Physicists search for new physics in primordial quantum fluctuations

Mar 26, 2012 by Lisa Zyga feature
The evolution of the universe from the Big Bang to the present. Quantum fluctuations that arise during inflation develop into the inhomogeneities that lead to the formation of stars and galaxies. Image credit: NASA

(PhysOrg.com) -- Inflation, the brief period that occurred less than a second after the Big Bang, is nearly as difficult to fathom as the Big Bang itself. Physicists calculate that inflation lasted for just a tiny fraction of a second, yet during this time the Universe grew in size by a factor of 1078. Also during this time, a very important thing occurred: fluctuations in the quantum vacuum appeared, which later resulted in the temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that in turn produced large-scale structures such as galaxies. But in a new study, physicists now think that their understanding of the features of primordial quantum fluctuations – also called the inflationary power spectrum – may require a few small corrections due to currently unknown physics. These new corrections could allow scientists to search for experimental evidence to test a variety of quantum gravity theories, including string theory.

Theoretical physicists Mark G. Jackson of the University of Paris-7 Diderot in Paris, France, and Koenraad Schalm of the University of Leiden in Leiden, The Netherlands, have published their study on these possible signatures of new in the inflationary power spectrum in a recent issue of .

Primordial fluctuations

The physicists' work focuses on the Planck scale, the ultra-high-energy conditions at the time of the Big Bang. Although the universe at this point was almost completely homogeneous, the violent dynamics of inflation produced tiny inhomogeneities from the . Virtual pairs of particles from the quantum vacuum began popping in and out of existence, some of which could absorb energy and become real. Physicists think that all matter today, from to living things, originated from these primordial . But physicists are even more interested in this era for what it may reveal about .

“The Planck scale is the energy at which the two major theories in physics – gravity and quantum field theory – necessarily combine,” Jackson and Schalm told PhysOrg.com. “The resultant theory of quantum gravity is one of the major open problems in physics, though by now there is a lot of evidence that string theory is the answer. In an ideal world one would wish to test this experimentally. Unfortunately, this Planck energy scale is laughably beyond the reach of standard experiments such as particle accelerators: it would be like reaching out your hand to touch the Moon. Fortunately, Nature did once perform an ultra-high-energy experiment possibly capable of probing the Planck scale: the Big Bang. Now while we can't re-do the Big Bang, we can witness its consequences.”

One of the most instrumental methods of detecting the Big Bang's consequences is measuring the CMB radiation – the faint, mostly microwave-frequency background glow that permeates the entire universe. Leftover from the recombination epoch during the early universe when atoms were just beginning to form, the CMB is almost completely uniform, except for some small in the radiation that scientists first detected in the early '90s. These temperature fluctuations stem from the primordial quantum fluctuations that occurred during inflation.

The CMB data has enabled scientists to calculate the spectrum of the wavelengths of the primordial quantum fluctuations, providing some of the earliest experimental data of anything. Although the spectrum calculated from observations closely matches the spectrum calculated from current theories, the continuing advance of high-precision experiments could provide an opportunity to observe something new.

“The details of quantum gravity could be encoded in the fluctuations of the quantum field responsible for the rapid inflation of the near the ,” the physicists wrote. “The primary diagnostic – the power spectrum of these quantum field fluctuations – could contain a wealth of information about high-energy physics taking place during this inflationary period.”

A closer look

By computing universal generic corrections to the inflationary power spectrum, Jackson and Schalm hope to provide a starting point for analyzing a wide variety of new physics theories. The universal corrections are independent of the precise details of any quantum gravity theory or other unknown Planck-scale physics, but future experiments could help narrow down these possibilities. In particular, the upcoming experiments Planck and CMBPol/Inflation Probe, which aim to measure CMB temperature fluctuations with unprecedented sensitivity, might have a shot at detecting the small corrections. If future experiments did observe these corrections, the findings could potentially reveal new physics on the Planck scale.

“We computed exactly what to look for in terms of specific features of the power spectrum,” Jackson and Schalm wrote. “Our hook was that the dominant feature should only depend on the ratio of the scale of inflation to the Planck scale. The significance of our study is that one can now analyze the observational effects of physics theories at energy scales which would have been impossible to study previously. These include quantum gravity theories, such as superstring theory. Complementing the theoretical tools that we have developed is the vast amount of precision cosmological data soon available from the Planck satellite, for example. Researchers will be able to calculate experimental predictions for some model of high-energy physics. If the data turns out to look nothing like the prediction, the model can be ruled out. If it's similar, one can refine the model.”

The physicists describe the corrections as a map, similar to a map a passenger might use to navigate the Paris metro, but in this case the map is to show physicists how to analyze any new physics model they develop. In a sense, it's similar to how the passenger can use a map to get to any destination on the metro line, even if the passenger doesn't yet know where they're going.

“People had studied a few individual models of high-energy modifications during inflation, but the analysis tools were completely specific to that particular model,” Jackson and Schalm wrote. “If one tweaked the model even a little bit, they'd no longer have any idea how to study it. What we've done is to give a map of how to analyze any model. Just take the model, follow some few simple rules and you can calculate anything you please. We give a few simple examples of how to do this, but the tools are not specific to those models. This is why we claim that we have developed the model-independent set of tools to analyze high-energy physics.”

The hope that the new map will prove useful in the future, even if they don't know exactly where they're headed, or what type of high-energy physics may have existed during inflation.

“If experiments indeed find some features in the power spectrum,” they said, “we may not yet understand precisely what physics causes these features, but it will demonstrate that there is some new very high-energy modification to , and this may be a result of quantum gravity.”

Explore further: Quantum physics just got less complicated

More information: Mark G. Jackson and Koenraad Schalm. “Model Independent Signatures of New Physics in the Inflationary Power Spectrum.” PRL 108, 111301 (2012). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.111301

4.6 /5 (26 votes)

Related Stories

Physicists propose test for loop quantum gravity

Jan 03, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- As a quantum theory of gravity, loop quantum gravity could potentially solve one of the biggest problems in physics: reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics. But like all tentative ...

Looking at quantum gravity in a mirror

Mar 18, 2012

Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum physics are expected to merge at the Planck-scale of extremely high energies and on very short distances. At this scale, new phenomena could arise. However, the Planck-scale ...

Scientists glimpse universe before the Big Bang

Nov 23, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- In general, asking what happened before the Big Bang is not really considered a science question. According to Big Bang theory, time did not even exist before this point roughly 13.7 billion ...

Cosmologists aim to observe first moments of universe

Feb 16, 2009

During the next decade, a delicate measurement of primordial light could reveal convincing evidence for the popular cosmic inflation theory, which proposes that a random, microscopic density fluctuation in ...

Recommended for you

Quantum physics just got less complicated

Dec 19, 2014

Here's a nice surprise: quantum physics is less complicated than we thought. An international team of researchers has proved that two peculiar features of the quantum world previously considered distinct ...

Controlling light on a chip at the single-photon level

Dec 16, 2014

Integrating optics and electronics into systems such as fiber-optic data links has revolutionized how we transmit information. A second revolution awaits as researchers seek to develop chips in which individual ...

