Why Einstein was wrong about being wrong

Oct 14, 2011 By Michael D. Lemonick

If you want to get your mind around the research that won three astronomers the Nobel Prize in physics last week, it helps to think of the universe as a lump of dough - raisin-bread dough, to be precise - mixed, kneaded and ready to rise. Hold that thought.

Now consider - not the wild-haired, elderly, absent-minded professor he became in his later years but a young, dashing scientist in his 30s. It's 1916, and he's just published his revolutionary . It's not necessary to understand the theory (thank goodness). You just have to accept that it gave scientists the mathematical tools they needed to forge a better understanding of the cosmos than they'd ever had.

There was just one problem. Relativity told physicists that the was restless. It couldn't just sit there. It either had to be expanding or contracting. But astronomers looked, and as far as they could tell, it was doing neither. The lump of dough wasn't rising, and it wasn't shrinking.

The only way that was possible, Einstein realized, was if some mysterious force was propping up the universe, a sort of antigravity that pushed outward just hard enough to balance the that was trying to pull it inward. Einstein hated this idea. An extra force meant he had to tinker with the equations of , but the equations seemed so perfect just as they were. Changing them in any way would tarnish their mathematical beauty.

Einstein did it anyway. The universe ought to behave according to the laws he had set out, but it simply wasn't cooperating. The "" - his name for the new antigravity force - became part of the theory.

Then, a decade or so later, the great astronomer Edwin Hubble went up to the Mount Wilson Observatory above Pasadena and used the world's most powerful telescope to peer deeper into the universe than anyone had before. Making excruciatingly careful measurements of the he could see beyond the Milky Way, Hubble was astonished to learn that they weren't stationary at all. The galaxies - the raisins in the bread dough - were in motion, each moving apart from the other. The dough was rising in all directions, and the raisins were going along for the ride.

This discovery ultimately lead to the Big Bang theory, which says that the cosmos was once tiny, with all matter packed tightly together, and that it's been expanding every since. When Hubble first announced his results, however, Einstein was more concerned with its consequences for general relativity. If the universe was expanding, the cosmological constant wasn't needed. His beautiful equations had been right to begin with. In 1931, Einstein came to Mount Wilson to shake Hubble's hand and thank him for saving relativity from the cosmological constant, whose invention Einstein denounced as "the greatest blunder of my life."

But this year's Nobel suggests that it was Einstein's statement, not the cosmological constant, that may have been the true blunder. Once astronomers accepted that the universe was expanding, they began to wonder if it would expand at the same rate forever. Or maybe, if there was enough gravity from all of those billions of galaxies pulling on each other, it would slow down, and or even slow to a stop someday and fall back on itself.

In the mid-1990s two independent teams of astronomers, one based at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the other at observatories in Baltimore and Australia, decided to find out. Armed with telescopes far more powerful than anything available in Hubble's day, they began using supernovas - titanic explosions in which a single dying star briefly outshines an entire galaxy - as markers to measure the expansion speed at different times in the history of the universe. They could do it because telescopes are really time machines. The light from a distant supernova has taken so long to get here that when we finally see it, we're seeing a snapshot from billions of years in the past. If the supernova is relatively nearby, the snapshot is relatively recent.

By measuring the speed and distance of many different supernovas, from many different eras, you can see whether anything has changed over the billions of years of cosmic history. And when the astronomers looked, things had changed, but in a way nobody expected. The expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down. It was speeding up. The dough was, and still is, rising faster now than it was in the beginning. A baker would be astonished by this bizarre behavior. So were the astronomers. The only explanation that made sense: Einstein's "greatest blunder" was actually one of his greatest predictions. There really is a mysterious antigravity force. Einstein's only mistake was in rejecting it.

The 1998 discovery of the accelerating universe earned the Lawrence Berkeley Lab's Saul Perlmutter half of this year's Nobel. His competition - Brian Schmidt of the Australian National University and Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute, split the other half.

Only two questions remain. First, why did it take the Nobel committee so long to recognize such an important discovery? The answer is that they wanted to be really, really sure it was true.

The other question: What is this antigravity force, anyway? Theoretical call it dark energy, but do they have ideas about what it actually is, how it works? Plenty, but are they convincing? "Well, no," Riess said in a telephone interview last week. "They really aren't."

Another Nobel awaits whoever figures that one out.

Explore further: Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

More information: Michael D. Lemonick is a senior writer for the nonprofit journalism organization Climate Central and is a contributor to Time, where he was a senior writer for 21 years. He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.

4.3 /5 (18 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Nature of universe is still a mystery to Nobel winners

Oct 04, 2011

They won the Nobel Prize for changing our understanding of the universe, but their discovery left an even larger mystery -- what is this dark energy that is propelling the universe to expand so fast? ...

Md. prof shares Nobel over faster growing universe

Oct 04, 2011

A Johns Hopkins University professor was one of a trio of scientists awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics Tuesday for discovering that the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate, contrary to s ...

Recommended for you

Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

Apr 18, 2014

Putting is arguably the most important skill in golf; in fact, it's been described as a game within a game. Now a team of Rice engineering students has devised a training putter that offers golfers audio, ...

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Apr 17, 2014

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

User comments : 113

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

voltaire96
1.6 / 5 (21) Oct 14, 2011
einstein wrote 2 theories of relativity, the general theory of relativity has a metric tensor inserted accounting for the black hole beneath the earth which is contracting the spacetime earth exists in.
the infamous E=Mc2
his special theory of relativity has no such restrictions on the universe expanding. its simply Energy=Mass.
Einstein knew exactly what he was doing, we are moving from his general theory of relativity to his special theory of relativity, he anticipated this shift in 1905!!
he was the greatest. please no denigrate his memory like that.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (18) Oct 14, 2011
No, we are not moving from General to Special Relativity. SR is for use in reference frames that are not accelerating w.r.t. each other; GR deals with accelerated reference frames (including ones where the acceleration is due to gravitational effects).
Both theories are still applicable, still relevant; they do not represent any kind of transition of understanding.

SR is not simply E=mc^2. It also shows the (observed) changes in mass, length, and time that a fast object undergoes.

There is no black hole "beneath" the Earth, not even if by "beneath" you mean "at the center". The local spacetime is not being contracted; it simply has the curvature expected from the planet's size and density.
Now, maybe if neutron repulsion were at work.... ;-)
Callippo
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2011
Lets make things clear: Einstein assumed first, the Universe is steady-state, while his theory predicted expansion. So he introduced a constant into his theory to put his theory into formal agreement with expectations.

