predict the results absolutely every experiment you can ever do. This is more predictive power than any theory has ever had.

But unfortunately, we can't build a Planck scale accelerator, so the verifiability which is always there in principle, is out of reach. But when people say a theory is "not verifiable", they mean it is vague nonsense that you can fiddle with arbitrarily to make anything you want come out. String theory is not like that at all, it is not vague, it is not nonsense, and you can't fiddle with it, it is uniquely determined, and so it must never be confused as "not verifiable in principle".

There is a kind of string theory which does allow you to do whatever you want, and this is the "large extra dimensions" string theory which was popular last decade. In this theory, you can put a ton of things in by hand, and fiddle with the things to reproduce experimental results. But these theories are not only falsifiable, they are falsified! They were ruled out by generic predictions they make about the size of the non-renormalizable corrections to the standard model, and they were ruled out before they were proposed, since the neutrino masses alone are far too small to have large extra dimensions and a small Planck scale.

Ignoring large extra dimensions with ridiculous fine tuning, string theory is eminently falsifiable in principle. But this is "in principle". When you are talking "in practice", we are for the forseable future limited to collisions at less than 100-1000TeV CM energy. At these scales, string theory reduces to field theory with a few non-renormalizable corrections, like masses for the neutrinos, and a small amount of potential proton decay. And then, any prediction of string theory is also a prediction of the field theory, aside from perhaps some new predictions about the non-renormalizable corrections, which are always a finite number of terms, so they can always be reproduced by making a more complicated field theory at very high energies, with enough free parameters to match the new data.

There are general predictions about the field theories that come from string theory (the traditional kind of string theory, with a high Planck scale, not the large extra dimensions nonsense). You can't have too big gauge groups, so you can't have a new sector with gauge group SU(1000), and you can't have too many fields, so eight hundred scalar fields are ruled out. This is a prediction, but it's a truly crappy one, considering how far we are from this bound with the stuff we know about today.

You also can't have tiny gauge charges, you can't have particles which attract gravitationally more than they repel electrostatically through their gauge charge, so that there are certain models which violate string theory simply because the couplings are too small. For example, if you say the proton has a new gauge charge because the quarks are charged and the leptons are not, you violate this bound just from experimental constraints on the repulsion of nuclei. But this prediction on the size of charges is essentially a consequence of only the holographic principle, it doesn't require the full machinary of strings to work out, so if there is another holographic theory of gravity, as unlikely as this looks right now, it would also predict the same thing. This prediction is also terrible, in that there is nothing that even comes close to violating it.

But it is still a prediction. Even a crappy prediction is a prediction. So when people say "string theory has not made predictions", that's not true. What they should say "stirng theory has not made good quantitative predictions". That is true.

There are verifiable aspects that show you that string theory is mathematically consistent, like AdS/CFT predictions for the interactions of strongly interacting particles. These give demosntration that the theory is mathematically consistent, but they don't give you evidence that it is describing out universe. Similarly, calculations in different limits give you confidence the theory is consistent within itself, and that's no small feat. But it's not enough for a scientific theory to be established, you want a good quantitative prediction about actual observations that you couldn't make any other way.

One way out of this impasse is to note that there are only a finite number of string vacua when the Planck scale is large. Using the types of compactifications which look like the standard model, there is an estimate of 10^500 vacua. This might look like an enormous number, but it's a combinatorial number, it's the product of 500 things that can be arranged in 10 different ways. You can think of it as 500 digits of experimental data.

But most of these 10^500 vacua look nothing like our universe, they have the wrong collection of fields, they are unstable to vacuum decay, and so on. Using the qualitative constraints, we might have 10^20 vacua that look more or less like ours (maybe it's 10^100, maybe it's 10^4, who knows, we didn't sample the space enough to know). Let's say it's 10^20. Then 20 decimal places of data will be enough to fix the vacuum uniquely, and from this point on, the theory tells you everything else. If this sounds like looking for a needle in a haystack, it's not quite like that, because the search isn't blind, and the properties of vacua can be worked out from general principles, and you can get a sense of what can work and what can't work, it's similar to determining the Solar System structure--- you need 20 decimal places of data, the qualitative notion of what moon orbits what planet, the radii of the orbits, their eccentricities and phases, and then everything else is determined. It's the same sort of thing--- there are certain things that require us to know what came out of the big bang.

There is one potentially excellent source of many decimal places of data--- the cosmological constant. If we know what vacua have a tiny cosmological constant, much smaller than the supersymmetry breaking scale, maybe this one piece of data alone will reduce the number of vacua from 10^20 to 10, or 1. If not, then knowing the 20 decimal places of the standard model parameters (we already know about 60 decimal places of these numbers, corresponding to 3 decimal place data on 20 numbers) can resolve 10^60 different vacua that are qualitatively identical to the standard model (it doesn't seem at all likely that there are this many, considering how hard a time we have coming up with one).

