Observations of early universe hint at a giant excess of anti-neutrinos

Mar 21, 2013 by Lisa Zyga feature
Nine year WMAP image of background cosmic radiation (2012) Credit: NASA

(Phys.org) —Scientists have a great deal of evidence to support the fact that the universe contains much more baryonic matter than baryonic anti-matter, a phenomenon known as baryon asymmetry. Baryons, which are defined as being made of three quarks, include protons and neutrons and make up the bulk of the atomic matter that we're familiar with in everyday life. But much less is known about the possibility of a lepton asymmetry, in which there are unequal amounts of leptons and anti-leptons in the universe. The best known examples of leptons are electrons and neutrinos. Neutrinos in particular are much harder to detect than baryons because they're much lighter, and so much less energetic.

In a new study, physicists Dominik J. Schwarz and Maik Stuke at Bielefeld University in Germany have published a paper in the New Journal of Physics in which they show that recent data from (CMB) experiments suggests that the universe contains an excess of anti-neutrinos (defined by their opposite rather than opposite charge) compared with normal neutrinos. Further, this lepton asymmetry could potentially exceed the baryon asymmetry, which is 10-10, by several orders of magnitude. The total number of leptons could also exceed the total number of in the universe.

"A 'leptonic universe' is a universe that contains many more leptons than baryons," Schwarz told Phys.org. "A universe with a vast amount of anti-neutrinos in it would be something unexpected. I can't say how it would change the overall picture, as we are just at the beginning to explore this idea."

Finding evidence for a lepton asymmetry is not easy. For one thing, leptons have such that large numbers of them can easily hide in the neutrino background and escape scientists' attempts to detect them. But, as Schwarz and Stuke explain, leptons could be observable in the because they would have affected nucleosynthesis (the production of nuclei that occurred just a few moments after the Big Bang) and the CMB (the radiation left over from the photon decoupling that occurred when the universe was about 400,000 years old).

In particular, leptons would have affected the production of helium in the early universe. In this study, the physicists measured the abundance of primordial helium in the universe using new CMB data from three sources: the Atacama Cosmology Telescope, the Southpole Telescope, and the WMAP Team. By comparing the results of this global analysis with previous results of helium abundance from local observations of extragalactic regions, the scientists could put some constraints on lepton asymmetry.

The data indicated that we may live in a universe ruled by anti-neutrinos instead of normal ones, which could have implications for how we currently understand what happened in the early universe. In addition, the anti-neutrino surplus would theoretically lead to an increase in the expansion rate of the universe. However, the data so far does not rule out the standard scenario of Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

"With regard to Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, [confirmed lepton asymmetry] would certainly falsify the standard scenario, which assumes that there is no lepton asymmetry," Schwarz said. "However, the new model for nucleosynthesis would not be radically different; it would just incorporate this new ingredient."

In the future, the physicists hope that upcoming CMB data releases and improved measurements of primordial abundances will allow for further testing of lepton asymmetry.

"I think it would be surprising if the asymmetry in leptons turns out to be much larger than the asymmetry in baryons," Schwarz said. "Although in some sense, we should honestly admit that we don't know how the matter anti-matter comes along. Thus we should not be surprised but rather open-minded."

Explore further: Physicists consider implications of recent revelations about the universe's first light

More information: Dominik J. Schwarz and Maik Stuke. "Does the CMB prefer a leptonic Universe?" New Journal of Physics. 15 (2013) 033021. DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/15/3/033021

Journal reference: New Journal of Physics search and more info website

4.8 /5 (32 votes)

Related Stories

Could dark baryons explain dark matter?

Jul 20, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- "The prevailing belief about dark matter particles is that they should be about 100 or more times heavier than protons," Subir Sarkar tells PhysOrg.com. "However, we were thinking about the possibility of lig ...

Hunt for the platypus particle

Oct 22, 2012

All of the atoms in our bodies are made of electrons, protons and neutrons, and the protons and neutrons can be further broken down into quarks. Fundamentally, then, we are made of only two types of particles: ...

UBC physicists make atoms and dark matter add up

Nov 29, 2010

Physicists at the University of British Columbia and TRIUMF have proposed a unified explanation for dark matter and the so-called baryon asymmetry -- the apparent imbalance of matter with positive baryon charge and antimatter ...

Recommended for you

Steering chemical reactions with laser pulses

6 hours ago

With ultra-short laser pulses, chemical reactions can be controlled at the Vienna University of Technology. Electrons have little mass and are therefore influenced by the laser, whereas the atomic nuclei ...

Grasp of SQUIDs dynamics facilitates eavesdropping

Apr 22, 2014

Theoretical physicists are currently exploring the dynamics of a very unusual kind of device called a SQUID. This Superconducting Quantum Interference Device is a highly sensitive magnetometer used to measure ...

UK's lead in physics healthy but insecure

Apr 22, 2014

The quantity and quality of scientific papers produced by UK physicists indicates that the UK remains in an elite group of nations contributing at the leading edge of physics research.

User comments : 149

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (17) Mar 21, 2013
Although in some sense, we should honestly admit that we don't know how the matter anti-matter asymmetry comes along.


What we do know is Hawking's "one plus negative one equals zero" theory for the origin of the universe is clearly wrong, because we know the asymmetries mean the energies and masses do not sum back up to zero. Further, we know that even if they did, "Everything comes from nothing" is not an acceptable, logical conclusion.

One of my ideas for Dark Matter was that it may be ultra-cold neutrons or neutrinos, but I guess that would have been ruled out by now.

What needs to be done is model what Dark Matter is, rather than "where it needs to be," because the "What it is," will explain the question of why it is always where it needs to be.

I still maintain my position that a fundamental error in interpretation of gravity theory is the source of MOST of the discrepancy. Certain potential unknown forms of Time Dilation may also be skewing our interpretations of data.
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 21, 2013
For example, Special Relativistic effects due to the motion of a host galaxy compared to our own, as well as gravitational time dilation effects due to varied proximity to the core of that galaxy will change how fast time is moving in various locations within that galaxy compared to our own reference frame. This will in turn modify our interpretations of how much mass is required to produce the observed results.

In the "relativistic planetary clock" thought experiment, I showed how the naive observer on a relativistic ship would see the planets orbiting the Sun much more quickly than they should be, and moons likewise orbiting planets much more quickly, and thereby draw the conclusion that the Sun was much more massive than it actually is, but in the thought experiment this is contradicted by the fact both the ground observer and the rocket observer started out on the ground, and know the real orbital parameters. The moving observer is required to make sense of it without magic mass.
Lurker2358
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 21, 2013
The point here is that the reason Generalized theories produce absurd results (Special Relativity is actually a generalized theory,) because the thought experiments given by Einstein did not correctly normalize facts. i.e. there are too many unknowns, such as observers having never shared a point of reference, as they do in the real world. When they start out with shared point of reference, the required interpretations of observations is drastically different.

It is this same theory application error which I believe may be responsible for much of the DM and DE problems.

Examples:

1, Assuming (without evidence,) that a mathematical equation which models reality on some of it's range and domain is always true for it's entire range and domain.

2, Applying a formula in a context which is not 100% what it was supposed to be modeling.

3, Simplifying calculations just because we're too stupid or don't have enough computers to do the real calculation, and calling the results a "Discovery"
krundoloss
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2013
Im no physicist, but doesn't the accelerating expansion of the universe violate the Law of Conservation of Energy?
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (15) Mar 21, 2013
Im no physicist, but doesn't the accelerating expansion of the universe violate the Law of Conservation of Energy?


No. It validates it.
krundoloss
1 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2013
So, Im assuming that the amount of energy that powers the universe was injected at a single point during the Big Bang, then the energy spreads out, allows subatomic particles and then atoms to form, then Stars, Galaxies, etc. What energy source would cause the acceleration of the expansion? Is there not some unknown source of energy still being fed into our universe that did not come the original energy source - The Big Bang?
Job001
1 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2013

I still maintain my position that a fundamental error in interpretation of gravity theory is the source of MOST of the discrepancy.

Agree. In my view, the assumptions regarding gravitational lensing are suspect. Assume cold matter attracted to gravitational matter changes the refractive index of space partially. After all, refractive index can be measured for solids, liquids, gases, and should also occur for diffused gas clouds attracted to gravitational lensing centers. An entirely different calculation should result which could be parameterized (refractive index percent of gravitational lensing).
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (19) Mar 21, 2013
So, Im assuming that the amount of energy that powers the universe was injected at a single point during the Big Bang, then the energy spreads out, allows subatomic particles and then atoms to form, then Stars, Galaxies, etc. What energy source would cause the acceleration of the expansion? Is there not some unknown source of energy still being fed into our universe that did not come the original energy source - The Big Bang?


No, it's only changing form. If kinetic energy (positive energy) increases, then the potential energy (negative energy) decreases. As the universe expands (increases kinetic energy of galaxies & clusters) the the distance between objects (galaxies & clusters) increases (so potential energy decreases). The net difference is a nonzero constant energy present at all times.
Pressure2
1.6 / 5 (11) Mar 21, 2013
Im no physicist, but doesn't the accelerating expansion of the universe violate the Law of Conservation of Energy?

Of course it is an increase in energy. An accelerating expansion requires and addition of energy. The Big Bang theory has had to resort to magic for a second time to explain the observable universe. The first time was to explain why the universe appears to be flat.
dogbert
1 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2013
Q-Star,

Potential energy does not decrease with increasing distance.

A five pound rock one mile above the surface of the earth represents much more potential energy than a five pound rock five inches above the surface of the earth.
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (17) Mar 21, 2013
Potential energy does not decrease with increasing distance.

A five pound rock one mile above the surface of the earth represents much more potential energy than a five pound rock five inches above the surface of the earth.


In the physics lab, and in most physics disciplines potential energy is calculated with negative infinity being opposite the direction of kinetic energy.

The situation ya present is only valid a near uniform distance from the center of mass. Say,, near the surface of the earth. The earth's gravitational pull falls off in strength as the inverse square of the distance from the center of the earth's mass.

So if ya are 10 times the radii of the earth, ya will experience 100 times less pull. That's why on large scales, we use negative infinity as the reference point. The attraction decreases as the distance increases.
krundoloss
1 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2013
Glad to hear that my statement makes sense to others. So then I ask, where is "powering" the accelerating expansion of the universe? I could understand if some phenomenon that we have yet to discover is converting matter or antimatter or whatever into an energy source that powers expansion.
krundoloss
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2013


No, it's only changing form. If kinetic energy (positive energy) increases, then the potential energy (negative energy) decreases. As the universe expands (increases kinetic energy of galaxies & clusters) the the distance between objects (galaxies & clusters) increases (so potential energy decreases). The net difference is a nonzero constant energy present at all times.


Yes that makes some sense, IF we were talking about a constant expansion, but not an accelerating expansion!
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (15) Mar 21, 2013
Q-Star,

Potential energy does not decrease with increasing distance.

A five pound rock one mile above the surface of the earth represents much more potential energy than a five pound rock five inches above the surface of the earth.