Later it turned out, the Universe is really expanding and his constant became redundant for ever - so Einstein was never wrong about being wrong.

You cannot make Universe steady state (which was original model) and expanding with increasing speed (which is current model) with using of single constant.
Callippo
1.3 / 5 (17) Oct 14, 2011
why did it take the Nobel committee so long to recognize such an important discovery? The answer is that they wanted to be really, really sure it was true
IMO the Nobel committee still got wrong, as the Universe doesn't expand and the original steady-state model of Universe is more correct.
dtyarbrough
1 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2011
Only expansion due to pressure can cause the homogenous distribution of matter in the universe. The nature of this sort of expansion is such that even though the expansion at the edge may be slowing, expansion everywhere else is slowing exponentially faster, making it appear that everything is expanding increasingly faster.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2011
...as the Universe doesn't expand

So are we in some airtight bottle? Are there walls out there? Maybe just more spacetime. Which means visible space is expanding into an infinite universe. The visible universe, they say, is flat within 1 or 2%, which means parallel lines go on forever and ever in every direction. This doesn't sound consistent with the raisin bread analogy as I see it.
PinkElephant
4.8 / 5 (16) Oct 14, 2011
Lets make things clear
Let's
Einstein assumed first, the Universe is steady-state, while his theory predicted expansion
No. Einstein's theory predicted non-steady state, whether that be expansion or contraction. Yet, observations seemed to indicate steady state. So he 'fixed' the theory to match observations by adding the constant to counteract the theoretic instability.
Later it turned out, the Universe is really expanding and his constant became redundant for ever
Not 'for ever'. The expansion was assumed to be decelerating.
You cannot make Universe .. expanding with increasing speed (which is current model) with using of single constant.
Yes you can. The constant represents a constant force intrinsic to the fabric of spacetime, and when a constant force is continually applied to something, acceleration is the outcome.
hard2grep
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2011
Has anyone noticed that Photons seem to be both a natural pick and perfect example of how energy is returned to space.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2011
"we are moving from his general theory of relativity to his special theory of relativity" - Voltaire

Meaningless Claptrap. Chronic from people calling themselves Voltaire.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2011
"Has anyone noticed that Photons seem..." - Too hard to grep

I have noticed that there are a lot of jabbering apes jabbring idiocy in this thread.
Mr Bill
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2011
Ok, Einstein assumed like everyone else that the universe was infinite and just hanging there. gravity alone would cause it to collapse absent any other forces directly opposing gravity. What could it be, what could it be? Mysterious place holder called 'cosmological constant' maybe. Yes that will do for now. But it doesn't feel right to just stick that in. Then comes hubble. Oops me big dumbo, says Albert einstein. This doesn't have anything to do with the new discovery. At all.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2011
"Only expansion due to pressure can cause the homogenous distribution of matter in the universe. " - dtvar...

You don't have a clue to what causes pressure do you?
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2011
"Yes that will do for now. But it doesn't feel right to just stick that in." - Mr. Bill

Integration Constant.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (14) Oct 14, 2011
"the Universe doesn't expand.." - Callipro

Observation doesn't mesh with your personal ideology. And that is why you will always be a religionist and never a scientist.

Skepticus
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2011
Gosh, the third graders' school holiday must have been over! We are deluged in their wisdom.
SR71BlackBird
2.5 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
I really should stop reading these comments. Thanks to those that contribute to the news post, as for those who know nothing about this news topic, I suggest 'On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'. Should be a good place to start. On topic, I've always liked the idea that the polarization of the vacuum by gravitation could account for dark matter. However, the same cannot be said for dark energy. Pure speculation, however, is it possible that the vacuum polarized by two gravitational bodies meets at certain points and causes an interference pattern that ultimately expands space-time?
Daleg
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
Einstein didn't like the Cosmological Constant because it introduced a much greater amount of instability into his equations then would be acceptable, in other words it had to be fine tuned to work. He was wrong to put it into the theory for the reason that he did, as the Universe is not static. However many Relatavists will tell you that there simply is no way to exclude the term as it fits natuarlly into the conceptual framework of the theory itself.
The real issue is not Einstein right or wrong it is why a term which seemed necessary then redundant, and now necessary again leads by any way of calculation to a 10 to 120 power error in calculated contribution to the curvature of space as opposed to observation. Since the Cosmological term fits naturally into the equations why do physicists' have to so finely tune it by setting it to almost zero to make space flat, that is the real issue?
Daleg
2.7 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
The Calculated eror has to do with the contributions from vacuum energy, as these would naturally based on quantum mechnics be almost infinite the universe should have, so it is said, expanded so far beyond the visible horizon within the first few seconds of existence that we wouldn't be here to know about it. What cancels the repulsion to such a fine degree that for 4-7 billion years Gravity and Dark Energy almost balanced, and why then acceleration. This is what Adam Reiss is saying by if anyone can figure this one out they deserve a Nobel Prize, for explaining this balancing act. As the accelerated expansion was never expected since the method to fine tune the equations is so mathematically difficult to carry out. Especially without any idea of what terms should cancel and how that could produce such a small cosmological constant in the first place. Way beyond anything I could even contemplate doing.
Husky
4.8 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2011
What interests me about the expansion of space / dark energy is the second law of thermodynamics, if a hot gascloud expands it occupies a larger volume but the molecules cool down, so the checkbook of total energy content of the system stays balanced (obeys the 2nd law) and eventually expansion slows down, however dark energy seems to be accellerating expansion of space, now if we assume the mysterious dark energy still obeys to the 2nd law, then SOMETHING has got to pay/cool down to keep the checkbook balanced????
Callippo
2 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2011
you cannot make Universe steady state or expanding..with using of single constant.
Yes you can. The constant represents a constant force intrinsic to the fabric of spacetime, and when a constant force is continually applied to something, acceleration is the outcome.
You people cannot understand even the simplest thing - parroting of sources (and downvoting the people, which are able to do so) is the only thing, which you can do. Your religious attitude is really startling, because your opinion is not only PinkElephant's opinion, but opinion of Skepticus, Deesky, Ojorf and orac who downvoted me and opinion of RealScience, cdt and Ojorf who upvoted you. IMO it's not accidental, so many people got wrong.