Once you know the vacuum, string theory is insanely predictive--- it will predict every other decimal place of data after this, and also the structure of the dark matter, it's interactions, it's impact with known matter, the types of monopoles we have, the rate of proton decay, and so on, without any adjustments or freedom.

Since finding our vacuum looks like it might not happen in my lifetime, in my opinion, the best place to test string theory realistically is using spinning black holes. Nature has already provided such things for us at the center of galaxies, there are some galactic center anomalies, like the anomalous positron annihilation signal from our galactic center, and string theory unambiguously and more or less vacuum-independently can tell us what comes out of near extremal black holes. The only issue is that we haven't really worked it out. If the answer is "thermal Hawking radiation", like it is for spherical thermal black holes, then this is no further clue. But this is not what is suggested by AdS/CFT, the near-extremal black holes look like they don't thermalize things very efficiently, so there is a potential for a good prediction for astrophysics about black hole emissions, a prediction which doesn't require the exact details of the vacuum, which we don't know.

The black holes might produce all sorts of things in their emissions, if classical General Relativistic solutions are a good guide. If the stuff makes a finite-time transit through intermediate regions, which is something I personally suspect (although I never can definitively calculate how long it takes, so I can't say I know it's true), then there are a slew of predictions which might give good models of certain active galactic nuclei, and might explain the anomalous antimatter signal. It requires further development to be sure.

So in practice, it is just extremely difficult to verify the theory, and this is only because quantum field theory is guaranteed to be correct at low energies from renormalizability. Aside from reproducing quantum fields and General Relativity at low energies from a consistent framework, the other predictions of string theory are remote and extremely difficult to verify.

But for the in-principle question, string theory is absolutely verifiable in the philosophical sense, as any scientific theory must be, it just is teasing us by being so hard to verify with the money we can realistically spend.

String theory isn't ONE theory, remember. String theory is a meta-theory-- a program to generate theories, which is malleable enough (at least at the present stage) that it's more or less bulletproof (physical evidence-proof). It's sort of like philosophy and religion. They'll take your money, but there's no experiment you can do to embarrass them.

(Ron Maimon points out that this is only true of the large-Planck-scale subset of varieties of ST, and ONLY because these diverge from GTR at energies we can't possibly teach expermentally. That's a fair point).

The simplest way to sum up what was discussed about String Theory and falsifiability is that many of the main claims set forth (that the framework of reality is composed of what is referred to as "strings") may never themselves be truly falsifiable - that is, there may never be experiments that come close enough to observing these "strings" as they are in any sense of the term. But the same applies to many aspects of physics. Furthermore, the sort of tests that would definitely add weight to the claim of String Theory are very optimistic - they try to come as close to empirical proof of String Theory itself rather than observations that coincide generally with the predictions made keeping String Theory in mind. String harmonics and the confirmation of Supersymmetry are among these sorts of tests, and remain hypothetical.

Predictions that can certainly be falsified, which are taken to lend (lesser) weight to the possibility of String Theory being accurate, tend to follow problems set out in the Duhem-Quine Thesis. Namely that these sorts of predictions may support String Theory, but they could support about a thousand other theories with proper interpretation, as well as the fact that many of the cosmological supports have been erroneously tested in isolation.

In short,

**Yes**- but those predictions are usually pretty problematic.

The energy that is currently accessible by our particle detectors (in TeV) (expected as of 2015): 13.

*We are still thinking of ways to bridge the energy gap.*

Let's sort this out: When talking about "Quantum physics" you're most likely talking about Quantum mechanics which is the most precisely tested and most successful theory in the history of science. For String theory however there is currently no experimental evidence AT ALL. String theory is a mathematical approach to develop a unified theory that explains both particle physics and general relativity in one (set of) equation(s). So, actually it's not a theory in a stringent scientific sense but a hypothesis.

Falsifiability is a very significant feature of a theory, and if it is not present, it does raise questions. As Richard Feynman once said, "you are the easiest one for you to fool", so thinking about ways in which a theory could be false is very useful. There are other aspects to theory, such as its explanatory power, the breadth of areas it ties together and its simplicity that can make it attractive, and may suggest that a theory is true or effectively true, even before experimental evidence is provided.

In the string theory case, there is the possibility of indirect falsifiability or indirect confirmation. For example, if certain string theories indirectly predict supersymmetry, and if there can be determined a reasonable observable energy bound under which at least superpartner must be observed, then it might be possible to rule them out if no such particle is observed. (You'd have to have a prediction of a reasonable probability of such an event occurring at some such energy.)

This doesn't mean that string theory is unverifiable. If it can make predictions about the universe that turn out to be "evidential" then, like any theory in physics, it will gradually gain acceptance.

In the 19th century, the "vortex theory" of matter was popular; it was ultimately forgotten about because it produced no new testable predictions and could be fabricated in such a way as to be compatible with any known result. It remains to be seen whether string theory will suffer the same fate.