To clarify what I'm saying. Yes ya are correct, with the provision, that it is a "special case", it is the most commonly taught "special case" and for most people taught exclusively. Because it easy to intuitively teach.

But calculus based physics, mechanics in general, and in relativity particularly, the zero infinity reference is the one that works best.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 21, 2013


No, it's only changing form. If kinetic energy (positive energy) increases, then the potential energy (negative energy) decreases. As the universe expands (increases kinetic energy of galaxies & clusters) the the distance between objects (galaxies & clusters) increases (so potential energy decreases). The net difference is a nonzero constant energy present at all times.


Yes that makes some sense, IF we were talking about a constant expansion, but not an accelerating expansion!


There are various models posited to explain that. Some more, some less accepted. But no true consensus. If ya can model an explanation that achieves a true consensus, they'll name a satellite after ya. Or maybe even a theory.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 21, 2013
Glad to hear that my statement makes sense to others. So then I ask, where is "powering" the accelerating expansion of the universe? I could understand if some phenomenon that we have yet to discover is converting matter or antimatter or whatever into an energy source that powers expansion.


Those are the big questions still inadequately answered. Many good theories, few/none tested conclusively. Any one who says they KNOW, it probably pushing crank science. Or aren't used to communicating science in a scientific manner.

Silverhill
4.8 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2013
@Lurker2358
In the "relativistic planetary clock" thought experiment, I showed how the naive observer on a relativistic ship would see the planets orbiting the Sun much more quickly than they should be, and moons likewise orbiting planets much more quickly, and thereby draw the conclusion that the Sun was much more massive than it actually is...
The observer would have to indeed be naïve if s/he attributed this to extra mass, before having observed obvious rapid motion w.r.t. the system and/or relativistic Doppler effects.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2013
"In addition, the anti-neutrino surplus would theoretically lead to an increase in the expansion rate of the universe."
So he is suggesting that an anti-neutrino surplus might be the cause of the dark energy effect? Interesting. WMAP has proven to be a treasure trove of information.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2013
So, Im assuming that the amount of energy that powers the universe was injected at a single point during the Big Bang, then the energy spreads out...... What energy source would cause the acceleration of the expansion? Is there not some unknown source of energy still being fed into our universe that did not come the original energy source - The Big Bang?


The energy source is not unknown, it is internal to the universe itself, it is all forms of matter constantly being transformed into energy which is carried away from hot body energy sources to cooler surrounding environs creating "entropy". It's what happens inside a combustion engine where a very tiny amount of matter is transformed to create "waste heat".

Think of a star as an internal combustion engine, the heat it sluffs off into outer space is the energy source(waste heat) that drives the "expansion" just like the force of the "waste heat" as it acts against the piston heads to create torque on the crankshaft.
Benni
1.1 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2013
Cont'd....... for the energy created by the sum total of all stars, that energy can't be useful to generate work unless it is contained, which is accomplished by the cylinder walls of an internal combustion engine or the crankshaft will never rotate to create torque so that useful work can be accomplished, likewise the Universe has "walls" to contained its internally generated energy for all motion of bodies contained therein......this is the the reason Einstein hypothesized a finite spherically shaped universe & is the model of credible astro-physicists.
Zep Tepi
1 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2013
Okay, if an anti-neutrino is just a negative neutrino, then would not have all the positive neutrinos been wiped out, by now?
LarryD
not rated yet Mar 21, 2013
Cont'd....... likewise the Universe has "walls" to contained its internally generated energy for all motion of bodies contained therein......


Mmmm, if the universe has 'walls' then such walls would have to be dense to follow your engine analog and these should be detectable...or are you considering a D-Brane type of dimension? Or are you thinking that dense DM is the 'wall' of the universe? This might explain the acc.exp of the universe via DM grav attraction but then I'd be asking what is causing the DM to expand? Unlike the engine example the relativistic momentum changes,dPgamma, need to be calculated (is there an approximation available?).
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2013
Q-star:

Hawking's "Negative energy" is NOT the same thing as "potential energy". It's also not "anti-matter" either.

Let's not mix up terminology.

Moreover, Hawking claims that the expansion of hte universe is caused by "Negative energy" (which is actually more analogous to Dark Energy,) but that the mass of matter and proper kinetic energy are positive energy.

He claims these two values add up to zero.

His claims do not even remotely agree with alleged observations. Nor do they make sense under any standard of logic.

This is why I said he's lost his mind.
Urgelt
3 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2013
Neutrinos, I have read here on PhysOrg somewhere or other, may oscillate between anti-neutrinos and back again. Not sure that's well-established, but if it's true, then it casts a rather different slant on this hypothesis that anti-neutrinos may vastly outnumber neutrinos.

If both ideas are true, then all we're really saying is that neutrinos spend more time in the anti-neutrino state than in the neutrino state.

It's sort of odd to lump neutrinos and electrons into one category (leptons), I'm thinking. It could turn out to be a categorization error. About the only similarity between electrons and neutrinos seems to be that they are not composed of quarks. Dissimilarities abound: electrons and positrons are strongly-interacting, neutrinos are not. Electrons and positrons can travel at any speed up to C; neutrinos seem to be stuck at C, like photons. Neutrinos may oscilate; electrons and positrons are fixed as matter or antimatter. "Not baryonic" might not be a sane category.
hillbillyvoodoo
1 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2013
In the beginning, there were neutrons. The neutrons decayed into protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos. Where's all the anti-matter? There never was any. Looks like Omar was right.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2013
... likewise the Universe has "walls" to contained its internally generated energy for all motion of bodies contained therein..


if the universe has 'walls' then such walls would have to be dense to follow your engine analog and these should be detectable


You bet the walls would need to be dense, very dense, there's a lot of energy created from stars being dissipated by "entropy" that must be contained or the Universe would blow apart. I think DM is the likeliest material & if it is only as thick as the radius of our solar system can you imagine the gravity all that mass creates at the boundary?

...or are you considering a D-Brane type of dimension?


I know the hypothesis....I consider it.

This might explain the acc.exp of the universe via DM grav attraction
Yep

.. what is causing the DM to expand?


The DM walls don't, it is the "waste heat" inside creating "entropy" which drives the effluents into motion against the walls.

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2013
Constraints are always nice. Hopefully they will be able to observe the ratio sometime soon.

@Lurker: That is a pitiful understanding of energy. Laws in the form of symmetries or broken symmetries are about conservation, and obviously there are many forms of conservation with or without conservation of energy explicitly.

Hawking is not the only physicist that speaks of the obviously acceptable spontaneous origins of the universe, today most all do, take Krauss as a champion if you will. ("The universe from nothing", a youtube and a recent book.) The reason why they entertain that is that the universe is 0 energy as all Friedman cosmologies must be. (Having a spacetime and be large enough, i.e. isotropic.)
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2013
@krundoloss: "doesn't the accelerating expansion of the universe violate the Law of Conservation of Energy?"

No, it tests it as already noted. The inflationary standard cosmology (SC) have 0 energy density, or for example inflation couldn't happen. (Can only happen if gravity's negative potential energy balances the positive energy from the rest.) See Krauss's youtube for that.

The balance hangs on conversion of energies as described in other comments, and obviously it holds for both freewheeling and accelerated expansions but the basis is the 0 energy density observation.

"the amount of energy that powers the universe". Powers in what sense? The universe is a thermodynamically closed system of course, there is nothing "outside" that can provide a heat source or sink. Due to the conversion between energies there is no need for "powering" an acceleration, say.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2013
@Benni: "the heat it sluffs off into outer space is the energy source(waste heat) that drives the "expansion"".

Bullshit, the only word I can use here, it is too erroneous. Read up on standard cosmology. Most of the time expansion happened it has been freewheeling (once set in motion it continues as per Newton).

@Pressure2: SC doesn't "explain" an observation anymore than other physics, but it predicts them. Go to Krauss youtube and learn how to see that the universe is flat in about 1 minute. Even we laymans can see it, Krauss relies on our ability of pattern recognition to distinguish between flat and curved ones in the effects they would have on CMB.

@isdarkdestruction: No, we know that the cause of expansion isn't material (clumped), expansion is uniform. In terms of GR it is an energy (massenergy interpretation of negative pressure).
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.5 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2013
@Urqelt: Not sure where you get that from. Neutrino oscillations is between flavors, not chiralities. [ http://en.wikiped...illation ]

@natello: No 'aether', so no AW 'theory'. Theories applied to what can be observed, anything else is what we physicists calls "humbug".
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2013
Bullshit, the only word I can use here, it is too erroneous. Read up on standard cosmology. Most of the time expansion happened it has been freewheeling (once set in motion it continues as per Newton).


Do you even understand your own words?

"freewheeling"......freewheeling is perpetual motion, but maybe you haven't studied enough science to know that? Or to know what it is?

At least I'm not using your terms of rude & caustic language to address the discrepancies in your scientific background, so clean it up.

Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) Mar 22, 2013
"freewheeling"......freewheeling is perpetual motion, but maybe you haven't studied enough science to know that?


I wouldn't use the word BS to describe your post. But "freewheeling is perpetual motion" is a good way to describe what we see as a conservation of energy. I say so if, a priori, we assume the universe as a whole is an ideal closed system, and energy-matter is conserved. Those are the only constraints on a "perpetual motion" system.

It's the same reason that I (personally, others may not agree) can't envision an "infinite" universe. It's finite (in my personal opinion) therefore it is a closed system. And no one has ever shown me any compelling argument that energy-matter is not conserved.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2013
Why?

""Everything comes from nothing" is not an acceptable, logical conclusion." - Lurker

It is the presumed and preferred solution for physicists.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2013
You are remembering incorrectly.

"Neutrinos, I have read here on PhysOrg somewhere or other, may oscillate between anti-neutrinos and back again." - urgelt

Neutrino oscillation is limited to lepton flavor, not it's particle/anti-particle status. Neutrino's are Leptons and Lepton number (Neutrino 1, Anti-Neutrino -1), is a conserved property.

VendicarE
5 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2013
Neutrinos have rest mass and therefore are constrained to v less than c.

"neutrinos seem to be stuck at C" - urgelt
VendicarE
not rated yet Mar 22, 2013
Insufficient reaction time given the extremely small probability of reaction with other particles.

"Okay, if an anti-neutrino is just a negative neutrino, then would not have all the positive neutrinos been wiped out, by now?" - zep
VendicarE
5 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2013
No quarks? No photons?

"In the beginning, there were neutrons." - Hillbilly
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2013
Gemeral Relativity tells us that space is associated with negative energy, so creating more space creates more negative energy. This energy created by expansion is offset by acceleration which manifests as positive energy.

The two energies it is thought, sum to zero.

"Im no physicist, but doesn't the accelerating expansion of the universe violate the Law of Conservation of Energy?" - Krundoloss
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2013
Rated zero with prejudice.