User comments : 99

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Isaacsname
4.9 / 5 (15) Mar 26, 2012
The Big Bang is what happened the last time somebody built a collider powerful enough to probe Planck scales.

..whoops
knowalot
Mar 26, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hemitite
4.3 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2012
"...by now there is a lot of evidence that string theory is the answer."

What "evidence" it this guy referring to? Is it one of the tenants of String Theory that something is proven if enough of its fans hold their breath and wish hard enough?
hemitite
4 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2012
noalot,

If all of the available evidence points to the reality of the big bang, then to claim that such an event cannot be relevant to science because of its "metaphysical" nature is nothing but bigotry.
rah
3 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2012
It sounds like there is an extra heaping or three, of fudge in this recipe.
brodix
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 26, 2012
It used to be in science that one proposed a theory, developed experiments to prove it and if those experiments didn't match predictions, the theory was subject to serious questions.
In modern cosmology, that's not how it works. When observations don't match theory, it becomes an opportunity to make a career out of devising a patch for the theory, from inflation to dark energy. Epicycles live.
It is the nature of bureaucracy to promote the believers and demote the skeptics.
Silentsam
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2012
If observations do not suggest the hardcore idea behind your theory is wrong there is nothing wrong with tweaking the softcore ideas that support it to match observation.

Cosmology is very mathematical, but this does not mean it is not scientific. They seem to be building logical models that seem to fit our universe, and then dropping the ones that go the wrong way while working on the ones that seem to come close to the right direction.
holoman
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2012
If the big bang is logical then the speed of light is illogical.
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2012
We are not even a wink in the eye of the eternal, whatever that eternal might be. And yet, we declare ourselves fit to bring forth the answers to these great mysteries. Our meager scientific instruments do not even begin to provide the correct answers to these questions. . . .and the few answers we have only lead us to even more questions.
For instance. . .Time. . .IMHO, Time has ALWAYS existed, even BEFORE the Big Bang, if there was a Big Bang. I believe that Time can only go forward, independent of the other 3 dimensions, even if the Universe folded in on itself like a tesseract house. . .time will continue to go forward. It is impossible for Time to stand still or go backward, in spite of mankind's perception of Time scales.
Since no one has ever gone as fast or faster than the speed of light and it probably will never happen, the only thing that scientists can do is estimate, conjecture, and express their ideas just as I am doing now. I have no instruments, that's the difference.
RitchieGuy
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2012
If the big bang is logical then the speed of light is illogical.


I am not a scientist, so I will just give my layman's opinion. IF the Big Bang occurred, there was no such thing as light, only heat. . . .and matter in its most primitive form and size. There was also no such thing as Gravity, for if there had been, all matter would have been pulled back into its starting point and held together. The heat would have been building up for a very long Time, and when the primitive matter exploded, it flew out in all directions faster than the speed of light. The light photons were then created as matter went in and out of different dimensions not having much to do with the first three. But Time continued on as it has always done. Eventually, the other dimensions closed up, no longer being forced open by fast flying matter. As primitive matter flew outward, it carried light photons along and then the photons separated from the matter.
How do I know all this for certain? Just a guess.
Kinedryl
1.4 / 5 (15) Mar 26, 2012
The assumption of Universe beginning is anthropocentrism. In dense aether model the density fluctuations of vacuum were always here, because the natural state of observable reality is not zero or another particular state, but random state. Therefore the Universe has no beginning or end, it just may appear so for limited human creatures, which can see only limited portion of it.

In dense aether model the space-time can be modelled with water surface and after then the observation of the distant past appears like the observation of water surface with its own ripples at distance: everything appears blurred and fuzzy there like distant horizon covered with fog. But if we would live in some remote/earlier part of Universe, then this part would appear quite normally for us and the beginning of Universe would become shifted into history accordingly.
Kinedryl
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 26, 2012
The notion of big bang follows just from the fact, at sufficient distance the space and time appears blurred from local human perspective. But it's normal consequence of the dispersive nature of the light spreading trough vacuum fluctuations. It means, not only galaxies and red shift, but even the inflation and big bang itself are product of these fluctuations.

If we observe the dispersion of surface ripples at the water surface, we can see, how their wavelength collapses with distance fast. After certain distance limit no harmonic wave can penetrate anymore and this distance corresponds the particle horizon (the initial singularity) of the observable Universe.

This model explains too, from where the inflation has come: the contraction of surface ripple wavelength becomes very fast after this threshold, which makes the illusion of fast expansion of water surface from the perspective of its observer.
Kinedryl
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 26, 2012
There are many evidences for this model. One of them is the appearance of the observable Universe itself. At the human scale it appears fuzzy and random, at the larger and smaller distances all observable objects converge to the spherical shapes. But if the distance scale increases or decreases even more, then all observable objects become fuzzy and random again. This is exactly the perspective of hypothetical observer at the water surface, which would observe it with its own waves.

From this model follows too, above the distance scale of human observer the Universe will not appear expanding but collapsing and the red shift will be replaced with blue shift and positive violation of inverse square law for distant radiowave sources. It would mean, the alleged "expansion" of Universe is an observatory illusion and it depends on the wavelength of light, in which it is observed.
Turritopsis
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2012
The Inflationary period was not the spreading of quanta. This period was the unfolding of space. Space is not limited to lightspeed.

Imagine the old wormhole example - flat piece of paper points A & B opposite corners of page, page folded over with A and B in direct contact -

The inflationary period was the unfolding of spacetime. Points A & B gained distance from one another at a rate greater than lightspeed. A & B haven't moved, the space unfolded leaving them in opposite ends of the Universe. When evaluating from perspective of A, B took off at a speed greater than light. Both A & B are of electromagnetic nature so they can't exceed c, yet the distance between them was gained at velocity higher than c.

Space unfolding is the answer to faster than c inflation.
Turritopsis
2.8 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2012
Kinedryl, the Universe is not steady state. All systems are subject to decay. The Sun is constantly radiating, spewing out alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. All systems head towards equilibrium, as the Universe spreads it cools. As it cools pressure (gravity, strong nuclear forces) is released. All systems follow the same trend, this signifies that the Universe originated in the same manner. At some point our Universe was a singular point, since then decay caused fragmentation resulting in quanta diversity we see today.

The Universe itself must have been a decay product, but since the Universe is self contained, a higher dimensional reality played a role in the Universal creation of space and time. The Universe didn't exist before it was created, and since we are a product of the Universe, space and time didn't either.

