Goodbye Big Bang, hello black hole? A new theory of the universe's creation

Sep 19, 2013 by Elizabeth Howell, Universe Today
Artist’s conception of the event horizon of a black hole. Credit: Victor de Schwanberg/Science Photo Library

Could the famed "Big Bang" theory need a revision? A group of theoretical physicists suppose the birth of the universe could have happened after a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole and ejected debris.

Before getting into their findings, let's just preface this by saying nobody knows anything for sure. Humans obviously weren't around at the time the universe began. The standard theory is that the universe grew from an infinitely dense point or , but who knows what was there before?

"For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity," stated Niayesh Afshordi, an with the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada who co-authored the new study.

So what are the limitations of the Big Bang theory? The singularity is one of them. Also, it's hard to predict why it would have produced a universe that has an almost , because the age of our universe (about 13.8 billion years) does not give enough time—as far as we can tell—to reach a temperature .

Most say the universe must have been expanding faster than the for this to happen, but Ashford says even that theory has problems: "The Big Bang was so chaotic, it's not clear there would have been even a small homogenous patch for to start working on."

Representation of the timeline of the universe over 13.7 billion years, from the Big Bang, through the cosmic dark ages and formation of the first stars, to the expansion in the universe that followed. Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team

This is what the physicists propose:

  • The model they constructed has the three-dimensional universe floating as a membrane (or brane) in a "bulk universe" that has four dimensions. (Yes, this is making our heads hurt as well, so it might be easier to temporarily think of the brane as two-dimensional and the "bulk universe" as three-dimensional when trying to picture it.) You can read the more technical details in this 2000 paper on which the new theory is based.
  • So if this "bulk universe" has four-dimensional stars, these stars could go through the same as the three-dimensional ones we are familiar with. The most massive ones would explode as supernovae, shed their skin and have the innermost parts collapse as a black hole.
  • The 4-D black hole would have an "event horizon" just like the 3-D ones we are familiar with. The event horizon is the boundary between the inside and the outside of a black hole. There are a lot of theories of what goes on inside a black hole, although nothing has ever been observed.
  • In a 3-D universe, the event horizon appears as a two-dimensional surface. So in a 4-D universe, the event horizon would be a 3-D object called a hypersphere.
  • So basically, what the model says is when the 4-D star blows apart, the leftover material would create a 3-D brane surrounding a 3-D , and then expand.

The long and the short of it? To bring this back to things that we can see, it is clear from observations that the universe is expanding (and indeed is getting faster as it expands, possibly due to the mysterious dark energy). The new theory says that the expansion comes from this 3-D brane's growth. But there  is at least one limitation.

While the model does explain why the universe has nearly uniform temperature (the 4-D universe preceding it would have existed it for much longer), a European Space Agency telescope called Planck recently mapped small temperature variations in the cosmic microwave background, which is believed to be leftovers of the universe's beginnings.

This artist’s impression shows the surroundings of the supermassive black hole at the heart of the active galaxy NGC 3783 in the southern constellation of Centaurus (The Centaur). New observations using the Very Large Telescope Interferometer at ESO’s Paranal Observatory in Chile have revealed not only the torus of hot dust around the black hole but also a wind of cool material in the polar regions. Credit: ESO/M. Kornmesser

The new model differs from these CMB readings by about four percent, so the researchers are looking to refine the model. They still feel the model has worth, however. Planck shows that inflation is happening, but doesn't show why the inflation is happening.

"The study could help to show how inflation is triggered by the motion of the universe through a higher-dimensional reality," the researchers stated.

You can read more about their research on this prepublished Arxiv paper. The Arxiv entry does not specify if the paper has been submitted to any peer-reviewed scientific journals for publication.

Explore further: Cosmologist suggests universe might not be expanding after all

More information: arxiv.org/abs/1309.1487

Related Stories

Quantum steps towards the Big Bang

Sep 03, 2013

(Phys.org) —Present-day physics cannot describe what happened in the Big Bang. Quantum theory and the theory of relativity fail in this almost infinitely dense and hot primal state of the universe. Only ...

Recommended for you

Fermi satellite detects gamma-rays from exploding novae

9 hours ago

The Universe is home to a variety of exotic objects and beautiful phenomena, some of which can generate almost inconceivable amounts of energy. ASU Regents' Professor Sumner Starrfield is part of a team that ...

Image: Hubble serves a slice of stars

16 hours ago

The thin, glowing streak slicing across this image cuts a lonely figure, with only a few foreground stars and galaxies in the distant background for company.

Evidence of a local hot bubble carved by a supernova

Jul 30, 2014

I spent this past weekend backpacking in Rocky Mountain National Park, where although the snow-swept peaks and the dangerously close wildlife were staggering, the night sky stood in triumph. Without a fire, ...

Astronomers measure weight of galaxies, expansion of universe

Jul 30, 2014

Astronomers at the University of British Columbia have collaborated with international researchers to calculate the precise mass of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies, dispelling the notion that the two galaxies have similar ...

User comments : 229

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Guy Faux
1.7 / 5 (30) Sep 19, 2013
The universe seems to be cyclical in nature, just like everything else we have observed. Thus, there is no beginning, end or maker. We are just observers for a brief second on an infinite timeline, far beyond our own comprehension of time.
Q-Star
3.9 / 5 (29) Sep 19, 2013
The Perimeter Institute has some very brilliant and accomplished people associated with it. But this article drops the ball in a big way on this one. It's probably the fault of the popular writer more so than the Perimeter Institute.

1) This is not a developed "theory". It is a speculation that emerges from string theory and quantum loop gravity. It raises more questions than it answers,,, meaning it is not self-consistent.

2) The reporter does not make it clear that these journal articles and papers are often only meant to raise questions, not for the purpose of answering any unresolved questions. There is a correct way to approach the scientific literature, and it does not involve accepting at face any proposition just because of the standing of the author or institution.

3) There is nothing new in this paper, these ideas have been bandied around for more than 20 years.
Q-Star
3.9 / 5 (28) Sep 19, 2013
The universe seems to be cyclical in nature, just like everything else we have observed.


Seems to who? What observation(s) makes the universe seem "cyclical"? What "everything else"?

Thus, there is no beginning, end or maker. We are just observers for a brief second on an infinite timeline, far beyond our own comprehension of time.


But we CAN observe the universe for the last 13.7 billion years. At that point our observations meet a solid wall, that in no way implies "infinite". Ya should use "YOUR" instead of "our" comprehension of time. Only philosophers endlessly pontificate on the meaning of time. In physics time is one of the most fundamental things we are sure of, it is embodied by the 2 most completely & surely tested first principles, the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Teech2
Sep 19, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Teech2
Sep 19, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
El_Nose
3.9 / 5 (16) Sep 19, 2013
@Q-star

Only philosophers endlessly pontificate on the meaning of time. In physics time is one of the most fundamental things we are sure of, it is embodied by the 2 most completely & surely tested first principles, the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics.


we are not sure of time.

We are not really sure it exists. We do know we can measure how long it takes for events to happen, but why does time go in one direction and why does it appear to only be a mathematical abstraction from the rest of physics has yet to be answered.

So sir, time, like space is a fundamental axiom of science to which we really do not have concrete answers and is so far beyond our understanding.

as for the latter:

The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.


The second law of thermodynamics states entropy of an isolated system never decreases
vlaaing peerd
3.6 / 5 (17) Sep 19, 2013
In AWT it is already predicted, like skating insects on the watersurface are unaware of the hidden dimension below. And also brown noises make your your faeces go all gaussian in 4 dimensional pants.

Vacuumcleaners also suck up stuff like a black hole, maybe we can use this as a model. I say vacuum mechanics is a good ToE.

Q-Star
4 / 5 (22) Sep 19, 2013
Only philosophers endlessly pontificate on the meaning of time. In physics time is one of the most fundamental things we are sure of, it is embodied by the 2 most completely & surely tested first principles, the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

we are not sure of time.

We do know we can measure how long it takes for events to happen, but why does time go in one direction and why does it appear to only be a mathematical abstraction from the rest of physics has yet to be answered.

So sir, time, like space is a fundamental axiom of science to which we really do not have concrete answers and is so far beyond our understanding.


We know more about time, than we don't know. It's been found entirely consistent in how it operates on the universe. It's as well observed as GR & QM experimentally. It goes in only one direction because it is entirely consistent with GR & thermodynamics. It's a coordinate that separates events, not physical "thing", much like a distance.
antigoracle
2.8 / 5 (24) Sep 19, 2013
I'll go with the dragons....errrr...yep...dragons.
Humpty
1.5 / 5 (17) Sep 19, 2013
"Humans obviously weren't around at the time the universe began"

Of course they weren't. I had not created them yet.
Pressure2
1.6 / 5 (19) Sep 19, 2013
Doesn't the first and probably the second law of thermodynamics need an update?

Einstein equation E=MC squared has shown us, and it has been proven the energy in a closed system can be created.
hemitite
1.5 / 5 (13) Sep 19, 2013
How about the Big Bong Theory? The universe began when a transdimentional being got too high and its brain exploded.
brt
2.8 / 5 (13) Sep 19, 2013
Doesn't the first and probably the second law of thermodynamics need an update?

Einstein equation E=MC squared has shown us, and it has been proven the energy in a closed system can be created.


I agree with you, but it will never happen. You would need unbelievably concrete evidence to convince physicists to change their views on thermodynamics. I would also say that since the universe started out in a state of low entropy, then there is no reason why entropy can't decrease in an isolated system. I also think entropy is one of the most f***ed up terms in physics...but that will never change because anyone who tries to fix that problem usually commits career suicide.
Dichotomy
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 19, 2013
And thus we continue to be like the ancient Egyptians trying to pontificate what the sun, stars, and moon actually are without the means to truely know. The only difference now being that our sun, moon, and stars are black holes, the beginning of reality as we know it, and how to make ourselves immortal.
lomed
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 19, 2013
Einstein equation E=MC squared has shown us, and it has been proven the energy in a closed system can be created.
What E=mc^2 tells us is that mass is a form of energy (just like kinetic energy and potential energy). So the 1st of thermodynamics is: energy cannot be created or destroyed (or, the energy of a closed system is constant) (ref.: http://en.wikiped...namics). When this energy takes into account the mass energy in the system no alteration to the above formulation is needed for special relativity.

The second law of thermodynamics makes no reference to the energy of the system of interest, so I do not see why it would need to be changed.
Q-Star
3.9 / 5 (23) Sep 19, 2013
Doesn't the first and probably the second law of thermodynamics need an update?

Einstein equation E=MC squared has shown us, and it has been proven the energy in a closed system can be created.