If both String Theory and some conflicting theory can only be validated or falsified by observing below the plack limit or peeking inside of black holes, we may be in for quite a long wait.

As a matter of fact, this is one of the most elegant theories, and proving / disproving it would be a challenge for the future generations.

So in that sense it hasn't been proved .

if you mean experimental verification , We haven't seen SUSY or superpartners either .

- String Theory tells us that length of these Miniscule ''strings'' is 10^-35metre !

- Till Now, We have Explored a distance of 10^-18metre only.

- Also, These Strings Vibrate in 10 or 26 Dimensions ! (We have No concrete Evidence till today )

- Our Particle Accelerators are not that powerful to Achieve such Small Distances.

- One Estimate is that, We will need a MACHINE Of the size of our SOLAR SYSTEM !

Hence, ST is still unproved.

The purpose of a theory is to in some sense provide an explanation of some observed phenomenon. It is important that such an explanation be held up to scrutiny so that it can be verified that we're not jumping off the deep end. Including falsifiability as a part of the accepted definition of a scientific theory, helps to ensure that the theory is grounded in reality.

Your example given in the question's details, is in principle falsifiable (just wait 10^9999 years), though not in practice. This is an edge case. However string theory, as far as I understand it, allows a lot of different predictions to be made, dependent on the parameters we put in. Falsifiability in this case is much less clear, even in principle. How do we know that the predictions of string theory are not a consequence of our input instead of the theory itself?

11-3-15 Copy Quora and past above already copied to First Checkout page on My Blog spacetimeandspeed today see below:

1

**FeedsEdit**

Top Stories For You

From Your Quora Digest •

Barak Shoshany, Graduate Student at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics

6.4k Views • Barak is a Most Viewed Writer in Physics with 38 endorsements.

A proton consists of 3 *quarks*. The Higgs boson is not a constituent part of the proton; in fact, it's not a constituent part of *anything*. The Higgs boson is merely an excited state of the *Higgs field*. The Higgs field gives masses (indirectly) to all massive particles that we know of, including the quarks inside the proton, in a process called the *Higgs mechanism*. However, almost all of the mass of the proton is obtained through means unrelated to the Higgs mechanism.

See my answer to What is the Higgs Mechanism? for more information about the Higgs mechanism and how the proton gets its mass.

Written 30 Dec 2014 • View Upvotes • Asked to answer by Craig Heile

### Share Answer

**very roughly**like this:

1.

**All elementary particles are merely excited states (or quanta) of some field.**This includes the Higgs boson, which is the quanta of the Higgs field, the photon, which is the quanta of the electromagnetic field, the electron, which is the quanta of the electron field, and so on. All fields exist at all points in time and space.

2.

**Fields may couple to other fields**, and in this case the fields are said to be

**interacting**with one another.

3.

**Some fields couple to the Higgs field.**After a process called

**spontaneous symmetry breaking**, the Higgs field is separated into two parts. The first part remains a dynamic field, and its quanta are the Higgs bosons. The second part is a constant (called the

**vacuum expectation value**), and the equations that describe the coupling of the Higgs field to other fields become equations that describe the other fields coupling (quadratically) to themselves, which in quantum field theory is interpreted as

**giving mass**to a field. The vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field is therefore proportional to the mass of each field. (See further explanation below.)

4.

**The equations that are interpreted as giving mass to certain fields do not exist before the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the Higgs field occurs.**Actually, they

**cannot**exist, due to symmetry considerations (and this is why it's called "symmetry breaking"!). So this is how the Higgs field gives masses to the elementary particles: any field that couples (or interacts) with the Higgs field acquires a mass term that would otherwise would not have existed.

5. Going back to item (1), since all elementary particles are quanta of their corresponding fields, the particles that are the quanta of fields that couple to the Higgs field acquire mass due to spontaneous symmetry breaking,

**which is the essence of the Higgs mechanism**. This includes all known particles (or fields) except the photon, the gluon, and (possibly) the 3 generations of neutrinos.

EDIT: As requested in the comments, I will attempt to explain a few things.

Regarding item (3) above, what exactly is the vacuum expectation value?

(Note: I took the illustrations from a post on the blog Quantum Diaries, which you are encouraged to read.)

The vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field is just the value that we would "expect" it to have when it is in its

**vacuum state**, which is the state of

**lowest energy**. It turns out that it is a general law of nature that

**physical systems always "want" to be in the state of lowest possible energy**. The allowed values for the energy are determined by the system's

**potential energy function**. In the case of the Higgs field, the potential function looks (more or less) like this:

This is called the

**"mexican hat" potential**for obvious reasons. It's a 3-dimensional graph. The two horizontal axes are the values that the field can take. The vertical axis, labeled V(ϕ), is the value of the

**potential energy**that corresponds to each specific value of the field ϕ. It's kind of like a geographic terrain, where the values of the field are the longitude and latitude, and the value of the potential is the height.