"for the energy created by the sum total of all stars, that energy can't be useful to generate work unless..." - Bennie

Scat.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2013
Insufficient reaction time given the extremely small probability of reaction with other particles
The neutrino-antineutrino oscillation doesn't require the interaction with another particles. It just happen spontaneously in void space. The effective crossection of neutrinos is solely irrelevant in this context.
Neutrino oscillation is limited to lepton flavor, not it's particle/anti-particle status.
The neutrino mixing matrix is still missing 6% of time, which could be attributed to sterile neutrino (fourth generation of neutrino) and corresponding parity oscillations. IMO the low energy neutrinos are true chameleon particles, they can change their nature freely in similar way, like the weak turbulence at the water surface. What we can observe in today detectors are rather energetic neutrinos (above 2 MeV), which do behave like the Falaco solitons and they cannot be affected with quantum noise so easily.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2013
Note that in some theories the early universe contained excess of dark matter and the dark matter is formed with antimatter and neutrinos in AWT. So that this article conclusion seems logical for me. The only reason, why I didn't spread this model before five years already is, I just don't believe in "early" universe, only in the distant one. In AWT the dark matter is result of scattering of light with extra-dimensions/density fluctuations of space-time/vacuum and the farther we see, the more pronounced such a scattering is, so it's logical, we can see the dark matter in distant ("early") areas of universe preferably. But if we would visit these distant areas, we would see them normally and our part of universe would appear infested with dark matter instead. It's geometric effect.
CQT
1 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2013
What a weird balance. Ever exponentially increasing space.
Humans fear the opposite.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2013
If you would swim at the water surface like the waterstrider and if you would observe the 2D environment around you with its own ripples only, you would soon realize, that the 2D space around you is limited like the landscape under the fog, because of scattering of light waves in hidden extradimensions of space-time. The waves are losing energy during this and their wavelength expands with distance. Unfortunately, the long wavelength waves are of lower energy density and they do scatter even more. This effect leads into avalanche-like scattering until some singular threshold is reached at distance: the so-called event horizon of universe. The light of more distant objects will be scattered up to level, it will remain indistinguishable from microwave background of the Universe. This scattering is therefore not only responsible for the red shift, but it limits the seeming size (and age) of the Universe too.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2013
If you would swim at the water surface like the waterstrider and if you would observe the 2D environment around you with its own ripples only, you would soon realize, that the 2D space around you is limited like the landscape under the fog, because of scattering of light waves in hidden extradimensions of space-time. The waves are losing energy during this
What about tsunamis? Tsunamis lose very little energy as they propagate. Do aether tsunamis act this way? They must be very destructive as they are infinitely dense.
rah
1 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2013
This article is complete crap. From the lack of facts to the useless writing style, it was a waste of time and electrons.
hillbillyvoodoo
2 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2013
In the beginning, there were neutrons. The neutrons decayed into protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos.
Why the heavy composite particles should be formed first?

A Joke. not well received apparently. like waves one waters surface.
snoosebaum
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2013
I get the impression scientists use simpler pictures when talking to the public, ie big bang 'started as a point' when they really mean started as an infinite sea of points ,then sort went into a sudden phase transition [my term]. Please correct me .
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2013
Talking about an 'infinite set of points' as a starting condition makes little sense if everything was one in the beginning (i.e. no symmetry had broken yet).
The idea of inifnite points adds no information - only confusion.

When they talk about a point then that is what they mean: a point. (You will find no paper referencing infinite sets of points - so don't go putting words in scientists' mouths. Please)

Spatial (and temporal) definitions are non-applicable before (or even at) that event - only thereafter. And that is because the context needed for them to make any sense doesn't exist.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2013
Tsunamis lose very little energy as they propagate. Do aether tsunamis act this way?
The tsunamis are formed with longitudinal waves and they do propagate faster, than the transverse waves at the water surface. The problem is, the amplitude of tsunami at free ocean is quite negligible. In AWT these events would manifest with temporal and sudden change in CMBR noise amplitude/density coming from our directions at the same moment. Such an events were already detected at the GEO 600 detector reportedly. Unfortunately, the GEO 600 is a gravitational wave detector and as such oriented for analysis of the harmonic waves, not the level of the noise. The systematical monitoring of CMBR noise still doesn't exist.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2013
I get the impression scientists use simpler pictures when talking to the public, i.e. big bang 'started as a point' when they really mean started as an infinite sea of points ,then sort went into a sudden phase transition [my term]
In dense aether model the observable universe is steady state and the big bang continues around us in form of quasars. I don't know about similar interpretation of mainstream physics with exception of the shock wave cosmology of black holes, as proposed by J. Smoller and B. Temple [PNAS, 2002].
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2013
When they talk about a point then that is what they mean: a point. (You will find no paper referencing infinite sets of points - so don't go putting words in scientists' mouths. Please)''
May not be scientists of the proper ilk but i clearly remember reading same on some site claiming to know it all. And how to explain the universe looking the same in all directions w/hubble? Shouldn't there be more stuff in one place?

RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2013
Hi antialias_physorg:
Talking about an 'infinite set of points' as a starting condition makes little sense if everything was one in the beginning (i.e. no symmetry had broken yet). The idea of inifnite points adds no information - only confusion. When they talk about a point then that is what they mean: a point. (You will find no paper referencing infinite sets of points - so don't go putting words in scientists' mouths. Please) Spatial (and temporal) definitions are non-applicable before (or even at) that event - only thereafter. And that is because the context needed for them to make any sense doesn't exist.
Occams Razor. Simpler for eternal universal 'arena' of infinite points 'pre-existing everywhere/everywhen' context. Your 'single point' requires FURTHER CONTEXT for its definition AS 'a' point that 'somehow changed' per Big Bang Hypothesis. Even String Theorists (M-theory) must admit a pre-existing eternal/infinite context "THE BULK" in which "Membranes collide". See? :)
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2013
Spatial (and temporal) definitions are non-applicable before (or even at) that event - only thereafter. And that is because the context needed for them to make any sense doesn't exist.''

That sort of statement really pisses me off [sorry], that just defines one real problem away from consideration.

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2013
Realitycheck , yes exactly, thank you
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2013
That sort of statement really pisses me off [sorry], that just defines one real problem away from consideration.

No matter that it pisses you off - it puts the finger on the problem: You're trying to define stuff in a context that doesn't exist...like asking "what was before the beginning of time?". That may sound deep at first - but it's actually just a nonsensical statement.

So are the 'infinite points'. An extent must have something to be an extent IN. The big bang didn't happen IN a space(time) surrounding - it started the whole shebang off.

Occams Razor.

Exatly. Occams razor. And your infinite points require WAY more context than my one point. The one point IS the simplest state (it requires zero dimensions). Therefore it's the one that Occams Razor points to... and that's why it's postulated as the big bang state.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2013
You're trying to define stuff in a context that doesn't exist...like asking "what was before the beginning of time?". That may sound deep at first - but it's actually just a nonsensical statement.

So are the 'infinite points'. An extent must have something to be an extent IN. The big bang didn't happen IN a space(time) surrounding - it started the whole shebang off.

Your infinite points require WAY more context than my one point. The one point IS the simplest state (it requires zero dimensions). Therefore it's the one that Occams Razor points to... and that's why it's postulated as the big bang state.

Professor Penrose ditched that 'standby line' about it being 'nonsensical' to ask 'what came before big bang'. He said it was a copout to avoid addressing the most critical aspect of Big Bang.

That's backwards. Occam's pre-existing infinite/eternal context (even M-Theory invokes it for "Branes" to "exist and collide" in) means less START arbitrariness/definition, not more. :)
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2013
Branes just move the goalpoast. They don't eliminate the problem at all. One can then ask: where did branes come from?

And even if we use the branes model (which is all that it is currently - because there's no observation/evidence at all that indicates that it matches what reality really is) then the collision starts off as one point...not an infinite set of points.

Positing branes is certainly more complex than not positing branes. So yeah: Occams Razor.

But seriously: Occams Razor isn't an applicable tool for states where you have zero observations. Occams Razor only applies to theories that fit observable evidence.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2013
What 'beginning of time' ? you are inventing something without evidence and contrary to intuition.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2013
Talking about an 'infinite set of points' as a starting condition makes little sense if everything was one in the beginning (i.e. no symmetry had broken yet).
The idea of inifnite points adds no information - only confusion.

When they talk about a point then that is what they mean: a point. (You will find no paper referencing infinite sets of points - so don't go putting words in scientists' mouths. Please)

Spatial (and temporal) definitions are non-applicable before (or even at) that event - only thereafter. And that is because the context needed for them to make any sense doesn't exist.


There aren't enough stars for this post.......so I didn't.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2013
The mainstream cosmologists are like the people, who are observing the expanding waves at the water surface and they're saying: "Voila! The wavelength of ripples dilate with distance. It's because the water surface expands". Their inability to consider the problem from its opposite side is striking. Best of all, they're using general relativity for description of space-time expansion with distance - the similar, like at the case of black holes. But the black holes don't shrink - they're stationary in the same way, like the FLRW metric, used for description of Universe in Big Bang model.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2013
Branes just move the goalpoast. They don't eliminate the problem at all. One can then ask: where did branes come from?
......
But seriously: Occams Razor isn't an applicable tool for states where you have zero observations. Occams Razor only applies to theories that fit observable evidence.

No. The Occam Razor question is: what is THE BULK context wherein the "Branes" and any "collision phenomena" occur? And the Occam Razor answer is: Infinite/eternal context of points in which a localized 'quantum chaos perturbation' results in the second-order effects we call the 'cosmos differentiation' of initial eternal infinity of points all over THE BULK a-prioricontext (which even String/Brane theorists MUST posit to SIMPLIFY the question-answer of "What came before the Big Bang?".

Occams Razor applies at ANY stage in a logical train, especially at the STARTING PREMISE.

Hence the LEAST complicated is infinite points as eternal context within which all else 'occurs'. :)
VendicarE
not rated yet Mar 25, 2013
I'm Curious...

Did you hold that opinion before you were born?

"That sort of statement really pisses me off [sorry], that just defines one real problem away from consideration." - Snoosebaum
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2013
If the universe is uniform and remains unchanged how do you determine how much time has elapsed?

"What 'beginning of time' ? you are inventing something without evidence and contrary to intuition." - snoosebaum

It appears that your concept of "time" is not sufficiently precise for you to understand the problem.

Think hard.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2013
Has anyone conidered there could be a lot more free helium in the universe than the present estimate of 24%?

How do we know the Big Bang primarily created hydrogen? If it made all sorts of particles, wouldn't it have also made a lot of nuetrons which would have quickly combined into deutronium and helium?

And, haven't the stars been producing helium in abundance ever since?

And haven't rocky planets (like Earth) also produced helium as a result of radioactive decay?

And, wouldn't most of the helium remain in a sort of interstellar gaseous state, as it's too light to fall into a star system against the solar winds, and being inert, it wouldn't stick to itself or anything else?

Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2013
How do we know the Big Bang primarily created hydrogen? If it made all sorts of particles, wouldn't it have also made a lot of nuetrons which would have quickly combined into deutronium and helium?


Neutrons came first:

http://www.astro....BNS.html

And, haven't the stars been producing helium in abundance ever since?