No, E = mc^2 means only that mass and energy can be transformed, one to the other. Not that either can be created. Physics has come a long way since the time of "matter can not be created or destroyed" and "energy can not be created or destroyed". Matter IS A FORM of energy in modern physics.

The statement today would be "Energy-matter can not be created or destroyed, only converted in form". And that is still true even at the most fundamental levels. The conservation laws are only disputed by cranks, crackpots, and theists. No credible idea has ever been posited that disputes the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics, no mechanism has ever been presented for it ever (outside of inconsistent crackpottery or untestable theorizing.)
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (16) Sep 19, 2013
Einstein equation E=MC squared has shown us, and it has been proven the energy in a closed system can be created.
What E=mc^2 tells us is that mass is a form of energy (just like kinetic energy and potential energy). So the 1st of thermodynamics is: energy cannot be created or destroyed (or, the energy of a closed system is constant) (ref.: http://en.wikiped...namics). When this energy takes into account the mass energy in the system no alteration to the above formulation is needed for special relativity.

The second law of thermodynamics makes no reference to the energy of the system of interest, so I do not see why it would need to be changed.


Precisely, well said, (ya beat me to it and have priority.)
GSwift7
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2013
I don't see how such as the 'theory' proposed in the original article could ever be tested. As such, it is every bit as credible as the suggestion that the Universe is composed of turtles all the way down.

Once you jump off the cliff at the edge of our 3+1 dimensions, and start taking about extra dimensions, you're talking about meta-physics rather than physics.
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (18) Sep 19, 2013
How about the Big Bong Theory? The universe began when a transdimentional being got too high and its brain exploded.


@hematite this actually makes more sense than AWT or DAM! LMFAO!

i have personally always had a different view of time, but after reading "From Eternity to Here" (Sean Carroll) i have since come to understand it a little more. it is a good read. might help!
Pressure2
1.1 / 5 (15) Sep 19, 2013
Doesn't the very act of creating potential energy decrease entropy in a closed system?
bredmond
1.7 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2013
If more matter is accreted from the four dimensional universe, would that new matter in our universe cause an effect that would appear to violate the first law of thermodynamics? Am i just way off in understanding this? :\
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (15) Sep 19, 2013
Doesn't the very act of creating potential energy decrease entropy in a closed system?


Not if the overall energy density remains unchanged. Which is exactly what we observe in nature. The closed system is the entire universe. Ya can decrease entropy locally, but only at the expense of some other part within the system (universe.)

Keep in mind that ya are dealing with positives and negatives when ya calculate the overall energy density of the universe.
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (18) Sep 19, 2013
If more matter is accreted from the four dimensional universe, would that new matter in our universe cause an effect that would appear to violate the first law of thermodynamics? Am i just way off in understanding this? :\


That was the major flaw of the "steady state model" of cosmology, the introduction of new matter into the universe. There is no mechanism for it. Very, very smart people have tried to find a plausible mechanism for it over the last couple of centuries, and they all have given up. It's why there can never be a perpetual motion machine, it's just not physical.

Everything that "IS" in the universe was present at the beginning,,, only it's forms has changed. ALL observations to-date, and ALL physics as we understand it today demand that this is so.
GSwift7
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2013
If more matter is accreted from the four dimensional universe, would that new matter in our universe cause an effect that would appear to violate the first law of thermodynamics?


Purely hypothetical and arbitrary, since it depends on what 'accreted from the fourth dimension' means.

Kinda souds like something from a 1950's sci-fi B movie. Accreted from the Fourth Dimension. I like that.

If that's the case, then are there two dimensional universes, with two dimensional people, existing in/on the event horizons of 3-d black holes of our universe? And do they have 1 dimensional universes in their black holes? And do THEY have zero dimensional universes, with only time, in their black holes?

I know you were asking a serious question, but the only possible answers are nothing but bubblegum wraper philosophy.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2013
Doesn't the very act of creating potential energy decrease entropy in a closed system?


Not if the overall energy density remains unchanged. Which is exactly what we observe in nature. The closed system is the entire universe. Ya can decrease entropy locally, but only at the expense of some other part within the system (universe.)

Keep in mind that ya are dealing with positives and negatives when ya calculate the overall energy density of the universe.

So some part of the universe gives another part receives and visa-versa, it is balanced over the eons.
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (22) Sep 19, 2013
I know you were asking a serious question, but the only possible answers are nothing but bubblegum wraper philosophy.


Additionally, it doesn't answer any questions at all. It's just another patch work to a failed regime.

Real physics is starting to sound like Star Trek physics.

If they add the suffix "-on" to everything, it sounds scientific.

Cosmologists have figured out that if they throw in more dimensions, most people think it's "scientific".
Ober
1 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2013
I'm not convinced the Universes total energy today is the same as it was at the big bang.
For this to be true, then Total Dark Energy must decrease as the Universe expands, due to the creation of new space, and hence quantum fluctuations back filling to maintain the pressure of a vacuum. So the premise of Constant Energy depends upon Dark Energy, something we know absolutely nothing about!!
I like the idea of energy input from a higher dimensional realm, but aren't we just passing the buck? I guess science has been doing this for sometime. Will this passing the buck ever end?
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (27) Sep 19, 2013
I'm not convinced the Universes total energy today is the same as it was at the big bang.


You could say that if you don't include the dynamics of space-time. You could say that total mass-energy is not time invariant, or,.... you could include the energy density of the gravitational field (if measurable), and say that total energy IS invariant,...... probably.

For example, electromagnetic radiation red shifts, losses energy, as it moves through (and with) expanding space-time, so where does this energy go then if only considering mass-energy,.... it seems space-time absorbs it.

For this to be true, then Total Dark Energy must decrease as the Universe expands


It would increase with an increase of space-time.

I like the idea of energy input from a higher dimensional realm, but aren't we just passing the buck?


The cosmological rug.

Benni
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 19, 2013
Doesn't the very act of creating potential energy decrease entropy in a closed system?


How do you create "potential energy"?
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (22) Sep 19, 2013
...but wait, it gets richer.

In order to explain where your 4th dimensional star came from the create 4th dimensional black hole, you'd need a bigger-big-bang from a 5th dimensional universe, and then a black hole there, but then you'd need a bigger, bigger big bang to explain where that came from, and so on and so forth.

Idiots, you've just created the infinite regression fallacy all over again.
bredmond
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2013
If more matter is accreted from the four dimensional universe, would that new matter in our universe cause an effect that would appear to violate the first law of thermodynamics? Am i just way off in understanding this? :\


That was the major flaw of the "steady state model" of cosmology, the introduction of new matter into the universe. There is no mechanism for it. Very, very smart people have tried to find a plausible mechanism for it over the last couple of centuries, and they all have given up. It's why there can never be a perpetual motion machine, it's just not physical.

Everything that "IS" in the universe was present at the beginning,,, only it's forms has changed. ALL observations to-date, and ALL physics as we understand it today demand that this is so.

Thanks for your help. My focus was to say that in my understanding of this new proposal, it doesn't hold the first law of thermodynamics. Could you give me some elaboration on that? I amnot a scientist
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (15) Sep 19, 2013
Thanks for your help. My focus was to say that in my understanding of this new proposal, it doesn't hold the first law of thermodynamics. Could you give me some elaboration on that? I amnot a scientist


Or the second law either. But this is not a new proposal. It's part and parcel of string theory & M-theory. It's been bandied about for over two decades now. It has always and still is, very far beyond experimental science. It's only one of several dozen similar "theories" that all have equal justification in theory. Meaning this one is as good that one, because all of them are in realms where our current state of physics breaks down.

Don't be led astray when ya see things like "solves the singularity problem". There is no singularity problem. The problem is, there is a point where we can no longer use current physics to observe or experiment. Singularity only means "can't be defined or observed". No more and no less. It's where our physics don't work any longer.
Tuxford
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 19, 2013
Four dimensions??? Just more math models gone wild. Still, better than Clingons and their Huge Bang Fantasy.
exprnc
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 19, 2013
.... or are we the output of an old "great attractor"?
eric96
1 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2013
Engenius theory, it's suits me perfectly.
Why can we not detect dark matter; because we come from a universe derived from the 3d event horizon of a 4d black hole which will break all matters down to its smallest possible constituents much smaller than what are detectors are capable of; so small we probably will never detect it.
Why can't we see the end of our universe; because we can't escape the event horizon of the 4d black hole.
I also like it because the theory is infinitely sub-divideable; that is to say that the 4d black hole could be derived from a 5D star, thus trully creating every particle size possible thus creating every possible combination for what can Exist; Everything, tying certain realities to specific areas of space within or outside our dimension.
Veneficus
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2013
I do see the "benefits" of this theory, and it even makes the whole 10/11 dimension M-theory more interesting: "we" would be derivatives of a larger set of dimensions already.

On a side-note: why on earth is there an "artist impression" of a black hole at the top of the article that doesn't seem to exhibit gravitational lensing? That's just a poorly done black circle.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2013
In a 3-D universe, the event horizon appears as a two-dimensional surface. So in a 4-D universe, the event horizon would be a 3-D object called a hypersphere


Nope, it would be called a hyper circle ... or just a sphere. There is no 3D object that you can call a hypersphere.

I still go for the skating insects on the water surface with brown noise creating all kinds of gaussian foam bubble stuff though.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2013
@Q-Star The closed system is the entire universe. Ya can decrease entropy locally, but only at the expense of some other part within the system (universe.)
That's a religious assertion: The product of beings seeing everything as an instrument of their crude 18th century toolset. I can alternately propose the universes are infinite fractal with black holes being one exit to prodigy universes
Expiorer
1 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2013
that would mean our universe has borders or it is cyclic. because event horizon is measurable and cyclic.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2013
So if this "bulk universe" has four-dimensional stars

Which would necessitate 4-dimensional matter and 4-dimensional gravity.
4D gravity (or at least some 4D attractive force) seems not too far fetched. 4D matter is a bit more iffy, as there is a relationship between surface and diameter that is crucial for what we think of as matter to be stable. (In higher dimensions the (hyper-)surface and the (hyper-) diameter ratio changes).
A 4D space would necessitate some very strange form of matter - and would also preclude any of our type of forces.