The Universe was caused but not by a Universal event. The Universes creation was extra-Universal.
Pressure2
3 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2012
I hear this argument often that it was just the "expansion of space" and nothing traveled faster than the speed of light during the inflationary period.
The question I have is what is space? What even gives space its dimension other than the interaction of energy and matter?
Cynical1
1.2 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2012
I am in agreement with the Kinedryl way of thought. The Universe, on every fractal scale we can think of, likes to do things the same way - singularity, growth (expansion), homogeneity, dissolution. I have not observed nor read of, from Planck scale on up to cosmic scale, from energy to matter to biological systems and even time and motion, ANYthing that does not follow this simple formula (someone PLEASE show me an alternate example).
What we fail to see is how each "gyre" (energy vortex) combines with and intertwines with others to form even larger "gyres", as well as newer, even more novel ones than those that preceded and so on and so on...
So, until we evolve enough neuronal dendritus to match and comprehend that simplicity/complexity, we're just mentally throwing darts at the wall...
Cynical1
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2012
Turit is also on the same page. However, rather than concerning myself with anything that came before (seems like a pretty obvious conclusion), I just use OUR Universe as a starting and reference point because that is already more than the "gyre" of human information has evolved to comprehend.
So, it appears Time is our Master - for now. But I think we're gaining on it...
Silverhill
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2012
RitchieGuy:
Our meager scientific instruments do not even begin to provide the correct answers to these questions.
Actually, as noted in the article, our instruments *are* beginning to provide such answers. (This is a provisional statement, of course. We must continue to gather, and analyze, data.)
IMHO, Time has ALWAYS existed, even BEFORE the Big Bang, if there was a Big Bang.
This would be the case in M-theory. Time already existed (unto the infinite past, I believe), in the reference frame of the colliding branes; after the collision that engendered our particular chunk of spacetime, a separately measured time began with respect to that. Time had a beginning--for us.

continued...
Silverhill
3.8 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2012
IF the Big Bang occurred, there was no such thing as light, only heat. ... and matter in its most primitive form and size.
Heat is the measure of motion of material particles, and is transferred by contact and by photons. Light (or, electromagnetic radiation in general) did exist early on, but not until about 10 seconds after the Bang.

There was also no such thing as Gravity, for if there had been, all matter would have been pulled back into its starting point and held together.
There was indeed gravity; it's an inherent property of mass and energy. Something overcame its attraction, however--but the expansion was not a simple thermal explosion.

light photons were then created as matter went in and out of different dimensions not having much to do with the first three. ... the other dimensions closed up, no longer being forced open by fast flying matter.
Please explain "moving in and out of other dimensions" and "forcing open other dimensions".
roboferret
4.6 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2012
The Big Bang is not part of physics.

Wrong.
The singularity existed outside of space, time, energy and even outside of causality.

Wrong.
This makes the big bang by definition a metaphysical event.

Also wrong.
A belief in the big bang is fine,
wrong
but should not be discussed in a science forum
wrong
but as part of a debate on issues of religion and faith.
Wrongest.
Congratulations on being wrong on every point. If you are so keen on keeping science and religion apart, I suggest you stop posting BIBLE VERSES on a science website.You can claim your prize at any time by pressing alt f4.
AWaB
not rated yet Mar 26, 2012
"...by now there is a lot of evidence that string theory is the answer."

What "evidence" it this guy referring to? Is it one of the tenants of String Theory that something is proven if enough of its fans hold their breath and wish hard enough?


I logged on just to question this exact quote. Thanks hemitite!
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2012
There was indeed gravity; it's an inherent property of mass and energy. Something overcame its attraction, however--but the expansion was not a simple thermal explosion.
Like the vacuum energy. Apparently when a black hole gets large enough this force overcomes gravity. A critical value for this size implies that black holes of this size are being ripped apart wherever they might form in the larger universe.
brodix
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2012
If observations do not suggest the hardcore idea behind your theory is wrong there is nothing wrong with tweaking the softcore ideas that support it to match observation.

Inflation and dark energy are not minor tweaks. If cosmologists were accountants, they would be getting that registered letter from the IRS.

Cosmology is very mathematical, but this does not mean it is not scientific. They seem to be building logical models that seem to fit our universe, and then dropping the ones that go the wrong way while working on the ones that seem to come close to the right direction.


Epicycles were very mathematical, complex and largely accurate. With enough complexity, one could devise a self-centric model of the universe, but that doesn't mean Titans are pushing the entire universe the opposite direction of your every step. Asking what might cause light to be redshifted across enormous distances of zero gravity space is not scientific, but inflation, dark energy, multiverse
JIMBO
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2012
What is it with the people at Physorg who post these stories !!??
As I've pointed out BEFORE, most folks don't have a Sx to PRL, yet that's ALL they ever do is cite the journal. 99% of these APS pubs are vetted on the arxiv Months prior to publication. WHY NOT PROVIDE THE ARXIV LINK ?
Here it is: http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0887
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
Silverhill says:
light photons were then created as matter went in and out of different dimensions not having much to do with the first three. ... the other dimensions closed up, no longer being forced open by fast flying matter.
Please explain "moving in and out of other dimensions" and "forcing open other dimensions".

Will attempt to explain. As with Kinedryl's analogy with a dispersal of ripples on the water's surface in a lake, e.g., the matter moves faster than c in all directions and hits the first ripple (dimension) which slows matter down just a bit. The matter moves through that dimension still beyond c and continues on following expanding space Then it hits the next dimension or ripple, which is a little farther from the first ripple which has dissipated or closed up in the meantime. cont'd
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
It goes through the second dimensional ripple and emerges from that, passing into a second smooth "trough", continues on for a longer time until it hits the third dimensional wave and passes through that also. But the ripples (dimensions)are less frequent as the matter moves farther away from the singularity or starting point. It still travels faster than c, but each succeeding ripple slows it down a tiny bit, until it has arrived at the farthest reaches of the Universe where its speed has slowed down so much that it no longer is FTL. By then, matter can no longer enter into another dimension because it has slowed down too much, and even the photons at c aren't fast enough to enter other dimensions.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2012
Kinedryl, the Universe is not steady state. All systems are subject to decay. The Sun is constantly radiating, spewing out alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. All systems head towards equilibrium, as the Universe spreads it cools.
Steady state means, the Universe doesn't evolve at the most general scale. It doesn't mean, it remains motion-less. The objects in universe don't decay only. Every evaporated photon ends in some cloud of dark matter, from which new generation of matter condenses again. The Universe is gas: the heavier objects in it are density fluctuations which do evaporate and condense somewhere else.
Another way how to understand it is the atemporality of quantum fluctuations. They do noise all the time, but because we cannot distinguish a time arrow, the time effectively stops at the quantum scale. And because the behavior of Universe at large scales mirrors the Universe at small scales, its atemporality manifests even at the most distant areas of Universe.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2012
Please explain "moving in and out of other dimensions" and "forcing open other dimensions"
This is just what the evaporation and subsequent condensation means in dense aether model. At the water surface some density fluctuations emerge from the (hidden dimension of) underwater and they decay after moment again. What their matter does during this is, it just travels from extradimension (of underwater) into two-dimensional slice of Universe represented with water surface and it travels back again. It's no mystery once you understand it in this way, or another one. When the Sun evaporates into photons, it's matter just travels through time dimension (gravity field gradient) into extradimensions of our space-time. This matter can emerge from them somewhere else. This process happens all the time in symmetrical way both bellow, both above human observer scale.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2012
The Universe was caused but not by a Universal event. The Universes creation was extra-Universal.
In another words, the observable portion of Universe condensed from extradimensions and it will evaporate later in the same way, like every part of it. This process is very slow and gradualistic from our perspective, though and it has nothing to do with Big Bang in the sense of classical cosmology. It manifests with dipole anisotropy of CMBR.