The amount is extrapolated from measurements so that later production can be accounted for:

http://ned.ipac.c...2_1.html
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2013
How do we know the Big Bang primarily created hydrogen? If it made all sorts of particles, wouldn't it have also made a lot of nuetrons which would have quickly combined into deutronium and helium?
Neutrons came first:

http://www.astro....BNS.html
Which only serves to support my (wild) speculation.

And, haven't the stars been producing helium in abundance ever since?
The amount is extrapolated from measurements so that later production can be accounted for:

http://ned.ipac.c...2_1.html
Which is an extrapolation on measurements from where I feel a large portion of the helium may have been crowded out, potentially providing a significantly false result.

Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 25, 2013
Occams Razor isn't an applicable tool for states where you have zero observations. Occams Razor only applies to theories that fit observable evidence.

No. The Occam Razor question is: what is THE BULK context wherein the "Branes" and any "collision phenomena" occur?

There is no "collision phenomena" ,or any other kind of "phenomena" when it comes to "branes". That was his point.

Occams Razor applies at ANY stage in a logical train, especially at the STARTING PREMISE.

There in lay your dilemma, ya are trying to set a STARTING PREMISE that the other person is not granting. He is trying to discuss the "inflationary standard model" for cosmology. Ya are trying to push him back in time to the place where no physics, and no phenomena can be inferred (PREMISED.)

the LEAST complicated is infinite points as eternal context within which all else 'occurs'.


The least complicated is one which models things observed, processes that can be tested experimentally.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2013
Occams Razor applies at ANY stage in a logical train, especially at the STARTING PREMISE.

No. It applies only to cases where you can assign a likleyhood to the competing theories. Without observations you can't assign that.

Occams razor is alos only a guidleine - not a law. While the series 1,2,3,4,5 could be just 'add one to get to next number' (by Occams Razor) it could also be something entirely different.

Hence the LEAST complicated is infinite points as eternal context within which all else 'occurs'

I dunno. Omniscience, omnipotence and - in this case - omnipresence and eternal existance don't strike me particularly as 'least complicated' premises. To me they fall within the 'most complicated' set.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2013
antialias_physorg & Q-Star, the point IS the question of "what came befoe the big bang?" The old line used by phyicist community in the past saying "It makes no sense to ask what came before the big bang etc etc", was finally DROPPED by Professor Penrose and other physicists who now recognize that THAT IS the most important question, else all the 'stuff' that comes after in ANY theory is MISSING that starting premise/answer....and hence will always remain INCOMPLETE unless and until we DO ask/answer that most important Occams Razor quaetion. The answer is that an infinite points eternal context is the simplest and least 'ad hoc dependent' approach to what came AFTER that context was recognized in which all the cosmology 'occurs' in whatever form/differentiation f that context 'locally' across the eternal-infinite Occams Razor context which String/Brane theoretical physicists call THE BULK for want of a better name. More physicists now see it is THE logical/simple answer to start with:)
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 25, 2013
The old line used by phyicist community in the past saying "It makes no sense to ask what came before the big bang etc etc",,,,,


It makes perfect sense as long as you take the answer in proper context and perspective. We possess no physics, no observations, and no testable observations to attempt the answer.

DROPPED by Professor Penrose and other physicists who now recognize that THAT IS the most important question,


Don't get me wrong, I respect the work of Penrose. But he is NOT a physicist. He's a mathematical physicist (not a theoretical physicist), a pure mathematician, & a philosopher. His work is superb. But he doesn't represent the community of physicists, not even a small portion of it.

an infinite points eternal context is the simplest and least 'ad hoc dependent'


Anything before the "big bang" is ad hoc,& speculative. Pick your favorite they're equal. Because there are no physics, experiments or observations to test them. God is just as valid.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2013
It makes perfect sense as long as you take the answer in proper context and perspective.

Yet physicists still try to deduce what the hypothesized big bang process "initiation" stage might have been? Do you want to tell them to cease their conjecturing? The answer will BE the context for everything else that follows, not the other way round.
Don't get me wrong, I respect the work of Penrose. But he is NOT a physicist. He's a mathematical physicist (not a theoretical physicist), a pure mathematician...

All kinds of physicists are dropping that 'evasion line' to progress. Paradigm change goes like: One->Few->Many->All. Penrose just stopped evading sooner. Careful what you say about mathematical physicists, they're a touchy lot!
Anything before the "big bang" is ad hoc....there are no physics, experiments or observations.....God is just as valid

Why bring "god" in? Only physically consistent answers valid. Occam Razor is simplest valid for the rest.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 25, 2013
Yet physicists still try to deduce what the hypothesized big bang process "initiation" stage might have been? Do you want to tell them to cease their conjecturing?


Why would I tell someone not to hypothesize or conjecturize on any topic.

Conjecture is not science. It is only a part of science. Zephyr offers conjectures. Laymen offer conjectures, usually conjectures that scientist had already considered before high school.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 25, 2013
Penrose just stopped evading sooner. Careful what you say about mathematical physicists, they're a touchy lot!


What did he stop evading? First ya would have to establish that he was evading to start with. Why should I be careful? He would agree with me, theorizing about events before the "big bang" are outside of the realm of physics as we know them today. He would agree that at the present, his "conjectures" and theories are for the most part not observable, display not phenomena, and are not subject to falsification. He's a smart guy and knows all that.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 25, 2013
Why bring "god" in? Only physically consistent answers valid. Occam Razor is simplest valid for the rest.

There are no "physically consistent answers". Just like the "God" answer.

There are no physics known to us pre"big bang". Just like the "God" answer.

There are no phenomena known to us that could predate the "big bang" that are "physically consistent" with reality as we know it.

There is no science known to us that can model the time before the "big bang". Just like the "God" answer.

Only pure mathematical pictures. Nothing to link it to what we see around us. Just like the "God" answer.

The maths are simpler with the "God" answer. One. As opposed to the string theory answers. Very complex.

Occam's Razor selects the "God" answer.

Me?I prefer not to worry with questions for which exists no means to answer. Those kind of questions are for mathematicians, philosophers (who never have answers, just endlessly reforming the question) and dreamers. They have their place.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2013
was finally DROPPED by Professor Penrose

He dropped it for the point of his model. We really don't know whether his model holds any water. Only prediction and observation will tell. As of now brane theory can be fit to any observation so its predictive power is still zero.
His model has not shown any connection to reality yet - nothing has been proven or disproven either way.

Branes are nothing more than an interesting speculation at this point. One worth following up - to be sure - but unsupported speculation nonetheless.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2013
His model has not shown any connection to reality yet - nothing has been proven or disproven either way
It has a connection for reality - actually it agrees with bubble multiverse models.
rkolter
not rated yet Mar 26, 2013
Okay, if an anti-neutrino is just a negative neutrino, then would not have all the positive neutrinos been wiped out, by now?


I think this question from page one got a 1 review in error by someone. It is the very first question I thought of - but phrased differently: Would we not have noticed that nearly every neutrino we've ever detected is an anti-neutrino before now?

Or is it just something blatently obvious and I need to go get my morning coffee and re-read?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
. It is the very first question I thought of - but phrased differently: Would we not have noticed that nearly every neutrino we've ever detected is an anti-neutrino before now?

I'll hazard a guess: Experiments to catch a neutrino are difficult, since they interact so little. So you set up experiments to catch a particular kind of neutrino from an event that you know will peoduce a lot (e.g. a star going supernova which produces electron-neutrinos...not antineutrinos).

There's no catch-all experiment that registers every type of neutrino to my knowledge.

As to the question of the original poster:
Why the 'positive' neutrinos haven't been wiped out?
1) Neutrinos (of all flavors) are still being produced all the time in radioactive decay and fusion processes.
2) Neutrinos interact VERY seldomly with one another.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2013
Neutrinos interact VERY seldomly with one another
In AWT this property would depend on the neutrino energy: the higher energy the neutrino is, the smaller diameter it has. The low-energy neutrinos would therefore behave like the colliding particles, or they couldn't contribute to cohesive properties of dark matter.


Zephyr, glad to see ya coming around. Ya just pointed out another fatal flaw in the "AWT". Actually ya just pointed out three. Good for ya.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2013
Hi Q-Star:
1.There are no "physically consistent answers".
2.There are no physics known to us pre"big bang".
3.There are no phenomena known to us that could predate the "big bang" that are "physically consistent" with reality..
4.There is no science known to us that can model the time before the "big bang".
5.Only pure mathematical pictures. Nothing to link it to what we see around us.
6.The maths are simpler with the "God" answer.
7.Occam's Razor selects the "God" answer
1.Eternal, infinite, space, points consistent physics/math.
2.The BULK context is posited as pre bigbang physical context.
3.We observe physical space/locations around us a-priori.
4.Black Hole interiors also modeled even though we have no actual info from inside.
5.BH Singularities "pure mathematics", yet such modeling is allowed.
6.The " god answer" may be "simple" but not consistent/valid physics/math model.
7.So Oc's Rzr "selects" a-priori eternal-infinite space points context.

No gods at any stage. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
Hi a_p:
He dropped it for the point of his model. We really don't know whether his model holds any water.
Not relevant why he finally admitted it was a cop-out response to what came before big bang questions. And like I said, he's not the only physicist-mathematician-scientist to stop avoiding the most important physics question of all for any model/hypothesis that seeks to explore possible physically consistent a-priori status of the physical universe which is observed locally "here/now" by humans using maths and physics and scientific method in all facets to explore the where/when/what/how etc in order to arrive at a complete ToE. We have enough partial theories; the time has come to 'join the dots' with whatever logic/math/physics/methods we can apply. The first step was to stop using that old copout line. Penrose and many other scientists have now done so. That will free us to explore properly "what came before etc?". Serendipity/Discovery favours open mind. :)
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2013
1.Eternal, infinite, space, points consistent physics/math.

Wrong, they are not.

2.The BULK context is posited as pre bigbang physical context.
No is not. Someone may have speculated on that. But no more.

3.We observe physical space/locations around us a-priori.

And this relates to a speculation of "before" a "big bang" how?

4.Black Hole interiors also modeled even though we have no actual info from inside.
No they are not. Anyone who suggests he can model the inside of a black hole is proving that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

5.BH Singularities "pure mathematics", yet such modeling is allowed.
Black hole singularities have been suggested by SOME. Only suggested, no more.

6.The " god answer" may be "simple" but not consistent/valid physics/math model.
Since we have no physics for the pre-big bang its just as valid.

7.Oc's Rzr "selects" a-priori eternal-infinite space points context.
Eternal infinite is philosophy/religion
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2013
]he's not the only physicist-mathematician-scientist,,
Ya keep dodging the fact that Penrose is more philosopher than physicist.

to stop avoiding the most important physics question of all for any model/hypothesis that seeks to explore possible physically consistent a-priori status of the physical universe which is observed locally "here/now" by humans using maths and physics and scientific method in all facets to explore the where/when/what/how etc in order to arrive at a complete ToE.


He has dozens of conflicting theories, on many aspects of "reality". It's what philosophers do.