Again, this isn't a total knock-out criterium. It just means that the transition from an imploding 4D star to a 3D universe isn't as simple as the article makes it out to be. It would necessitate creation of entirely new laws at the interface. (Actually it would probably mean a hard discontinuity at the interface - which would be very noticeable if it happened in our universe in black holes having a "2D" brane split off)
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (20) Sep 20, 2013
It is such an interesting topic, but i will rather not comment since it has been dominated above by the usual crackpots where some of them again posted under dfifferent aliases. It is becoming impossible to have a rational discussion on the PhysOrg forum.
Expiorer
1 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2013
So there are 2D worlds around our black holes? They are unstable. Nothing can stay there. Actually nothing really is there. Everything just passes this "border"
Rustybolts
1 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2013
We don't even know how our own galaxy works and they want to tell us how the universe was created? Hell, we don't even know how our own planet works. This is 3 articles down from this one "Seismologists puzzle over largest deep earthquake ever recorded". Use the brain power somewhere else.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (23) Sep 20, 2013
Thanks for your help. My focus was to say that in my understanding of this new proposal, it doesn't hold the first law of thermodynamics. Could you give me some elaboration on that? I amnot a scientist


Or the second law either.


Why would it violate either? The BB and inflationary models do not violate 1st and 2nd, and the entropy of the BB singularity is not to be equated with entropy of a BH singularity,....

If more matter is accreted from the four dimensional universe, would that new matter in our universe cause an effect that would appear to violate the first law of thermodynamics? Am i just way off in understanding this? :\


Welcome to the club. I think the answer would then be to redefine what "universe" refers to.
triplehelix
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 20, 2013
Where did the sun come from to go into the black hole?

Infinite regression is an issue with this "theory"

Science is difficult. Much easier to just say "God did it". Might not be true, but it's easier than getting your head round science.

Lurker2358
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 20, 2013
This isn't "Science," and neither are so many of the hair-brained ideas we are forced to listen to, and forced to be brainwashed in school and in the media.

You see, "Science," at least according to the Scientific Method, requires that the phenomenon be repeatable and testable.

This is neither, and I can say the same for probably half the bunk that gets called "science" in schools and universities.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 20, 2013
This isn't "Science,"

At this stage it's just an idea they are kicking around the office.
And I hate to break this to you: But that's how ALL science starts.

AFTER you have an idea you go about devising a way you could test it (by seeing what it predicts - preferrably at odds with the current standard model - and then going out to see if that prediction holds).

You're actually whining about the fact that they don't have a test BEFORE they have the idea. That's absurd.
baudrunner
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 20, 2013
Before getting into their findings, let's just preface this by saying nobody knows anything for sure.
Well, gee, no kidding. To be on the safe side, just limit your Physorg posts to "mainstream science", and you won't have to read any of those nasty pm's from the principal's office.
You can read the more technical details in this 2000 paper on which the new theory is based.
Yeah, sure. Just pass the "bulk".
There are a lot of theories of what goes on inside a black hole, although nothing has ever been observed.
"Inside" a black hole? Are you kidding me? For the record, a lot has been observed.
So in a 4-D universe, the event horizon would be a 3-D object called a hypersphere.
That would make the brane a hyperplane, right?
The new model differs from these CMB readings by about four percent, so the researchers are looking to refine the model.
I see Einstein doctoring his relativity equations to accommodate his view of the Universe as being a static Universe.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (15) Sep 20, 2013
With all due respect, Lee, I read into your theories that you are a believer in God. He is the creator and the projectionist of the hologrammatic model of the Universe which represents reality as we know it. Creation begins with an idea, becomes a blueprint, and is realized through some elaborate 3D "printing" technology using convertible photonic energy. What do you see beyond the brane, Lee?
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
Sep 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
Sep 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2013
So if this "bulk universe" has four-dimensional stars

Which would necessitate 4-dimensional matter and 4-dimensional gravity.
4D gravity (or at least some 4D attractive force) seems not too far fetched.


4D gravity would probably have a weak-field limit (Newtonian approximation) of an inverse cube law and there are no stable orbits for that. The whole concept of black holes being able to form in such an environment becomes questionable, not to mention baryogenesis, large scale structure formation and so on.

The title is also misleading: "Goodbye Big Bang, hello black hole. A new theory of the universe's creation." The Big Bang model doesn't propose any form of creation phase, it only covers the period after a Planck time (at best) and describes the observed ongoing expansion. Even if this speculation were correct, it would only be a precursor to the Big Bang model and doesn't compete with it. This is very poor journalism.
Benni
1 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2013
Doesn't the very act of creating potential energy decrease entropy in a closed system?


Not if the overall energy density remains unchanged. Which is exactly what we observe in nature. The closed system is the entire universe. Ya can decrease entropy locally, but only at the expense of some other part within the system (universe.)

Keep in mind that ya are dealing with positives and negatives when ya calculate the overall energy density of the universe.


What explanation would you give to the first half of the question? Reads as if you agree with the concept that "potential energy" can be created?
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
Doesn't the very act of creating potential energy decrease entropy in a closed system?


What explanation would you give to the first half of the question? Reads as if you agree with the concept that "potential energy" can be created?


I don't understand why ya read that into my answer. Did I not specify that the energy density of the universe is a balance of both positive & negative energies?

The overall density remains the same,,, our best observations to date have the critical density, omega, as being unity, exactly one. Within an error of less than plus or minus 0.1% through the entire history of the universe. Planck data essentially eliminated any doubt about "creating" any new stuffs, energy or matter. It is just not observed, now, or in the past.

"Conservation of energy", and entropy "can not decrease" are safe until till someone comes up with some totally new physics (which no one has been able to posit as of yet).
dusanmal
1 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2013
Physical laws, measurements and their extrapolation to the BigBang give quite consistent image of the Universe that far back - up to so far inevitable singularity (the one and only consistent attempt by S.Weinberg to deny this singularity without imagining at will what is on the other side failed, on his own admission and retraction). Any claim by anyone to "hypothesize" what is on the other side of this singularity without clear measurable evidence that some information about it have came from the singularity is quite far from science and borders on religion and philosophy. By the laws of Physics as we know them anything beyond BigBang singularity is transcendental.
Benni
1 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2013
Doesn't the very act of creating potential energy decrease entropy in a closed system?


What explanation would you give to the first half of the question? Reads as if you agree with the concept that "potential energy" can be created?

I don't understand why ya read that into my answer.


........because you missed it again. Let's give it another try: How do you create potential energy?
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
Doesn't the very act of creating potential energy decrease entropy in a closed system?


What explanation would you give to the first half of the question? Reads as if you agree with the concept that "potential energy" can be created?


I don't understand why ya read that into my answer.


........because you missed it again. Let's give it another try: How do you create potential energy?


What do ya mean by "create"? Energy can change in form, but it can not be created. If an increase in potential energy is observed then somewhere matter, kinetic energy or something else must go down. Energy is conserved, I believe that and I'm sticking to it.
Fleetfoot
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2013
4D gravity would probably have a weak-field limit (Newtonian approximation) of an inverse cube law ...
These things are really questionable in steady state universe model of AWT.


AWT does not exist, it is nothing more than your random intuition.

But the dimensionality can be defined in two ways, as I already wrote above: like the violation of inverse square law for various forces and like the violation of Lorentz symmetry.


Dimensionality is better defined based on degrees of freedom, what you are talking about is indications of dimensionality.

The above theory is apparently based on second definition.


No, it is based on the formula for the surface of a hypersphere.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2013
@ Benni,

"How do you create potential energy?"

I think the following is one possibility: By stopping a light wave to become a stationary wave. The kinetic-energy of the light-wave then becomes purely potential energy. Since within the volume of a stationary light-wave there is no kinetic-energy, the temperature is T=0, there is no time-change, and there is no entropy.
ralph638s
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 21, 2013
I am reminded of a guy I heard once on the radio, a physicist of some sort from New Mexico. He divided the universe into two halves, each with it's own 4D spacetime, with dimensions that were inverse to each other. There was the observerse (everything that we can observe, directly or indirectly, with photons) and the void (the resevoir of potential energy).

Space time was conserved. Every action in the observerse was accompanied by an inverse action in the void, so that action x 1/action = 1.

There was no big bang in his universe; instead it was a yin yang kind of thing. The void becomes exhausted and turns into the new observerse, the observerse decays and becomes the new void...
Captain Stumpy
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
The void becomes exhausted and turns into the new observerse, the observerse decays and becomes the new void...


i can see franklins/zeph whatever locking on to this now.... "like waves crashing on a beach" ... just you wait!

OK, this is probably too difficult concept for you.


Hey Q-Star / Fleetfoot- don't you just love how Franklins thinks this is too difficult a concept for yall? I found that incredibly fascinating! like what was said in another thread... it is more like his religion ... and THAT totally describes how and why he will not accept modern science or the fact that AWT was disproved! and why he cant produce empirical data! wow!
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2013
Dimensionality is better defined based on degrees of freedom
OK, this is probably too difficult concept for you. Try to simply answer the following question: Which phenomena serves as an evidence of extradimensions better:

A) the gravitational lensing
B) the violation of inverse square law

Just A) or B), no other twaddling about it.


Neither. A is evidence that the normal 4 dimensions can be curved but the curvature is intrinsic so doesn't suggest extra dimensions. B can result from the force carriers being massive, polarisation shielding, or other effects.

Additional dimensions are hypothetical at the moment and the only indication we have that they might be real is Kaluza-Klein theory which can derive EM from a 5th dimension.

https://en.wikipe...n_theory
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
antialias_physorg said in http://phys.org/n...ark.html : Surely. As you must by now have gathered: AWT is simply a Zeph-translation for:

"I randomly plug buzzwords together and call that a theory - which I then decalre as truth as it fits my intuition. And my intuition is infallible, hence it needs no evidence, experiment or other kind of validation"

It's his version of religion, since it is based on "I don't need to think - I already know"


and i find that it is the best description of Zeph yet! totally accurate and right on the point... as Zeph uses AWT etc to find conclusions in just about ANY article posted, and uses his intuition to describe his findings on a "better theory"...

thanks to antialias_physorg for the most excellent quote- I just had to share it!
kevin_buckeye_3
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
Doesn't the first and probably the second law of thermodynamics need an update?

Einstein equation E=MC squared has shown us, and it has been proven the energy in a closed system can be created.


The energy is not created. The recipes for spontaneous-processes in nature/thermodynamics are already there. Always has been.

This universe,and other universes out there,are all in one,big,infinite,cycle of like,and death. No beginning,and no end.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2013
I am reminded of a guy I heard once on the radio, a physicist of some sort from New Mexico. He divided the universe into two halves, each with it's own 4D spacetime, with dimensions that were inverse to each other. There was the observerse (everything that we can observe, directly or indirectly, with photons) and the void (the resevoir of potential energy).