In water surface model of our space-time it means, this water surface is not flat. It undulates in the same way, like every tiny part of it. And the gradient of its density at the most general observable scale manifests like gradient of CMBR temperature. In dense aether model the Universe appears like fractal clouds of Perlin noise. Every fluctuation of it is part of another, even larger fluctuations, because the Universe appears like the random noise from perspective of limited human creatures, no matter how complex it really may be.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2012
What we fail to see is how each "gyre" (energy vortex) combines with and intertwines with others to form even larger "gyres", as well as newer, even more novel ones than those that preceded and so on and so on...
This is essentially, what the nested density fluctuation model of Universe means. The dense aether model doesn't use any particular geometry for it (gyres, vortexes, whatever) though. Random means just random. The vorticity of density fluctuations follows from geometric transform, which occurs during their observation from larger or smaller scales. But at the most general scales this vorticity disappears. The galaxies are still apparent vortices, but the galactic clusters already not. The electrons and neutrinos are still vortices, but smaller quantum fluctuations already not. The vorticity of Universe is apparently just a matter of limited zones at dimensional scale in the same way, like the sphericity or CP symmetry breaking of objects.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
This is only my opinion and it's probably incorrect. I'm just pointing out that, despite all the research going on and new and better tech, it is impossible to know all things. . .only possibilities and probabilities. . .particularly in Physics. Science is still non-absolute and will be so for a very long time, unless it were possible to go back in time to observe directly such phenomenon.
Of course, the search must continue. Scientists may hold the fate of mankind in their hands.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
The article states, "...the CMB is almost completely uniform, except for some small temperature fluctuations in the radiation that scientists first detected in the early '90s. These temperature fluctuations stem from the primordial quantum fluctuations that occurred during inflation."

I am not sure a consensus exists for the assertion that small fluctuations in CMB temperature are due *solely* to primordial quantum fluctuations amplified by inflation. Some physicists are probing those fluctuations in connection with later events, with the implication that the CMB can be regionally altered by post-inflationary interactions.

If the CMB is influenced by post-inflationary interactions, than any fudge factor applied to bring inflationary modeling into closer alignment with CMB data may do more harm than good to model accuracy, unless post-inflationary influences on fluctuations can be somehow filtered out. The article gives no hint that the authors have attempted to do this.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2012
Science is still non-absolute and will be so for a very long time
I'm not so sure about it regarding the general Universe structure. There exists quite stringent constrains of what limited object can see from nested structures which are much larger or smaller. The Universe may appear like landscape, whose details are covered with fog. This is apparent problem of many mainstream theories, they do extrapolate the complexity of the world at the human scale to the complexity of the Universe at the quantum or cosmological scales (supersymmetric particles and dozen new particles and objects predicted with mainstream science, like the cosmic strings or microscopic black holes). IMO these objects cannot exist.
Scientists may hold the fate of mankind in their hands.
Scientists don't influent the future of mankind anymore, because their findings are getting separated from reality - the engineers and the people like Andrea Rossi are doing it
ziphead
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2012
...Wrongest???

You really should not judge.
Callippo
1.2 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2012
CMB data may do more harm than good to model accuracy
I do understand your comment. Because the CMBR itself is explained with inflation, the using of CMBR data for detailing of this process may always lead into sort of circular reasoning. It happened already with the age of Universe, which is extrapolated from the wavelength of CMBR, which is extrapolated from the age of Universe. This is essentially, what the epicycle model means in physics: it's exact, because all its data are actually derived just from the same observations, which this model predicts. With increasing volume of connections and data the extrapolation of every rigid model becomes an interpolation gradually.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
Some physicists are probing those fluctuations in connection with later events, with the implication that the CMB can be regionally altered by post-inflationary interactions -Urgelt

What are these 'post-inflationary interaction' theories? Can you prove a reference?
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
With regard to ultra dimensional phenomena: http://www.physor...ion.html

Stojkovic, an assistant professor of physics, says the theory of evolving dimensions represents a radical shift from the way we think about the cosmos -- about how our universe came to be.
The core idea is that the dimensionality of space depends on the size of the space we're observing, with smaller spaces associated with fewer dimensions. That means that a fourth dimension will open up -- if it hasn't already -- as the universe continues to expand.
The theory also suggests that space has fewer dimensions at very high energies of the kind associated with the early, post-big bang universe.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
http://www.physor...442.html
Prof. Etzion will be watching closely to see what happens to proton beams colliding at super speeds. While invisible particles are expected to leave a trace like a watermark after they collide, he believes that some particles will escape detection, possibly travelling to other dimensions.

This is an exotic theory, Prof. Etzion admits, but one which may explain why the force of gravity appears to be so weak. "It could be that while all the matter we know is trapped in three space dimensions, a gravity carrier can move into additional dimensions, resulting in a diluted gravitational force", he says, noting he and his colleagues will be looking for particles delivered by a force carrier called the "Z*" or "zee star." The physicists hypothesize that the Z* may be able to move between our own three-dimensional world and other hidden dimensions.
RitchieGuy
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2012
The notion of new dimensions is stranger than science fiction, though the possibility of their existence is quite real. Prof. Etzion believes that other dimensions may exist in parallel to ours, but that until now they were too small for us to experimentally detect. "For the first time we will reach a new energy scale in our lab, the Tera electron volt regime, and we expect to discover new phenomena there," he says. "At such high energies, we may be able to stimulate particles to jump through dimensions and can measure this by the disappearance of mass or energy, or the appearance of new excited state towers of particles."

IMO, the present speed of light is not fast enough for escape velocity into other dimensions.
Cynical1
not rated yet Mar 27, 2012
Calippo and Urgeit have some interesting and cogent posers/statements going on.
However, I'd like to try a new analogy. Rather than ripples on the waters surface, lets look at those cheap balloons you buy at a store.
When you first start blowing it up, it's hard as hell to break elastic bonds of the rubber(making you red in the face). but after you get it started, each breath into it get's easier and the balloon surface area expands even faster. This also means that the turbulence of air coming in is lessening(homogenizing).

So... something is blowing matter/space/time(?) into our Universe balloon? As the "container" boundary grows thinner, requiring less applied pressure, expanding even faster.
This analogy would imply that the "singularity" of the "Big Bang" is still going strong and is fairly constant, wouldn't it?
And it's just due to the limitation on the speed of light(information) that we can't see what's happening NOW...
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
The paper said;
Virtual pairs of particles from the quantum vacuum began popping in and out of existence, some of which could absorb energy and become real. Physicists think that all matter today, from galaxies to living things, originated from these primordial quantum fluctuations. But physicists are even more interested in this era for what it may reveal about quantum gravity.

