Rethinking the universe: Groundbreaking theory proposed in 1997 suggests a 'multiverse'

Jun 17, 2013

Some top scientists are beginning to worry that a radical idea proposed in 1997 by three University of Delaware physicists may be right.

If it is, then it could debunk some of the discoveries physicists were hoping to make at the Large Hadron Collider, the huge, multi-billion-dollar in Geneva, Switzerland, at which researchers recently discovered the famous "."

It would also suggest that we might be living in a "multiverse"—a universe that is much bigger than was once thought and in which the take different forms in different places.

An article, published by Simons Science News, explains some of this.

Linking to an influential paper by UD physics professors Stephen M. Barr, David Seckel, then-graduate student Vivek Agrawal, and John F. Donoghue, a professor and colleague at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, the article examines the "principle of naturalness," which for decades has been thought to govern the size of the numbers appearing in the laws of physics.

Generally, whenever some quantity was found to be much smaller than what physicists had thought to be its "natural" value, some new force, mechanism, or symmetry was discovered that explained the anomaly.

The UD professors' 1997 publication remains one of the major documents on the subject.

"It all has to do with one of the main theoretical puzzles in ," explains Barr. "Why is the mass of the 17 orders of magnitude smaller than its 'natural' value?"

Two explanations have been proposed, and both of them predict new phenomena that should be seen by the . But so far, there is no hint of them.

"That is why our radical proposal nearly 15 years ago is attracting increasing attention," he adds.

Their idea is that the Higgs boson mass has to have an "unnaturally" small value for life to be possible. In other words, if it didn't, we wouldn't be here.

Barr explains that one way to account for this is to say that the Higgs boson mass varies place to place (which can happen in a ) and only in those rare places where it has the right, unnaturally small value would life emerge and someone exist who could measure it.

Explore further: Serial time-encoded amplified microscopy for ultrafast imaging based on multi-wavelength laser

Related Stories

Physicist clarifies Higgs boson in human terms

May 31, 2013

Why did the journal Science name the Higgs boson – an elementary particle – last year's most important discovery? And why did it need something as enormous as the Large Hadron Collider, about 27 kilometers in diameter, to fin ...

Higgs Boson scientists win top Spanish prize

May 29, 2013

A British physicist and his Belgian colleague who all but identified the mysterious "God particle" that holds the universe together won a prestigious Spanish science prize on Wednesday.

Recommended for you

Timely arrival of Pharao space clock

13 hours ago

ESA has welcomed the arrival of Pharao, an important part of ESA's atomic clock experiment that will be attached to the International Space Station in 2016.

First in-situ images of void collapse in explosives

Jul 25, 2014

While creating the first-ever images of explosives using an x-ray free electron laser in California, Los Alamos researchers and collaborators demonstrated a crucial diagnostic for studying how voids affect ...

User comments : 106

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Moebius
1 / 5 (14) Jun 17, 2013
There isn't 'one' of anything except a few sacred cows. God, the universe and intelligent life. Seems much more likely they either don't exist or they aren't unique.
Anda
4.2 / 5 (14) Jun 17, 2013
That's once again not "news".
There are several multiverse theories based as well on standard model as on M theory.
Another sensationalist title. Hate them.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (24) Jun 17, 2013
It would also suggest that we might be living in a "multiverse"—a universe that is much bigger than was once thought and in which the laws of physics take different forms in different places.

Maybe it is no need the idea of a multiverse or new form of law of physics for explaining about what we got from LHC; it could be possible just to understand clearly about our conventional large scale universe according to general relativity and small scale of quantum world we live…
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
axemaster
4.6 / 5 (18) Jun 17, 2013
Wow, thanks so much for re-proposing the Anthropic Principle. By the way, can you specify any results or make any predictions using that? No? Go away.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (23) Jun 17, 2013
Wow, thanks so much for re-proposing the Anthropic Principle. By the way, can you specify any results or make any predictions using that? No? Go away.

Agreed. This seems like fitting the theory to the data without making any (testable) predictions.
Philosophically interesting, but scientifically not useful.
Tektrix
5 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2013
Wow, thanks so much for re-proposing the Anthropic Principle. By the way, can you specify any results or make any predictions using that? No? Go away.


Human-scale complexity emerged because it could, not because it was preordained. According to this theory, this particular universe just happens to have the right mix for people to develop- it doesn't imply that the universe was created to make people. There are all kinds of predictions that have been made about the organization of material structures in the universe. For instance, from what we see with our limited sight, humans are the most complexly organized system we're aware of. It doesn't mean we are THE most complex, but looking around us locally, so far, we're kind of it. We can thus say that for what we know of our local universe, human-scale complexity is pretty rare, leading one to predict that we won't be finding lot of other humans near by.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (23) Jun 17, 2013
"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfven

Ta-da! Imaginary conjecture...
Stevepidge
1.6 / 5 (26) Jun 17, 2013
Why do we as a species constantly seek to ascribe triviality to life itself. Scientists who wear the Anthropic Principle mantle almost have this weird drive to prove how insignificant we are. What if it wasn't random that the Higg's mass is so low? What if we were designed along with our universe by unknown creators? It seems in an effort to avoid the trappings and failings of religion, scientists have blinded themselves to even considering the possibility of design.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (32) Jun 17, 2013
Why do we as a species constantly seek to ascribe triviality to life itself. Scientists who wear the Anthropic Principle mantle almost have this weird drive to prove how insignificant we are. What if it wasn't random that the Higg's mass is so low? What if we were designed along with our universe by unknown creators? It seems in an effort to avoid the trappings and failings of religion, scientists have blinded themselves to even considering the possibility of design.
Religion has disproved itself. The people who wrote the books included stories about things we know never happened, and people we know never existed... and then included the claims that they were written by an omniscient and omnipotent god.

And so if an intelligence created the universe, we know at least that it wasnt the one described in any of the holy books.