So we have a large valley, with a small hill at the center, on which the Higgs field is currently "sitting" in the image. However, the Higgs looks around and notices that there are

**lower energy states**all around him,

**at the bottom of the valley**. It "wants" to roll down the hill into a state of lower energy.

Notice that when it's at the top of the hill, the system is completely symmetric; you can

**rotate the potential**around the vertical axis as much as you want, and it'll still look exactly the same. But after the Higgs rolls down into a particular spot, the potential is no longer symmetric. We call this process

**spontaneous symmetry breaking**, because the Higgs "broke" the symmetry spontaneously when it chose a specific point on the circle to roll down into. Here is an illustration of what happens:

The Higgs chose a particular point to roll down into, on the right of the hill, and if we now rotate the potential function in the direction of the blue arrow, it will no longer be at the same point. So the symmetry was broken.

When the Higgs rolled down into a point of lower energy ("height"), we say that it

**acquired a vacuum expectation value (VEV)**. Note that the VEV is

**the value of the field, not of the energy**. Previously, when it was at the top of the hill, the field's VEV was zero; this can be easily seen from the fact that it was at the origin (center) of the horizontal plane, where the field equals zero. Now the field has a non-zero value, the VEV, but it has lower energy than it had before.

Ok, those are nice pictures and all, but how does this process actually give mass to particles? I'm afraid for that you'll have to endure a little bit of math, but I promise it'll be really simple.

As I explained in point (3) above, some other fields

**couple**to the Higgs field. This means that, in the equations that describe all the fields, there are some

**interaction terms**that look (very roughly) like this:

gψ¯¯¯ψϕ

Here's what each symbol means:

- ϕ is the Higgs field.
- ψ and ψ¯¯¯ are the fields of some particle and its antiparticle. For example, an electron and a positron.
- g is just a number, called the
**coupling constant**, which determines how strong the interaction is between the three fields (electron, positron and Higgs).

**a number**, and H, which is

**a new field**:

ϕ=v+H

Let's put this into the expression above and see what we get:

gψ¯¯¯ψϕ=gψ¯¯¯ψv+gψ¯¯¯ψH

The expression on the right is still an

**interaction term**, since it still has three fields. We just replaced ϕ with another field, H. This new field, and

**not**ϕ, is

**the Higgs boson**. So we got a term that describes how the electron and positron interact with the Higgs boson. But that's not relevant right now.

The expression on the left is where the mass comes from. First, let's combine v and g together, since

**they are both just numbers**. And let's call that combination m. So we have m=gv, and the expression becomes:

mψ¯¯¯ψ

This is an "interaction term" between a particle and its antiparticle, and there is

**no third field**. Such an interaction is called (drumroll...) a

**mass term**! So, according to quantum field theory, this term says that the electron and positron both have

**mass**m. They didn't have it before; there was no mass term before. But with the help of the Higgs field's VEV, we've managed to

**create**a mass term "out of nothing".

**This is how the Higgs field gives mass to particles.**

What about particles, like protons, that do not acquire mass through the Higgs mechanism?

The Higgs mechanism can only give mass to

**elementary particles**. The number of elementary particles is actually quite small. Here is a table of all the elementary particles and their properties:

There are 17 particles in this table, including the Higgs boson itself. Out of them,

**only 12 particles get masses from the Higgs mechanism**. These are the 6 quarks

*u*,

*d*,

*c*,

*s*,

*t*,

*b*, the 3 leptons

*e*,

*μ*,

*τ*, the 2 gauge bosons

*Z*,

*W*, and the Higgs boson itself,

*H*. (It's possible that the neutrinos also get their masses from the Higgs mechanism, but we're not sure yet.)

However, there are many other particles that are

**not elementary**; they are called

**composite particles**. These particles are made from elementary particles and/or from other composite particles. For example, the proton is made from two

*u*quarks and one

*d*quark:

However, the proton's mass is around 940 MeV, which, as you can see from the table above, is a lot more than the sum of the masses of two

*u*quarks and one

*d*quark, which is around 9.4 MeV - only

**1% of the proton's total mass**! How is this possible? Well, we all know that E=mc2;

**energy is equivalent to mass**, and vice versa. So the rest of the proton's mass must come from the energy stored within it.

Indeed, there are two sources of energy inside the proton. The quarks always move around inside, so they have kinetic energy. And the quarks also interact with each other (as illustrated by the squiggly lines connecting them); this interaction is what binds the quarks together, and it also has energy. So both

**the kinetic energy and the binding energy of the quarks**contribute to the overall mass of the proton. The same goes for all other composite particles.

### Answer Author

11-11-15 I will now look for Elnstine Youtoube and TV "spacetimeandspeed":

2-2-16 Continued from END on page new instruments last used got this Ellipsis 10 Tablet Scott C. He didn't do the ready to go setup.

2-3-16 space time:

https://youtu.be/MO_Q_f1WgQI

The above URL should be copied and pasted in to your browser to get modern physics explanations of space-time one with Einstein see 11-11-15 above.