Unfortunately, one main weak point of conventional quantum vacuum is that it comes with infinite amount of energy. Based on a non- conventional concept (in the paper below), it may be possible to reach quantum gravity!

http://www.vacuum...mid=9=en
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
This analogy would imply that the "singularity" of the "Big Bang" is still going strong and is fairly constant, wouldn't it? -CynicalSchminical

No. Your simplistic analogy is totally worthless.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
Unfortunately, one main weak point of conventional quantum vacuum is that it comes with infinite amount of energy. Based on a non- conventional concept (in the paper below), it may be possible to reach quantum gravity!

http://www.vacuum...mid=9=en -vacuumHead

Or...not. Made up shit is not science.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
Stojkovic, an assistant professor of physics, says the theory of evolving dimensions represents a radical shift from the way we think about the cosmos
I'm not sure if its so radical in context of dense aether model, it's water surface analogy of space-time. At the water surface the dimensionality of surface ripples spreading increases with distance, because the 2D surface waves are getting dispersed into third dimension of underwater gradually. In the universe this effect manifests itself with dark energy, dark matter flow and polarization of CMBR. It's simply just another effect, which is effectively virtual, because it should appear the same from all places of the observable Universe and it's not related to any particular epochs of Universe evolution. It manifests with polarization of light around black holes and at many other places of Universe.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2012
to proton beams colliding at super speeds. While invisible particles are expected to leave a trace like a watermark after they collide, he believes that some particles will escape detection, possibly travelling to other dimensions.
This effect is observed routinely, because the evaporation of heavier particles to leptons, axions and neutrinos is equivalent to travel of matter along time dimensions into extradimensions of space-time (at least partially). The axions and neutrinos evade the detection easily after then. We talked about it already in this thread in connection to evaporation of massive objects into radiation.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
When you first start blowing it up, it's hard as hell to break elastic bonds of the rubber(making you red in the face). but after you get it started, each breath into it get's easier and the balloon surface area expands even faster.
It's illustrative example and it's commonly used in cosmology - but it's rather homology, than the analogy. You're assuming, that the properties of space-time correspond the nonelastic behaviour of material of balloon and everything what derive from this analogy will be based on this ad-hoced assumption. Whereas in dense aether model the water surface is just a low-dimensional model, i.e. the simplification/miniaturization of the real vacuum foam. I don't like the balloon analogy, because it implies, the observable Universe has some beginning. Whereas the dispersion of ripples at the water surface works at all places of it and it doesn't require the assumption of finite age of the water surface.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
It's illustrative example and it's commonly used in cosmology - but it's rather homology, than the analogy. You're assuming, that the properties of space-time correspond the nonelastic behaviour of material of balloon and everything what derive from this analogy will be based on this ad-hoced assumption. Whereas in dense aether model the water surface is just a low-dimensional model, i.e. the simplification/miniaturization of the real vacuum foam. I don't like the balloon analogy, because it implies, the observable Universe has some beginning. Whereas the dispersion of ripples at the water surface works at all places of it and it doesn't require the assumption of finite age of the water surface.

Ripples have a beginning, too.
Perhaps the balloon "material" is just denser aether.
The Big Bang singularity theory ALSO implies a definitive age to the Universe. The balloon is a just "low-dimension" example of it.
So - let's call it a metaphor to avoid the analogy/homology argum
Cynical1
not rated yet Mar 27, 2012
This analogy would imply that the "singularity" of the "Big Bang" is still going strong and is fairly constant, wouldn't it? -CynicalSchminical

No. Your simplistic analogy is totally worthless.

So - tell me what observations support your glib rejection of this as a simplified description of what might be occurring?

Remembering that this Universe does EVERYTHING the same way -

Singularity - first breath into the balloon;
expansion(growth) - The inflationary period being analogous to the point when you get past that first really tuff breath into the balloon, then continued steady expansion (more or less);
IEM stasis - where the nozzle is tied off;
dissolution - the balloon breaks or all the air just leaks away.
Pretty simple.
No extra dimensions or Dark Energy needed. Just spacetime and matter building more pressure and creating an expanding bubble - the elastic "container" resistance weakening and so on...
And, if it helps me to better visualize -whats wrong with it?
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
IMO. . .The "singularity" from which the Big Bang proceeded always existed. . .the mother of all matter and energy. A powerful force (as yet unknown to us) was the catalyst and I think it was that catalyst that produced such enormous heat within the Singularity that it turned it into the "First Star" or Sun which, having all components of the ideal First Star, finally exploded violently outward in all directions. The size of this "star" was huge, bigger than quadrillion suns and yet compact.
Time cannot be contained, and is separate from the first 3 dimensions. Time was already moving forward and had been prior to the First Star heating up.
At the moment of the First Star's explosion, space was rolled up and, with the force of the explosion, space began to unroll in all directions. Ripples in Time and Space were created and out of these Ripples, extra Dimensions were created as the energy and matter flew outward toward each Ripple.
(cont'd)
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
cont'd
As matter and energy passed through each newly-made Dimension, a small bit of energy and possibly matter was left in it, so that the Dimension could not close completely. Also, Matter and Energy flew through the unrolling space leaving a little of itself at each slight pause, and then moved on. This might be how galaxies formed with intergalactic space in between.
I want to remind everyone that I am not trained in Cosmology, but I am merely using Logic and the possibility of Subsequent Events. I cannot prove or disprove this, but I have a gut feeling that this is so and I am searching for papers that reveal an agreement with my estimation. If anyone finds such information, please forward a copy to me. Thanks
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
Sub: Cosmology Definition-Origins Cosmology vedas Interlinks
Big bang has no definition and adds to confusion.
Inspiration is the key for cosmology studies
http://archive.or...osmology
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
......Made up shit is not science.


Dear, CardacianNeverid,

It is easy to blame others people who has different idea, in which educated people do not do it.
Please explain in detail what your opinion is!

CardacianNeverid
4 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2012
......Made up shit is not science.

Dear, CardacianNeverid,

It is easy to blame others people who has different idea, in which educated people do not do it.
Please explain in detail what your opinion is! -VacuumHead

I thought I did. That whole website is full of quasi-physical crap. The introduction page reads like it was written by an illiterate child like Zephyr/Callipo/Kinedryl.

Here's just a tiny sample from the website:

The owner [snip] who have fallen in love but unhappy with modern theoretical physics theories. Of course, we have to accept their predictability and accuracy, but it comes with something weird like a magic!


And here's a chapter heading from the book that's being hustled on the website -

8. The Heaven's Gate is Opened
8.1 Physics of God !
8.2 Animals in God's zoo !
8.3 The mercy of God !


Nuff said!
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2012
Sub: Cosmology Definition-Origins Cosmology vedas Interlinks
Big bang has no definition and adds to confusion.
Inspiration is the key for cosmology studies
http://archive.or...osmology


Vedic cosmology. . .interesting topic. I think that most people think of Vedic and Upanishads as an Indian religion and nothing more. I found this link: http://www.archae...das.html

I would like to see what are the differences and/or similarities to mainstream cosmology.

vacuum-mechanics
2 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2012
.....
I thought I did. .....