That's Scott Tyson's book "The Unobservable Universe". I reviewed for him a few months before publication. Unfortunately he makes a fundamental error on curvature which invalidates his basic premise.
Fleetfoot
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2013
I am reminded of a guy I heard once on the radio, a physicist of some sort from New Mexico. He divided the universe into two halves, each with it's own 4D spacetime, with dimensions that were inverse to each other. There was the observerse (everything that we can observe, directly or indirectly, with photons) and the void (the resevoir of potential energy).


That's Scott Tyson's book "The Unobservable Universe". I reviewed for him a few months before publication. Unfortunately he makes a fundamental error on curvature which invalidates his basic premise.


Sorry, I just checked my old notes, the error was in thinking potential energy was positive in chapter 21. He also gets his description of negative curvature wrong in chapter 30, his example is positive.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2013
AWT even predicts, ..


No it doesn't because it has no equations to make any predictions.

Do you really think, you could deduce such a things from random pilling of words?


You don't deduce anything, you just randomly pluck ideas out of thin air and add some technobabble to make it sound as though you have some knowledge but in reality it is all random.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
Hi Fleetfoot, Franklins! :)
AWT does not exist, it is nothing more than your random intuition.

Dimensionality is better defined based on degrees of freedom, what you are talking about is indications of dimensionality.

No, it is based on the formula for the surface of a hypersphere.


Fair is fair. If Einstein was allowed to use the water surface and water-air- boundary phenomena observables as analogy of what is happening that is not directly observable but may be validly deduced via that model, then Franklins is allowed too.

Dimensionality as mathematical "graphing" conveniences having no independent existence in reality is different from physical dimensionality. Latter is real, the former is abstract only for relating graphic model elements to one another abstractly.

Also, Einstein's/Franklin's water surface etc model/analogy of events in under-surface dimensionality is more valid and easy to understand than an abstract mathematical "Hypersphere" construct. :)
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2013
@ Zephyr,

Ya give me great mirth and much droll pleasure. It's why I have grown fond of ya over the years, what's it been eight? Nine years now?

Anyhoo, do ya take requests? I've seen everything ya have, dozens of times over. But what I have never seen, and would even pay real money to see, is a series of video lectures. Of ya explaining the AWT and the DAM, in front of a whiteboard with marker in hand, laying out the minute detail.

Not links to people ya claim are saying what ya are saying. Of ya personally giving systematic instruction on the AWT and the DAM. I'd be willing to pay as much as $10.00 per 50 minute lecture. I have not a doubt that many other people would pay that also.

Think about it. Ya may have a means of making a small fortune, getting an audience of millions (as it goes viral) and actually getting talked about. But it MUST be ya, in person. No plagiarizing or substitute lecturers.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2013
Fair is fair. If Einstein was allowed to use the water surface and water-air- boundary phenomena observables as analogy of what is happening that is not directly observable but may be validly deduced via that model, then Franklins is allowed too.


@Reality- i cant speak for others but, i am not complaining about fairness. i - personally - would like to see some hard data. any empirical data. As Fleetfoot says about AWT predictions: "No it doesn't because it has no equations to make any predictions".

I have asked, repeatedly. I get back techno-babble double-speak that means nothing. or i get a link to a theory with NO empirical data, and NO experiments that can be replicated... and i see that it is a theory that requires repetition and deception, and since it cannot be validated, it cannot be anything more than a speculation at best. from what i read, the Aether was disproved almost a century ago. why the dogged determination?

because it is Frank's religion.
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
Think about it. Ya may have a means of making a small fortune, getting an audience of millions (as it goes viral) and actually getting talked about. But it MUST be ya, in person. No plagiarizing or substitute lecturers.


heck! i would pay! i always did have a soft spot for good comedy....
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2013
Think about it. Ya may have a means of making a small fortune, getting an audience of millions (as it goes viral) and actually getting talked about. But it MUST be ya, in person. No plagiarizing or substitute lecturers.


heck! i would pay! i always did have a soft spot for good comedy....


I don't need the AWT to predict that it would be a hit in every university physics department the world over within a year or so. I'm going to go out on a limb and even suggest that students (and professors) would be waiting with anticipation of each new episode. Zephyr would find himself more talked about in the physics academia than the "spherical cow" or "Schrodinger's cat".
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2013
I'm just dark matter of human knowledge and the dark matter wants to remain hidden, widespread and unobservable.


Ya are an abject failure at that. If only what ya say were true I'm sure there would be many forum moderators and participants cheering.

If you will try to think about it, such a stance is fully consistent with the whole AWT philosophy and its gradient based reality.


I still think ya should try the video presentation idea.
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
I don't want to give people any pretense for compulsive masturbation before PC screen. I'm just dark matter of human knowledge and the dark matter wants to remain hidden, widespread and unobservable. You people should learn how to focus on facts and their connections, not on the blind adoration of authors of these ideas. If you will try to think about it, such a stance is fully consistent with the whole AWT philosophy and its gradient based reality.


C'mon really? the "dark matter" of human knowledge?
dark matter is not directly visible, but you constantly preach your AWT on here! directly! very visibly!
the reason you don't want to be "seen" is out of fear of ridicule! because you KNOW your proclamations are able to be proven false... therefore you fear public condemnation!
and as this allows you some anonymity, you cling to it, in the mistaken belief that you are spreading the word about your "religion", just like any other fanatic. stand up for your beliefs!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2013
Hi Q-Star. :)
That was the major flaw of the "steady state model" of cosmology, the introduction of new matter into the universe. There is no mechanism for it. Very, very smart people have tried to find a plausible mechanism for it over the last couple of centuries, and they all have given up. It's why there can never be a perpetual motion machine, it's just not physical.
You can stop worrying, Q-S, I have identified that very 'new matter' mechanism, consistent with everything else in my ToE. So better drag out those old 'steady state' discussions/possibilities for a rethink now and beat the rush, Q-S! :)
Everything that "IS" in the universe was present at the beginning,,, only it's forms has changed. ALL observations to-date, and ALL physics as we understand it today demand that this is so.
QM says the greater energy in a fluctuation, the shorter the time it persist. So observable Universe volume/energy should have disappeared before Big Bang process got going! :)
Captain Stumpy
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
I still think ya should try the video presentation idea.


I totally agree... I was always told that the Germanic peoples had no sense of humor! this is proof that they are wrong! LOL ya just have to get to know 'em! LOL

stand up for your beliefs, Frank! make the video! sell it! $10 a 50 minute vid! you make money! we get a good laugh! the universities can teach real science and teach others how not to fall for crap science! everyone wins!
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2013
You can stop worrying, Q-S, I have identified that very 'new matter' mechanism, consistent with everything else in my ToE. So better drag out those old 'steady state' discussions/possibilities for a rethink now and beat the rush, Q-S! :)


I wait with great anticipation to be dazzled.

QM says the greater energy in a fluctuation, the shorter the time it persist. So observable Universe volume/energy should have disappeared before Big Bang process got going! :)


Get back to me when ya actually know enough about modern cosmology so that ya can use the term "big bang" correctly. In QM and especially in Lambda CDM, there is no "before" the big bang.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2013
i cant speak for others but, i am not complaining about fairness. i - personally - would like to see some hard data. any empirical data.
Einstein took a long time to convince his contemporary 'experts' and critics. Yes?

As independent/impartial scientist/observer over MANY years of all the professional/amateur PARTIAL theories/hypotheses extant, with a view to understanding the 'gems' in the 'dross' without subjective fear or favor, I find those bits consistent with the overall universal phenomena easy to see where they fit in my ToE. Zephir's AWT analogies/models make sense where they 'fit'; BUT, like all PARTIAL amateur/professional hypotheses, AWT has no 'starting premise' for 'everything', so some explanations hit the mark, some not.

The 'data' are all around you. Predictions and Quantification are two different things. Only long exposure and understanding of any hypothesis (be it Einstein's Relativity or AWT etc) will let you understand its essentials. Patience, CS. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2013
I wait with great anticipation to be dazzled.
No, Q-S, just your enlightenment will do. Leave your 'dazzling' fixations to 'personality' media sites you obviously frequent (if your continued 'personalizing of discussion' is any guide).

Get back to me when ya actually know enough about modern cosmology so that ya can use the term "big bang" correctly. In QM and especially in Lambda CDM, there is no "before" the big bang.
Again, your overweening ego and personalizing tendencies let your intellect/credibility down, Q-S. Big Bang is a PROCESS hypothesized to occur soon AFTER the hypothesized initial quantum fluctuation. So you are wrong even according to the professional hypothesis. Not good for someone presenting themselves as 'mainstream defender', yes?

Haven't you heard? Professor Penrose/other professionals have ditched that old 'non-answer' to the very valid question of "what came before the big bang?" and "what came before the initial fluctuation" etc. Catch up! :)
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
Einstein took a long time to convince his contemporary 'experts' and critics. Yes?


sure, but he also had a great deal of help when his information and predictions was proven by experimentation. external validation. this is the ultimate key to a successful theory, correct? validation or invalidation through experimentation and study.

I am trying to remain patient, but I get frustrated. as shown above. and I stand by my statements. I would pay to see his video's. if they actually prove something, or predict something, I will recant my negative remarks. I can admit when I am wrong. but there better be proof... thus the reason for my skepticism and frustration. I don't want bullsh*t, I want proof. I am not always patient, like Q-Star, who has interacted for years with Frank/Zeph. Nor am I overly well versed in cosmology. My college was very specific to the Fire Department and medicine. degree's useless outside of the Dept.
I love to learn, but I want to learn correctly
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2013
AWT has no 'starting premise' for 'everything', so some explanations hit the mark, some not
In AWT the universe is random dense gas. It ought to be enough for everybody, as the behavior of dense gas is sufficiently complex by itself. When we condense supercritical fluid, it forms a http://www.aether...al2.gif, composed of another density fluctuations, recursively.


I have no problem with such analogy. The point is, just like all the other amateur/professional hypotheses, there is no 'starting premise' that does not depend on some pre-existing thing that has not yet been identified/explained. In AWT case, the question becomes: "Where/how did the 'gas' arise, even before the dynamics are described as per your analogies?" Only if the originl and independent staring premise is identified can a following logics/dynamics have some 'grounding' in consistency from start to finish in any ToE purporting to describe same 'complete'. :)
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2013
Einstein took a long time to convince his contemporary 'experts' and critics. Yes?
Sure, but he also had a great deal of help when his information and predictions was proven by experimentation. external validation. this is the ultimate key to a successful theory, correct?
Even with the maths it took decades for prejudicial reading bias to be overcome in order to allow proper understanding of what was being presented.