We have enough partial theories; the time has come to 'join the dots' with whatever logic/math/physics/methods we can apply.

He has dozens of partial theories?

Penrose and many other scientists have now done so. That will free us to explore properly "what came before etc?".


Did ya buy one of his popular books? "Roads to Reality"? "Cycles of Time"? Philosophy not physics.

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
Hi Q-Star:
1..they are not.
1.Someone may have speculated on that.
3..this relates to a speculation of "before" a "big bang" how?
4. Anyone who suggests he can model the inside of a black hole is proving that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
5.Black hole singularities have been suggested by SOME.
6.Since we have no physics for the pre-big bang its just as valid.
7.Eternal infinite is philosophy/religion.
1.Eternal implies duration/persistence over time. Infinities in maths already.
2.a-priori eternal/infinite BULK physically valid posit for string/brane models.
3.Observational horizon of space/points is limited by our technology/distance. Logical that our limitations do not constrain universe from extending space/points eternally to infinity.
4.Many QM/GR models of BH interiors. Take your pick.
5.Singularity and other possibilities are modeled in GR/QM. Take your pick.
6.God is not physically consistent. Not valid posit.
7.Duration and spatial extent are physical. :)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2013
I'm sure, Penrose will come with new ideas after releasing of upgrade Planck data. Kolmogorov analysis of CMBR noise needs the detailed data.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2013
1.Eternal implies duration/persistence over time. Infinities in maths already.


Eternal is implies nothing. It can not have a physical or mathematical description. It's the purview of philosophy & religion, not science. Infinities mean nothing more than "it's beyond my ability to determine", nothing more, in science or math.

2.a-priori eternal/infinite BULK physically valid posit for string/brane models.

Ya love that "a priori", but it it is an not a concept of doing science, it's some BOTH sides agree to in philosophical debate. Ya can't command me to agree that "eternal" or "infinite" can be defined in physical terms, or within the physics that we know. I can't a prior grant "eternal" or "infinite" until there is some substance to the words. "Eternal" and "infinite" sound to much like "God". Not subjects of physics, they are subjects for philosophy and religion.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2013
1.Ya keep dodging the fact that Penrose is more philosopher than physicist.
2.He has dozens of conflicting theories, on many aspects of "reality". It's what philosophers do.
3.He has dozens of partial theories?
4.Did ya buy one of his popular books? "Roads to Reality"? "Cycles of Time"? Philosophy not physics.
1.The point I made and you avoid is that he was NOT THE ONLY SCIENTIST (of whatever 'kind' you separate scientists into) to drop that evasion, so your concentrating only on his books/motives is irrelevant personal distraction.
2.I don't care where the question arises or for what reasons; the question itself is all important to ANY ToE candidate theory/model.
3.Being smart-ass is no substitute for being smart. Desist please.
4.No I did not buy his or any other books. I am a lone independent researcher who also keep abreast of the science literature/news and compares it all into my own ToE where relevant/valid, irrespective of how it is 'presented' or its 'provenance'. :)
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2013
3.Observational horizon of space/points is limited by our technology/distance. Logical that our limitations do not constrain universe from extending space/points eternally to infinity.


Ya can SUGGEST something without observation, phenomena, or test. But until it is subjected to repeatable falsification, it is no more than a suggestion. Some suggestions are better than others, but they are all suggestions.

4.Many QM/GR models of BH interiors. Take your pick.


I'll let Zephyr pick, or ya can pick one. There is no way to determine which is correct.

5.Singularity and other possibilities are modeled in GR/QM. Take your pick.


Pink unicorns are as likely as "Singularity and other possibilities", so I choose that.

6.God is not physically consistent. Not valid posit.


Neither is "eternal" or "infinite".

7.Duration and spatial extent are physical. :)


Which is why "eternal" or "infinite" are useless to physics.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2013
1.The point I made and you avoid is that he was NOT THE ONLY SCIENTIST (of whatever 'kind' you separate scientists into) to drop that evasion, so your concentrating only on his books/motives is irrelevant personal distraction.


What he does is very relevant. To him. To his fans. But he is a mathematician first, a philosopher second, and mathematical (not theoretical) physicist last.

2.I don't care where the question arises or for what reasons; the question itself is all important to ANY ToE candidate theory/model.


3.Being smart-ass is no substitute for being smart. Desist please.


I can't desist, it's what physics people do.

I am a lone independent researcher who also keep abreast of the science literature/news and compares it all into my own ToE where relevant/valid, irrespective of how it is 'presented' or its 'provenance'


Better minds than ya have been working on that. Penrose for one, he'll be the first to tell he's not even close.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
1. Eternal is implies nothing. It can not have a physical or mathematical description.
2. Infinities mean nothing more than "it's beyond my ability to determine"...
3. Ya love that "a priori", but it it is an not a concept of doing science.
4. I can't a prior grant "eternal" or "infinite" until there is some substance to the words. "Eternal" and "infinite" sound to much like "God".
1&2. Without a-priori recognition of concepts of duration, persistence, motion/spatial distance/extent etc, physical science could not study physical dynamics in any physically coherent logical manner. Update your ideas of "doing science/physics"; and the concepts necessarily involved 'a-priori'. Lucky you are not a scientist. :)
3. a-priori is apt, so it is used advisedly.
4.Duration is transient or eternal. Until we find out for sure, why initially go for an 'infinitesimal' instead of 'overarching' eternal duration concept? Likewise, spatial extent: finite or infinite. Why you prefer 'finite'? :)
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2013
1&2.Update your ideas of "doing science/physics"; and the concepts necessarily involved 'a-priori'. Lucky you are not a scientist


But I am, and ya are not. Ya have showed that with the many foolish things ya have posted as regards science.

3. a-priori is apt, so it is used advisedly.


Ya can't command that ANOTHER accept something a priori, BOTH parties must agree.

4.Duration is transient or eternal. Until we find out for sure, why initially go for an 'infinitesimal' instead of 'overarching' eternal duration concept? Likewise, spatial extent: finite or infinite. Why you prefer 'finite'? :)


I have told ya several times. Ya're being intentionally obtuse. Once more, YA CAN NOT DEFINE ETERNAL OR INFINITE WITH PHYSICS AS WE KNOW THEM TODAY.

Eternal & infinite mean nothing more than "I don't know" unless ya are a religious sort, then it means "I know but don't have to explain it to ya." Eternal & infinite are for philosophers and preachers, not scientists.

Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2013
3.We observe physical space/locations around us a-priori.


Actually, we don't, we observe matter to which we assign locations. There are serious philosophical problems with manifold substantivalism (which is what your are claiming), most notably highlighted by the "Hole Argument". This article covers that but may need some careful thought:

http://plato.stan...holearg/

Note that it doesn't necessarily apply to the related concept of metric substantivalism and the SEP doesn't distinguish them.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
1. Ya can SUGGEST something without observation, phenomena, or test. But until it is subjected to repeatable falsification, it is no more than a suggestion.
2. I'll let Zephyr pick, or ya can pick one. There is no way to determine which is correct.
3. Pink unicorns are as likely as "Singularity and other possibilities"...
4. Neither is "eternal" or "infinite".
5. Which is why "eternal" or "infinite" are useless to physics.
1. You miss the point. For STARTING QUESTIONS/PREMISES, it is all about positing physically consistent concepts/possibilities and seeing what flows from there. If they could have been tackled with what you know/do already, then we would have ToE already. Hence question from Penrose et al scientists.
2. Why pick a partial theory missing THE starting concept necessary to complete ToE?
3&4&5. Gods not physical concepts.Duration and Extent physical concepts. Eternal Duration and Infinite Extent hence physical concepts. We now explore from that a-priori posit. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
1. What he does is very relevant. To him. To his fans. But he is a mathematician first, a philosopher second, and mathematical (not theoretical) physicist last.
2. I can't desist, it's what physics people do.
3. Better minds than ya have been working on that. Penrose for one, he'll be the first to tell he's not even close.
1. You keep missing the point and bringing personal considerations into it. Why? The point is the QUESTION is NOW being asked rather than avoiding it as before. Are you genuine or just a "personality before science" troll? :)
2. You are not a true physicist if you prefer to be smart-ass (subjective and personal) rather than smart (objective and impersonal). :)
3. It's not about being close already. It's the starting to consider that question is what remains to complete ToE. The question being asked at all, and seriously explored now, is the important thing. Who knows who will succeed on that new tack and what the outcomes may be? :)
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2013
1.For STARTING QUESTIONS/PREMISES, it is all about positing physically consistent concepts/possibilities and seeing what flows from there. If they could have been tackled with what you know/do already, then we would have ToE already.
2. Why pick a partial theory missing THE starting concept necessary to complete ToE?
3&4&5.Duration and Extent physical concepts. Eternal Duration and Infinite Extent hence physical concepts. We now explore from that a-priori posit. :)


Okay a prior, the universe is both eternal and infinite. Happy?

Okay, so that I can follow while ya explain your TOE, would ya begin by defining "eternal" & "infinite"? In physical terms if ya please, since we're doing science, not religion.

Not what things ARE eternal & infinite, but what makes something eternal and infinite.

Take as many posts as necessary & I'll try to keep up. Maybe I'll be interested enough read them, but I doubt I'll be interested to respond. Philosophy bores me to no end. Word games.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
1. But I am, and ya are not. Ya have showed that with the many foolish things ya have posted as regards science.
2. Ya can't command that ANOTHER accept something a priori, BOTH parties must agree.
3. I have told ya several times. Ya're being intentionally obtuse. Once more, YA CAN NOT DEFINE ETERNAL OR INFINITE WITH PHYSICS AS WE KNOW THEM TODAY.
4. Eternal & infinite mean nothing more than "I don't know" unless ya are a religious sort, then it means "I know but don't have to explain it to ya." Eternal & infinite are for philosophers and preachers, not scientist
1. Your "foolish things" in this exchange demonstrate you not true (impersonal and objective) physicist, but a subjective/personality-obsessed troll? :)
2. No. The LOGIC train/results from any posited starting premise will be the arbiter of what a-priori physical concept is eventually accepted or not. You are ego-centric!
3. No definition necessary. Question, Posit and Explore! As usual.
4. Limits use infinities. :)
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2013
The point is the QUESTION is NOW being asked rather than avoiding it as before. Are you genuine or just a "personality before science" troll? :)


Answer the question your own self. I said there were no answers, only suggestions.
2. You are not a true physicist if you prefer to be smart-ass (subjective and personal) rather than smart (objective and impersonal). :)


Tell that to Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Kelvin, Rutherford, Einstein, Brahe, Hubble, Zwicky, Gamow, Feynman, Szilard, Susskind, Penrose, et al. (Penrose is a philosopher and mathematician, but I know how much ya like him this month, so I put in the list of my all time favorite Smarty Alexes.)
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2013
4. Limits use infinities