Dear, CardacianNeverid,

It seems that you just only scan the web, but do not touch the main them story which we are talking about the articles, please look them in detail, then we will discuss later!

By the way, you said that my literature is bad that is okay. But, by learning from the wording what you have posted, it seems that the problem which really happen is your literature not mine, isnt it?
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2012
Personaly I do consider the "vedian physicists" as the same freeks separated from reality, like the dogmatic "hardcore physmatics", who think in equations only. And their ability to predict things in reliable way is just corresponding: the similarity of fuzzy predictions of string theorists to the meditative deductions of natural phillosophers is not accidental here: these two sorts of people do converge mutally each other like all extremists (let say Hitler and Stalin and/or transverse and longitudinal waves along water surface at extreme distances) - despite they're fighting mutually. As usually, the optimal approach is somewhere inbetween.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2012
Hey guys, why is it that if you start with a Sun being 100% hydrogen, and assume it roughly averaged the same rate of fusion that it currently averages for it's lifetime, and then calculate the age of the Sun that it would take to obtain it's present day composition, you arrive at exactly 27.4 billion years?

This number is exactly twice the radius of the observable universe in light years, and suggests that the Sun is exactly the same age as the observable universe!

This is contrary to the notion that the Sun formed from a nebula which was collapsed following a previous generation of star's explosion(s), and that the composition of the Sun was altered by said explosions.

The "age" being EXACTLY twice the light horizon radius, or exactly equal to the diameter in light years. This seems too convenient to be a coincidence in any alleged "second generation" situation.

Good luck explaining that within the Big Bang model.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2012
I mean, the odds of the alleged first generation star exploding in exactly the right composition and symetry to produce the Sun with the exact composition it has now, such that said calculation gives an "age" EXACTLY twice the light horizon radius, or EXACTLY equal to the light horizon diameter has got to be some obscenely incomprehensibly small value.

And so, my conclusion was that matter at opposite sides of the diameter could not move faster than the speed of light in proper motion, nor could the light itself move faster, thus the "age" of the Sun must be exactly equal to the "age" of the entire universe, accurate and precise to within the first decimal place.

And of course, this is totally contrary to the Big Bang hypothesis.

Additionally, don't take my word for it, try the calculation for yourself, you can start with the wiki article for "Sun" and just see how long it would take to have burned the "missing hydrogen" from the Sun's mass, had it started out 100% hydrogen.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2012
I mean, according to the Big Bang hypothesis, the Sun would need to be much younger than the galaxy, and certainly much younger than the universe itself.

But again, if you check some of this stuff for yourself, you find that really is not necessarily the case at all, seeing as how the matching "age" for the Sun ends up being exactly the same as the diameter of the universe in LY...that is too perfect to be coincidental.

It strongly suggests that almost everything in the universe was quite literally created "as is" at about the same exact time in history, which is quite contrary to the prevailing hypothesis in science.

You can get fuming mad about it, find.

Just check the math for your own damn self before you complain about it.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2012
Why would that PERFECT relationship exist if the Sun was supposedly created from the collapse of a nebula perturbed by a nearby random supernova?

There's no good reason for that PERFECT ratio to exist in the composition or combination of the standard Big Bang and Solar System formation hypothesis.

But there it is! Anybody with a calculator can perform this and see that I am right regarding the numbers!

In any case, this suggests that the concept of the continuity of time and the history of the universe is extremely different than any mainstream interpretation I've ever seen set forth, else how do you explain this?

Just ignore ANOTHER perfect number in the Earth-Sun system through special pleading?

Hey, I used their data.

All I did was a simple calculation, operating under the assumption of 100% or nearly 100% initial hydrogen.

Now either that's a special relationship, or else it's like a 1 in a googleplex coincidence. Personally, I think the former. The latter is ridiculous.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2012
The "singularity" from which the Big Bang proceeded always existed. . .the mother of all matter and energy. A powerful force (as yet unknown to us) was the catalyst and I think it was that catalyst that produced such enormous heat within the Singularity that it turned it into the "First Star" or Sun which, having all components of the ideal First Star, finally exploded violently outward in all directions. The size of this "star" was huge, bigger than quadrillion suns and yet compact.

You may want to look at this Web page for part of the answer

http://www.pistis...rit.html

especially the part which states "The 3rd century scroll of mystical Coptic Christianity, The Acts of Thomas, gives a graphic account of the Apostle Thomas' travels to India, and contains prayers invoking the Holy Spirit as "the Mother of all creation" and "compassionate mother," among other titles."
jdbertron
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2012
Pressure2 has it right:

I hear this argument often that it was just the "expansion of space" and nothing traveled faster than the speed of light during the inflationary period.
The question I have is what is space? What even gives space its dimension other than the interaction of energy and matter?


QM is flawed at the core and so is String Theory.
The world is information, and the speed of light is a side effect of imperfect information transfer.
Cynical1
not rated yet Apr 01, 2012
Im kinda with Idber on this one.
Nothing - is a state of existance. To exist in a "state" is information. Quantumly, information is never exact. Hence, we get change. Change begets change or - information produces more information. I think you can all see where this is going...
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
Hi, I read RitchieGuy's comments and PMed him to clarify what he said about "the mother of all energy and matter". He is in hospital for a heart operation. He said that he did not mean the word mother in a metaphysical sense at all and he could just as easily have said father or brother. But he claims that the "first star", as he calls it, would have contained all matter and energy prior to it exploding and thus spewing out all of its contents everywhere. That would be consistent with a "big bang", I think.
I wished him good luck and a speedy recovery.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
Im kinda with Idber on this one. Nothing - is a state of existance. To exist in a "state" is information. Quantumly, information is never exact. Hence, we get change. Change begets change or - information produces more information. I think you can all see where this is going...
You need to stop using the word nothing and replace it with something (somethingness). As the old saying goes: "From nothing comes nothing." Otherwise you will be considered a magician and not a scientist.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
Hi, I read RitchieGuy's comments and PMed him to clarify what he said about "the mother of all energy and matter". He is in hospital for a heart operation. He said that he did not mean the word mother in a metaphysical sense at all and he could just as easily have said father or brother. But he claims that the "first star", as he calls it, would have contained all matter and energy prior to it exploding and thus spewing out all of its contents everywhere. That would be consistent with a "big bang", I think.
I wished him good luck and a speedy recovery.
I hope RitchieGuy gets well soon. I predict that the word "Holy Ghost" will be added to the list of zoology creatures within fifty years. I saw the thing twenty-one years ago so I know it does exist! Next time I see it I will try to get a picture of it.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
Tabulis,
My statement using "nothing" as a state of existance - therefore information MEANS that it is something... To be something also means that there will always be something else (quantumly).
Kinda like changing a bit from 0 to 1.
However, it's not the 0 or 1 state that really applies - it's the "transition" that is where all the action is...
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
Oh - and good luck and best wishes to Ritchie!