And yes this needs to be repeated ad infinitum until you religionists are a sad but curious footnote in history. Like smallpox.
Stevepidge
2.3 / 5 (21) Jun 17, 2013
Not once did I mention that I am religious or ascribe to a particular belief. Yet here you are making wide brush accusations about who I am as a person, and even more disturbingly, hinting at the hopes that people like I go extinct. Yes religion is wrong in many many ways. However, there are age old philosophical questions on life and purpose that cannot simply be answered with logic and linear thinking. I personally am agnostic at best and was merely pointing out that anthropic principles are no more valid a course than the possibility of extra terrestrial design. We have all these hints at fine tuning, yet for some reason you CHOOSE to explain it with an equally dumbfounding explanation of rote statistical chance...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (23) Jun 17, 2013
making wide brush accusations about who I am as a person, and even more disturbingly, hinting at the hopes that people like I go extinct
So you are religious. Why be coy? Are you ashamed?
there are age old philosophical questions on life and purpose that cannot simply be answered with logic and linear thinking
-Or at all. Religionists and philosophers love to invent unanswerable questions and then pretend only they can answer them. It is outrageous bullshit.
We have all these hints at fine tuning, yet for some reason you CHOOSE to explain it with an equally dumbfounding explanation of rote statistical chance
Scientists CHOOSE to explain by examining the evidence. Religionists CHOOSE to disregard evidence entirely, as evinced by your books.

Your books are full of lies and thus are not useful in explaining anything but the gullibility of the average human and the desire of nefarious individuals to exploit that gullibility.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (21) Jun 17, 2013
Perhaps you are unaware of the dangers that your pleasant fantasies pose to the world. Lets let chris hitchens explain it to you
http://www.youtub...mje75kZo

The books are evil. The people who wrote them were evil. And the people who buy into them are guilty of purveying and of perpetuating that evil. As dawkins says, belief without evidence is evil, and religion is Nothing But.
OdinsAcolyte
2 / 5 (14) Jun 17, 2013
This is a most ancient idea. Anything one can imagine (and many things one cannot) does exist.
The multiverse is a natural outcome of math and has been implied for a hundred years. I thought you knew. Uh. This means heaven and hell both exist and so do all the dead universes.
Choose your door.
Stevepidge
1.9 / 5 (18) Jun 17, 2013
Hitchens is a deceased materialist hack, who spewed just as much hate and woe is the world bs as any religion. Thanks for clearing up your point of view.
Protoplasmix
1.8 / 5 (16) Jun 17, 2013
Well, if we can write ourselves off as random happenstance because the conditions of this universe are suited for it, it's not much of a stretch to imagine a set of conditions conducive to producing a life form that would have omnipotent qualities to the extent of being able to move and act freely in every universe of the multiverse.

Too much infinity? Prefer a single universe? Check your definition of omnipotence with the (optimistic) prediction that a life form in this solar system will have attained that level of ability well inside of five billion years. And stars in this universe have been shining for how long?
Solidproof_Layman
4.1 / 5 (23) Jun 17, 2013
@ vacuum-mechanics

I hope I am not being presumptuous but it seems like you have a wonderful app that allows you to automatically scan science articles and immediately post your opposing theory with remarkable consistency. I admire its rapid response time and ability to auto-generate a comment that mostly appears to mimic the context of the article. I could not imagine a real person who might do that.

Is this an available app, or was it written by you specifically for the purpose? (This truly is an embarrassing question if I am actually addressing the bot itself). In any event, it is admirably consistent and efficient, allowing your mission to go undeterred and undistracted by issues of relevance, a necessary function of the app I seek.

I want to promote the Moonless Earth theory - an under-appreciated solution for problems which even reasonable scientists seem to ignore.
http://en.wikiped...h_theory

Your tenacity and stoicism are admirable.
Frilla_Poo
2.9 / 5 (19) Jun 17, 2013
I want to promote the Moonless Earth theory - an under-appreciated solution for problems which even reasonable scientists seem to ignore.

I concur. Alexander Abian's recognition of the lunar "problem" falls perfectly in line with AWT. Lunar ripples have plagued us like unwanted waves on the waters of our earthly existence since aether has existed. The recognition that global warming has been a lunar problem requires that ripples of clarity ride the aether into the waters of our reason. Vacuum-mechanics sets an exemplary example of confident persistence with his posts. You would do well to emulate that relentless obstinance.

It also comes to mind that anyone who has seriously studied the Plutonium Atom Totality theory should immediately recognize the remarkably similar relevance of both AWT and the ME solution.

Remember: The terms "lack of evidence", "fraudulent nonsense" and "refuted" are not productive to brilliant thinker who exists ahead of his time.
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 18, 2013
The probability of me being here is even more remote than the probability of the universe being here.

This is even stronger evidence for the existence of a Multiverse.

Stuuuuuuuuuuuuuupid..........
alfie_null
5 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2013
@ vacuum-mechanics
I hope I am not being presumptuous but it seems like you have a wonderful app ...


Not that wonderful. Clever maybe. What's driving VM's account is just a variant of the old (50 year!) Eliza program, with a few shims. I suspect many people could set something like this up, with minimal programming skills.
Requiem
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 18, 2013
Completely talking out of my ass here, but since that's what everybody seems to be doing on this thread, maybe the universe is infinitely fractal in nature in both directions, and these alternate universes with different rules represent different levels of organization.
gwrede
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 18, 2013
Their idea is that the Higgs boson mass has to have an "unnaturally" small value for life to be possible. In other words, if it didn't, we wouldn't be here.

Barr explains that one way to account for this is to say that the Higgs boson mass varies place to place (which can happen in a multiverse) and only in those rare places where it has the right, unnaturally small value would life emerge and someone exist who could measure it.
Uhhuh. Well, I think gravity has an unnaturally low value right here, so that proves Creation.

Or, could it be that we don't yet understand enough physics?
yl2j
5 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2013
I thought 'multiverse' was a quite natural assumption to make, not something radical. We're not close minded, it is just that the 'world' we currently know is limited. We're usually only open to the possibilities this limited world provides us. We can only see that far yet. For example, some scientist in the 1600s would be totally convinced that gravitational acceleration is 9.8m/s2, because all his tests came back averaged to that number. Little did he know that that acceleration is limited to Earth, That is the 'world' s/he lives in; that is the limit of his/her understanding. It would have been inconceivable to think of oneself standing on another planet. There was no basis to think in such a way.
Bog_Mire
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2013
yl2j -nicely put. I also like the way KSR put it:

"This vain presumption, of understanding everything, can have no other basis than never understanding anything. For anyone who had experienced just once the understanding of one single thing, thus truly tasting how knowledge is accomplished, would then recognize that of the infinity of other truths, he understands nothing." In Galileo's Dream.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (16) Jun 18, 2013
Hitchens is a deceased materialist hack
-Who was always right about the lies your religion is based upon, and the extreme danger that it and all its kind pose to the world.