If Einstein used some constant to adjust his theory to steady state model, then we cannot the same constant to fit the same theory to expanding universe. So Einstein wasn't wrong about being wrong - he simply remained wrong, until you believe in model of expanding Universe.
Callippo
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2011
Can anybody else understand, what's wrong with article logics - or am I the only sane person here? How do you want to understand the problems of contemporary physics, if you cannot understand even the simplest logical problem? I'm not kidding you, I'm completely serious.
Callippo
2 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2011
"the Universe doesn't expand.." - Callipo Observation doesn't mesh with your personal ideology. And that is why you will always be a religionist and never a scientist.
It's funny, because my stance is just based on the latest observations. Whereas you're just believing in one of many interpretations of red shift possible. Einstein believed in steady state Universe in the same way, like Edwin Hubble, who found the red shift. Hubble explained red shift with tired light theory from many good reasons, which are completely ignored by now. Cosmological constant of Einstein was really an artificial force, which prohibited Universe in expansion - whereas now the same constant is interpreted like the force, which accelerates it. Can anybody else spot the paradox here? I can't believe, so many people could get fooled again and again.
Callippo
2 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2011
In addition, the original cosmological term of Einstein has nothing to do with current cosmological constant. Einstein's original cosmological term was meant to stabilize a static universe wouldn't have worked anyway. Here's the original formulation (Einstein, 1915):

R_{\mu v} - \frac{1}{2} R g_{\mu v} \Lambda g_{\mu v} = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu v}

Where \Lambda is the original cosmological term.

The original cosmological term could not meaningfully balance gravitation, because the two forces operate on different principles: one is a constant repulsive force without regard to distance, the other is an apparent force proportional to to r-2. The present use of a cosmological constant makes more sense, because the Universe isn't expected to remain in equilibrium. So IF YOU BELIEVE in expanding Universe, then the Einstein was right about being wrong, but from different reason, than he thought. So he was actually double wrong from perspective of contemporary L-CDM model.
Callippo
3 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2011
The title "Einstein was wrong about being wrong" is catchy from semantic perspective and it forces the religious attitude about irresistible power of relativity theory, which even Einstein couldn't resist. From this reason this misinterpretation is widespread on the web already, so at least one generation of laymans will repeat it again and again in all discussions about cosmological constant.

http://www.google...Einstein was wrong about being wrong

One such catchy title simply creates a new virtual reality, which some people will believe for ever. This is insane.
sherriffwoody
1.3 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2011
...as the Universe doesn't expand

So are we in some airtight bottle? Are there walls out there? Maybe just more spacetime. Which means visible space is expanding into an infinite universe. The visible universe, they say, is flat within 1 or 2%, which means parallel lines go on forever and ever in every direction. This doesn't sound consistent with the raisin bread analogy as I see it.

Imagine, We are a bubble, in curved space, but bouncing among an infinite multitude of other bubble universes. Each bump into a bubble is a big bang, the lumpyness we see in background radiation is the result of the collision, its an expanding shock wave, not the extremity of our universe. It also means certain things can be older than the collision. e.g some cosmologists and astrophysicists have claimed certain things in our universe must be older that the current estimate. Somtimes our universe may expand, sometimes contract, it depends on the pressure our universe is surrounded by
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2011
We are a bubble, in curved space, but bouncing among an infinite multitude of other bubble universes. Each bump into a bubble is a big bang, the lumpyness we see in background radiation is the result of the collision
The problem of this interpretation is, this lumpiness exists at the galactic level already, so that every galaxy could serve as its own Universe (which has some meaning and before some time the people even believed in it).
Sometimes our universe may expand, sometimes contract, it depends on the pressure our universe is surrounded by
In dense aether model the Universe appears like the (fluctuations of) random gas - such view is rather result of our limited observational abilities, rather than some intrinsic geometry of Universe.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Oct 15, 2011
What interests me about the expansion of space / dark energy is the second law of thermodynamics, if a hot gascloud expands it occupies a larger volume but the molecules cool down, so the checkbook of total energy content of the system stays balanced (obeys the 2nd law) and eventually expansion slows down, however dark energy seems to be accellerating expansion of space, now if we assume the mysterious dark energy still obeys to the 2nd law, then SOMETHING has got to pay/cool down to keep the checkbook balanced????


If the cosmological constant is "vacuum energy" density, than the more space there is the more negative pressure, since it would be intrinsic to space itself rather than an additional "substance",... but no one knows for sure.
Aliensarethere
not rated yet Oct 15, 2011
So Einstein should have kept the cosmological constant, even when contradicted by observations ? Of course not. Einstein would have looked like a fool, claiming a static universe when it's not.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
"the Universe doesn't expand.." - Callipro

Observation doesn't mesh with your personal ideology. And that is why you will always be a religionist and never a scientist.



Show me evidence of observations that conclude expansion.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Oct 15, 2011
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2011
@Calippo,
I'm not kidding you, I'm completely serious.
I don't believe you. You must be joking, or you must be unfamiliar with the concept of negation. You want to change a constant-force term from contraction to expansion? Change its sign.

Or perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of magnitude. You want to change a constant-value positive expansive force from exactly counterbalancing gravitational contraction to creating accelerating expansion? Increase its magnitude.

Yes, it's that elementary, my dear Calippo.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2011
...why do physicists' have to so finely tune it by setting it to almost zero to make space flat, that is the real issue?

Well maybe because it really is flat, within experimental error.

... Hubble explained red shift with tired light theory from many good reasons, which are completely ignored by now

Strange. Now light is given a free pass through spacetime. Everything else seems to have to pay the piper.

... whereas now the same constant is interpreted like the force, which accelerates it. Can anybody else spot the paradox here?

Well maybe the value of the constant is different.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law


http://en.wikiped...ed_light
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (56) Oct 15, 2011
"Zwicky himself acknowledged that any sort of scattering of light would blur the images of distant objects more than what is seen. " - from the wiki article you just provided.

Zwicky wasn't entirely respected because never showed his ideas had to be correct rather than only might be.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2011
You want to change a constant-force term from contraction to expansion? Change its sign. Increase its magnitude.
OK, Einstein was really wrong about being wrong so he was actually quite correct - he "just" predicted the opposite effect of different magnitude...;-)

Your attitude just unwittingly illustrates the degree of freedom, in which the modern physicists are dealing with predictions of their proclamativelly "mathematically exact" theories.

