Mind-Bending New Paper Could Explain The Strange ‘Patterns’ Within Our Solar System

There’s a strange pattern in our Solar System – if you look at the orbits of the first seven planets, each one gets increasingly distant from the Sun in a predictable and quantifiable regularity.

more…

Tau.Neutrino said:

Mind-Bending New Paper Could Explain The Strange ‘Patterns’ Within Our Solar System

There’s a strange pattern in our Solar System – if you look at the orbits of the first seven planets, each one gets increasingly distant from the Sun in a predictable and quantifiable regularity.

more…

“Currently, the majority of physicists subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which states that particles do not have defined locations until they are observed.”

Is that true?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Mind-Bending New Paper Could Explain The Strange ‘Patterns’ Within Our Solar System

There’s a strange pattern in our Solar System – if you look at the orbits of the first seven planets, each one gets increasingly distant from the Sun in a predictable and quantifiable regularity.

more…

“Currently, the majority of physicists subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which states that particles do not have defined locations until they are observed.”

Is that true?

I should think so, although “subscribe” might be too strong a word.

One clue will be to see if Titius-Bode regularity holds up in other distant solar systems, says Castro – but it’s also worth keeping in mind that other scientists think Titius-Bode law is nothing more than a flawed coincidence.

I was wondering about that myself, is current technology capable of performing such observations, I imagine even if it can it could take years to observe the planets in the system

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Mind-Bending New Paper Could Explain The Strange ‘Patterns’ Within Our Solar System

There’s a strange pattern in our Solar System – if you look at the orbits of the first seven planets, each one gets increasingly distant from the Sun in a predictable and quantifiable regularity.

more…

“Currently, the majority of physicists subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which states that particles do not have defined locations until they are observed.”

Is that true?

I should think so, although “subscribe” might be too strong a word.

My impression was that the current majority viewpoint was that particles only needed to interact, rather than needing some entity capable of observation to observe them.

Certainly that seems like a more reasonable interpretation to me.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Mind-Bending New Paper Could Explain The Strange ‘Patterns’ Within Our Solar System

There’s a strange pattern in our Solar System – if you look at the orbits of the first seven planets, each one gets increasingly distant from the Sun in a predictable and quantifiable regularity.

more…

More than that. Nine planets. Bodes Law describes the orbits of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Pluto and Eris. The odd one out is Neptune. The match to the orbit of Eris is near perfect, and the match to Pluto’s orbit is better than that of Mercury.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Mind-Bending New Paper Could Explain The Strange ‘Patterns’ Within Our Solar System

There’s a strange pattern in our Solar System – if you look at the orbits of the first seven planets, each one gets increasingly distant from the Sun in a predictable and quantifiable regularity.

more…

More than that. Nine planets. Bodes Law describes the orbits of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Pluto and Eris. The odd one out is Neptune. The match to the orbit of Eris is near perfect, and the match to Pluto’s orbit is better than that of Mercury.

Perhaps Neptune did fit in with the law originally but its orbit was disturbed by another star passing close by or another planet that become untethered and is not longer part of our solar system

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

“Currently, the majority of physicists subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which states that particles do not have defined locations until they are observed.”

Is that true?

I should think so, although “subscribe” might be too strong a word.

My impression was that the current majority viewpoint was that particles only needed to interact, rather than needing some entity capable of observation to observe them.

Certainly that seems like a more reasonable interpretation to me.

Brendon might sympathise with this chap:

E. T. Jaynes, from a Bayesian point of view, argued that probability is a measure of a state of information about the physical world. Quantum mechanics under the Copenhagen interpretation interpreted probability as a physical phenomenon, which is what Jaynes called a mind projection fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Criticism

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

“Currently, the majority of physicists subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which states that particles do not have defined locations until they are observed.”

Is that true?

I should think so, although “subscribe” might be too strong a word.

My impression was that the current majority viewpoint was that particles only needed to interact, rather than needing some entity capable of observation to observe them.

Certainly that seems like a more reasonable interpretation to me.

Yes

“Currently, the majority of physicists subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which states that particles do not have defined locations until they are observed.”

How could you prove this wrong or right if observation affects the outcome
Couldn’t particles have defined locations but you have to observe them to see where it is

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Mind-Bending New Paper Could Explain The Strange ‘Patterns’ Within Our Solar System

There’s a strange pattern in our Solar System – if you look at the orbits of the first seven planets, each one gets increasingly distant from the Sun in a predictable and quantifiable regularity.

more…

More than that. Nine planets. Bodes Law describes the orbits of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Pluto and Eris. The odd one out is Neptune. The match to the orbit of Eris is near perfect, and the match to Pluto’s orbit is better than that of Mercury.

Oops. I meant Ten planets. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Pluto and Eris.

Have a look at the front cover of the old book “Modern Cosmology” by Jagit Singh. The pattern of gas eddies shown there is known as Weizsacker’s system of primary vortices, invented in, well, a long time ago possibly 1945, provides a nice mechanistic explanation of Bode’s Law. A later modification by Kuiper replaces the regular gas vortices by random ones but still agrees roughly with Bode’s Law.

Cymek said:

“Currently, the majority of physicists subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which states that particles do not have defined locations until they are observed.”

How could you prove this wrong or right if observation affects the outcome
Couldn’t particles have defined locations but you have to observe them to see where it is

from the article

One clue will be to see if Titius-Bode regularity holds up in other distant solar systems, says Castro – but it’s also worth keeping in mind that other scientists think Titius-Bode law is nothing more than a flawed coincidence.

I wonder if this concept could be extended to smaller galaxies orbiting larger galaxies ?

if black holes, stars and plants have gravity waves.

What about galaxies themselves having a gravity wave, is that possible?

Tau.Neutrino said:

I wonder if this concept could be extended to smaller galaxies orbiting larger galaxies ?

or stars around the central mass blackhole

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I wonder if this concept could be extended to smaller galaxies orbiting larger galaxies ?

or stars around the central mass blackhole

Yes, and maybe that pattern extends out further to galaxy clusters ?

TATE says:

“ The hypothesis correctly anticipated the orbits of Ceres (in the asteroid belt) and Uranus, but failed as a predictor of Neptune’s orbit and has eventually been superseded as a theory of solar system formation”

but they also say both that it may be a consequence of orbital resonance, and that it is purely a coincidence, so I don’t know how much attention we should pay to them.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I wonder if this concept could be extended to smaller galaxies orbiting larger galaxies ?

or stars around the central mass blackhole

Yes, and maybe that pattern extends out further to galaxy clusters ?

Perhaps and maybe it helps explain dark matter distribution as well

> a group of physicists now say there might be something more to it. Their work shows that something called ‘pilot wave gravity’ could explain the pattern. In fact, it could replace the concept of gravity altogether.

Bullshit.

The formation of eddies within the gas of the proto-solar system makes much more sense.

The other possibility is stable and unstable resonances similar to those that create the Kirkwood gaps in the asteroid belt.