I seem to recall reading recently of an experiment that disproves quantum foam. If I have that wrong, does anyone know what I might be thinking of?
Thanks,
Rob
One particular model (or set of models, more precisely) of the quantum foam was recently disproven. According to some models, the structure of the quantum foam would be such that light of different energies would travel at slightly different speeds, and the most straightforward such models predicted a certain value for the discrepancy in speeds. Hence, for a sufficiently-distant source of photons, if multiple photons were all emitted at the same time, an observer here would measure them arriving at detectably different times. Observations of distant gamma ray bursts, however, show the different-energy photons arriving at the same time, or at least, at times closer together than what would be predicted by the models. Thus, those particular models are incorrect.
But there’s far more that we don’t know about the quantum foam and related phenomena than there is that we do know, and there’s plenty of room within our ignorance for other models which are still consistent with everything we’ve observed. So no, we can’t say that it’s gone the way of the æther.
The Ether is real! Real! My Theories and Devices would not work without it! Ignore the Greyfaces of the Technocracy If only the damnable Consensus did not prevent me from showing you my work! If only there was some way to Actualize your MetaConscious Mind! I won’t give up! I will find a way!
That post goes very well with that user name. I ended up feeling a steampunk vibe.
You gotta watch them things - they can do some serious damage.
I can attest to this. I used to use it in high school to make fruit flies stop moving around so I could look at their eyes and wings. Not very important in this thread, tho…
Ether or…?
Ether is real. That Dark Matter that you can’t see but makes up most of the mass of the universe so the physisists invented it to make their theories and devices work? Ether. And Dark Energy is Phlogiston. Scientists just gave them new names so the Nobel committee wouldn’t see this was old wine in a new bottle. Which is a stupid saying if the old wine is better than the new. A better idea is new wine in an old bottle. With the right old bottle that would be a good scam, no matter what the Bible says.
Let us locomote to the stone-extraction site and propel matter earthward therein.
Those fools at the Institute, they mocked my studies!
They called me mad!
Mad?
Mad!
I’ll show them mad! I’ll show them all!!!
I’m still holding out hope for phlogiston.
Yeah, well, don’t hold your breath.
Really, don’t. Whenever I try too hard to hold my breath, I get a lot of phlogiston.
If there were no such thing as phlogiston, how would you explain soot? Check and mate, Lavoisier-heads!
Maybe.
Actually… One of the other names for “dark energy” (or at least, one particular theoretical form of it) is “quintessence”. Literally, “fifth element”. I.e., ether. So no, they’re not actually making up new names; they’re just reusing and repurposing the old ones.
I though that was Milla Jovovich - she can expand my universe any time she likes.
Tass! DocCathode was right - it’s a Technocracy conspiracy!
You call it your universe? Isn’t that a bit pretentious?
You may say that, I couldn’t possibly comment 
resisting the temptation to discuss expansion, curvature, and the best bang since the big one…