Who cares, if they're actually predicting opposite effects of different magnitude, until they're backed with equations...? Important is, the publications are out and money are still going.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2011
Zwicky wasn't entirely respected because never showed his ideas had to be correct rather than only might be
Technically, you can never ever prove, some theory is true, so that your criterion is solely arbitrary. For example, many physicists are still doubting, cold fusion is real, although 1 MW units has been tested recently in University of Bologna.

http://coldfusion...bologna/

It's comparable to the evidence of Higgs boson with 1 MW heatings effects in collider detectors (which are working in picoWattt range during Higgs boson detection). Do you see the difference in standards in application of reliability criterion?
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 15, 2011
"Zwicky himself acknowledged that any sort of scattering of light would blur the images of distant objects more than what is seen. " - from the wiki article you just provided.

Zwicky wasn't entirely respected because never showed his ideas had to be correct rather than only might be.


I should qualify my ideas about a free pass through spacetime - it should be a free pass with no (apparent)scattering.
Daleg
not rated yet Oct 16, 2011
...why do physicists' have to so finely tune it by setting it to almost zero to make space flat, that is the real issue?

Well maybe because it really is flat, within experimental error.

... Hubble explained red shift with tired light theory from many good reasons, which are completely ignored by now

Strange. Now light is given a free pass through spacetime. Everything else seems to have to pay the piper.

... whereas now the same constant is interpreted like the force, which accelerates it. Can anybody else spot the paradox here?

Well maybe the value of the constant is different.

The question was rhetorical, of course space is flat, the point was to emphasize that the addition of the cosmoligical constant or "Dark Energy" is necesary to make it so. The issue about setting it to almost zero is that scientist's are unhappy with any term derived "naturally" that requires such exacting fine tuning, because it smacks of intervention with the initial parameters to explain it.
Daleg
not rated yet Oct 16, 2011
Furthermore Seeker2 nothing gets a free pass, and I like Scientist's Like Fritz Zwicky who are brilliant just because they don't know all the answers. He sure had plausible
ideas about what they might be. He knew there was dark matter way back in the 1930's, but hey it only took the rest of the Astronomers 50 yrs. to take his ideas sesriously, and prove he was right.
Daleg
3.5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
I should have explained that the reason Dark Energy is necessary, is the oft quoted proportions of the matter/energy content of the Universe in that visible matter accounts for about 4%, and Dark Matter for say 25% which leaves about 71% of the energy necessary to bring the matter/energy content of the universe to unity or 100% in order to account for the almost total flatness of Space. This is the "dark Energy part, and of course theory predicts that if that would then outweigh "all the stuff" that functions under gravitational attraction by a factor of 3:1 then you will have accelerated expansion. Alan Guth has pointed this out, and claims that this was one of the prime reasons for his ever considering an inflationary theory of the early Universe's expansion in the first place, as the observed proportinality could be almost fully explained "if" and only "if" it were the natural consequence of just such a scenario.
Daleg
not rated yet Oct 16, 2011
Callippo the issue with the Lambda term is not that they operate on different principles but that any slight inbalance between Gravity and Lambda would drive the Universe into either exponential expansion or exponential contraction, within in a very short time. That is unless as I stated something balances the two to a very fine degree. The issue with describing "Dark Energy" as Einstein's Lambda or cosmological constant, is just what I stated. Physicist's have a hard time contemplating any mechanism which could "naturally" or just simply account for such a fine tuned parameter, and why the balancing act would work so well for such a long period like 7 Billion years before one could win out over the other. However taking the equation as given the proportions of Gravitational attraction and Cosmological repulsion at 3:1 are just right to provide the kind of accelerated expansion we do experience.
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
There is an absolute frame of reference. Curvature.

Isaac wanted this Absolute to be space and time.
Albert&Co. corrected this (to the best of their abilities)and forced space and time to be curved. To no avail. Locally, all was to remain euclidean in the limit.

Only two catches to this Absolute Curvature:
All Euclidean geometries are curved.
Euclidean geometries no longer have physical meaning.

In the beginning, everything was "non"-euclidean. And in the end, everything remains and retains intrinsic curvature.

With only one assumed constraint:
The Continuum exists.

I will leave you to argue about beginnings and endings - don't want to spoil all your fun. :)

Why post this here? It's the perfect place to hid a breakthrough in progress - breakthroughs are declared here daily under the guise of crackpot. lol I lose nothing.

hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
So we have:
Da riemannsche Mannigfaltigkeiten im Allgemeinen in keinen Raum eingebettet sind, wird in diesem Teilgebiet der Differentialgeometrie eine Krümmungsgröße gebraucht, die unabhängig von einem umgebenden Raum ist. Dazu wurde der riemannsche Krümmmungstensor eingeführt. Dieser misst, inwieweit die lokale Geometrie der Mannigfaltigkeit von den Gesetzen der euklidischen Geometrie abweicht.

Only one itsy bitsy problem with this:

When you want a curvature that is independent from the space it is to be embedded in, you can not introduce a Riemann curvature tensor that measures the deviation of the local manifold geometry to that of the laws proscribed by Euclidean geometry.
Why?
Because the Euclidean geometry itself has intrinsic curvature.

The Riemann curvature tensor produces gibberish. Of course, that is what I will be accuse of, because for centuries the Laws of Euclid are assumed to be locally valid.
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
Oh well. I can wait. Until the universal constant of curvature is discovered. There were lots of premature ideas throughout history. I'll just wait till you are ready. Meanwhile I'll tidy up the mess you left from assuming the Laws of Euclid have zero curvature. Till then one can only lol.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (57) Oct 16, 2011
When you want a curvature that is independent from the space it is to be embedded in, you can not introduce a Riemann curvature tensor that measures the deviation of the local manifold geometry to that of the laws proscribed by Euclidean geometry.
Why?
Because the Euclidean geometry itself has intrinsic curvature.


Differential geometry does not require an embedding space to function as the mechanics of non-Euclidean geometry. And what do you mean "Euclidean geometry is curved"?! Also there's no "laws of Euclid",.. not physical laws,.. just flat mathematical geometry. You'll need to explain what you mean.
Isaacsname
5 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2011
" The dough was rising in all directions, and the raisins were going along for the ride. "

Thankfully expansion prevents all the nuts in the mix from aggregating too.

Take that how you want to :P

Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
In dense aether model the curvature of space-time is intrinsic stuff. The space-time is formed from myriads of tiny space-time curvatures ("particles") - in this sense, the space-time must be always inhomogeneous, or it couldn't exist at all. Analogously, the water surface is flat, but because its always formed with density gradient of tiny particles, we should always observe a tiny Brownian noise, violating its flatness. It means, if we wouldn't observe the CMBR noise in vacuum, it would be very strange thing from perspective of dense aether theory.