...I want proof. I am not always patient, like Q-Star, who has interacted for years with Frank/Zeph.
Q-S is wrong at times, and as he and other self-appointed 'mainstream defenders' like to tell everyone else: "There is no such thing as "proof" in physics". It's an evolving knowledge base often revolutionized by new insights.

I love to learn, but I want to learn correctly
Learning something correctly 'by rote' doesn't guarantee it's correct in itself. Listen closely and think it out for yourself. No alternative to that. :)
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2013
Big Bang is a PROCESS hypothesized to occur soon AFTER the


The big bang is a thing which means, literally: "don't know what was happening right here". No more, no less.There are dozens of "speculations" about what was happening. Any one or none of them may correct.

So you are wrong even according to the professional hypothesis.


No, ya are wrong again. There is no "professional hypothesis" concerning the big bang. There are dozens of "hypotheses". Professionals will always get to "but really we just don't know". This big bang only lasted for about 10^ -43 seconds. There are NO physics which describe the Planck era.

Professor Penrose/other professionals have ditched that old 'non-answer' to the very valid question of "what came before the big bang?


Ya understanding Penrose's most elementary maths is as likely as Zeph getting the Nobel for his AWT. Dime a dozen. Philosophers have been asking questions with no answers since O'Adam fell out of his tree.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2013
Einstein took a long time to convince his contemporary 'experts' and critics. Yes?
Sure, but he also had a great deal of help when his information and predictions was proven by experimentation. external validation. this is the ultimate key to a successful theory, correct?
That was many many years later. Even with the maths it took decades for prejudicial reading bias to be overcome in order to allow proper understanding of what was being presented.


Decades? The year he published the General Theory, he correctly identified Mercury's precession. The year before he published the GR, an expedition went out to document the lensing effect, but the astronomers were arrested in Russia because of the outbreak of WWI. Four years after he published GR, Eddington confirmed the lensing effect.Five years after publishing, the Royal Society declared GR to be better than Newton. Six years after he published GR Friedman derived the solution to his field equations.
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
Learning something correctly 'by rote' doesn't guarantee it's correct in itself. Listen closely and think it out for yourself. No alternative to that. :)


@RealityCheck - i always think for myself. i always try to research (just one reason i get frustrated with Frank/Zeph) . i learned that from a preacher when i was an 11yo squirt... he called it "doing your homework" ... i have always liked his advice. it has served me well.

by "learn correctly" i mean i don't want to learn garbage. GI/GO is true. i taught all my Firefighters that lesson. you learn wrong, it could cost you your life, and your teammates life too. this stuff may not be as "fatal" as making a mistake in a fire, but i stand behind the logic. if you learn wrong, you must UNLEARN before you can correct... and old habits die hard.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (17) Sep 21, 2013
@ Stumpy,,,

Re:

Learning something correctly 'by rote' doesn't guarantee it's correct in itself. Listen closely and think it out for yourself. No alternative to that. :)


Ya may notice this fellow NEVER presents any science. Only lessons on how to properly talk about science. He NEVER presents any science for ya to listen to, just lessons on how to learn science. He is a poser and troll,,,,, Zeph puts more science into his science discussions than this fellow, by miles.

He's afraid to discuss science, because he knows none. And on the few occasions he's tried, he ended up making a fool of himself. So now he doesn't try, he poses by discussing the "right way" to approach science. (And he's as lame at that as he was when he actually tries to discuss science.)

But he's predictable as Zeph, and has been almost as ubiquitous. Watch how he responds to this:

He has a drawer full of socks he uses to push several crank theories, and ends up becoming unhinged when disputed.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
The big bang is a thing which means, literally: "don't know what was happening right here". No more, no less.There are dozens of "speculations" about what was happening. Any one or none of them may correct.

No, ya are wrong again. There is no "professional hypothesis" concerning the big bang. There are dozens of "hypotheses". Professionals will always get to "but really we just don't know". This big bang only lasted for about 10^ -43 seconds. There are NO physics which describe the Planck era.

Ya understanding Penrose's most elementary maths is as likely as Zeph getting the Nobel for his AWT.
No, Q-S, you are conflating two separate things. The 'singularity' and the 'big bang' are two different things. One is the hypothesized 'origin' preceding the big bang 'inflation/expansion' process itself hypothesized to follow almost immediately from that initial singularity/fluctuation 'origins' etc.

You are incorrect, Q-S. Hence no further comment needed. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
Decades? The year he published the General Theory, he correctly identified Mercury's precession. The year before he published the GR, an expedition went out to document the lensing effect, but the astronomers were arrested in Russia because of the outbreak of WWI. Four years after he published GR, Eddington confirmed the lensing effect.Five years after publishing, the Royal Society declared GR to be better than Newton. Six years after he published GR Friedman derived the solution to his field equation.
So no dissenting critics all the way along then? Remarkable version of the Relativity development-to-acceptance 'history' you present there, Q-S. Remarkable isn't the word. No further comment needed. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
I always think for myself. i always try to research (just one reason i get frustrated with Frank/Zeph) . i learned that from a preacher when i was an 11yo squirt... he called it "doing your homework" ... i have always liked his advice. it has served me well.

by "learn correctly" i mean i don't want to learn garbage. GI/GO is true. i taught all my Firefighters that lesson. you learn wrong, it could cost you your life, and your teammates life too. this stuff may not be as "fatal" as making a mistake in a fire, but i stand behind the logic. if you learn wrong, you must UNLEARN before you can correct... and old habits die hard.
If you're trying to get to grips with what Zeph is trying to say here in this limited-word format site, then just PM him and ask for links to more detailed expositions of his position/AWT, and go from there, PM him questions etc. It takes a lot of background in many fields to get to grips with the analogies and concepts he/Einstein used. Good luck! :)
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2013
@ Stumpy,,,Ya may notice this fellow NEVER presents any science. Only lessons on how to properly talk about science. He NEVER presents any science for ya to listen to, just lessons on how to learn science. He is a poser and troll,,,,, Zeph puts more science into his science discussions than this fellow, by miles.

He's afraid to discuss science, because he knows none. And on the few occasions he's tried, he ended up making a fool of himself. So now he doesn't try, he poses by discussing the "right way" to approach science.

But he's predictable as Zeph, and has been almost as ubiquitous. Watch how he responds to this:

He has a drawer full of socks he uses to push several crank theories, and ends up becoming unhinged when disputed.
Still 'personalizing' the discussion, Q-S? And conflating different people as well as the singularity and big bang concepts/hypotheses? :)

I post as RealityCheck only, to set you straight when you're wrong in the science too, as above. :)
obama_socks
1 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
From the article: "Could the famed "Big Bang" theory need a revision? A group of theoretical physicists suppose the birth of the universe could have happened after a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole and ejected debris."

This makes no sense. Such a collapsed 4-D star would only be able to eject debris back into the Universe from which it derived that debris in the first place...especially if it was a "closed" Universe and the Black Hole had no other outlet into which it could eject.

However, if the 4-D Black Hole had another outlet into an empty space into which the BH could eject matter, then that empty space would likely be a fifth dimensional Universe that has opened up for the BH to spew its contents into, then closed up again. In this way, more matter could be transferred from one Universe to another without the need to create more matter. It would be a self-sustaining system on the order of "borrowing" from one Universe to build up another.
contd
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2013
But a problem arises from such "borrowing" of matter from one Universe to one in a different dimension. The matter which was spewed out into the "new" 5-D Universe is matter that is "lost" from the older Universe and cannot be retrieved due to the BH being a "one-way" system. Therefore, since matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed but only changes form, the older Universe could be observed as its galaxies, etc. flying away from each other to POSSIBLY compensate for the reduction of available matter, gas, dust, etc.
Perhaps WE are in an older Universe that has lost mass and has begun to be chaotic to some degree. That MIGHT account for only small fluctuations in the CMBR temperature, rather than wildly fluctuating towards very high temps as it had in the beginning.

But, I could be wrong as I am no Cosmologist...just an observer.
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
"when we allow assumptions to color our research (rather than have research challenge our assumptions) the result is invariably Pseudoscience." -Steven Novella

wise words.

there is plenty of pseudoscience being peddled out there... one reason that i want proof is to separate the hacks from the science. if proof cannot be forthcoming, i must assume, for the time being, that i am dealing with a hack.

that is how i view things. it is the investigator in me. i have seen a lot of tricks in my day... and just because something sounds good, doesn't mean it aint crap. case in point: politics. so...
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2013
@Stumpy

Requiring proof is one thing...getting it is another. In Cosmology, it is mostly theoretical physics that is published from even the best scientists. It is theoretical because it is an attempt to collect all the data and somehow bring it all together in order to formulate the best possible answers to those nagging questions that we all have. It is all conjecture within many orders of magnitude, for if they had all the answers, which they don't, it would mean that there would be no further need for these theoretical scientists and their "theories". They would have to find a new field of expertise or go on the unemployment line.

If you really want to learn from the best minds, go purchase some college level science books and read up on the topics you like with a subscrip from good peer-reviewed science journals. It's a little expensive, but worth the money if you are really into it.

obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2013
@Franklins

I'm pretty certain that Q-Star is male. He doesn't talk like a woman. If you insist on it, then you really should be able to come up with the proof to validate your claim. Otherwise, you are falling into a trap which you may have a hard time getting out of.
Fleetfoot
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2013
No, it is based on the formula for the surface of a hypersphere.


Fair is fair. If Einstein was allowed to use the water surface and water-air- boundary phenomena observables as analogy of what is happening that is not directly observable but may be validly deduced via that model, then Franklins is allowed too.


I know how I derived my result, I used a hypersphere, check the context.

Einstein used Maxwell's Equations, not silly analogies that don't even work.

Dimensionality as mathematical "graphing" conveniences having no independent existence


True but the number of degrees of freedom in, for example, modes of oscillation are real and can be measured.

Also, Einstein's/Franklin's water surface etc model/analogy of events in under-surface dimensionality is more valid and easy to understand than an abstract mathematical "Hypersphere" construct. :)


Possibly, but you can't derive an inverse cube law from a water surface analogy, it is simply wrong.
Fleetfoot
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2013
No it doesn't because it has no equations to make any predictions
The predictions may not require any equations, the hyperdimensional predictions in particular. For example the epicycle MODEL of solar system was disproved just by qualitative predictions of heliocentric MODEL, ...


I've highlighted the key words, those are models, not theories. You should learn the difference.

The nearest the Ptolemaic model came to being a theory was to claim the orbits were circular and that was carried over into the early heliocentric models. It was accurate measurements compared to calculated positions that showed that assumption was wrong. It is arguable that the first theory of planetary motion was given by Kepler's Laws but it was really Newtonian gravity which gave the underlying theory from which those laws could be derived.