Not a magician OR scientist, Tab. An artist. It makes for interesting observations...
TabulaMentis
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
@Cynical1:

Nothing is nothing. Zero is something. Darkness is something. Nothingness cannot have a state of existence because it is nothing. Information is something. An experiment one or two years ago proved information could be converted to energy. When a person erases information it produces heat. There was also a thought experiment last year regarding Maxwell's Demon involving information.
You are absolutely correct when you say "To be something also means that there will always be something else."
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2012
Another thing I would like to add is infinite somethingness has always existed for all of eternity otherwise we would not be here.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2012
For perspective of surface waves the underwater is nothing as well. These surface waves cannot spread in it, they cannot penetrate it - they just use it as an environment. In three-dimensional version of this analogy you can replace the vacuum with dense foam, where the surface waves can spread only along membranes of this foam. The interior of the bubbles of that foam is inaccessible for these ripples.

Does it mean, this interior doesn't exist at all? Of course not - if it wouldn't exist, then these waves couldn't exist as well and they couldn't get its geometry, spin and another things. I'm repeatedly surprised, why it makes so big troubles for people (even these very qualified ones) to understand these simple connections.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2012
Get well soon to RitchieGuy.

Nothing does not exist. Spacetime is a property of mass/energy.

Cynical1
not rated yet Apr 02, 2012
nothing or nothingness - STILL relates information. Ergo - something...
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2012
Nothing - is a state of existance.
- a very confused person.

Nothing is the absence of any existence. You can't observe nothing. You can't detect nothing. Nothing contains no information. Nothing does not interact with anything. Except perhaps as a metaphysical mind and word game and not anywhere close to a thought experiment.

Although there was this TV show about nothing ...

Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2012
Get well soon to RitchieGuy.

Nothing does not exist. Spacetime is a property of mass/energy.


Nothing HAD to exist - or we would not have a reference point for SOMETHING/EVERYTHING..
To be nothing tells us that NOTHING is there - therefore - information (something). Ergo - absolute nothing was first - but THAT information made it possible for absolute EVERYthing(Universe/Us - in the now).
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2012
Nothing - is a state of existance.
- a very confused person.

Nothing is the absence of any existence. You can't observe nothing. You can't detect nothing. Nothing contains no information. Nothing does not interact with anything. Except perhaps as a metaphysical mind and word game and not anywhere close to a thought experiment.

Although there was this TV show about nothing ...


Sounds like you were able to gsther a lot of conclusions about - nothing.
Isn't that information?
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2012
Nothing is LESS than zero. Zero is a beginning point in which beginning from zero to 1 is an event in itself and can be quantified. Zero has potentiality. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
Tennex
1 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2012
In dense aether model the Universe is considered random, because the random state is the only state, which doesn't require any further reasoning - with compare to zero state or else particular state. Why the Universe should be just zero? Why not five or 3.1415...? The introduction of random model therefore follows from Occam's razor criterion - it's result of the minimization of postulates, which are assumed about observable reality.

The random state is still able to explain zero state, while allowing the flexibility of the model. For example, with respect to (organized motion of) ripples at the water surface the motion of underwater molecules is so random, that it doesn't effectively exist for these surface waves. It's effectively emptiness/nothingness and the surface ripples cannot spread through it. It's like the outside of Universe in Big Bang theory, into which the Universe is supposed to "expand". The random model just makes these ad-hoced concepts understandable if not natural
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2012
The Universe, at its earliest beginning culminating with the Big Bang process, would be at the starting point of zero. Similar to the gathering of all the components of a parade, just before the paraders at the head of the line start moving forward. I believe that that Zero persisted until the Big Bang, and then no longer was it Zero after that sudden inflation, but on its way to 1. Zero was eternally present. No, eternally is the wrong word. It was always present. The appellation "nothing" does not fit at all because we do know that there was something before the Big Bang, otherwise the inflation could not have occurred. Zero is actually the Time element, borrowing from Ritchie, and it moves forward from that point. I don't know about matter and energy colliding with ripples, since ripples would have had to be unrolling the space ahead of the energy and matter. But what would have created the ripples? Is it possible that matter/energy was riding on the ripples like a surfboard?
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2012
I believe that that Zero persisted until the Big Bang, and then no longer was it Zero after that sudden inflation, but on its way to 1
The dense aether theory models the Universe with water surface, being observed with its own waves. At the sufficient distance all ripples will get blurred, which would create a false impression for their observer, that the water surface begins right there. Which is just an illusion, which persists at every place of surface and no actual beginning of water surface exists. In AWT the Universe appears so because we, as a small portion of random Universe, observes the rest. This model even leads to its testable predictions. For example, we can observe, at proximity everything is random, complex and fuzzy in similar way, like the appearance of Universe at the very large or very small distances. Only objects at certain distance scale are pretty spherical (stars or atom nuclei). Which implies, the observable reality is sorta moire effect of random field.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2012
Kynedril,
I don't know about anybody else, but I would like to know your background in the physics world. What training and observation have you experienced that provide you such positivity towards AWT?
This might help me to better understand and validate your suppositions.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2012
I would like to know your background in the physics world. What training and observation have you experienced that provide you such positivity towards AWT? -PseudoCynical

ZephirAWT has no training or background in the physics world. What qualifies him for "such positivity towards AWT" is belief in crank science and so-called 'mainstream' conspiracies.

This might help me to better understand and validate your suppositions -PseudoCynical

All you need to understand is that he's a delusional crank, then all of his comments will make sense (don't forget his similar sockpuppet posts).
Terriva
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2012
I don't know about anybody else, but I would like to know your background in the physics world. What training and observation have you experienced that provide you such positivity towards AWT..
Well, lets say, all my experience is vicarious. But many contemporary theorists never did any experiment too (if we neglect some school lab experiments). The question isn't if AWT is scientific, but if it's wrong and testable. If yes, then Popper's methodology of science has no problem with such a theory. The lack of math shouldn't fool us: in real life many things and deductions are true, although they were never formalized. We can reduce the physics only to the things and connection, which can be expressed in math equations, but after then is evident, the physics defined in this way it cannot keep pace with the world of nonformal deductions, which is way richer.
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2012
You can deduce the TOE in rather trivial way, if you realize, every theory is the more general, the lower number of postulates it's using. The simplest (and subsequently richest) possible physical system is the dense system of randomly colliding particles and their density fluctuations, similar to Boltzmann gas. This system is still surprisingly complex in its behavior, which manifest clearly, if you get the dense condensing supercritical fluid. In narrow range of conditions this fluid is forming nested density fluctuations of itself, composed of fractal aggregates. After then we can ask, how the behavior of such particle system would appear, if we would extrapolate the density fluctuations of this fluid to the infinite value and how it would differ from the observable Universe. IMO this question is quite relevant both physically, both philosophically.
Tennex
not rated yet Apr 07, 2012
From philosophical perspective the Universe is never understandable, yet completely real. The infinitely complex, yet real system will appear like the random chaotic system from our perspective - and after then the only question is, how to model random chaotic system physically. Does such system has a structure? IMO even random system has such a structure, or it cannot be considered random. The people tend to perceive randomness a way more uniformly, than it really is. True random system always exhibit the fuzzy structure of density fluctuations, which is of unparticle geometry similar to cloud. The term of unparticle physics was coined with Howard Georgi before few years. It follows from insight, the distribution of masses of heaviest particles of Standard model follows fractal patterns, known from random walk description of diffusion
Cynical1
not rated yet Apr 07, 2012
It follows from insight, the distribution of masses of heaviest particles of Standard model follows fractal patterns, known from random walk description of diffusion