Now we can ask, how these tiny fluctuations would affect the spreading of light in seemingly flat space-time? Again, we can use a water surface analogy for qualitative prediction of this dispersive geometry.

http://www.carden...ples.jpg

We can see, just because of dispersion of waves at the tiny density fluctuations, the spreading of ripples is not linear and it exhibits the characteristic curvature of space-time
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2011
The wavelength of surface ripples decreases with distance from their observer, which would mean, every observer, who is using such ripples as the only source of information about water wouldn't see this surface flat, but collapsing with distance into singularity. So that such observer could get easily into impression, his space-time exploded from pin-point singularity at the sufficient distance, i.e. before some sufficient time. It means, the CMBR noise, red shift, inflation and original singularity are intrinsic predictions of dense aether model of space-time and we cannot avoid them. If we wouldn't observe them, we should find them with more advanced astronomical observations sometimes later.

But it means too, all these artifacts are product of dispersive nature of wave spreading in particle environment forming the vacuum and they've nothing to do with its actual geometry or topology. The existence of red shift and dark energy doesn't mean, the Universe is curved as such.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2011
One of ways, how to distinguish between the "classical" L-CDM model of red shift, dark energy, inflation and Big Bang from aether model is their dependence on wavelength of light, in which we are observing it. As I illustrated above, for surface ripples of short wavelength the space-time appears contracting with distance from observer.

But at the water surface the way, in which surface ripples are dispersing depends on their initial wavelength and for ripples larger than the density fluctuations the character of their dispersion is reversed. Such long wavelength ripples are increasing their wavelength and the water surface appears expanding instead of collapsing with increasing distance from observer.

http://www.aether...ples.jpg

So, if the dense aether model is correct, we should observe the same wavelength dependence even for space-time expansion in vacuum. If we wouldn't observe it, then the L-CDM model is correct instead.
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
Noumenon
A commentary on a website will not be the place this realization enfolds or takes hold. I know this.
It is like the time when the world was declared round.
Only worst. There is no advantage to making myself a target for the sake of advancing all of science. I will never again state this or I'll wait to see if someone else has the same realization and submit to that person or those persons
my work in support.

Differential geometry does not require an embedding space to function as the mechanics of non-Euclidean geometry.

Your statement is absolute correct. That was not addressed. Addressed were all the physical models of cosmology and/or GR/SR.
The curvature of euclidean geometry is not zero. That has consequences for all other derivatives derived from the assumption that the curvature of euclidean geometry is zero.
This is too big for me to impress that on the world and too big for you to understand. I expect this. You never read this.
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
Callippo
If
In dense aether model the curvature of space-time is intrinsic stuff.

Then, you know the constant of curvature for the universe.
What is it and what is the unit of measure, besides euclidean metric did you used? Or. What do you arrive at for the euclidean measure of curvature? This must be non zero for your models to have intrinsic curvature.
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
Isaacname
Perfectly understandable. The world is changing fast enough, isn't it? - Without changing the foundations of the last two hundreds years again.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (59) Oct 16, 2011
Differential geometry does not require an embedding space to function as the mechanics of non-Euclidean geometry.


Your statement is absolute correct. That was not addressed. Addressed were all the physical models of cosmology and/or GR/SR.
The curvature of euclidean geometry is not zero. That has consequences for all other derivatives derived from the assumption that the curvature of euclidean geometry is zero.


Guy, you're not making sense. By mathematical DEFINITION, Euclidean geometry is flat. Riemannian geometry is a generalization of Euclidean geometry to incorporate the notion of curvature.

This is too big for me to impress that on the world and too big for you to understand. I expect this. You never read this.


Is this a joke? LOL
hush1
2.5 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2011
There are more tangible, not so abstract sciences where I am able and will contribute, asking nothing in return. So not a word further from me on a topic that will, one day, enjoy more status.
hush1
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2011
The are many definitions of mathematics that do not describe the physical sufficiently. Riemannian geometry is derive from the deviation between Euclidean and Riemannian geometry. The measure of that deviation is the curvature defined for Riemannian geometry. If you want it to be joke, then it is.
hush1
3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
There are definitions that are obsolete, superseded, no longer used, modified, refined or updated. Euclidean geometry is flat.
The measure of curvature comes from Euclidean geometry. Only 'flat' doesn't exist in Nature. 'Flat' is an axiom of math, not Nature. The curvature for Riemannian Geometry is arbitrary. No geometry will ever describe or model Nature, as long as curvature is derived arbitrarily.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (56) Oct 16, 2011
The are many definitions of mathematics that do not describe the physical sufficiently. Riemannian geometry is derive from the deviation between Euclidean and Riemannian geometry. The measure of that deviation is the curvature defined for Riemannian geometry. If you want it to be joke, then it is.


How does this make Euclidean geometry "itself has intrinsic curvature"?
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
Then, you know the constant of curvature for the universe.
Dense aether model doesn't enable to predict the curvature of the Universe (at least I don't know about it) - it just implies, the smallest curvature observable in Universe should be an inverse value of the largest one. IMO with improved technology the size of observable part of Universe could be increased arbitrarily, because Universe as a whole has no apparent limit and the size of observable part of it is just limited with complexity of its observer and its devices.

http://www.techno...v/26333/

But it would be nice to derive the current size of observable Universe from first principles. IMO Heim's theory can derive the smallest and largest curvature of Universe from values of gravity constant and speed of light.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (57) Oct 16, 2011
There are definitions that are obsolete, superseded, no longer used, modified, refined or updated. Euclidean geometry is flat.
The measure of curvature comes from Euclidean geometry. Only 'flat' doesn't exist in Nature. 'Flat' is an axiom of math, not Nature. The curvature for Riemannian Geometry is arbitrary. No geometry will ever describe or model Nature, as long as curvature is derived arbitrarily.