Where you write "AWT", everyone else would use "IMO", it is nothing more than uninformed rambling.
Fleetfoot
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2013
QM says the greater energy in a fluctuation, the shorter the time it persist. So observable Universe volume/energy should have disappeared before Big Bang process got going! :)


The Hamiltonian (total energy) of a closed universe is zero. The positive matter/radiation energy is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational potential energy hence QM predicts a big bang universe should last an infinite time.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2013
4D gravity would probably have a weak-field limit (Newtonian approximation) of an inverse cube law and there are no stable orbits for that.

Interesting. Hadn't thought of that. Though an orbit of 4D matter in a 4D universe orbit would look like a 3D shell. But I think my head is tying itself in knowts trying to come to grips with that.

I'd be willing to pay as much as $10.00 per 50 minute lecture.

Count me in. Kickstarter anyone?

Where you write "AWT", everyone else would use "IMO"

Hot damn. Now THERE's a succinct summation.
Benni
1 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2013
@ Benni,

"How do you create potential energy?"

I think the following is one possibility: By stopping a light wave to become a stationary wave. The kinetic-energy of the light-wave then becomes purely potential energy. Since within the volume of a stationary light-wave there is no kinetic-energy, the temperature is T=0, there is no time-change, and there is no entropy.


You're describing the perfect lightbox here. A purely reflective enclosed space.
Fleetfoot
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2013
@ Benni,

"How do you create potential energy?"

I think the following is one possibility: By stopping a light wave to become a stationary wave. The kinetic-energy of the light-wave then becomes purely potential energy. Since within the volume of a stationary light-wave there is no kinetic-energy, the temperature is T=0, there is no time-change, and there is no entropy.


You're describing the perfect lightbox here. A purely reflective enclosed space.


Throw a rock onto your roof. It starts with kinetic energy and finishes with potential. The same applies to galaxies moving apart and decelerating due to gravity (ignoring dark energy which conserves energy).
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2013
That was the major flaw of the "steady state model" of cosmology, the introduction of new matter into the universe. There is no mechanism for it.


And the advantage of the Big Bang theory is that it has a mechanism?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2013
@ Benni,

"How do you create potential energy?"

I think the following is one possibility: By stopping a light wave to become a stationary wave. The kinetic-energy of the light-wave then becomes purely potential energy. Since within the volume of a stationary light-wave there is no kinetic-energy, the temperature is T=0, there is no time-change, and there is no entropy.


You're describing the perfect lightbox here. A purely reflective enclosed space.


Exactly! Basically this is also what a blackbody cavity is when in thermal equilibrium. The light energy within such a blackbox consists of stationary EM-waves without kinetic energy: That is why one can weigh this energy. There is NOT a "photon-gas" filling the cavity since photons do not have rest-mass and can therefore not be weighed; as is possible for the stationary EM energy within the cavity which consists only of rest-mass.
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2013
That was the major flaw of the "steady state model" of cosmology, the introduction of new matter into the universe. There is no mechanism for it.


And the advantage of the Big Bang theory is that it has a mechanism?


The short answer is yes. Everything that follows the "big bang" can be explained in the context of current physics. The freezing out of fundamental forces, primordial neucleosynthesis, recombination, first stars, structure formation, galaxy evolution, etc.

S-S can't fit some of our most fundamental observations. CMB, expansion, structure evolution, elemental abundances, list goes on.

There is no observational evidence for a S-S that is exclusively indicative of S-S cosmology. It also requires violation of the principle of rules of physics being the same everywhere in the universe. It requires a theoretical explanation of how physics are not the same everywhere or at different times. We don't observe any S-S phenomena. So it's not necessary to model it
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (22) Sep 22, 2013
@ Benni,

"How do you create potential energy?"

I think the following is one possibility: By stopping a light wave to become a stationary wave. The kinetic-energy of the light-wave then becomes purely potential energy. Since within the volume of a stationary light-wave there is no kinetic-energy, the temperature is T=0, there is no time-change, and there is no entropy.


You're describing the perfect lightbox here. A purely reflective enclosed space.


Exactly! Basically this is also what a blackbody cavity is when in thermal equilibrium. The light energy within such a blackbox consists of stationary EM-waves without kinetic energy: That is why one can weigh this energy. There is NOT a "photon-gas" filling the cavity since photons do not have rest-mass and can therefore not be weighed; [.....]


Correct, except for the part where you said stuff. A photon can ONLY have kinetic energy, E = hc/λ ,.... and any form of energy can be weighed.
Benni
1 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2013
@ Benni,


"How do you create potential energy?"

I think the following is one possibility: By stopping a light wave to become a stationary wave. The kinetic-energy of the light-wave then becomes purely potential energy. Since within the volume of a stationary light-wave there is no kinetic-energy, the temperature is T=0, there is no time-change, and there is no entropy.


You're describing the perfect lightbox here. A purely reflective enclosed space.


Exactly! Basically this is also what a blackbody cavity is when in thermal equilibrium. The light energy within such a blackbox consists of stationary EM-waves without kinetic energy: That is why one can weigh this energy. There is NOT a "photon-gas" filling the cavity since photons do not have rest-mass and can therefore not be weighed;


Correct, except ..... . A photon can ONLY have kinetic energy, E = hc/λ ,.... and any form of energy can be weighed.


johanfprins
1 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2013

Correct, except for the part where you said stuff. A photon can ONLY have kinetic energy, E = hc/λ ,.... and any form of energy can be weighed.


You make a good point but it might be wrong until one can prove experimentally that it is so. Is it possible that an EM wave moving with a speed c can be weighed? How and in which inertial reference frame can this be done?
Benni
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 22, 2013
Yep, the lightbox is the only way to do it if energy is to be stored in its' EM form & is not being accessed for "work", and yes again in that "any form of energy can be weighed", its relativistic mass (transformed mass) requires this be so, thus if the photon is loosed from the lightbox, the lightbox becomes instantly lighter.
Benni
1 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2013
Correct, except for the part where you said stuff. A photon can ONLY have kinetic energy, E = hc/λ ,.... and any form of energy can be weighed.


You make a good point but it might be wrong until one can prove experimentally that it is so. Is it possible that an EM wave moving with a speed c can be weighed? How and in which inertial reference frame can this be done?


I see what you mean about weighing an energy field. Because energy fields have "density" their gravity component would be the clue to the amount of mass that was transformed in generating the associated gravity field which can be measured, such as in gravitational lensing.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (22) Sep 22, 2013

Correct, except for the part where you said stuff. A photon can ONLY have kinetic energy, E = hc/λ ,.... and any form of energy can be weighed.


You make a good point but it might be wrong until one can prove experimentally that it is so. Is it possible that an EM wave moving with a speed c can be weighed? How and in which inertial reference frame can this be done?


By the bending of a light path. This is so even in Newtonian mechanics with SR assumed, and of course twice the amount of bending in GR.

The potential energy in a black body can only be in the oscillators emitting the EM.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2013
Correct, except for the part where you said stuff. A photon can ONLY have kinetic energy, E = hc/λ ,.... and any form of energy can be weighed.


You make a good point but it might be wrong until one can prove experimentally that it is so. Is it possible that an EM wave moving with a speed c can be weighed? How and in which inertial reference frame can this be done?


By the bending of a light path.


No, that measures the mass of the object causing the bending, not of the light.

Note also that the definition of mass (with c=1) is:

m^2 = E^2 - |p|^2

so for a single photon, m=0. For a box full of photons moving in different directions, |p|=0 hence m=E is valid.
Claudius
1 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2013


And the advantage of the Big Bang theory is that it has a mechanism?


The short answer is yes. Everything that follows the "big bang" can be explained in the context of current physics.


Well, I was wondering what the mechanism is to initiate a Big Bang, not what follows. There must be one, right?
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2013
Well, I was wondering what the mechanism is to initiate a Big Bang, not what follows. There must be one, right?


That is outside of known physics. The "big bang" itself is outside of known physics. Only what comes after are we able to describe with any confidence. Starting at 10^ -43 seconds after the "big bang" the physics (as we know it) of the universe begins. When ya see the terms "singularity" or "big bang" they can not imply any knowledge of the things to which they refer, we just don't have any science that defines them as a physical reality.

When ya discover the mechanism of the actual "big bang" ya will rightly be given at least one Nobel, maybe several.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2013
You make a good point but it might be wrong until one can prove experimentally that it is so. Is it possible that an EM wave moving with a speed c can be weighed? How and in which inertial reference frame can this be done?

By the bending of a light path. This is so even in Newtonian mechanics with SR assumed, and of course twice the amount of bending in GR.
As usual Noumenon you hear the bell tolling without knowing why. How do you bend a light beam within an inertial reference frrame? Even so you have made a point without understanding why. To bend a light beam you need to refract it an then it slows down which means that its energy is now existing both of rest mass and of kinetic mass.
The potential energy in a black body can only be in the oscillators emitting the EM.
Nope: At equilibrium the energy wiithin a black body cavity is the rest-mass energy of the stationary waves within the cavity.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (22) Sep 22, 2013
You make a good point but it might be wrong until one can prove experimentally that it is so. Is it possible that an EM wave moving with a speed c can be weighed? How and in which inertial reference frame can this be done?


By the bending of a light path. This is so even in Newtonian mechanics with SR assumed, and of course twice the amount of bending in GR.
As usual Noumenon you hear the bell tolling without knowing why. How do you bend a light beam within an inertial reference frrame? Even so you have made a point without understanding why. To bend a light beam you need to refract it an then it slows down which means that its energy is now existing both of rest mass and of kinetic mass.


Within the IRF in which the light is moving (?), its not a bent path, but is 'straight' according to the definition of a geodesic,... but an observer (who we only care about) sees it as bending.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (22) Sep 22, 2013
Correct, except for the part where you said stuff. A photon can ONLY have kinetic energy, E = hc/λ ,.... and any form of energy can be weighed.


You make a good point but it might be wrong until one can prove experimentally that it is so. Is it possible that an EM wave moving with a speed c can be weighed? How and in which inertial reference frame can this be done?


By the bending of a light path.


No, that measures the mass of the object causing the bending, not of the light.


Newton's 3rd law (assuming SR as above). But since obviously light is massless, I took the term "weighed" in a generalized meaning,... as 'effect of gravity'. So, generalizing Newton's 3rd law, the stress-energy tensor in GR states that all forms of energy cause gravity.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2013
Within the IRF in which the light is moving (?), its not a bent path, but is 'straight' according to the definition of a geodesic,... but an observer (who we only care about) sees it as bending.