Pssst, that's the kind of foolish thing I was referring to. Ya got it a priori backwards. One sets a limit when using infinity is not allowed. But being a mathematical physics sort of person, ya probably a priori start with the premise that infinity is a number.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
1. Okay a priori, the universe is both eternal and infinite. Happy?
2. Okay, so that I can follow while ya explain your TOE, would ya begin by defining "eternal" & "infinite"? In physical terms if ya please, since we're doing science, not religion. Not what things ARE eternal & infinite, but what makes something eternal and infinite.
3. Philosophy bores me. Word games.
1. You keep 'personalizing'. It's not about me/you being "happy"; it's that Penrose and OTHER scientists have finally dropped the old line avoiding the question.
2. ) Scientists only just started to SERIOUSLY pursue that previously-avoided question. So it's early days yet for mainstream. Fortunately, I've pursued 'from scratch' questions like that for some time now, and have a complete ToE including answer to that, as well as "what IS gravity?" question and more. You have to wait until I publish it all. :)
3. And philosophy and word games bore me almost as much as others "personalizing science exchanges' does. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
1. Answer the question your own self. I said there were no answers, only suggestions.
2. Tell that to Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Kelvin, Rutherford, Einstein, Brahe, Hubble, Zwicky, Gamow, Feynman, Szilard, Susskind, Penrose, et al. (Penrose is a philosopher and mathematician, but I know how much ya like him this month, so I put in the list of my all time favorite Smarty Alexes.)
1. The point was that the question is NOW being asked and pursued SERIOUSLY by ALL SORTS of scientists, no matter which 'categories' you wish to use for mainstream sciences overall. And I have an answer to that question which my ToE from scratch has evolved itself logically and consistently from the PHYSICAL (not personal or metaphysical) starting premises posited once the previously-evaded starting question is asked. Will publish it asap.
2. Being a 'smart-ass personally' is different from being 'smart scientist' objectively pursuing serious scientific matters. Separate attributes; separate roles.:)
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2013
1. Okay a priori, the universe is both eternal and infinite. Happy?
2. Okay, so that I can follow while ya explain your TOE, would ya begin by defining "eternal" & "infinite"? In physical terms if ya please, since we're doing science, not religion. Not what things ARE eternal & infinite, but what makes something eternal and infinite

1. You keep 'personalizing'. It's not about me/you being "happy"; it's that Penrose and OTHER scientists have finally dropped the old line avoiding the question.


Fortunately, I've pursued 'from scratch' questions like that for some time now,

My condolences on your success.

and have a complete ToE including answer to that, as well as "what IS gravity?" question and more.

So discuss science, not me, science.

You have to wait until I publish it all.

With bated breath I will.

And philosophy and word games bore me almost as much as others "personalizing science exchanges' does.

Ya write that straight faced?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
Limits use infinities
1. Pssst, that's the kind of foolish thing I was referring to. Ya got it a priori backwards. One sets a limit when using infinity is not allowed.
2. But being a mathematical physics sort of person, ya probably a priori start with the premise that infinity is a number.
1. Again you are so eager to 'personalize' the exchange/issue that you miss the actual OBJECTIVE point. The infinity CONCEPT is part of mathematics/physics treatments of unknown quantities/limit values to be determined via axiomatic rules/functions etc. See? The infinity is a concept USED already by mainstream. HOW it's used now and into future evolving mathematical/physical constructs is consequential to the fact that it IS used NOW, period.
2. On the contrary, I always knew neither zero nor infinity are 'numbers' or 'values'. Many others are coming round to that realization, for various reasons being discussed on the net. So again your 'personalizing' strawman is burning! :)
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2013
1. Okay a priori, the universe is both eternal and infinite. Happy?
2. Okay, so that I can follow while ya explain your TOE, would ya begin by defining "eternal" & "infinite"? In physical terms if ya please, since we're doing science, not religion. Not what things ARE eternal & infinite, but what makes something eternal and infinite.
Fortunately, I've pursued 'from scratch' questions like that for some time now,

My condolences on your success.

and have a complete ToE including answer to that, as well as "what IS gravity?" question and more. You have to wait until I publish it all. :)


Why do I have to wait? Ya said ya want talk about science but so far all ya want to talk about is me. I'm not nearly as interesting as a TOE.

And philosophy and word games bore me almost as much as others "personalizing science exchanges' does. :)


Ha. Good one. Not to witty, but it was a good one.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2013
I always knew neither zero nor infinity are 'numbers' or 'values'.


Apparently not. More of your foolish sayings. Zero is most certainly a number. I think we learned that in kindergarten, used it much in algebra. All the time in physics.

Infinity means no more than what ya said, "I don't know". Which is where we started this conversation. Infinity does not exist. It has no value. No physical relationship to anything in reality. So it's taken ya four hours to realize I was correct in saying "infinity" does not exist in physics.

Would like to work on "eternal" now?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
1. My condolences on your success.
2. So discuss science, not me, science.
3. With bated breath I will.
4. Ya write that straight faced?
1. See, right there you bring 'personal animosity' and ungenerous/prejudicial attitudes to exchanges.
2. It was YOU who brought personal strawmanning into it, as amply demonstrated. It seems you wish to pursue 'personality before science' and then blame ME for you doing that? Weird troll logics on your part there. :)
3. It will be worth your 'wait with bated breath'. Not kidding. Try not to prejudge what you have not yet read in a complete ToE to be published asap, hey?
4. I keep to objective points and you keep 'personality before science' strawmanning and prejudicing and missing the actual points made. My face can be straight while yours seems a little 'shimmery' in all that 'personal/prejudicial' smoke you keep blowing all over the exchange so far. Be cool, objective and smart, not personal, subjective and smart-ass. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
1. Zero is most certainly a number. I think we learned that in kindergarten, used it much in algebra. All the time in physics.
2. Infinity means no more than what ya said, "I don't know". Which is where we started this conversation. Infinity does not exist. It has no value. No physical relationship to anything in reality. So it's taken ya four hours to realize I was correct in saying "infinity" does not exist in physics.
3. Would like to work on "eternal" now?
1. If 'kindergarten level' views of zero and infinity is all you can muster in support, then you haven't kept up with the internet discussions which are moving slowly towards my longstanding views based on the results of asking the questions which were previously avoided.
2. The point you keep missing is that infinity IS USED irrespective of known or unknown nature of it 'as presently understood'. You trying everything to divert from real point.
3. Have been; infinity/zero/gravity/before big bang etc. Publishing soon.:)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
Hi Fleetfoot:
Actually, we don't, we observe matter to which we assign locations. There are serious philosophical problems with manifold substantivalism (which is what your are claiming), most notably highlighted by the "Hole Argument". This article covers that but may need some careful thought:

http://plato.stan...holearg/

Note that it doesn't necessarily apply to the related concept of metric substantivalism and the SEP doesn't distinguish them.
That was not my point. My point was about 'physical concepts' PER SE involved in the a-priori fact that we CAN move in 3-D space, and over distances which may be determined by light beam traversal of said space over a duration of 'time standard' which gives us the definition of distances as 'light-seconds/years' etc in said space.

Ie, Concepts of duration/distance/location in space and time contexts ARE physical (not metaphysical or philosophy etc.) irrespective of theory about said observations. That's it. :)
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Mar 27, 2013
Hi RC,

Concepts of duration/distance/location in space and time contexts ARE physical (not metaphysical or philosophy etc.) irrespective of theory about said observations. That's it. :)


Duration and distance are measurable hence physical without a doubt, at least as relative measurements. Location on the other hand is dependent on a pre-defined coordinate system and isn't an intrisic property in physics, that's why I was advising caution. The idea that 'location' has an independent existence is a philosophical premise (called substantivalism as I said before) and is the subject of the Hole Argument. It's important to differentiate the two concepts if you don't want people taking the wrong meaning from your posts.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2013
Hi Fleetfoot:
Hi RC,
Concepts of duration/distance/location in space and time contexts ARE physical (not metaphysical or philosophy etc.) irrespective of theory about said observations.

Duration and distance are measurable hence physical without a doubt, at least as relative measurements. Location on the other hand is dependent on a pre-defined coordinate system and isn't an intrisic property in physics, that's why I was advising caution. The idea that 'location' has an independent existence is a philosophical premise (called substantivalism as I said before) and is the subject of the Hole Argument. It's important to differentiate the two concepts if you don't want people taking the wrong meaning from your posts.
Understand/Agree re your caution. Identifying 'particular' locations may/may-not be possible in theory/co-ordinate construct used. However, 'location concept per se' being 'physical' without 'particular identity' was my point. Different things/aspects:)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2013
Hi RC,

However, 'location concept per se' being 'physical' without 'particular identity' was my point.


That's exactly what the Hole Argument addresses though, I think you need to study that page more carefully. You are getting into quite deep philosophical territory but if that's what you want to propose, you need to address the counter-argument.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2013
Thanks, Fleetfoot:
Hi RC,
That's exactly what the Hole Argument addresses though, I think you need to study that page more carefully. You are getting into quite deep philosophical territory but if that's what you want to propose, you need to address the counter-argument.
Sorry, Fleet, I do not see that. The Hole question may be asked and answered in 'philosophical' or 'mathematical' or 'physical' contexts, but not 'in all at the same time'. In philosophy it is 'existence or non-existence'. In maths it is 'infinity or zero'. In physics it is 'locality or non-locality'. I have extended/used it in 'physics' to just imply UNDIFFERENTIATED 'locality' concept PER SE, with nothing more said about particular locality/non-locality 'measurements' or associations with objects or dynamics-spaces. Further point: without 'location concept per se' , no 'physics' dynamics possible. That specific 'physical nature' of 'location concept per se' was all I alluded to. No more than that. Cheers. :)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2013
The original paper is here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6721

Their conclusion is strongly dependent on the higher value of Yp found by the SPT. However, Planck's recent results find a value of 0.22477 which is consistent with standard BBNS. The Planck results are here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5076

In the same paper, Appendix A explains why they think the SPT results differ. It also addresses the significant degeneracy between the key parameters, Neff, the spectral index, curvature and Yp which are significant in this respect.

Basically, they authors of this paper are going to need to revise their analysis to take account of Planck and their current conclusion will probably not hold up.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2013
That's exactly what the Hole Argument addresses though, I think you need to study that page more carefully. You are getting into quite deep philosophical territory but if that's what you want to propose, you need to address the counter-argument.
Sorry, Fleet, I do not see that. The Hole question may be asked and answered in 'philosophical' or 'mathematical' or 'physical' contexts, but not 'in all at the same time'.


Not really, the Hole Argument is quite specific, the addresses the question of whether or not the concept of a point in space exists independently of the matter which may be described as having a location. In other words, does a location exist in the absence of something to be there? That appears to relate directly to your earlier statement. I'll leave it to you to decide whether it is a problem you need to fix or whether you intended one of the other meanings you listed.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2013
Okay, so that I can follow while ya explain your TOE, would ya begin by defining "eternal" & "infinite"? In physical terms if ya please, since we're doing science, not religion.


In cosmology, one possibility is that the universe is spatially infinite. What that means mathematically is that the metric allows distances between objects which are unbounded. By analogy, the distance between two points on the Earth cannot exceed half the circumference of the planet while distances on a flat plane can be infinite. Given that Planck's latest results are consistent with a flat universe (or even negative curvature), the distinction is very topical.