It is obvious that you havent been forthcoming about your own faith. Why is it that religionists such as yourself feel justified in breaking any and all of your commandments, and a few deadly sins to boot, in order to defend it?

Is it because your books tell you that this is perfectly ok and then give you innumerable examples of just how to go about it with a song in your hearts?

"So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan."

-Words to live by.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 18, 2013
Check your definition of omnipotence with the (optimistic) prediction that a life form in this solar system will have attained that level of ability well inside of five billion years
And what makes you think that such a being wouldnt be governed by the same physical laws as everything else? In which case it would not be the omnipotent, omniscient creator and suspender of said physical laws for fun and thrills.

And there would still be no reason to believe that it would care whether we loved and feared it, or would grant wishes and impart immortality to those of us who did, or would be interested in torturing those of us who did not for eternity.

One of the fundamental laws of nature says that information cannot be destroyed. This is the basis for our trust in evidence.

The possible existence of a deist god has absolutely nothing to do with the impossible existence of the bookgods, which evidence tells us never existed.
Bog_Mire
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2013
C'mon Nutello/ evasion is all we get out of you and your socks man! You must be 'avin a laff man! Evasion! Man, the irony is almost too painful! Ouch! Do you ever go back and read the crap you write here man?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Jun 18, 2013
Do you ever go back and read the crap you write here man?
Ooops, did I make some arguable mistake above?
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 18, 2013
Check your definition of omnipotence with the (optimistic) prediction that a life form in this solar system will have attained that level of ability well inside of five billion years. And stars in this universe have been shining for how long?


How long? Between 0 and 13 billions of years. So with a total number of stars of about 10^22 stars. If it only happened here and no where else, this would be remarkable.

10^22 chances of something happening if it has 1.3*10^10 years to happen in,,,is a pretty safe bet, as long as the physics permit it. And we are proof physics permits it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 18, 2013
as long as the physics permit it. And we are proof physics permits it
We are neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

"om·nip·o·tent adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.
n.
1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God."

"om·nis·cient adj.
Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.
n.
1. One having total knowledge.
2. Omniscient God."

-And as the laws of physics and common sense forbid such states, they could never be 'attained'. EVER.
Protoplasmix
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 18, 2013
And what makes you think that such a being wouldnt be governed by the same physical laws as everything else? In which case it would not be the omnipotent, omniscient creator and suspender of said physical laws for fun and thrills.

If you had to answer such questions from a people who as yet lacked the proper understanding of the underlying physics, you might phrase it in general terms like, 'but it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tiny stroke of a letter in the law to become void.' Note that isn't likely a reference to 'human' law. And I wouldn't discount the possibility that such a being might interact in the least invasive way possible. Note also that I'm not advocating literal interpretations of any specific religious doctrine.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Jun 18, 2013
Multiverse = Many Worlds, Say Physicist Two of the most bizarre ideas in modern physics are different sides of the same coin, says string theorist (his article may serve as an example, you don't need any math for your reasoning in contemporary physics - well, at least if you're famous physicist).
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 18, 2013
as long as the physics permit it. And we are proof physics permits it
We are neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

"om·nip·o·tent adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.
n.
1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God."

"om·nis·cient adj.
Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.
n.
1. One having total knowledge.
2. Omniscient God."

-And as the laws of physics and common sense forbid such states, they could never be 'attained'. EVER.


I was probably unclear, my fault entirely,,,, I am firmly in your camp on the "god", "supernatural" debate.
Protoplasmix
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 18, 2013
How long? Between 0 and 13 billions of years.

I specified our solar system, which started forming a little over 4 billion years ago. Point was if we've come so far so fast, others in this universe (which started forming a little over 13 billion years ago) are likely further along, beyond the point that surpasses our current understanding.
Protoplasmix
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 18, 2013
With regard to possibilities, if there's a nonzero probability for something to occur, then it probably does. In one of the simplest events there is to calculate, a photon goes from A to B, you have to include a term for every possibility, e.g., the photon turns into an electron and positron. All possibilities are accounted for.

I wouldn't try to explain DNA to someone who lacked a proper background; easier to say, 'all the hairs on your head have been counted'...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (13) Jun 18, 2013
I was probably unclear, my fault entirely,,,, I am firmly in your camp on the "god", "supernatural" debate
But protospaz was very clear.
With regard to possibilities, if there's a nonzero probability for something to occur, then it probably does
You are implying that there are no zero-probabilities which is false.

For something with infinite knowledge and infinite power to develop out of an entirely finite universe governed by finite physical laws, is clearly impossible. Except in the minds of religionists who only have to stamp their feet and say 'is too is too!!'

No its not.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Jun 18, 2013
.. if there's a nonzero probability for something to occur, then it probably does .. You are implying that there are no zero-probabilities which is false...
You're rather implying, you've problem with predicate logics.
antialias_physorg
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2013
For something with infinite knowledge and infinite power to develop out of an entirely finite universe governed by finite physical laws, is clearly impossible.

Never thought I'd jump to the aid of religionists - but you're willfully misrepresenting their position here.

They are claiming exactly the reverse: That a finite universe and physical laws (what exactly are 'finite' physical laws, BTW?) can come from an infinite knowledge/power being. That conclusion itself is reasonable.
(The assumption of an infinitely powerfull/knowledgeable entity is not.)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 18, 2013
For something with infinite knowledge and infinite power to develop out of an entirely finite universe governed by finite physical laws, is clearly impossible.

Never thought I'd jump to the aid of religionists - but you're willfully misrepresenting their position here.