You're not making sense. You say above that Euclidean geometry has "intrinsic curvature" then now you say "Euclidean geometry is flat". The measure of curvature does not "comes from Euclidean geometry",... it comes from derivitives between tagent spaces via a (levi-civita) connection. It is calculus. That (co)tangent spaces are flat in the limit by definition, does not equate to saying "measure of curvature comes from Euclidean geometry".
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
Currently we are limited with speed of light in observation of distant events. But if we build a sufficiently huge network of gravitational waves detectors, we could estimate the direction and distance of events coming from outside of observable part of Universe - at least in principle. It's analogous to solution of problem, how to detect the events from inside of black hole. The existence of event horizon will transform all incoming transverse light waves to longitudinal gravitational waves inside of black hole and vice-versa. But if we would succeede in their congruent detection, we could reconstruct the spreading of light waves behind event horizon of black hole. After all, on the same principle the interior of Sun is mapped with using of observation of surface ripples of Sun.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (59) Oct 16, 2011
The curvature for Riemannian Geometry is arbitrary. No geometry will ever describe or model Nature, as long as curvature is derived arbitrarily.


What do you mean is "derived arbitrarily"? The metric (which determines curvature) is derived from the pretense of mass-energy, an observational fact.
hush1
3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
Noumenon
What makes Euclidean geometry flat? You say the definition.
"That (co)tangent spaces are flat in the limit by definition"

The curvature is arbitrary.
What does not make the curvature of Riemannian Geometry arbitrary?
What makes the curvature stop at Riemannian Geometry curvature and no other curvature?

The curvature for Riemannian Geometry is arbitrary. No geometry will ever describe or model Nature, as long as curvature is derived arbitrarily.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
The curvature for Riemannian Geometry is arbitrary. No geometry will ever describe or model Nature, as long as curvature is derived arbitrarily.
You can construct more complex geometries from smaller or larger patches of Riemann geometry. But I do agree, if Universe is infinite, then it cannot be approximated by any geometry without introduction of systematic error in more or less distant scope. It means, the Universe is effectively infinitedimensional and it cannot be described with geometries of finite dimensionality. The general relativity or quantum mechanics theories are just low-dimensional slices of hyperdimensional multiverse. Their importance follows from the fact, they're able to describe a substantial part of observable Universe at large or small scales, which are sufficiently distant both from scale of observable Universe, both from human observer scale. But they will necessarily fail, if we would try to extrapolate them outside of these limits.
hush1
3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
Oversimplification:

You start with 'flat'. And 'bend' 'flat' to your heart's content. What stops the 'bending' at the curvature called Riemannian Geometry?
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (57) Oct 16, 2011
Again it's not arbitrary,... it's based on the presence of mass. Why do you keep saying the curvature for riemannian geometry is arbitrary?
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
I'm relying on Poincaré conjecture:
All forms or shapes without a hole is a sphere.

This is true for all manifolds with finite or infinite dimensions.
What geometry lies beyond all manifolds with one or infinite dimensions? Name one.
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
Math is base on the presence of mass?
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
We should realize this point: in dense aether model the Riemannian geometry of observable Universe (as described with FLRW metric) could be described with dispersion of light at the flat water surface. But this model doesn't imply, that this surface must be flat. The FLRWM implies the isotropic Universe - but as we know already due the Doppler's anisotropy of CMBR and another anisotropies, the Universe is not isotropic. We can see just a sufficiently tiny portion of randomly curved geometry, which could be approximated with hyperbolic geometry.

So I presume, from sufficiently distant perspective both intrinsic, both extrinsic models of Universe will converge together. The intrinsic model says, the speed of light is constant and Universe is evolving. The extrinsic model says, the speed of light is variable and the Universe is steady-state. But in dense aether model is no apparent reason to support one model over another one, it just predicts the convergence of both models together.
Callippo
2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
This stance could be generalized into many other areas.
For example, people are divided in matter of creation/evolution by now. But maybe - I repeat maybe - it's possible, the origin of life has evolved outside of Earth, maybe even outside of Milky Way galaxy in some previous generation of it - thus mimicking the creation event in at least limited extent. So it may be possible, from sufficiently distant perspective both these interpretations are indistinguishable each other in random model of Universe. Maybe the proponents of both evolution, both creation still have their bit of truth from their own perspectives.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (56) Oct 16, 2011
Math is base on the presence of mass?


Einsteins field equations can either be solved for the stress-energy tensor or for the metric, both of which rely on observational input, not know a-prior. It is a physical theory, not purely mathematics.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
The Christian religion introduced the concept of heaven and hell, which separates the evolutionary successful forms of existence from those "bad", unsuccessful ones. This archetype is widespread in many other religions too and it plays well with ideas of cosmological evolution, as proposed with Lee Smolin and others. This concept basically means, the successful form of matter existence will survive the black hole phase of every galaxy evaporation ("the hell") and it will succede with transferring of its genes or particle chirality into another generation of Universe ("the heavens"), where they will serve like the "seeds" of new, more advanced forms of matter existence.
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 16, 2011
...Furthermore Seeker2 nothing gets a free pass

So unscattered photons do lose energy on their path through spacetime. This would put the expansion of the universe and the big bang question back on the burner.

I like your position on Zwicky and I definitely go for plausability.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
It is a physical theory, not purely mathematics.
Technically, even the abstract math is partially physical, being based on concept of numbers, i.e. countable units (colliding particles) and differential geometry, based on concept of physical gradients in particle environment. Which means, even the math cannot be completely separated from reality, until it remains logical and adhering on its first principles. For example, the topology rules follows quite faithfully the physical rules of soap membranes: the operations which are unphysical for soap membranes are disallowed for topological manifolds too..

http://www.srnr.a...logy.pdf
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
Einstein's manifolds, or whatever manifolds anyone uses is a sphere. All tensors are matrices use to describe any geometry in matrix notation.

Euclidean Geometry is flat. Einsteins 'geometry is a Continuum.
'Flat' is any form or shape, regardless of infinite dis-/contortions
All forms and shapes without a hole is a sphere.

hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
"In mathematics, Ricci-flat manifolds are Riemannian manifolds whose Ricci curvature vanishes."

Yep. Make that curvature disappear. Anyway you can. Includes magic wand.

"In physics, they represent vacuum solutions to the analogues of Einstein's equations for Riemannian manifolds of any dimension, with vanishing cosmological constant. Ricci-flat manifolds are special cases of Einstein manifolds, where the cosmological constant need not vanish."

Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (57) Oct 16, 2011
Einstein's manifolds, or whatever manifolds anyone uses is a sphere. All tensors are matrices use to describe any geometry in matrix notation.


All tensors are NOT matrices. In physics tensors are a physical entity that transcend any particular matrix representation, any basis, which is why Christoffel symbols are not matrices.