2-5-16 Continue 11-9-16 But the ELECTRON IS NOT A PARTICLE instead a J_String J_Aether J_Field of 137 J_Waves. The J_Photon-J_Radiated from the crest of J_Waves with a J_Frequency derived from the 137 J_Waves of J_Electron of Bohr Radius J_Hydrogen blue light.

Try to past from todays Email a link:

2-6-16 COPIED FROM Quora:

From Your Quora Digest •

**Is there an infinite source of energy in the electron shells of an atom?**

Alec Cawley, A very rusty first degree in Physics. But I have kept up with the subject at ...

15.2k Views • Upvoted by Kasper Emil Feld, PhD in Nanoscience

Alec is a Most Viewed Writer in Atoms.

Firstly, electrons do not "buzz around" in the atom. The model of them in little orbits around the nucleus is eighty years out of date. They exists as a cloud of probability trapped in a potential well. They are not moving, they are merely spreading themselves across their probability cloud.

Secondly, the idea that things lose energy as they move is an artefact of our scale and the world we live in. Energy loss is caused by molecules bumping into molecules. But electrons are below the level of molecules. They only way they can lose energy is by changing energy levels within the potential well - in which case they will emit a very characteristic photon which we can detect. But they cannot participate in the general thermal degradation we experience at our scale. Indeed, they are, if anything, the agents of that degradation: it is electron interactions that cause lumps of matter to lose energy in assorted manners. But they don't feel friction - they are the proximate causes of friction.

Upvote**109**

Downvote

Comments**4+**

Share**2**

From Your Quora Digest •

**How can the universe keep on expanding if it's infinite?**

Viktor Toth, IT pro, part-time physicist

24.1k Views • Upvoted by Deep Sarkar, Ph.D. Research Scholar in Physics at TIFR

Originally Answered: People say "The universe is expanding." How can it expand if it's infinite?

Imagine a horizontal line (infinite). Now imagine that this line is marked at a spacing of 1" (or 1 cm if you prefer metric units). So the labels go from minus infinity to -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, ... all the way to plus infinity.

Now imagine another line that is marked at a spacing of 2" (or 2 cm). Again, the labels go from minus infinity to -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, ... all the way to plus infinity.

In both cases, you have an infinite line, but in the second case, there is twice as much space between the markings.

Now imagine doing this same thing in two dimensions (a sheet, not a line). Again, mark one sheet with labels at a grid spacing of 1" (or 1 cm); mark another sheet using a grid spacing of 2" (or 2 cm). Same idea. Now do this in a three dimensional space. And instead of placing marks every so many centimeters, just place the marks every so many megaparsecs apart, representing gravitationally unbound clusters of galaxies.

That's how a spatially infinite universe can expand: its extent remains infinite, but the distance between things in it continues to increase.

Written Apr 3, 2015 • View Upvotes

Upvote**251**

Downvote

Share**2**

From Your Quora Digest

**What are the coolest physics behind everyday items?**

Rob Weir, Harvard, Astrophysics B.A., 1991

146.1k Views • Upvoted by Inna Vishik, Physicist

Many residential smoke detectors contain a small amount of the element Americium-241, a radioactive element, atomic number 95, that is produced in nuclear reactors by the decay of Plutonium.

The americium emits radiation that ionizes the air in a small chamber in the smoke detector. This supports a low-level electrical current. If smoke enters the chamber it breaks this current and the alarm goes off.

This is probably the most exotic element in your house.

Written Dec 14, 2014 • View Upvotes

Upvote**3.5k**

**2-7-16 This is the last part of what I am copying of these dates the top 4 lines were copied here from below 2-19-16.**