They are claiming exactly the reverse: That a finite universe and physical laws (what exactly are 'finite' physical laws, BTW?) can come from an infinite knowledge/power being. That conclusion itself is reasonable.
(The assumption of an infinitely powerfull/knowledgeable entity is not.)
But thats not what protoplastic was saying...
Well, if we can write ourselves off as random happenstance because the conditions of this universe are suited for it, it's not much of a stretch to imagine a set of conditions conducive to producing a life form that would have omnipotent qualities
-Which cannot be possible. And 'omnipotent' can only be one quality, not a bunch of them. See 'infinite'.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 18, 2013
The assumption of an infinitely powerful/knowledgeable entity is not.


But what about the Universe itself? Does or can the Universe "know" all of which is within it? Can the Universe have a conscience, similar to Jung's 'Collective Unconscious' so to speak? Rupert Sheldrake has done much research into 'morphic resonance' and 'morphic fields' and has shown connections that are statistically beyond chance. Maybe there is more to the Universe than just the mindless mechanistic entity modern science presupposes.
As far as we are concerned, does it not take an infinite amount of energy/power to drive what could possibly be an infinite universe? Maybe the Universe itself is "god", we are all it's children and maybe, just maybe one can attain a "religious experience" by connecting or plugging one's mind into this 'Collective unconscious'.

Then again, maybe not...
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 18, 2013
............ does it not take an infinite amount of energy/power to drive what could possibly be an infinite universe?


If the universe were infinite in size, this would certainly be the case. But where would you get the infinite energy? Energy that drives the universe is a transformation of mass & we of course know the universe does not contain infinite mass, therefore it is easily established the universe cannot be infinite in size.

Protoplasmix
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 18, 2013
-Which cannot be possible. And 'omnipotent' can only be one quality, not a bunch of them. See 'infinite'.

That's like saying omnidirectional can only be one direction. See 'Latin' :)
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 18, 2013

If the universe were infinite in size, this would certainly be the case. But where would you get the infinite energy? Energy that drives the universe is a transformation of mass & we of course know the universe does not contain infinite mass, therefore it is easily established the universe cannot be infinite in size.


How exactly do we "know" this? We can only see as far as we can see, and it's debatable how far that really is.

"The universe is an unending transformation in flux whose previous states we are not privileged to know." David Bohm
Requiem
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2013
I'm not in the hippy gaia camp with cantdrive85, but I do think that it's arrogant to assume that if such a cosmically small and simple structure/system as a brain(even a worm brain, for example) can exhibit consciousness, that a much larger and more complicated system such as a star would be incapable of such just because we can't observe it.

Even if something that large had an observable consciousness or intelligence, it would probably unfold over large amounts of time relative to us as observers simply because it takes a relatively long time for information to propagate within the system itself.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2013
If the universe were infinite in size, this would certainly be the case. But where would you get the infinite energy? Energy that drives the universe is a transformation of mass & we of course know the universe does not contain infinite mass, therefore it is easily established the universe cannot be infinite in size.


How exactly do we "know" this?


Because E=mc*2 is a testable little factoid. Energy can only exist where there is transformation of mass to create it. The fact that we can calculate the entropy properties of the Universe is proof there is not an unending source of energy available.

We can only see as far as we can see, and it's debatable how far that really is.


For certain it is debatable what the size of the limited Universe is, but it is limited in size because it's contents have a fixed quantity of mass.

"The universe is an unending transformation in flux whose previous states we are not privileged to know." David Bohm
Really?[
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2013
As far as we are concerned, does it not take an infinite amount of energy/power to drive what could possibly be an infinite universe?


No, gravitational binding energy is negative and it turns out the total energy is zero. That can be proven for a closed universe or for an open one using pseudo-tensors and is asymptotic for a flat, infinite universe which is the current best fit to observation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (13) Jun 19, 2013
-Which cannot be possible. And 'omnipotent' can only be one quality, not a bunch of them. See 'infinite'.

That's like saying omnidirectional can only be one direction. See 'Latin' :)
The word means infinitely powerful in ALL things. A thing which was infinitely powerful in only one thing, as in infinitely ignorant, would not be omnipotent would you? See 'english'.

""om·nip·o·tent adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite."
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2013
As far as we are concerned, does it not take an infinite amount of energy/power to drive what could possibly be an infinite universe?


No, gravitational binding energy is negative and it turns out the total energy is zero. That can be proven for a closed universe


YES...........gravitational binding energy is negative & it turns out the total energy is zero. That can be proven for a closed system.............ONLY.

or for an open one using pseudo-tensors


A pseudo- tensor? You can prove an infinite universe exists using equations that are not invariant? Two back to back assumptions & speculative math is not good science, ENTROPY is.

and is asymptotic for a flat, infinite universe which is the current best fit to observation.


Really, you've been out there & you've observed a zero rise/run universe? The fact of the matter is they do measure rise/run but it doesn't fit a value that a tiny number of theorists like, so they throw the number away.
Stevepidge
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2013
Hitchens is a deceased materialist hack
-Who was always right about the lies your religion is based upon, and the extreme danger that it and all its kind pose to the world.

It is obvious that you havent been forthcoming about your own faith. Why is it that religionists such as yourself feel justified in breaking any and all of your commandments, and a few deadly sins to boot, in order to defend it?

/sigh I have already told you specifically, I am NOT a believer in any religion. I'm not just saying this as some sort of cryptic speech for you to interpret my real feelings. I am telling you flat out I am not a religionist. I unlike you understand that many of the forces the religious seek to explain, albeit terribly are universal. There is always 2, always opposing forces and given the cyclical nature of existence I CAN imagine a future where a new religion becomes the driver in regards to explaining existence.
Requiem
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2013
/sigh I have already told you specifically, I am NOT a believer in any religion. I'm not just saying this as some sort of cryptic speech for you to interpret my real feelings. I am telling you flat out I am not a religionist. I unlike you understand that many of the forces the religious seek to explain, albeit terribly are universal. There is always 2, always opposing forces and given the cyclical nature of existence I CAN imagine a future where a new religion becomes the driver in regards to explaining existence.


Religion may lead some other, benign, intelligent race, perhaps one that evolved in an environment where competition for resources was not a driving force, to discovering the true nature of existence, but I wouldn't hold my breath for humanity to take that path.

