Gyroscopic Investing

[quote=http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantu ... verse.html]Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end. [/quote]

So how would the four parts of the PP behave in the face of a no Big Bang quantum singularity?

fnord123 wrote: So how would the four parts of the PP behave in the face of a no Big Bang quantum singularity?

Once you find out, you alter the answer.

dualstow wrote:

fnord123 wrote: So how would the four parts of the PP behave in the face of a no Big Bang quantum singularity?

Once you find out, you alter the answer.

When you look at Permanent Portfolio funds, in part or as a whole, they are either there or they are not.   

Best regards,  ... Erwin Schrödinger

Digging into quantum physics at a rudimentary level on youtube one day, made my head nearly explode.  I simply don't have the time, energy or brain power to devote to even attempt to understand QP or the origins of the universe. 

Counterintuitively, the more we learn about the universe the more mysterious it becomes. My purely intuitive personal belief is that eventually our assumptions about the speed and linearity of time will be broken, which will shed startling new light on scientific core beliefs like evolution and the origin of the universe.

Tyler wrote: Counterintuitively, the more we learn about the universe the more mysterious it becomes. My purely intuitive personal belief is that eventually our assumptions about the speed and linearity of time will be broken, which will shed startling new light on scientific core beliefs like evolution and the origin of the universe.

Have you ever read "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder?  It has some interesting ideas along these lines.

Tyler wrote: Counterintuitively, the more we learn about the universe the more mysterious it becomes. My purely intuitive personal belief is that eventually our assumptions about the speed and linearity of time will be broken, which will shed startling new light on scientific core beliefs like evolution and the origin of the universe.

Yes, time doesn't literally exist.  There is no past, present nor future, only the now.  But I don't think our brains are hardwired to handle simultaneity.

stuper1 wrote: Have you ever read "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder?  It has some interesting ideas along these lines.

Not yet, but I'll put it on the list.  Thanks for the tip!

clacy wrote: Digging into quantum physics at a rudimentary level on youtube one day, made my head nearly explode.  I simply don't have the time, energy or brain power to devote to even attempt to understand QP or the origins of the universe.

Eh, QP isn't that hard conceptually. The math is another issue entirely...

Libertarian666 wrote:Eh, QP isn't that hard conceptually. The math is another issue entirely...

You're kidding, right?  Doing the math is one thing; that's making things add up.  Actually understanding quantum physics as an explanation of what's actually happening in the universe?  Really mind-bending stuff.  As in, our brains literally cannot comprehend what's going on.  It's like trying to visualize a 4-dimensional object.  We just can't to it.

Xan wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:Eh, QP isn't that hard conceptually. The math is another issue entirely...

You're kidding, right?  Doing the math is one thing; that's making things add up.  Actually understanding quantum physics as an explanation of what's actually happening in the universe?  Really mind-bending stuff.  As in, our brains literally cannot comprehend what's going on.  It's like trying to visualize a 4-dimensional object.  We just can't to it.

No, I'm not kidding; I don't have too much trouble with the concepts. I'm not talking about visualization, which I certainly can't do (and am not sure anyone else can do either), but the ideas themselves aren't too scary.

Or maybe I'm kidding myself and I really don't get it, but just think I do.

clacy wrote: Digging into quantum physics at a rudimentary level on youtube one day, made my head nearly explode.  I simply don't have the time, energy or brain power to devote to even attempt to understand QP or the origins of the universe.

The best explanation in layman terms is The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory.

It is really easy to understand but intense and I fear I will never ever read a book again in my life that will top it.

BTW, why is the plural of explain missing an i?  That always trips me up.

MachineGhost wrote: BTW, why is the plural of explain missing an i?  That always trips me up.

You mean the noun form? Although it's not always the case with "-ai-", explain looks like Latin via French to me, whereas explanation is probably direct from Latin. That's just a guess.

When English spelling looks screwed up, more often than not, you can blame it on the French and 1066.

EDIT: Ha! I just looked it up and one source says that the verb was originally spelled "explane"! Says "spelling altered by influence of plain." Plain itself is from Old French.