**Quora Email:**

**From: **Quora Digest <digest-noreply@quora.com>

**Subject: ****Is there an infinite source of energy in the electron shells of an atom? If so, where...? - Quora**

**Date: **September 10, 2015 6:36:34 AM MST

**To: **Jack Doan <cactusjackdoan@gmail.com>

**Based on your interests •see belowMathematics • 2015What are some of the most interesting mathematical coincidences?Senia SheydvasserSenia Sheydvasser, PhD student in Mathematics304.1k Views • Upvoted by Joe Blitzstein, Stanford PhD in MathematicsSenia is a Most Viewed Writer in Mathematics.In 1978, John McKay noticed that 196884 = 196883 + 1. This caused much mathematical fervor, launching a project that took almost 15 years to complete, leading to some seminal papers on the topic.... (more)DownvoteComments49+Share31Answer written •Physics• Jan 31Do scientists know where the center of the Big Bang was in our universe? If so, what do they see when they look there?Tom WatkinsTom Watkins, I have been doing computer simulations of physics for 30 years.357 ViewsAs crazy as it sounds, you are not allowed to ask that question. Or at least no scientist is allowed to answer it.The reason is that a long time ago, all the scientists got together and agreed that we would have rules that we all must follow in our thinking. Most of these rules exist for the sole purpose of keeping our thinking and analysis within limits of what we know how to do. In other words, they keep us from thinking outside the box. Let’s look at some of them and their implications:A. The Copernican Principle says that there should be no ``special'' observers. What this means to scientists is that if they think up a theory that requires a special origin or viewpoint, then it is not plausible - which means that if an idea requires some special condition, then it is automatically incomplete or just dead wrong. Because nearly all cosmological and scientific theories are scrutinized by the Copernican principle, the adoption of this principle means that scientists will not even allow themselves to imagine a solution that challenges this rule - that includes any kind of directionality to the universe - in other words, we can't ask and cannot look for a "direction toward or away from the big bang".B. The Cosmological Principle is derived from the Copernican principle and it implies that the entire Universe is isotropic and homogeneous. Isotropy means the Universe looks the same to all observers and the Universe looks the same in all directions as viewed by a particular observer. Homogeneous means that the average density of matter is about the same in all places in the Universe and the Universe is fairly smooth on large scales.Because of this rule to our thinking, we have ruled out the possibility that there might be some evidence in some unique direction that might, in some manner, relate to the big bang. Since, by definition, such evidence does not exist, no one is allowed to search for it, ask about it or attribute anything they find as evidence of it.On the one hand, these rules are an absolutely essential criteria for scientists to be able to resolve math models of the universe on cosmological scales. On the other hand, when we do actually measure or observe something that challenges this principle (and we have), we either adjust the scale upward to average out the anomaly or we discount the observation as being flawed. In a few rare cases, when the evidence is so overwhelming and undeniable, we label it "dark" as in dark energy or dark flow.Finally, we come to a definition that we accept as fact that the Universe has to contain the properties of everything. This means that the term `edge of the Universe’ assumes that there exists something that is not contained in the Universe. Invoking an outside property to the Universe (an edge to the Universe), we have defined as logically inconsistent since, by an agreed upon definition, the Universe must contain everything. You therefore, cannot ask what was before the big bang. You cannot ask what the universe is expanding into. You cannot even ask how big is the universe because that implies that there is something beyond that contains the universe - and that is not allowed. This rule is another limitation to our thinking despite the fact that we have no idea how big the entire universe is and we have observations, like dark flow and dark energy, that defy explanation unless you allow for something beyond what we can observe.What all this means is that if you keep asking questions like this, guys in black suits will visit you and tell you that you are breaking the rules and must stop. :-)Written Jan 31 • View UpvotesDownvoteComments2Share5Question asked •Chemistry• Feb 1Why is ammonia called ammonium hydroxide if it doesn't contain a hydroxide ion?3 AnswersFollow4Based on your interests •Mathematics• 2012Who is the most badass mathematician ever?Charles H MartinCharles H Martin, Calculation Consulting; we predict things63.8k Views • Upvoted by Ben Baert, independent student of mathematicsCarl Friedrich GaussA child prodigy born to a poor, working class German family in 1777,he is the source from which nearly all of modern mathematics, physics, and engineering arose.Among his notable accomplishments: His magnum opus, Disquisitiones Arithmeticae ("Arithmetical Investigations"), kick-started the field of number theory. He published it at the tender age of 21. He invented the Fast Fourier transform (FFT) in the early 19th century, using it to approximate solutions to a difficult problem in astronomy which we'll come back to shortly. It's worth noting that this was a time before computers—"fast approximation method" had very different implications when you were the calculator. FFT was rediscovered 160 years later. It is now recognised as one of the most important numerical methods of the modern age, with wide applications in engineering, digital signal processing and computer science. When Giuseppe Piazzi discovered Ceres in 1801, he was only able to chart 1% of its orbit before it was obscured by the Sun. The techniques available at the time were not capable of charting a complete orbit