Humans derive a power structure, which then gets corrupted, from religion in general. It's in our nature.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 20, 2013
That can be proven ................ for an open one using pseudo-tensors and is asymptotic for a flat, infinite universe which is the current best fit to observation.


Only if you're standing in front of a mirror dressed up in your "trekkie" costume fantasizing you've just transformed yourself into a futuristic scientist living in a make believe universe of warp drives & wormholes & a host of other nonsensical infinity related variables, you know, like" asymptotic pseudo-tensors", stuff so far beyond reality as to be laughable.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2013
That can be proven ................ for an open one using pseudo-tensors and is asymptotic for a flat, infinite universe which is the current best fit to observation.


Only if you're standing in front of a mirror dressed up in your "trekkie" costume fantasizing you've just transformed yourself into a futuristic scientist living in a make believe universe of warp drives & wormholes & a host of other nonsensical infinity related variables, you know, like" asymptotic pseudo-tensors", stuff so far beyond reality as to be laughable.


Well take it up with John Baez and those he cites, here's the entry from the Physics FAQ:

http://math.ucr.e..._gr.html
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2013
That can be proven ................ for an open one using pseudo-tensors and is asymptotic for a flat, infinite universe which is the current best fit to observation.


Only if you're standing in front of a mirror dressed up in your "trekkie" costume fantasizing you've just transformed yourself into a futuristic scientist living in a make believe universe of warp drives & wormholes & a host of other nonsensical infinity related variables, you know, like" asymptotic pseudo-tensors", stuff so far beyond reality as to be laughable.


Well take it up with John Baez and those he cites, here's the entry from the Physics FAQ:

http://math.ucr.e..._gr.html


He lives in the same fantasy Universe as yourself crickey mate ol' boy.......probably wishes he too could pass a course or two in Thermodynamics & learn something about ENTROPY as I have done.

Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2013
Well take it up with John Baez and those he cites, here's the entry from the Physics FAQ:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html" title="http://http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://math.ucr.e..._gr.html



.. probably wishes he too could pass a course or two in Thermodynamics & learn something about ENTROPY as I have done.


Perhaps you could help him with this paper he wrote on the subject then:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.1791

Or the physics FAQ entry he wrote about it in 2000:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/entropy.html" title="http://http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/entropy.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://math.ucr.e...opy.html

A bit more about him:

http://en.wikiped..._C._Baez

Home page:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/
philw1776
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 22, 2013
Among many things that bother me about the Anthropic Principle is that it says the conditions of this universe are fine tuned for life such as ours. If there is a multiverse with an infinity of values for physical constants, wouldn't it be most probable for us to exist instead in one of the universes super tuned for life with life abundant throughout on a grand scale? Why such a sparse universe with only tiny dust motes capable of supporting what we call life? Isn't our particular universe more improbable than probable in this paradigm?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2013
Among many things that bother me about the Anthropic Principle is that it says the conditions of this universe are fine tuned for life such as ours. If there is a multiverse with an infinity of values for physical constants, wouldn't it be most probable for us to exist instead in one of the universes super tuned for life with life abundant throughout on a grand scale?
No as we are in this one. Somebody else is in the other one.
Isn't our particular universe more improbable than probable in this paradigm?
What is the probability that right now you are in peoria and not aruba where its nicer?

You ask funny questions.
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 22, 2013
Well take it up with John Baez


I think he should have been awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics, and for Chemistry and for Medicine for this:

The Crackpot Index
John Baez

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

1. A -5 point starting credit.

2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

To Be Cont,,,,,
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 22, 2013
10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

There's more,,,,,,,
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 22, 2013
17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

Let us not stop here,,,,,,,

Q-Star
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2013
24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

28. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

More yeppers,,,,,,,,
Q-Star
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2013
31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

Only one more, I promise,,,,,,
Q-Star
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2013
36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

© 1998 John Baez
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu

Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 22, 2013
Religion is a cultural phenomenon that provides its practitioners a "security" of sorts. These people are no better or worse than any other, just different. This really is no different than science in many ways.
In science, you produce a theory, and that theory predicts certain things. Then this is tested, and retested, and peer reviewed, and then published. This allows others to test and to weigh in on said science and theory, to prove or disprove. Then the Public uses this science to build things. This is how good science is done.
But what I see happening is that others, reading said science, take the thoughts of others as "gospel" and perform other scientific tests… not to say that this is wrong, but until you, as a scientist, actually perform all the same tests of the predecessors that you are trying to build upon, then it is no different really. You accept, based upon logic and the authority of those who are appointed over you, that these things are true. Just because you CAN do the experiment, does not mean the experiment WORKS. (just look at the Cold Fusion debacle… and yet it still survives). Empirical data must be observed first hand, and until you produce results you can see, disproving all other theories, then science is no different than religion in that it passes on data for others to believe or not believe, and to attempt to reproduce as they are able.
My father believes in his religion. I believe in science. But until I can REPRODUCE those scientific tests so that he can see for himself, it is just my word against his. He has his "book" as it has been said, and I have mine. My belief has produced cell phones, computers, the space shuttle, etc. His book has produced a belief system that eventually produced a country where all forms of belief are (supposed to be) tolerated, education was free, movement and certain "inalienable rights" were said to belong to all individuals, and plenty of really long periods of warfare and hatred that gave us idea's that also contributed to science, as well as everything else.
Everyone has a security blanket. Religion is for some… not for others. But to say it serves no purpose is to say that relativity, or QED served no purpose.
Personally, I am a die-hard Apathetic. Without definitive empirical proof of something, then its ALL crap.
meBigGuy
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 22, 2013
What is the fundamental difference between saying that something powerful caused this Universe and saying something akin to it being one of an infinite number that we happen to be in? Seems like both are just an arbitrary fabrication with philosophical implications.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Jun 22, 2013
This similarity goes even deeper, as it has sociological origin: In both cases the influential people are spreading such an religion for to keep their informational monopoly and social credit.The multiverse concept serves for the exactly the same purpose like the God concept: to provide explanation, why existing theories and their proponents aren't universally valid. When the medieval priests could not explain something (which was indeed quite often), they only said: Well, God just wants it so, it's God's will - and they were ready. When contemporary cosmologists and/or string theorists face failure of their theories in some point, they just say: well, it's because we are living in wrong multiverse...;-) We are even paying willingly for their disinformations.
Nikstlitselpmur
1 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2013
The concept of a hollow universe and us located inside it is counter intuitive, we live on the outside membran of the universe, and it is filled with the stuff we call the space time fabric, light being an EM wave is restricted to following the magnetic field outside the universe.. The galaxies are slowing sinking farther and into the field of the universe.,Light cannot penetrate the field it must always follow the outside curvature of the universe, think of raisins sinking into a blob of dough, the light must travel up the gravity well and along the outside of the dough and then down the gravity well the observer is in. As the galaxies sink farther into the dough the distance light must travel from galaxy to galaxy increases. While light cannot penetrate the dough it must follow the electro magnetic field generated by the collective mass sinking further into the dough along the lines of the EMF created outside the universe, light can't penetrate it but the effect of gravity can.
Egleton
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2013
Reading the anti-Diest diatribes posted here is painfully embarassing. They remind me of myself 50 years ago.
"Seek and do not stop looking until you find, When you find you will be perplexed. When perplexed, astounded. And rule over all." Jesus Christ, Gospel of St. Thomas.