Eternal means the same on the temporal axis, there is no upper limit to the duration between two events. Again, the observed accelerating expansion and apparent constancy of the equation of state suggests the universe will be eternal into the future even though bounded into the past.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 03, 2013
What that means mathematically is that the metric allows distances between objects which are unbounded.


But the conventional wisdom is that the distances are bounded. The distances are finite. Could they be infinite in the future? I suppose they could be, but even at that distance, they will be SOME FINITE distance apart as long as the exist in the same universe.

Given that Planck's latest results are consistent with a flat universe (or even negative curvature), the distinction is very topical.


Even the flat forever expanding universe, will have a finite size at every point in time it is measured.

Eternal means the same on the temporal axis, there is no upper limit to the duration between two events.


Every point on a temporal axis is a finite point in time. The upper limit has not occurred yet, but when it does occur it will be a finite point.

Infinite & eternal are philosophy, not science. We can only work with the finite points where our science applies.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 03, 2013
What that means mathematically is that the metric allows distances between objects which are unbounded.


But the conventional wisdom is that the distances are bounded. The distances are finite.


WMAP is as conventional as it gets:

http://map.gsfc.n...ape.html

Current understanding is that a flat universe is infinite in extent unless it has 'interesting' topology (such as a 4-torus). Planck has just published similar results.

Could they be infinite in the future?


The curvature cannot change sign so if it is infinite now, it always will be, and similarly if it is now finite.

Given that Planck's latest results are consistent with a flat universe (or even negative curvature), the distinction is very topical.


Even the flat forever expanding universe, will have a finite size at every point in time it is measured.


A flat plane has no upper bound on separations, they can be infinite. This is science (geometry), not philosophy.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 03, 2013
Eternal means the same on the temporal axis, there is no upper limit to the duration between two events.


Every point on a temporal axis is a finite point in time. The upper limit has not occurred yet, but when it does occur it will be a finite point.


Yes, a single ended temporal axis is a bit wierd since it can be infinitely long but all ages appear to be finite. That's one that is hard to understand!
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 03, 2013
A flat plane has no upper bound on separations, they can be infinite. This is science (geometry), not philosophy.


There is no way to test or observe something that has no upper bound, that's why I call the realm of philosophy and pure maths. But we can agree to disagree.

To be perfectly honest, my personal opinion is probably somewhat philosophically based. I "feel" a finite universe (the one we live in) is more correct. Our universe began with a so-called "big bang", and has possessed a finite size at each temporal point.

Eternal just means beyond now to me, not much more. To be eternally infinite means a "steady state" to me, and that contradicts every thing think I know about cosmology.

But again, these are big questions, much beyond my being able to answer,,,,

As my professors were so fond of endlessly asking me: "Where are the physics? How do we test this? What can we observe?"

Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 04, 2013
A flat plane has no upper bound on separations, they can be infinite. This is science (geometry), not philosophy.


There is no way to test or observe something that has no upper bound, that's why I call the realm of philosophy and pure maths. But we can agree to disagree.


I can do both, it is pure maths, not philosophy ;-)

Our universe began with a so-called "big bang", and has possessed a finite size at each temporal point.


"Big bang" was a misleading term coined by Hoyle trying to discredit the model. If it is infinite now, it always was, back to the Planck Era when it may have had a different dimensionality, but that gets us into string theory and LQG and such speculative theories where I am out of my depth.

As my professors were so fond of endlessly asking me: "Where are the physics? How do we test this? What can we observe?"


We are restricted to observing the observable universe ;-) Whether the rest is finite or not may always be unanswerable.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 04, 2013
Our universe began with a so-called "big bang", and has possessed a finite size at each temporal point.


"Big bang" was a misleading term coined by Hoyle trying to discredit the model. If it is infinite now, it always was, back to the Planck Era when it may have had a different dimensionality, but that gets us into string theory and LQG and such speculative theories where I am out of my depth.


Ya are preaching to choir on that one. I've always found "big bang" rather inane and trite. Especially when ya consider everyone of my professors taught that it occurred before "our" physics started functioning as they do. I am a proponent of changing the phrase to something like "Standard Model of Expanding Universe w/ cold inflation." Or maybe "Standard Cosmological Model w/ cold inflation". That's still a lot of words I know, but "big bang" really bugs me. But I find myself forced to use it just so people can understand what I'm talking about.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 04, 2013
As my professors were so fond of endlessly asking me: "Where are the physics? How do we test this? What can we observe?"


We are restricted to observing the observable universe ;-) Whether the rest is finite or not may always be unanswerable.


Which is why I in particular would be a very, very poor theorist. And only an adequate experiment designer. I respect what they do, but I'm not mentally oriented for that. I would best describe myself as an observer first. (Fortunately I realized that early on and so didn't have to go through a stage of career frustration, as so many find themselves in. Everyone wants to be the next Einstein or Newton. I'm more of the Brahe type.)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2013
To be eternally infinite means a "steady state" to me, and that contradicts every thing think I know about cosmology

In AWT the universe is random, i.e. neither expanding, neither steady state. The observable Universe is finite, but still a tiny part of infinite universe - something like the observable area of landscape under the fog. Laura Mersini describes it like the giant quantum wave traveling from place to place. I'd rather say, it's like the giant density fluctuation of random gas.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Apr 04, 2013
In AWT the universe is random, i.e. neither expanding, neither steady state. The observable Universe is finite, but still a tiny part of infinite universe - something like the observable area of landscape under the fog. Laura Mersini describes it like the giant quantum wave traveling from place to place. I'd rather say, it's like the giant density fluctuation of random gas.


Funny ya should mention her Zeph. Laura's office is in the same building as mine. I'll tell how ya appreciate her work.

Her work is not in my field and she is very much smarter than I am, but I'll try to run some of your AWT ideas past her to see if she might contribute some little thing to it. First thing tomorrow if she is in town.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2013
She's could be considered a masked aetherist, if she wouldn't be a little too much attached to multiverse concept and Big Bang cosmology. Still an attractive woman, huh?
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2013
She's could be considered a masked aetherist,,,


I've never seen her masked. But I am quite confident that she is NOT an aetherist, masked or otherwise.

if she wouldn't be a little too much attached to multiverse concept and Big Bang cosmology.


I'm sure she will devastated to find that the Zephyr thinks her work misguided. (Psst, should I refrain from telling her that ya disprove, I hate to hurt her feelings?)

Still an attractive woman, huh?


Yes, I suppose she is, are ya suggesting that she used that to get past the problem of being "attached" to the "Big Bang cosmology"?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2013
Hi Fleet:
...or whether you intended one of the other meanings you listed.
Actually, I only pointed out (in relevant exchange with Q-Star) that my observations then were based on physical concepts only, with no need for him to bring 'gods' into it. Insofar as "position" as I used it then is concerned, the hole argument regarding "position" is not at issue here. Although we humans cannot identify SPECIFIC positions in the universal space process/extent, it does not preclude there physically BEING "positions" (by default of Quantum Vac universal extent/process existing and its properties/characteristics/phenomena generating "positions" as part of its metric/parameters). These defacto "positions" effectively prevent everything happening at once everywhere with no distinguishable phases/events. The universe knows itself to that level, and we humans CAN observe 'separateness' of its possibly infinite 'parts/processes'. So concept of "position" IS physical. No Q-Star 'gods' needed. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2013
Hi again, Fleet. Can you help me with this? I have not needed to search for my less recent posts before. Can you advise how I may do this most effectively? Thanks in advance, mate! :)
Q-Star
3 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2013
No Q-Star 'gods' needed. :)


I agree with that. But I don't do philosophy. And most people in science who do DO philosophy, only do it as a hobby, not as a way to further their knowledge of physical reality.

Psst, have ya gotten the hint after all these many months? I don't much care for philosophizing.

It's been a pretty useless and distracting thing for the overall progress of science,''''' ever since those Greek guys started asking endless series of questions''''', and arguing about the answers, ad infinitum,,,,,, then arguing about what the questions were, ad infinitum,,,,, and never finding an answer or even a question that they kept around for more than a week or so.

But if that is your cup o'tea,,,, dialectic till ya drop,,, it makes no effect on MY day.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2013
No Q-Star 'gods' needed. :)


I agree with that. But I don't do philosophy. And most people in science who do DO philosophy, only do it as a hobby, not as a way to further their knowledge of physical reality.

Psst, have ya gotten the hint after all these many months? I don't much care for philosophizing.
If you recall, it was only you that brought (mere) 'philosophy' and 'gods' into the strictly physical perspective/concepts I mentioned then. I am glad you now agree that the concepts I canvassed then (including the concept of "position") were PHYSICAL ONLY concepts, and did NOT dependent on, nor did they invoke, any (mere) philosophizing or gods. Cheers. :)

PS: Q-Star, can you advise me on the most effective way of searching for old posts here? Cheers again. :)
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2013
I am glad you now agree that the concepts I canvassed then (including the concept of "position") were PHYSICAL ONLY concepts, and did NOT dependent on, nor did they invoke, any (mere) philosophizing or gods. Cheers.


Ya seem to misunderstand me. I DON'T agree with that. For me "eternal" and "infinite" ARE defined only in philosophical (or religious) terms. There are no physical descriptions of either that I have found to be compelling.

Ya can disagree with my assessment, but I have been exposed to many arguments put forth by some truly brilliant people, and I have yet to see one that has swayed me beyond the point: "It MAY be so, or it may NOT be so, how do ya propose to test it? Show me the physics, not the vision." Sorry, but that's where I'm at.

PS: Q-Star, can you advise me on the most effective way of searching for old posts here? Cheers again. :)


I don't know what would be most effective. Try doing a google search with a username and a few key terms.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2013
Hi RC,

Insofar as "position" as I used it then is concerned, the hole argument regarding "position" is not at issue here. Although we humans cannot identify SPECIFIC positions in the universal space process/extent, it does not preclude there physically BEING "positions" ... (by default of Quantum Vac universal extent/process existing and its properties/characteristics/phenomena generating "positions" as part of its metric/parameters).


Stringing words together without grammar doesn't help the conversation. :-( Those are independent concepts and it is important that you distinguish between them.

These defacto "positions" effectively prevent everything happening at once everywhere ... we humans CAN observe 'separateness' of its possibly infinite 'parts/processes'. So concept of "position" IS physical.


The concept of locations or "positions" in space having existence is countered by the Hole Argument, the idea that the metric which defines 'separateness' is not.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2013
Ya seem to misunderstand me. I DON'T agree with that. For me "eternal" and "infinite" ARE defined only in philosophical (or religious) terms. ... Show me the physics, not the vision."


In cosmology, infinity is well defined, it means that distances in the FLRW metric are not bounded. The obvious examples are positive curvature where distances are limited and we can define a finite circumference versus the simplest flat universe which is a Euclidean plane and there is no limit to separations.

I don't know what would be most effective. Try doing a google search with a username and a few key terms.