with so little data. Many were pessimistic of the chance of its ever being relocated. Fortunately for astronomy, Gauss was fascinated by this problem, considering it "commended… by its difficulty and elegance." Over the course of a few weeks he came up with a prediction for its location in about a year's time. It turned out to be accurate to within half a degree, and the astronomer who found it again credited Gauss for its rediscovery. Gauss subsequently expanded these techniques, laying the groundwork for modern astronomy by developing an accurate and workable theory of planetary motion; He discovered the Gaussian distribution and invented (but did not publish) linear regression. Discovered non-Euclidean geometry. Discovered Gauss's law and helped found modern electromagnetic theory……The list could go on.Gauss is recognised as a German national hero (see e.g. Unsere Besten, "Our Best"). Before adopting the Euro, they placed Gauss on their Deutsche Mark:Updated Feb 25, 2014 • View UpvotesDownvoteComments19+Share8Answer written •Optics• Jan 26Why do mirrors and puddles reflect light?Keith AllpressKeith Allpress311 Views • Keith has 380+ answers in Physics.You don't need to try to produce quantum mechanical answers to this, that is a massive overkill. It is perfectly well explained by classical fields. It is just like attaching a rope to a point on the wall and making waves in it. The immobilised end of the rope acts as a nodal point, and the waves then suffer a turnaround, a 180 degree change in phase. So all you have to understand is that light is an electromagnetic field, and that field is trying to change at some point in space depending on what the wave is doing at neighbouring points. In free space it is free to propagate, but it fails to propagate when the changes in electric fields (and magnetic) are countered by the strong electrical field that represents the potential well of the metal. The same thing happens at surfaces where the electrons are free to move to a lesser extent and the induced currents counter the propagation. Of course in a metal the mobility of the electrons is legendary. They conduct electricity after all. The proper approach is to calculate the penetration depth of the light into the metal.It doesn't have much at all to do with flatness either, as long as it is flat enough at some scale that is around the scale of the wavelength.I know you mentioned photons in your own comments on the question, but that picture is misleading, remember a pure single frequency is quantised E=hf in free space and a pure frequency has no particular spatial location. But if you know how to construct an "edge" using waves you should know that a step in potential represents a very large sum of frequencies added together. So the "photon" now is starting to look like a very constructed affair, wave packets of light, or pulses, are really quasi particles defined by the signal shape as much as anything. You could detect random kicks in momentum as if particles were raining on the surface, and a real force is generated, but Maxwell showed that a light wave carries momentum by purely classical reasoning. So without some degree in quantum optics, which I certainly do not have, I would recommend sticking with the simple classical model.Oh, yes, water. In particular deep water. Do we have mobile electrons? Sure we do, and we have a lot of unbonded electrons in "lone pairs" too. In fluids the entire molecules are mobile after all, and polarisable over a large scale just as metals, or fixed surfaces. Water is also able to scatter and absorb light, which produces a dark background to deep water. So it is the lack of reflective surfaces within the body of the water that reduces secondary light re-emerging, and allows water to act as a good mirror.Written Jan 26 • View UpvotesDownvoteCommentShareAnswer written •Chemistry• 1hWhat are the two types of ligand classification in organometallic chemistry and how do they each work?Thomas Alexander WheelerThomas Alexander Wheeler, Undergraduate majoring in chemistry59 ViewsI believe what you're requesting is the difference between the neutral ligand classification and charged ligand classification. Both of which are formalisms for determining the electrons belonging ... (more)DownvoteCommentShareQuestion asked •Physics• 2hDo we have atoms of people that lived before us? What would the chance of that?1,294 views in the last day2 AnswersFollow1Based on your interests •Mathematics• Sep 7Why do some people say pure mathematics is beautiful, and what are some examples of this beauty?Senia SheydvasserSenia Sheydvasser, PhD student in Mathematics12k Views • Upvoted by David Joyce, Professor of Mathematics at Clark UniversitySenia is a Most Viewed Writer in Pure Mathematics.Pure mathematics is beautiful, but it can be a beauty that is difficult for people to appreciate because it can take so much background and effort to see what is going on. Thankfully, Quora already has quite a few posts that try to highlight this for the layperson. Here's a sample:What is the best math poem you know?What are the best math videos on YouTube?What is the loneliest number, and why?While I am at it, let me throw in a few pictures that have come up in the process of my own research, since I think that the results have been quite pretty:For the curious, these pictures are related to the Apollonian gasket that I describe in my answer to "What is the best math poem you know?"EDIT: It was requested in the comments that I elaborate a little bit on what exactly my research is and where these pretty pictures come from. I will try to do so in the most layperson way as possible.In sort of the biggest generality, I am interested in studying large groups of matrices, and what happens if you take some sort of projection from this group down to, say, the integers.As a very simple example, I could take the group of all real [math] 2 \times 2 [/math] matrices [math] \left(\begin{smallmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{smallmatrix}\right) [/math] whose coefficients are all integers, and for which the determinant [math] ad - bc = 1 [/math]. (This