Should that not be nailed above every physicists door?
Repy
1 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2013
Why is it considered such a radical idea? And why are we so scared of being wrong? Can't we just accept that there's some things beyond our understanding? Sometimes I think we're so convinced we know everything we forget humility, there's no need to be scared of being wrong..
Vyhea
4 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2013
Here's a test question for several of the last posters.

Class. Pay attention now.

What do we call that syndrome of conceptual bungling when our human emotion substitutes a favored imaginary friend for lack of actual scientific insight?

Class? Anyone?

Remember now, it's been used over and over, again and again throughout history when we cannot conceive of something - always to be later explained by good old science.

Class? Anyone?

Okay, it's called "[blank] of the Gaps".

Okay, I'll repeat, it's called "[blank] of the Gaps"

Class? Anyone? Looking for [blank] of the gaps we use when we're overwhelmed by something we cannot conceive of.

Anyone? Bueller?

Oh crap.
Andrew Palfreyman
1 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2013
Wow, thanks so much for re-proposing the Anthropic Principle. By the way, can you specify any results or make any predictions using that? No? Go away.

I second that emotion. It's anthropic rubbish
Andrew Palfreyman
1 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2013
Reading the anti-Diest diatribes posted here is painfully embarassing. They remind me of myself 50 years ago.
"Seek and do not stop looking until you find, When you find you will be perplexed. When perplexed, astounded. And rule over all." Jesus Christ, Gospel of St. Thomas.

Should that not be nailed above every physicists door?

Your spelling is embarrassing. Your quotation of neolithic sheep-shaggers in a scientific context is embarrassing. Your implication that somehow you have evolved by swallowing a liturgical bunch of nonsense is embarrassing.
gwrede
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 23, 2013
Can't we just accept that there's some things beyond our understanding?
Sure. Such people are found as teachers in kindergarten.

Which is OK, because that is an important job, too. But those who don't accept it, and have an innate need to pursue knowledge, they should become scientists.

Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2013
"Seek and do not stop looking until you find, .."
Should that not be nailed above every physicists door?


Yes, with the abstract: "Confirmation Bias ahead, abandon hope all ye who enter here!".

http://en.wikiped...ion_bias
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2013
Among many things that bother me about the Anthropic Principle is that it says the conditions of this universe are fine tuned for life such as ours.


That's the Strong Anthropic Principle, there is one universe whose parameters were tuned for life.

If there is a multiverse with an infinity of values for physical constants, wouldn't it be most probable for us to exist instead in one of the universes super tuned for life with life abundant throughout on a grand scale?


That's the Weak Anthropic Principle, there are many universes with a range of parameters, some suitable for life and some not. We of course must find ourselves in one that is.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2013
Can't we just accept that there's some things beyond our understanding?
Currently the multiverse model is just redundant, because the simple dense aether model explains it better without assumption of Big Bang model. The multiverse model has been proposed just to save the Big Bang cosmology by allowing it to happen all around us in much larger infinite Universe.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2013
37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.


Like using "asymptotic pseudo-tensors" as a basis for evidence of a flat infinite universe?
Urgelt
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2013
The LHC results for the Higgs bosun do not confirm the multiple universe hypothesis, because the multiple universe hypothesis does not predict the Higgs mass.

Please get back to us when the hypothesis makes a prediction that can be tested. That will be newsworthy.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2013
That's the Strong Anthropic Principle, there is one universe whose parameters were tuned for life.

That's the Weak Anthropic Principle, there are many universes with a range of parameters, some suitable for life and some not. We of course must find ourselves in one that is.


And the crux of the matter is that neither gives you any sort of information (i.e. you can't base any kind of prediction on either to test). So the anthropic principles are pretty useless as theories/laws/principles go.

When you boil them down using philosphy/logical principles they say nothing more than "existence exists" - which is a tautology. It sounds cool but it tells you nothing.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2013
Can't we just accept that there's some things beyond our understanding?
Currently the multiverse model is just redundant, because the simple dense aether model explains it better without assumption of Big Bang model. The multiverse model has been proposed just to save the Big Bang cosmology by allowing it to happen all around us in much larger infinite Universe.


Your back to posting garbage again, shame.

The Big Bang model applies to a single universe, i.e. ours. Whether there are other similar, unconnected constructs existing in parallel with ours is purely speculative.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2013
37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.


Like using "asymptotic pseudo-tensors" as a basis for evidence of a flat infinite universe?


The evidence for an almost flat universe comes from the WMAP, Planck and BAO observations but whether it is exactly flat or just very close due to inflation is not measurable.

What the maths says is simply that the argument that an infinite universe requires infinite energy is fallacious. The universe may or may not be infinite, we don't know which, but there is no argument or observation that rules out either possibility.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Jun 24, 2013
Whether there are other similar, unconnected constructs existing in parallel with ours is purely speculative
Big bang theory itself is speculative. In recent years Penrose and other astronomers collected multiple evidence for multiverse ("circles" in CMBR noise, axis of evil etc.), which don't fit Big Bang model. We have evidence of much larger universe than Big Bang theory predicts. Of course, the multiverse cosmology is another misunderstanding of universe, just from opposite side with respect to AWT.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Jun 24, 2013
Like using "asymptotic pseudo-tensors" as a basis for evidence of a flat infinite universe?