Sounds like - Brownian motion. Which coincidently is just one fractal representation( thare a many - perhaps infinite) of matter dispersion (clumping) in the observed universe. Or how societies coalesce and grow. Hmmmm... Fractals....
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2012
I reject the hypothesis of a chaotic randomness to the Universe or in Particle Physics with no perceptible ordered beginning. My own Big Bang theory is based on Fibonacci numbers which necessitates a beginning to the Universe itself. Thus, with the timeline of the beginning starting at Zero, with the next phase of the timeline at One, then from One to Two, then on to Three, then to Five, and then Eight, and so on in a true Fibonacci sequential gradation. Each phase of the inflation outwards was a well-ordered gradation, whether obliquely or in a straight line.
The proportion of each phase of outward flow was greater than the last as matter overcame whatever gravity existed and continued on. There was no chaos, no randomness. It was all smooth and continuous from one phase to the next to the far reaches of the Universe. Fibonacci is universal and is everywhere, even in the spiraling of gas and matter into a Black Hole. It is math and Nature at its finest.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2012
I managed to find some websites to that effect. Big Bang plus Fibonacci.

http://www.askama...equence/
Lovely Equations

http://dannyburto...cci-ftw/

http://www.icr.or...ods-cre/
To Atheists:
While this website is designed to explain Fibonacci as a metaphysical aspect of Nature, it is not important to be concerned about the deity portion. The numbers and geometry are the same and are the things to consider.
Cynical1
not rated yet Apr 08, 2012
Russky,
You are correct on Fibonacci and universe. However, We just don't have the measurements of time and distances to fit it into the Fib. ratio.
Interesting thing for you to check - look at the radius',sequentually (Mars to Sun, Venus to mars, earth to Venus, etc), of the planets in our solar system (including the asteroid belt). You'll find they also follow the golden ratio resonably closely.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2012
@Cynical1, your analogy to the planets are fairly consistent with Fibonacci. The "Golden Ratio" is a necessary means for avoiding random chaos and much destruction of those planets through orbital decay and either solar gravitational attractions or repulsion of said planets out of their orbits. The mental picture of a very large sunflower comes to mind where the seeds are in the proper sequential alignment, whether diagonally/obliquely or in a straight row. The main concern is the space between each seed is in proportion to the surrounding seeds. There is room for growth and there is space for all. The same holds true within an atomic scale of electron, protons, etc.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2012
Also, my feeling is that there is, indeed, Dark Matter/Dark Energy everywhere that holds planetary and stellar bodies in their proper orbits. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are similar to the ingredients in pie filling. The fruit, such as blueberries or other round berries (spheres) are the essential matter. But the fruit (planets, stars, black holes, et al.) by themselves will roll around and smash into each other without an ingredient that would diminish the possibility of the fruit careening into all the other berries and producing a random chaos and destruction.
So there has to be the cornstarch (Dark matter, Dark Energy) mixed into a clear liquid to be the clear, transparent "filler" in the pie (Universe), The "filler" has to be just the right consistency, not too thin and not too thick. A too thin consistency would not prevent spheres from careening and destroying whole solar systems (like the white ball on a billiards table).
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2012
And a too thick consistency would prevent adequate movement of the individual spheres, star systems and galaxies. The filler (DM and DE plus fluid) has to provide enough friction or "glue" effect, as well as fluid movability to keep spheres in their appointed places once those places are established.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2012
The problem needing a solution is: what does DM and DE consist of? With the pie analogy, the filler consists of cornstarch and a liquid to give the filler enough fluidity to flow and surround the berries (spheres) to prevent the berries from moving out of their rightful places. But, like cornstarch, the DM needs the fluidic properties to make the DM transparent and enable the spheres to move within the DM.
Cornstarch by itself will not have such properties, but mix it with a liquid and it becomes a smooth filler if mixed well enough.
Therefore, Dark Matter is most likely a combination of special matter that has fluidic properties and whose sole reason for existing is to facilitate the ebb and flow of the approximately 4% normal matter which exists in the Universe.
Lately, I have been thinking of a possibility of DM and DE as very thin, extremely small "platelets" that pop in and out of another dimension, exerting an as yet undetectable, unseen influence on normal matter.
Tennex
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2012
what does DM and DE consist of?
In AWT the gravity is the shielding effect of superluminal gravitational waves with massive objects (Fatio/LeSage model) and the cold dark matter is the result of shielding of this shielding with another neighbouring massive objects. At the boundary of visible Universe this shielding is missing from outside, so that the dark energy is the manifestation of this asymmetry. The cold dark matter is attracting the antimatter, which is widespread in form of neutrinos, positrons and some normal atom nuclei and it corresponds the hot dark matter. For example, during conjunction of planets the strong gravitational shadow is created on their line, which attracts the low energy neutrinos into itself. Or maybe the neutrinos are partially created in it and dissolved again, when this alignment disappears. This model therefore accounts to all possibilities, which may exist here.
Tennex
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2012
The neutrinos are very flexible, chameleon particles, depending on their energy. The slow neutrinos are subluminal and they're in thermal equilibrium with CMBR. The hotter neutrinos can move superluminaly and they're somewhat more stable and they can travel at distance without decomposition. The very fast neutrinos are in equilibrium with positron and gamma rays instead and they're subluminal again. The speed of neutrinos affects their behaviour in gravity field of moving bodies (gravitational charge) - the cold neutrinos are created in it, the warm neutrinos are expelled from it, the hot neutrinos are following it.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2012
http://en.wikiped...ic_field

I am thinking more now in line with a continuous ElectroMagnetic Field across the whole Universe, which would be more in keeping with the Fibonacci numbers scheme, simply because EMF allows for spatial interruptions such as spheres while the Field remains connected despite the spatial interruptions. The Field simply goes around and through each sphere without permanent disconnect.
Even though the far reaches of the visible Universe is such a long distance away from the original Singularity (Big Bang), the EMF stretches out in all directions from the Singularity connecting all normal spherical matter through electrical filaments stretching out in all directions via Fibonacci steps toward infinity. Cynical1's balloon analogy with dots representing galaxies would be apt, providing that lines would be drawn crossing and criss-crossing (EMF), thus joining all spherical matter to each other.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2012
Every sphere would have to have an EMF capability of its own in order to attract the cosmic EMF.
Incidentally, my feeling is that the Big Bang was caused by an electric current - The Catalyst.
alta
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2012
my roomate's aunt makes $83/hr on the laptop. She has been without work for 8 months but last month her pay was $8682 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site...NuttyRich dot com

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.