What observer? An observer within an inertial reference frame? I doubt it!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2013
Hi Fleetfoot:
I know how I derived my result, I used a hypersphere,...
I was only pointing out the use of Zephyr's/Einstein's use of water surface etc analogies as valid illustration of a 'hidden dimensional aspect/context' deducible as a result of such analogies. No more than that. :)
True but the number of degrees of freedom in, for example, modes of oscillation are real and can be measured.
Motions in 3-D space give all the info we need to 'derive' further mathematical/abstract 'dimensional degrees of freedom' we create for analysis/graphing purposes. INTRINSIC "curvatures" and "freedoms" are only observable 3D+motions/oscillations PHYSICAL data set; from which we 'create' EXTRINSIC abstract/math 'analytical analogies' as 'dimensions'.
Possibly, but you can't derive an inverse cube law from a water surface analogy,..
The analogy wasn't meant to be a complete theory in itself, but only validly illustrate deducible 'hidden aspects' possibility, as use therein. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2013
The freezing out of fundamental forces, primordial neucleosynthesis, recombination, first stars, structure formation, galaxy evolution, etc.
What IS "fundamental forces"? What does "freezing out" mean? No abstract/math concepts; actual fundamental physical entities/processes needed to support your claims.
S-S can't fit some of our most fundamental observations. CMB, expansion, structure evolution, elemental abundances...
Evidence of 'Big Bang & Universal expansion' is being re-interpreted in light of recent astronomical discoveries. So S-S possible again.
There is no observational evidence for a S-S that is exclusively indicative of S-S cosmology. It also requires violation of the principle of rules of physics being the same everywhere in the universe. It requires a theoretical explanation of how physics are not the same everywhere or at different times.
How does S-S "violate" the principle that physics is the same everywhere/when, exactly? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2013
http://www.nature...1.13776. I'd say, the Doppler's anisotropy shift of CMBR is notoriously known for years...;-) Why it suddenly does make a problem for notoriously flat Universe Big Bang cosmology?

Hi Franklins! If the universe is Steady State and infinite overall, then what we observe in our observable universe volume is merely 'local dynamics/phases' in a larger infinite system. Nothing outrageous or limiting about Steady State Universe overall. That "curvature" anisotropy etc is a 'local' observational effect (like 'local weather' fluctuations on Earth in its overall 'global climate patterns' over time, any local observer's weather is not the whole story). The bigger picture seems to be Steady State with natural localized evolutionary differences at any particular local stage in that evolution/chaos. No sweat, mate! :)
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2013
What IS "fundamental forces"? What does "freezing out" mean? No abstract/math concepts; actual fundamental physical entities/processes needed to support your claims.


Freezing out = Symmetry breaking. I would have though a well versed scientist such as yourself would understand the term. It is a very common term.Gravity, strong, electroweak, weak.

Evidence of 'Big Bang & Universal expansion' is being re-interpreted in light of recent astronomical discoveries..


What observations are those?

How does S-S "violate" the principle that physics is the same everywhere/when, exactly?


It requires electromagnetic radiation act differently far away then it does near by for one. Gravity must act differently over "there" then it does here. Dynamics & kinetics must act differently over "there". Particle physics must be different over "there" than here. Spacetime must be different "there" then here. That is the only we could reconcile what we see if S-S was correct.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2013
There are many practical questions to solve: the universe would exhibit the anisotropy of physical constants, CPT symmetry violation, orientation of galactic rotation and all these anisotropies should be somehow oriented to the Doppler anisotropy of CMBR radiation in unique way.


Zeph, I'm giving ya 5 for that. That's the prevailing view of the people (the vast majority) who hold to the Lambda CDM model. I hope ya meant exactly what ya actually said. Those are exactly the points used to justify Lambda CDM.
Fleetfoot
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2013
Hi R.C.
I was only pointing out the use of Zephyr's/Einstein's use of water surface etc analogies as valid illustration of a 'hidden dimensional aspect/context' deducible as a result of such analogies. No more than that. :)


OK,

Motions in 3-D space give all the info we need to 'derive' further mathematical/abstract 'dimensional degrees of freedom' we create for analysis/graphing purposes.


Agreed but you don't need coordinates, the measurements tell you the dimensionality.

Possibly, but you can't derive an inverse cube law from a water surface analogy,..
The analogy wasn't meant to be a complete theory in itself, but only validly illustrate deducible 'hidden aspects' possibility, as use therein. :)


I understand that but it doesn't work even as an analogy. Ripples on a 2D surface decay as r^-1 so there is no indication of extra dimensions, it doesn't work even as an analogy. Zephyr is just making his usual spurious, unfounded claims.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2013
Freezing out = Symmetry breaking. I would have though a well versed scientist such as yourself would understand the term. It is a very common term.Gravity, strong, electroweak, weak.
My question was to see if YOU knew what that actually meant in reality, and not just abstractly. :)

So, what IS "symmetry" of "fundamental forces" in reality (not math/abstract) terms, and how exactly does it "break" in reality (not abstract/math) terms, into 'lesser forces' you list.

What observations are those?
Read for yourself the astronomy discoveries literature/news and rethink the implications. Or wait till my ToE is published. :)

It requires electromagnetic radiation act differently far away then it does near by for one. Gravity must act differently over "there" then it does here. Dynamics & kinetics must act differently over "there". Particle physics must be different over "there" than here. Spacetime must be different "there" then here.
You assert without explaining why. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2013
OK,
Thanks for your comprehension of what was intended there. :)

Agreed but you don't need coordinates, the measurements tell you the dimensionality.
Exactly! I never mentioned co-ordinates, just the motion in 3D per se whatever their 'measured values' from observers' perspectives. :)

I understand that but it doesn't work even as an analogy. Ripples on a 2D surface decay as r^-1 so there is no indication of extra dimensions, it doesn't work even as an analogy. Zephyr is just making his usual spurious, unfounded claims.

Again, I only pointed to the deducibility of 'hidden aspects' from such an analogy used by Franklins/Einstein validly for that purpose only. I already mentioned Franklins AWT was not a complete theory in itself because it has no 'starting premise' from which gravity and the rest flow seamlessly. Professional theories don't either, by the way! :)
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2013
My question was to see if YOU knew what that actually meant in reality, and not just abstractly. :)


So now ya know I do, wow.

So, what IS "symmetry" of "fundamental forces" in reality


Is this another silly test? Or do ya really think GUT can be explained in this comment board? Yeppers silly.
What observations are those?
Read for yourself the astronomy discoveries literature/news and rethink the implications. Or wait till my ToE is published. :)


So ya were bluffing, ya can't name them?

You assert without explaining why. :)


No I assert that everyone of those items would require different physics if we were in a S-S universe. It means what we actually see can only be explained by an expanding universe, there are no S-S explanations that can allow what we observe.

Explain the CMB in a S-S model?

Explain expansion in a S-S model?

Explain structure evolution in a S-S model?

Explain element abundance in a S-S model?

Your turn to be tested.

RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 22, 2013
Franklins, Q-S, Fleetfoot. I'll risk it and just point out some things which may help you to get the bigger picture than just the localized 'curvatures' and 'hypersurfaces' and other analytical/math abstractions from the simple real 3D and motion data sets/observations.

All REAL geometries are either configurational or motional. IE, the analytical graphing of dimensions are derived from:

- lines of actual real motion in 3D energy-space, or;

- lines of surfaces of actual real objects.

Anything else is 'math/graphing dimensions' abstraction analysis tool, not 'other dimensions' in any real sense.

A ToE must bridge localized/arbitrary distinctions made in the overal global infinite energy-space and its simple 3D and Motion observable directly; because localized/arbitrary 'partial model' geometries/abstractions lead to more abstraction away from simple reality, and so make it impossible to complete the professional/other ToE to consistently and seamlessly include Gravity etc. :)
Fleetfoot
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2013
Ripples on a 2D surface decay as r^-1 so there is no indication of extra dimensions
As I told already here ..


And as I told you, what you said was wrong on both counts.

Of course, the answer is simple: if we can see some lensing at distance, it just means, that the space-time is curved in time dimension, which just means, it's not the 3D space anymore.


Wrong again, it remains 3D, just curved. Give up wittering, you haven't a clue.
Captain Stumpy
1.9 / 5 (17) Sep 22, 2013
well, first things first:
@ obama_socks

If you really want to learn from the best minds, go purchase some college level science books and read up on the topics you like ...


i already did that. i am reading through them now.

@Q-Star and Fleetfoot
thank you for posting information that CAN be found, checked and looked at. Also, what you are saying pretty much jibe's with what i am reading... it also makes sense in light of what i am reading.

i dont know what else to say about the "keyboard regurgitations". i am not here to argue about what you think you know. i want to learn. i cant learn without facts. everything else is just diarrhea of the keyboard. I cant say it any simpler. confounding the issues with pseudoscience does nothing for me but make it frustrating to learn.

@Franklins

i agree! skip using AWT and just post IMHO!
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2013
For example, it's generally accepted, that the dark matter effects are at least five-dimensional effects, ...


Garbage, it is generally accepted that dark matter is a form of matter. Give up with the techno-babble, you can't be convincing without having some basic knowledge.
Fleetfoot
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2013
@Franklins

i agree! skip using AWT and just post IMHO!


In this instance, "H" is not applicable.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2013
So now ya know I do, wow.
You "know abstractly", not "really". :)

Is this another silly test? Or do ya really think GUT can be explained in this comment board? Yeppers silly.
GUT is "abstract" hypothesis without "real" knowledge of what came before the equally abstract "symmetry breaking". Know difference between abstract and real before you make claims/assumptions of "knowing".

So ya were bluffing...?
I discussed them elsewhere. No more detail as I am nearing Publication (as I told you before).

No I assert that everyone of those items would require different physics if we were in a S-S universe..
Yes, you assert, not explain why. :)

Explain the CMB in a S-S model?

Explain expansion in a S-S model?

Explain structure evolution in a S-S model?

Explain element abundance in a S-S model?

Your turn to be tested.
If you can't see what's what, you must wait for my ToE. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2013
A ToE must bridge localized/arbitrary distinctions made in the overal global infinite energy-space
The more general theory is, the lower number of postulates it requires, but we cannot remove them all, because the single point can be extrapolated with infinite number of lines and whole ToE would become tautological in this way. So that even the most general ToE must consist from nonunitary number of postulates.
Not necessarily so, Franklins. We CAN remove all postulates IF we do not rely on same in the first place to 'start' the theory process. :)

My ToE follows from starting point of 'observational absolutes' which anyone can test for themselves, and the logics/features follow seamlessly therefrom. No ad hoc postulates/abstractions involved. Now THAT is what a ToE should be, and not the usual DISJOINTED collection of arbitrary/abstract 'Domain/Boundary-Limited' PARTIAL models, hey? Anyhow, been fun; but have to go get things ready to publish. Bye for now, guys! :)
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2013
My ToE follows from starting point
You need an implication vector, after then, i.e. the antecedent and consequent, i.e. at least two introductory postulates. Or you cannot define the causality arrow of your theory, construct its deductions the less (correlation doesn't imply causation).