The evidence for an almost flat universe comes from the WMAP


I know about the WMAP & it provides "evidence" for no such thing. The evidence it provides is a small but measurable rise/run across the observable distance of the universe, the argument you "Asymptotic Pseudo-Tensorists" like to conclude from this is that this must be instrumentation error because of your pre-conceived conclusions that the Universe is infinite.

What the observational evidence really means is that the rise/run measured along the observable arc of the spherical universe is so small, that everything we presently observe is only a tiny fraction of the total that really exists, it can't mean anything else because if there is an infinite parameter in any direction, an entropic universe could never have established itself & we wouldn't be here discussing your psycho-babble Asymptotic Pseudo-Tensors.
Neinsense99
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 24, 2013
Among many things that bother me about the Anthropic Principle is that it says the conditions of this universe are fine tuned for life such as ours.


That's the Strong Anthropic Principle, there is one universe whose parameters were tuned for life.

If there is a multiverse with an infinity of values for physical constants, wouldn't it be most probable for us to exist instead in one of the universes super tuned for life with life abundant throughout on a grand scale?


That's the Weak Anthropic Principle, there are many universes with a range of parameters, some suitable for life and some not. We of course must find ourselves in one that is.

If the Strong Anthropic Principle and the Weak Anthropic Principle were to have an arm wrestle... Oh, never mind....
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Jun 24, 2013
What the maths says is simply that the argument that an infinite universe requires infinite energy is fallacious.


I've never seen those kinds of "maths" in any of my Thermodynamics courses in college when learning nuclear reactor design, but neither have I seen all the episodes of Star Trek or been to any of their conventions decked out in a Trekkie costume where ENTROPY is unheard of. You're doing a bang up job of being whimsical but your leaky universe won't hold energy long enough to startup a single star, much less uncounted trillions of galaxies.

The universe may or may not be infinite, we don't know which......


Sure we do. If the universe were infinite E=mc*2 wouldn't work, it would require infinite energy to inflate it & there is no such thing as infinite mass for the source of infinite energy that would be needed. Just more of your Asymptotic Pseudo-Tensor psycho-babble because you still have not taken your first semester of Thermodynamics.............
Q-Star
2 / 5 (8) Jun 24, 2013

I've never seen those kinds of "maths" in any of my Thermodynamics courses in college when learning nuclear reactor design,


That is a disturbing thought.

If the universe were infinite E=mc*2 wouldn't work,


Still struggling with first principles? Is E = mc^2 the only thing ya can parrot? Ya seem to think that it's all there is. Until ya master first principles,,, ya really should leave the big ideas alone. (But ya have much good company on this forum in that.)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2013
What the maths says is simply that the argument that an infinite universe requires infinite energy is fallacious.


I've never seen those kinds of "maths" in any of my Thermodynamics courses in college ..


So take a more advanced course instead.

your leaky universe won't hold energy long enough to startup a single star, much less uncounted trillions of galaxies.


Cosmology 101: The universe is everything there is, hence energy has no other place to leak to. It can only move around within it.

The universe may or may not be infinite, we don't know which......


Sure we do. If the universe were infinite E=mc*2 wouldn't work, it would require infinite energy ..


Oops, wrong again. Gravitational binding energy is negative, the sum is zero.

because you still have not taken your first semester of Thermodynamics...


ROFL, I covered that when I got my degree, long before you were born.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2013
Big bang theory itself is speculative.


It obviously follows from the Friedmann Equations and the measured Hubble Constant. You have to speculate wildly to avoid it.

In recent years Penrose and other astronomers collected multiple evidence for multiverse ("circles" in CMBR noise, axis of evil etc.), which don't fit Big Bang model.


Searches have been made for circles but none were found. The "axis of evil" is at the margins of the statistics and may be a calibration problem like that of the SPT results.

We have evidence of much larger universe than Big Bang theory predicts.


The big bang predicts a spatially infinite universe if it is flat (as results suggest) or negatively curved, so you don't even know what it says if you can make that error.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2013
The evidence for an almost flat universe comes from the WMAP


I know about the WMAP & it provides "evidence" for no such thing.


You obviously don't know it as well as you imagine:

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

The evidence it provides is a small but measurable rise/run across the observable distance of the universe,


If by "rise/run" you mean omega_k, that is not true. See table 10 of http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5076

Some combinations of data suggest positive curvature, some negative and Planck+WP+BAO is perfectly flat.

What the observational evidence really means is that the rise/run measured along the observable arc of the spherical universe is so small, that everything we presently observe is only a tiny fraction of the total that really exists,


There we agree, but whether the whole is just very much larger or infinite is something we cannot decide based on current data.
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Jun 24, 2013
ROFL, I covered that when I got my degree, long before you were born.


Now I see your problem............
Neinsense99
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 25, 2013
In this age of illiteracy, I'd almost settle for some decent writtenverse!
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2013
Ah, yes. And oldie but goldie. However, there is much possibilities for supersymmetry to save "naturalness" @ LHC.

And the crackpots, especially the "god"-botherers and the "aether"-sockpuppetry, is out in force. You can smell the desperation as relativity now is a must for cosmology.

@Benni: "YES...........gravitational binding energy is negative & it turns out the total energy is zero. That can be proven for a closed system.............ONLY."

No, pseudotensors or entropy on the observable universe only take you so far. The zero total energy result applies to all FRW universes when you look at the Hamiltonian phase space system behavior:
http://iopscience....web.pdf
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2013
@AAP: "And the crux of the matter is that neither gives you any sort of information (i.e. you can't base any kind of prediction on either to test). So the anthropic principles are pretty useless as theories/laws/principles go.

When you boil them down using philosphy/logical principles they say nothing more than "existence exists" - which is a tautology. It sounds cool but it tells you nothing."

You must have read another article.