Euclidean Geometry is flat. Einsteins 'geometry is a Continuum.
'Flat' is any form or shape, regardless of infinite dis-/contortions
All forms and shapes without a hole is a sphere.

Topologically equivalent to a sphere only.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (55) Oct 16, 2011
,... I should have said, ...all matrices are not tensors.
hush1
3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
I made no sense to you when I started this. I will end at this point. You are simply name dropping.

There will be other articles to discussed.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (56) Oct 16, 2011
What I'm doing is fact-dropping, to counter your blatantly false statements.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (61) Oct 16, 2011
{There is an absolute frame of reference. Curvature.,....} Why post this here? It's the perfect place to hid a breakthrough in progress - breakthroughs are declared here daily under the guise of crackpot. lol I lose nothing. hush1


Yes, good call,... you wouldn't want anyone to find out you're "really" making sense, better to hide behind a wall of word-spaghetti.

Spacetime curvature as formulated in GR does not imply an absolute space.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (55) Oct 16, 2011
Another pointless correction; I should have said ,.."which is why Christoffel symbols [(matrices)] are not [tensors]".
Grizzled
5 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
the general theory of relativity has a metric tensor inserted accounting for the black hole beneath the eart


Didn't you know thar beneath the Earth there are only the three elephants and the giant turtle?

Seriously though, as soon as people start talking about up, down, above or beneath - you can safely ignore everything else they have to say on the subject of relativity.
thewhitebear
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
man this really stirred up the geniuses/nuts, very impressive. I will put forth my usual conjecture that the perceived expansion of the universe is a form of growth akin to biological growth. In biological systems it's normal to see accelerating expansion if conditions are appropriate, and as conditions change the system will evolve, exhibiting different behavior. That leaves one question: what does the universe eat!?
Isaacsname
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
man this really stirred up the geniuses/nuts, very impressive. I will put forth my usual conjecture that the perceived expansion of the universe is a form of growth akin to biological growth. In biological systems it's normal to see accelerating expansion if conditions are appropriate, and as conditions change the system will evolve, exhibiting different behavior. That leaves one question: what does the universe eat!?


Nothing, lots of nothing.
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
es, good call,... you wouldn't want anyone to find out you're "really" making sense, better to hide behind a wall of word-spaghetti.


Every new era's beginning makes little sense for most. I am describing human reactions to the new. Reactions such as Isaac's reaction is to be expected (see above comments).

Cloaking events with gaps in time is other example. Invisible cloaks were science fiction at best not long ago.

Spacetime curvature as formulated in GR does not imply an absolute space.


Yes, Nounmenon, you are correct. Einstein physics implies just the opposite. Space is relative, not absolute. Time is relative, not absolute.

Newton can see where his physics falls short. For all the Newtons of the world, a few days is all that is needed to accept new physics and to stop describing words as spaghetti.

Einstein can see where his physics falls short. For all the Einsteins of the world, a few day is all that is needed to accept new physics...and so forth. The drift.
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
Nothing, lots of nothing. - Isaacsname

I like this very much. The most logical answer to what you quoted. Kudos
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
Deesky, ratings all well and good, high or low. Everyone wants to knows whats behind the ratings. I'm no different. I want to know what's behind your ratings.
paintingfrom
not rated yet Oct 16, 2011
interest posting,i recommended to my friends,it's turly like that hush1's rating,we all smiled.
Daleg
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
Noumenon
What makes Euclidean geometry flat? You say the definition.
"That (co)tangent spaces are flat in the limit by definition"

The curvature is arbitrary.
What does not make the curvature of Riemannian Geometry arbitrary?
What makes the curvature stop at Riemannian Geometry curvature and no other curvature?

The curvature for Riemannian Geometry is arbitrary. No geometry will ever describe or model Nature, as long as curvature is derived arbitrarily.

You have no valid point, Euclid made Euclidean Geometry Flat, his premise is based on the angles you will measure on a flat surface, which is dictated by the definition "Flat", any Geometrical angle which measures contrary to this indicates surface curvature, by which measurements of angles based on Euclidean geometry will fail. That is the very definition of Curvature any angular measurement which deviates from flat Euclidean Geometry. As for stopping with Reimann, that is because he catalogued all curved spaces.
merelogic
1 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
"We have built the sky with might, and indeed it is We who are expanding it" [Quran 51:47]
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
lol Daleg
I'm quoting Poincare. His conjecture. Superseding Euclid.
A Catalogue? Of curves? All curves? From Riemann? Where?

lol merelogic
Loses something when translated in English, don't cha think?
Daleg
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
No I don't think so, and ask the mathematicians about Reimann, that is how they explained to Einstein what his theory was really all about. The point is that Poincare believed in a plenum or continuum as descriptive of space, not a vacuum. Go ahead and quote Poincare, all things being equal he may have had a point. Unfortunately for both him and you all things are not equal and space is not a plenum. Henri Poincare was brilliant but stubborn about his hypothesis, and his total refusal to accept observation over theory is sad. It was ok to suspect that the contrary hypothesis of plenums could account for some of the properties of space before we knew about Relativity and spacial expansion, but all that is now water under the bridge, as most physicist's discount both Poincare and Lemarck, don't you think!
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2011
Euclidean geometry is strictly three-dimensional. Riemann geometry is four-dimensional, you can imagine it like density gradient of three-dimensional space, where the density value is time dimension. Every higherdimensional geometry violates the Lorentz symmetry of lower-dimensional geometry, it's actually one of the ways, how to detect it. Of course, even higher dimensional geometries can exist without problem, for example the Kerr geometry. http://www.scribd...Geometry
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (56) Oct 17, 2011
FrankHerbert rates me all ones above, strange. He is either ignorant of GR or just rates me ones no matter what I post.
Flyboypuppy
not rated yet Oct 17, 2011
OK guys. I am totally confused now. What bothers me about all this expansion is it is observed billions of years ago, right after or a few billion years after the big bang. Its a huge leap but it seems logical that we should see enormous expansions looking back that far. If we could see it as it is today is it really expanding faster or slowing down? I do not know or have a clue whom is right. Either way the theory about dark energy and matter are trying to explain what we think we know happened billions of years ago. . I am just a want to be so please, enlighten me.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
this expansion is it is observed billions of years ago, right after or a few billion years after the big bang
You're completely right: there is no meaningful reason, why Universe should explode just after reaching particle horizon - the parameters of Big Bang model are fitted to CMBR data instead.