That's what I do, I haven't found a better way.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2013
Ya seem to misunderstand me. I DON'T agree with that. For me "eternal" and "infinite" ARE defined only in philosophical (or religious) terms. ... Show me the physics, not the vision."


In cosmology, infinity is well defined, it means that distances in the FLRW metric are not bounded.


The FLRW metrics can't show ya whether the universe is finite, or infinite. They don't address the issue of "eternal" or "infinite" (in the sense that RC was using the term, his example was of a flat infinite plane.)

The obvious examples are positive curvature where distances are limited and we can define a finite circumference versus the simplest flat universe which is a Euclidean plane and there is no limit to separations.


Precisely my point. The "there is no limit to separations" is a philosophical question at this state of our science. There is no way to test or even observe that and judge it's value as "reality". It "could" be so is the best we can say at this point.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 18, 2013
Ya seem to misunderstand me. I DON'T agree with that. For me "eternal" and "infinite" ARE defined only in philosophical (or religious) terms."


In cosmology, infinity is well defined, it means that distances in the FLRW metric are not bounded.


The FLRW metrics can't show ya whether the universe is finite, or infinite.


I didn't claim it did. You said infinity was "defined only in philosophical (or religious) terms." That is incorrect, it is well defined in science.

The "there is no limit to separations" is a philosophical question at this state of our science. There is no way to test or even observe that and judge it's value as "reality".


http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5076

See the first row of table 10 on page 37. The value of curvature has been measured by Planck. If the Cosmological Principle applies (and that is the basis of FLRW) then that measurement tells us if it is infinite or not (barring non-trivial topology). It is a valid scientific question.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2013
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5076

See the first row of table 10 on page 37. The value of curvature has been measured by Planck. If the Cosmological Principle applies (and that is the basis of FLRW) then that measurement tells us if it is infinite or not (barring non-trivial topology). It is a valid scientific question.


It will only tell ya if it is infinite or not "if" certain assumptions are made at the application of the FLRW metrics. The metrics can result in several valid, but disparate solutions. The answer ya receive at any application can not be confirmed to be the correct application given the present state of our observational abilities. It is a valid scientific question, but only in pursuing some means to test it.

At it's core, infinite is a philosophical concept. As is "eternal". In physics we should always try to find an answer that doesn't involve "infinite" or "eternal". It's too much like the question, "What was before the big bang?"
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2013
Continued:

But I thank ya,,,, It is a paper I haven't read yet, only the abstract. I'll try to get to it in the next couple of days and get back to ya on it. Now I require your aid over on the article on seeing really old galaxies, our friend is still having trouble with the spacetime and expanding space thingy,,,

By the By: When I first tackled this stuff. Three things stood out as so counter-intuitive and hard to visualize that I was truly afraid I would end up a failure. 1) spacetime, 2) expanding space, 3) negative vacuum energy. The quantum mechanics seemed easy compared to those. Our "friend" is a truly nice guy and does try hard, I wish I could think of a way to help him visualize this very difficult thing,,,,,to gift him an "Iona Enlightenment" moment.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2013
It will only tell ya if it is infinite or not "if" certain assumptions are made at the application of the FLRW metrics. The metrics can result in several valid, but disparate solutions.


They do, notably positive, zero or negative curvature. The measurement selects which applies to the observable universe. That is science.

It is a valid scientific question, but only in pursuing some means to test it.


No, we are past that. Means have been identified and WMAP, the SPT and Planck have all measured it.

At it's core, infinite is a philosophical concept. As is "eternal". In physics we should always try to find an answer that doesn't involve "infinite" or "eternal".


No, we should seek the answer without prejudice or bias. If it turns out to be finite, so be it. If the measurements say it is infinite, that's what we should accept. It can't be both, but you are trying to exclude a valid scientific possibility on purely philosophical grounds.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2013
Continued:

But I thank ya,,,, It is a paper I haven't read yet, only the abstract. I'll try to get to it in the next couple of days and get back to ya on it.


Glad to help. Since the topic here is infinite versus finite which depends on omega_k, table 10 is interesting. Some months ago, the SPT reported a non-zero curvature which is slightly different from Planck's result. They address that specifically in Appendix A which is well worth reading in this context.

Our "friend" is a truly nice guy and does try hard, I wish I could think of a way to help him visualize this very difficult thing


Writing a simple spreadsheet of distances versus time for a toy matter-only universe helped me get some of the more subtle points.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 19, 2013
Now I require your aid over on the article on seeing really old galaxies, our friend is still having trouble with the spacetime and expanding space thingy,,,


I just had a look and I already replied last thing last night. His comments aren't too far wrong, he just has the timescales mixed up. Inflation finished long before the first nucleons formed out of the quark-gluon plasma and "matter" as we usually think of it (e.g. hydrogen and helium) was even later.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2013
They do, notably positive, zero or negative curvature. The measurement selects which applies to the observable universe. That is science.


Positive, zero or negative. Correct. But the "infinite" verses "finite" is not defined in the Planck findings, or the Lamda CDM model, or by the FLRW metrics. Either is "possible".

I agree that all observations tell us that we occupy a "flat" universe. But I also disagree that that implies an infinity.

I'm sure ya realize the "flat" distinction means only that Euclidean geometry will describe the relation between cosmological scale objects. It doesn't mean that the shape is a two dimensional plane. It has shape beyond two dimensions. Up-down, left-right, front-back. And three co-linear points will define a plane.

Infinite is only one of several "possible" solutions. It carries no greater weight than the others (which give flat but finite solutions.) Everyone has their favorite, but none are "the" solution by our present science.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2013
Now I require your aid over on the article on seeing really old galaxies, our friend is still having trouble with the spacetime and expanding space thingy,,,


I just had a look and I already replied last thing last night. His comments aren't too far wrong, he just has the timescales mixed up. Inflation finished long before the first nucleons formed out of the quark-gluon plasma and "matter" as we usually think of it (e.g. hydrogen and helium) was even later.


I was referring to the "gamma ray bursts point to a new way of stellar death" article.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2013
Writing a simple spreadsheet of distances versus time for a toy matter-only universe helped me get some of the more subtle points.


It was 30 years ago, but the only thing that worked for me, was to have as many people as I could find who truly understood it on an intuitive level, explain it all to me in their own words. And to read as many different "popular" accounts as I could find.

In the end, one day, after dozens of "lectures" from as many people as would humor me, and reading several dozen written accounts (several times each), came to me like in a single brilliant flash, all at once. The only trick, which I find it impossible to relay to so many on this site, is: UNTIL YA UNDERSTAND IT, ACCEPT IT AT FACE VALUE. ASSUME IT IS TRUE. DON'T DISCOUNT IT BECAUSE YA DON'T FEEL IT. But alas, too many people find that "It must be wrong since I can't understand it", is easier than sticking with the chore of learning it.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 19, 2013
Positive, zero or negative. Correct. But the "infinite" verses "finite" is not defined in the Planck findings, or the Lamda CDM model, or by the FLRW metrics. Either is "possible".

I agree that all observations tell us that we occupy a "flat" universe.


The results so far suggest |omega_k| < 0.009 but it could still be positive or negative by a small amount, say 10^-30.

But I also disagree that that implies an infinity.

[Flat] doesn't mean that the shape is a two dimensional plane. It has shape beyond two dimensions. Up-down, left-right, front-back. And three co-linear points will define a plane.


Of course we are talking about the spatial part of a 4-D manifold but the geometry remains the same, all planes in it are infinite. There is however at least one known alternative, that is a 4-D torus which can be flat but finite.

http://en.wikiped...at_torus

That is what I meant by "non-trivial topology".
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2013
Of course we are talking about the spatial part of a 4-D manifold but the geometry remains the same, all planes in it are infinite.


Only the abstract "edges" of the planes are infinite. But real things exist that are planer, without being infinite. A sheet of paper could be a planer object, it has finite borders, the abstract infinite plane it occupies may or may not be infinite, that is the philosophy aspect of which I refer.

I have seen no compelling argument that the physical universe is a physically infinite entity. Does it have the potential to BECOME infinite? That's a topic for the string theorists and philosophers, there just isn't a way to test it or observe it with current science.

There is however at least one known alternative, that is a 4-D torus which can be flat but finite.


That is where I "intuitively" stand. It will take someone much smarter than me to design a workable, meaningful test of it. Presently we can only say it "could be so".
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 20, 2013
Only the abstract "edges" of the planes are infinite. But real things exist that are planer, without being infinite. A sheet of paper could be a planer object, it has finite borders, the abstract infinite plane it occupies may or may not be infinite, that is the philosophy aspect of which I refer.


There is no sensible way for there to be an edge. Beyond that would have to be something other than the universe but the universe is defined as all that there is. The only way that works is if it is either infinite or wraps round. Either way, there is no boundary to space.

I have seen no compelling argument that the physical universe is a physically infinite entity.


I have seen no credible concept for "space beyond the universe" so unless the topology is a 4-torus or some other bizarre shape, a flat universe must be infinite. That is the accepted connection in the scientific model.

The only philosophical input to cosmology is the Copernican Principle but that is testable.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2013
I have seen no credible concept for "space beyond the universe"
If you're a floater at the water surface and the surface ripples are everything, what mediates the observable reality at it for you, then the boundary of universe is simply the visibility scope, before all waves will get scattered and the time dimension perpendicular to the water surface will become blurred with the space directions/dimensions parallel with water surface, so that they will become indistinguishable each other.

Why to introduce some implicit geometry into it, like the torus, hyperboloid or whatever else? The emergent random geometry is sufficiently rich geometry by itself.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2013
In AWT the least periodic structures inside of tightest particle packing geometry are nested dodecahedrons, the vortices of which can be recognized clearly inside the CMBR power spectrum. IMO Penrose and others don't understand the emergent model, so they put the neighboring universe into neighboring cells of this nested dodecahedron structure. I tend to consider them as a part of observable universe - why not? If we can see something, it definitely belongs into our universe. In this way the alternative universes can never exist: once we detect them, they will belong into our universe automatically. But we can put relevant question about largest periodic structure observable - and put the definition of our local universe into it. After then the parallel universes will become the neighboring cells of this largest periodic structures adjacent to our structure. IMO Penrose etc. think about parallel universe in this way. It's good to imagine, how the different concepts may be connected.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Apr 21, 2013
If you're a floater at the water surface and the surface ripples are everything, what mediates the observable reality at it for you, then the boundary of universe is simply the visibility scope, ...

Why to introduce some implicit geometry into it, like the torus, hyperboloid or whatever else?


Because we have to explain the structure we see within the contents of the universe, not just the horizon.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2013
Inside of fractal Perlin noise the largest observable geometry will be hyperbolic - no matter how large scale we take. It corresponds the CMBR Doppler anisotropy. But this geometry will be superposed to dodecahedron, which follows to the most compact particle packing. Some of vortices of dodecahedron will be blurred with hyperbolic geometry, some other enhanced.

More news stories

Cyber buddy is better than 'no buddy'

A Michigan State University researcher is looking to give exercise enthusiasts the extra nudge they need during a workout, and her latest research shows that a cyber buddy can help.