Anthropic/environmental theory (based on the WAP) predicts parameter ranges that will be most likely for life and that we will observe those. Palpably Weinberg and Barr et al made such predictions, and the test was done by comparsion to observation.

Such tests will tell us a multiverse exists, which is cool. It is also natural, since we never see one object as a result of a process. One electron field, but many electrons say. So unless you have constraints that aposteriori chooses a unique object, we should expect many universes.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2013
@ValeriaT: "Big bang theory itself is speculative."

A very stupid lie. _All_ cosmologists agrees to a big bang as an observation, even the remaining steady state models have such a phase. [ This is taken from "Trenches of Discovery", a blog by a cosmologist reviewing post-Planck conferences. ]

So the differences are in details, not the big bang process description.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2013
Anthropic/environmental theory (based on the WAP) predicts parameter ranges that will be most likely for life and that we will observe those.

The way I read it they predict their own (previous) observation - which isn't a prediction at all.

If you predict life favoring conditions (and them measure those predictions) based on something done by living scientists then you have a problem in your experimental setup (i.e. foregone conclusion) - because there is no way they could have gotten anything else.

I'm not holding out much hope for that avenue of approach to tell us anything about multiverses. I'm thinking that novel symmetry breaking in a collider or somesuch will sooner tell us what the likelyhood for multiverses is (i.e. by telling us whether the evolution of a universe can follow different paths - and how easily those paths can be taken)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2013
The zero total energy result applies to all FRW universes when you look at the Hamiltonian phase space system behavior:

http://iopscience....web.pdf


Thanks for posting that, an interesting analysis and conclusion:

"It seems inconceivable that the cosmos could emerge from any physical system that has nonvanishing total energy. This would require an exchange of energy between the universe and a third system, making a cosmological spacetime an open system from the thermodynamical point of view."
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Jun 26, 2013
_All_ cosmologists agrees to a big bang as an observation, even the remaining steady state models have such a phase
_All_? Definitely not. Einstein, Hubble, Hoyle, Zwicky, Burbidge, Alfven, Arp etc. all opposed the Big Bang model. In 2004, an 'Open Letter to the Scientific Community' disputing the Big Bang theory was signed by 33 scientists and has been published on the internet and in the science journal New Scientist. The letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Big Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.
Q-Star
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2013
All_? Definitely not. Einstein, Hubble, Hoyle, Zwicky, Burbidge, Alfven, Arp etc. all opposed the Big Bang model


Let me help ya Zeph,,,,

Einstein? He told Lamaitre "it was the most beautiful description of the universe that he had ever heard."

Hubble? Yes, then No, then Yes again, then No again, & end the end just said he was not a theorist, only an observer.

Hoyle? He said NO. (He also said human disease comes from outer space. And many other weird things.)

Zwicky? He said NO in the 30's but came around after Gamow and Alpher published in the 40's. After that he was one of the strongest supporters.

Burbridge? He said NO. But he also said anything Hoyle told him to say,,,, even though he also changed his mind in 1965 when Penzias & Wilson did their thing.

Alfven? He was a NO, but he too changed many of his views later life.

Arp? Yeah is a NO guy, but he has the distinction of being a person who can accept having mistakes pointed out to him even by himself.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Jun 26, 2013
In dense aether model the universe appears like giant density fluctuations of gas, which are condensing and evaporating again. Laura Mersini describes it like giant quantum wave travelling from place to place. It's effectively a steady-state multiverse model hybridized with cyclic universe. Big bang theory is already dead - no matter, how you will call its successor.
Q-Star
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2013
Big bang theory is dead.


How can it be dead? 99% of the professionals in any field touching cosmology hold to it. That's sounds pretty robust to me.

This one is dead:

dense aether model


It was stillborn. It has three proponents. 1) Zephyr. 2) ValeriaT. and 3) natello. After 10 years those are the only supporters,,,, now that sounds dead.

What does the word "dead" mean in the Czech Republic?

Q-Star
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2013
Laura Mersini describes it like giant quantum wave travelling from place to place


I've told ya before that Laura teaches the standard Lamda-CDM. She is definitely not an Aether adherent.

It's effectively a steady-state multiverse model hybridized with cyclic universe.


So ya have abandoned the AWT? That is good news indeed.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Jun 26, 2013
99% of the professionals in any field touching cosmology hold to it.
The word "professionals" is important here. If you take a money for something, you cannot be called independent anymore.
Laura teaches the standard Lamda-CDM. She is definitely not an Aether adherent
Maybe she isn't aether supporter, but she's talking about "aether of time". I'm just saying, what she's saying. Of course, some women are doing a whore job for money, some others are teaching the L-CDM at University instead Many people are doing unsatisfying job for their living, but their private ideas may be very different - they just cannot take money for it, so they remain quiet about it at public.
So ya have abandoned the AWT? That is good news indeed.
Of course, the Universe cannot be a cyclical and multiverse, steady-state and quantum wave at the same moment. Only AWT explains, how to reconcile all existing models at the conceptual level.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Jun 26, 2013
Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang
Q-Star
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2013
Light-travel time: INSERT RELIGIOUS LINK HERE


Zephyr, if ya would like me to continue to entertain your links, please include an HONEST description of what they might contain.

I don't think any religious site has anything to add to a scientific discussion. Whatsoever. Forcing your religion on me with a "surprise" attack by inserting it into a science discussion is offensive.

Good day to ya sir. Be done with ya for today I am.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2013
Light-travel time: http://creation.c...big-bang


The last line gives it the more usual name:

"In light of this disagreement, it is safe to say that the horizon problem has not been decisively solved."

It isn't a problem of light travel time unless you are trying to support a 6000 year old biblical universe (as "creation.com" is).
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Jun 26, 2013
I don't think any religious site has anything to add to a scientific discussion
This (way of) dismissal of otherwise logical argument is just an example of non-scientific ignorance. Discussion is exactly the opposite: the arguing of all the matter of fact arguments - no matter of their origin.
axemaster
5 / 5 (4) Jun 26, 2013
ValeriaT asking someone to engage in a logical, factual argument?

Excuse me, I must retire to my chambers. I can feel a chortle attack coming on...
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Jun 26, 2013
Did I made a logical jump somewhere in my reasoning? If yes, you're free to ask. If not, then...