It's strange coincidence, which is unexplainable with L-CDM cosmology, but it's still easy to explain with dense aether model. In recent observations it seems, the actual size of Universe is really much larger (and as such older), than the L-CDM model is assuming.

http://www.techno...v/26333/
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
My explanation of superluminal neutrinos is based on water surface analogy of space-time. The particles are spreading along it like the soliton wave, which makes more dense/curved both the water surface, along which such soliton is rolling, both the underwater.

The exception of neutrinos consist of the fact, they're very weak and subtle solitons, so that accidental fluctuations of underwater can occasionally wipe out the effect of surface deformation. Under such a situation, the neutrino propagates like underwater sound wave exclusively, i.e. much higher speed, than the surface ripples. During these rare moments the spreading of neutrino is literally detached from water surface, so it can propagate higher speed. This situation is the more probable, the higher speed the neutrino is - whereas low energy neutrinos would propagate in normal subluminal speed.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
In dense aether theory the space-time is modeled with phase interface of supercritical fluid and after then the photons are subluminal solitons resulting from mutual interference of transverse waves with bulk waves of heavier phase and the neutrinos are superluminal solitons resulting from mutual interference of transverse waves with bulk waves of lightweight phase. It means, we always have two kinds of solitons here, one tends to propagate with slightly subluminal speed (photons), whereas the second one is propagating in slightly superluminal speed (neutrinos).

This model is slightly complicated with fact, the space-time is not completely flat due the presence of CMBR fluctuations, so that the low energy neutrinos can still propagate with subliminal speed, until their energy is not higher, than the energy of CMBR photons. And the photons can spread with slightly superluminal speed, until their energy (i.e. frequency) is not higher, than the energy/frequency of CMBR photons.
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
Daleg:

You have to free yourself from your classical traditional maths. All Geometry is shape or form.
Poincare's Conjecture:
All shapes and forms without a hole is a sphere.
When you realize what this means for all Geometry, you will find Euclid insufficient, unnecessary, and incomplete.
You can not use the physical to defend your stance or math.
The new paradigm is:
All Geometry is Poincarian, not Euclidean. And when one does this, n-body problems are no longer intractable. Field equations have exact solutions, and protein folding problem is solved.
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011
All Geometry is Poincarian, not Euclidean. And when one does this, n-body problems are no longer intractable. Field equations have exact solutions, and protein folding problem is solved.

Brilliant! Why are you keeping this a secret? Stupid scientists - why didn't they think of this before! /facepalm
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
There was no need to push conjecture till the time came where this cease to be conjecture. For me:
"Completion of the Proof of the Geometrization Conjecture" on 24 September 2008.
So three years might be eternity to some. I regard three years as insufficient for the scientific community to adapt and evolve.
Deesky
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
So three years might be eternity to some. I regard three years as insufficient for the scientific community to adapt and evolve.

Thurston's geometrization conjecture was first proposed back in 1982. And while it may have remained a conjecture until a proof was found, it would not have stopped other researchers from assuming its correctness and thus pursuing potentially valuable fields of applied research anyway (such as the ones you mention: n-body, field equations, protein folding).

What evidence do you have that any of those fields will be 'solved' on the basis of this mathematical proof? Is it just wishful thinking?
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2011
I can not speak for "other researchers" why they do not assume "it's correctness" so that they may pursue "potentially valuable fields of applied research anyway".

My "evidence" is math. Inadmissible for the physical sciences.
For some, math is wishful thinking - until it's application in research proves and solves physical obstacles.
Deesky
5 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
My "evidence" is math. Inadmissible for the physical sciences.
For some, math is wishful thinking - until it's application in research proves and solves physical obstacles.

So you don't have any basis for your grand claims. I thought so. Merely pointing to some piece of mathematical esoterica and assertively claiming that it WILL solve various hard problems is simply a matter of faith without supporting evidence.
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
So you don't have any basis for your grand claims...

...some piece of mathematical esoterica...

...assertively claiming that it WILL solve...

...is simply a matter of faith without supporting evidence...


Your mirror - You see yourself and there is nothing to add.
Enlighten us. Tell us the correct way to do research.
pauldentler
not rated yet Oct 18, 2011
The motions of galaxies through the universe cannot be explained by a so-called "steady state expansion", such as comparing the universe to a "lump of rising dough" or the inflating baloon theory. Evidence for this is "dark flow" & "colliding galaxies".

In dark flow galaxies are moving at a rate far in excess of the "cosmological constant", and "colliding galaxies" should never occur according to the original prognostications of the "cosmological constant" back in the 19 There are too many things we observe that contradict the hypotheses of steady state expansion including the laws of thermodynamics of energy conservation which require a "closed system" in which to function in which a lot of so-called cosmologists want a Universe which operates outside these principles.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (58) Oct 18, 2011
Your mirror - You see yourself and there is nothing to add.
Enlighten us. Tell us the correct way to do research.


As I asked you in this and the other thread, it is up to you to show how this Poincare conjecture proof can be put to use for physics. Your vagary suggest to me you don't know. I have been unable to find anything more concrete than sweepingly vague claims that Pereman's work may have implications for relativity. That's not good enough to be meaningful.
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
...it is up to you to show how this Poincare conjecture proof can be put to use for physics... - Noumenon


Perelman is a tool maker. I am a tool maker. Use the free tools however you like. The tools work. For the nonphysical.

That's not good enough to be meaningful.- Noumenon


If the nonphysical has no meaning, then you are correct.
mpc755
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2011
The Universe is, or our local Universe exists in, a jet; analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.

Aether is continuously being emitted into the Universal jet.

The pressure gradient associated with the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet is dark energy.
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 21, 2011
thewhitebear:
...what does the universe eat!?

Dark Energy - likely comes from inflation where matter and spacetime are created, spacetime in a very compressed form, the energy of this compression now being what we observe as dark energy. A sort of similar attempt is made by mpc755:

...The pressure gradient associated with the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet is dark energy.

Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2011
I suspect a correlation between temperature, energy, and spacetime compression - call it the Seeker2 conjecture [:>) Actually a pretty safe bet.
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2011
lol

Parody on: "Only in America";

Only on earth. The only life form in the Universe that exists and lives on a curve and manages to construct the only non applicable not-even-wrong expression to describe Nature:
A line. A 'flat' line without curvature. The source and birth of all manifolds.
lol
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2011
Prolific and banal and only in light of GUT (not TOE) is the expression:
You missed the curve.

The line is fine. Replace it when you are ready.

More news stories