is known as [math] SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) [/math].)A projection that I could use would be to just take the lower right coefficient [math] d [/math]. This projection is very well understood, and you can prove that any integer will be in the image of this projection. (Hint: use Bézout's identity.)However, if you take some subgroup of [math] SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) [/math], this same question can be a lot harder to answer if this subgroup is "sparse" in some sense---or, in the usual terminology of the field, "thin."So, in short, I am interested in studying thin groups. They have some interesting applications, including one curious one to the problem of numerical integration.What does this have to do with circles and the images that I have drawn? Well, you should probably start by looking up the Apollonian gasket---again, I talked about it in my post about my favorite math poem.Have you gone and had a look? OK, good. What you have seen is that the gasket is constructed by starting with a circle, and then applying a geometric transformation to it to give you a new circle, and then another circle, and then another circle...What is going on behind the scenes is that these geometric transformations are actually described by matrices (one way to do it is through Möbius transformations). So all the gasket is is a way to visualize a particular matrix group---you can think of it as each circle corresponding a matrix in the thin group you are interested in.What is an interesting projection of this group? Well, you can look at the curvatures of the circles! (Recall that the curvature is 1/radius.)We know a lot about Apollonian gaskets, but we still cannot prove what exactly all of the curvatures are. Thin groups are tricky to work with.The pictures that I have drawn above are similar to the Apollonian gasket, but they just represent different matrix groups.Written Sep 7 • View UpvotesDownvoteComments1+ShareQuestion asked •Chemistry• Jan 27What are some good puns about elements in chemistry?5 AnswersFollow13Answer written •Physics• Jan 27If you put a wrecking ball and a marble in an empty space, would the marble orbit the wrecking ball?Robert ReilandRobert Reiland, over 40 years of teaching introductory physics1k Views • Robert is a Most Viewed Writer in Astrophysics.With a 1000 Kg wrecking ball and the marble 1.0 m from the center of the ball, a circular orbit could be produced with a marble speed of 0.26 mm/s. The marble would take about 6.7 h to orbit the c...(more)DownvoteComments2+ShareAnswer written •Mathematics• 2012What are some of the most counterintuitive mathematical results?Alon AmitAlon Amit, Unknower55.3k Views • Upvoted by Anurag Bishnoi, Ph.D. student in Mathematics at Ghent University. • Ng Boon Leong, Maths (and physics) in college, currently working on a Masters degree in graph theory. Former high-… • Justin Rising, PhD in statisticsAlon is a Most Viewed Writer in Mathematics.So many intuition-defying results, so little time. Here are a few.Hahn-MazurkiewiczDefinition: A curve is a continuous image of the unit interval [0,1].Example: a circle, a helix, a sine wave and ...(more)DownvoteComments23+Share11Question re-asked •Physics• FriIf I say "famous scientist", who's the first person that comes to your mind?24 AnswersFollow36Answer written •Chemistry• 46mWhy is copper ion in its +1 oxidation state unstable in aqueous solution?Michael FlynnMichael Flynn, BSc Hons Newcastle University42 Views • Michael is a Most Viewed Writer in Inorganic Chemistry.I have answered this here:In copper, why isn't the +1 oxidation state more stable than +2 oxidation state?Written 46m ago • Asked to answer by Akhileshwaram PandeyDownvoteCommentShareAnswer written •Mathematics• Jan 23What math would a theoretical physicist use?Eric PlattEric Platt, Mathematics PhD Student1.7k ViewsPhysicists of all kinds would know and use Algebra Geometry Calculus Linear Algebra Ordinary Differential Equations...(more)DownvoteComments2+ShareAnswer written •Physics• Jan 30Can you briefly explain the fundamentals of electromagnetism?Jack FraserJack Fraser, Undergrad Physicist at Oxford Uni753 Views • Jack is a Most Viewed Writer in Physics.If you know vector calculus, the following describes electromagnetism in the most succinct way possible:∇⋅E⃗ =ρε0∇⋅E→=ρε0∇×E⃗ =−∂B⃗ ∂t∇×E→=−∂B→∂t∇⋅B⃗ =0∇⋅B→=0∇×B⃗ =μJ⃗ +μϵ∂E⃗ ∂t∇×B→=μJ→+μϵ∂E→∂tthese are Maxwell's equations - and from them you can derive pretty much everything you'd want to.... (more)DownvoteComments1+ShareQuestion followed •Physics• Jan 26Water: Why does water expand when cooled at 4 degrees Celsius?15 AnswersFollow49QuoraDiscover new topicsDifferential EquationsDifferential EquationsOrdinary or partial. Linear or nonlinear. Sometimes stochastic.Because you follow CalculusHTMLHTMLHyperText Markup Language (HTML) is the main markup language for web pages. HTML elements are the basic building-blocks of webpages.Because you follow AlgorithmsElectricityElectricityThe Science of electrons in motion.Because you follow PhysicsBased on your interests • 2015What are the best-kept secrets of great programmers?Navarre GinsbergNavarre Ginsberg, Computer Scientist @ unnamed startup94.7k Views • Upvoted by Till Hänisch, CS ProfessorImagine two people, Alice and Bob. Neither Alice nor Bob have ever written a line of code before in their life. One day, Alice and Bob are walking along, and an alien shows up (let's call him K-Pax... (more)DownvoteComments25+Share30There's more on Quora...Pick new people and topics to follow and see the best answers on Quora.**

**2-8-16 last year I got on top part of the similar email:**

**From: **Quora Digest <digest-noreply@quora.com>

**Subject: ****Is there an infinite source of energy in the electron shells of an atom? If so, where...? - Quora**

**Date: **September 10, 2015 6:36:34 AM MST

**To: **Jack Doan <cactusjackdoan@gmail.com>

**So I need to Research the timing of that prior art.**

**2-11-16 This page First Checkout is getting hard to use:**

**11-2-17 Continue from Spacetime page Copied from Quora: Could not Past Here! 7-17-18 Removed END**