Damn me eyes Zeph,,, ya are on a roll today,,,, that's the 2nd time I've voted ya a 5 today.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2013
You need an implication vector, after then, i.e. the antecedent and consequent, i.e. at least two introductory postulates. Or you cannot define the causality arrow of your theory, construct its deductions the less (correlation doesn't imply causation).
That is where my approach differs totally from previous approaches. The causality is not defined by anyone, but observed directly, as the logic train follows from the starting premise which is also directly observable and not defined ad hocly. It is a Self-Directing ToE process. Once started from the absolute observable starting observable, it is automatic and seamless in its evolution to what we observe of the whole universal phenomena set which follows naturally and is explained just as naturally without any ad hoc 'definitions' or 'postulates' or domain-of-applicability 'riders' needed anywhere along the line from go to whoa. That is the difference that makes it possible to arrive at a ToE that is truly 'independent'. Bye. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2013
My ToE follows from starting point
You need an implication vector, after then, i.e. the antecedent and consequent, i.e. at least two introductory postulates. Or you cannot define the causality arrow of your theory, construct its deductions the less (correlation doesn't imply causation).


Damn me eyes Zeph,,, ya are on a roll today,,,, that's the 2nd time I've voted ya a 5 today.


Don't ejaculate your effusion so prematurely, Q-S. Read my reply to Franklins in BOTH instances before being a social media 'cheerleader' interested more in personality than substance. You use the site/rating system for your own 'personalizing agenda' rather than sober science discourse on the substance. Do better, Q-S. Bye for now! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2013
...follows from starting point of 'observational absolutes'
It follows from postulates, after then - or it's not a theory in formal sense. Postulate is a well established term for 'observational absolute' - there is no need to introduce new one. IMO you're just reinventing a wheel - the formal description of formal theories is already established well.
No, A postulate is formulated (from observables or whatever); whereas in my ToE the observable IS it's own starting point, with no add-on 'definitions' or ad hoc 'postulate formulation' needed, by anyone. That is the only way a truly 'independent' and complete and consistent ToE can come about. Any other approach will suffer from exactly what you point out, Franklins. Bye for now! :)
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2013
Read my reply to Franklins in BOTH instances before being a social media 'cheerleader' interested more in personality than substance.


I never vote by personality. Ya may not have noticed, I don't even vote 1's for people who disagree with me. I only vote my opinion of the content of the post, I vote 99 5's for every time I vote1. Otherwise ya would have a much lower score than 1.8. So ya must get over it

You use the site/rating system for your own 'personalizing agenda' rather than sober science discourse on the substance.


For someone who is supposed be so deep and smart, ya sure are not very good at observation, and putting two and two together.

Do better, Q-S.


I'll do about the same I suspect, I'm satisfied. Life is very good for me.

Bye for now! :)


How many times are ya planning on saying that? It's not that I mind ya being here, I really don't. But it leaves me wondering: What the Devil does "Bye for now!" mean when this guy uses it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2013
whereas in my ToE the observable IS it's own starting point
Well, this is just what the tautology is called. Every postulate is a tautological by its very nature - it's true value is not tested in context of theory given. Bye, bye.


You misunderstand . In this ToE process the 'starting' observable can be and is itself tested for reality accordance by anyone desiring to do so, and so are all following logical/real observables indicated by the flow of the ToE evolution itself without formulation of any ad hoc postulates or definitions etc at any stage. Hence no 'tutology' as the starting premise does not 'depend' on anything other than reality-accordance which indicates the natural phenomenological prediction that is also observable already and not 'tautological' in any way. It is different from the usual tautological postulates/assumptions which underpin all other PARTIAL theories to date; that's what makes it 'independent' of 'domains/definitions' boundary conditions. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2013
I never vote by personality. For someone who is supposed be so deep and smart, ya sure are not very good at observation, and putting two and two together.
And yet you insist on making 'cheerleading votes/posts' before all the responses are settled to see what the real situation is that you are 'cheerleading'? Not very 'scientific' of you; just more 'social media' habits infecting your ego-postings. Do better.

I'll do about the same I suspect, I'm satisfied. Life is very good for me.
There is 'satisfied' and there is 'complacent'. Your complacency leads to arrogance/missteps which have been brought to your attention before. Do better.

How many times are ya planning on saying that? It's not that I mind ya being here, I really don't....What the Devil does "Bye for now!" mean when this guy uses it.
One is human, not robot. One intends to log out, but when replies come in so quickly it is rude to ignore them, especially if further clarification is indicated. :)
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (16) Sep 22, 2013
Do better.


Why don't ya do better.

Do better.


Ya first.

especially if further clarification is indicated. :)


Well it seems ya failed at that. At least Zephyr knows what tautology is. Your further clarification seems to be as much gobbledygook as the original gobbledygook.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2013
when replies come in so quickly it is rude to ignore them, especially if further clarification is indicated
Yep, this is very diplomatic explanation...;-) I will stay diplomatic too and I'll consider, it's http://imgs.xkcd....alls.png just for you.
Funny. And so true of many of us here, Q-S included, yes?

Is that person on the internet he is talking about Q-S? Could be, Q-S has been wrong so often now that it's no longer necessary to pull him up on it, because his credibility as 'mainstream defender' now equals his 'social media' status.

But seriously, Franklins, the tautology danger must be avoided if one goes about it the right way when starting a truly independent theorizing process not pre-proscribed by ad hoc postulates and definitions.

Otherwise like you say, ANY ToE attempt (amateur or professional) is true; and doomed to failure from incompleteness and self-referential logics/assumptions. There is a way to sidestep that danger. Wait and see! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2013
Just had to log in again for this bit of fun!

Well it seems ya failed at that. At least Zephyr knows what tautology is. Your further clarification seems to be as much gobbledygook as the original gobbledygook.


And you still 'cheerlead' before knowing exactly what you are cheerleading. Read my response to him on that as well, and keep your 'social media' tactics out of it, Q-S. :)

And when you say "do better", it probably means to do more like you do here? OK, just read what I said about you in my response to Franklins. Does that 'social media' remark better suit your way of 'discussing science'. :) See, anyone can do what you do, and do it better than you do. But your 'social media' antics are not science discourse. So no need to do better than you at that 'social media' and 'personality' stuff, hey!

Good luck, Q-S. Bye again for now! (hehe). :)
Admund
1 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2013
You know why you get nowhere with all your theories ?

"Empty" Space is NOT empty. The space between the sun and the moon is not empty. If it's empty it would not exist.

Initial big bang or Blackhole debris need not travel faster then speed of light to fill up the universe.

The universe is not infinite, it is as big as it exist or filled... Emptiness is infinite but does not exist physically.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2013
Well, I was wondering what the mechanism is to initiate a Big Bang, not what follows. There must be one, right?


That is outside of known physics. The "big bang" itself is outside of known physics. Only what comes after are we able to describe with any confidence.


Right, but it seemed that the steady state theory was being criticized for its lack of a mechanism. In other words, it can't explain with known physics how new matter is created. However, the same criticism can be leveled at the Big Bang theory, since it too lacks an explanation within known physics. Either theory might as well be turtles all the way down.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2013
Right, but it seemed that the steady state theory was being criticized for its lack of a mechanism.


Lack of a mechanism for what we DO observe. It can't explain expansion. Structure evolution. The abundances of the elements. It can't explain redshift. The CMB. Star formation and evolution. It can't explain gravitational dynamics. Why the farther back we look, everything was younger, less evolved. It's lacks a mechanism that can reconcile all of these things and more. UNLESS ya posit unknown physics.

In other words, it can't explain with known physics how new matter is created. However, the same criticism can be leveled at the Big Bang theory, since it too lacks an explanation within known physics.


Ya assume a priori that new matter is being created. There is no observation or phenomena that indicates that is.

Lambda CDM model offers no suggestion as to what the "big bang" was it only describes what followed. These mechanisms are pretty well understood.
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2013
the steady state theory was being criticized for its lack of a mechanism
Mechanism of what? The steady-state universe doesn't need any mechanism for its formation.
It can't explain expansion
Water surface analogy of light scattering demonstrates, how the red shift emerges. The expansion itself is just an extrapolation of the red shift, which becomes redundant after then.


Water surface ANALOGY is not physics Zeph. There are several indicators of expansion other than redshift. Redshift is well tested and robust science. It's been the subject of consistent experimentation and observation for over 100 years. No anomalous behaviors yet,,, but we'll keep playing with it, never can tell what might pop up, maybe even that Pink Unicorn that must in there somewhere.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (15) Sep 23, 2013
Hi again, Q-S. Mate, how many hints do you need before you stop being so dogmatically certain about things which are changing even as you repeat them without any attention to recent important astronomical discoveries regarding mass evolution and energy-space processes that can create all the observed CMB and redshift phenomena that is currently INTERPRETED as supporting Big Bang and Universal Expansion, but which can now be explained as a product of a combination of many old/current processes which produce the Hydrogen-Helium and other observed abundance relations as well as light-associated data. Read up your recent astronomy news and review old astronomy/physics information which has all you need for you to RE-INTERPRET all that data as NOT NEEDING big bang/expansion to explain. Ok, mate? Do some real work/thinking of your own instead of just repeating fast-becoming-obsolescent old paradigms/interpretations. Good luck, Q-S. Bye again, for now! :)
Gmr
3 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2013
Um, RealityCheck -

Steady state universe theories have been dead for a while now. A long while. Puppeting the corpses about is simply creepy.

Please stop it. You're scaring the children.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2013
We can deduce the Godel's incompleteness theorem in this way easily. The postulates of any theory must remain inconsistent at least a bit ..


Not inconsistent, unproven within the theory. They must be self-consistent or the theory is falsified. That applies to maths.

In physics, the postulates must be tested and confirmed by experiment or observation.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2013
the steady state theory was being criticized for its lack of a mechanism

Mechanism of what?


A mechanism for the creation of matter without anti-matter out of nothing.

It can't explain expansion

Water surface analogy of light scattering demonstrates, how the red shift emerges.


Water ripples do not change frequency, there is no analogy. Try it in a ripple tank, or your bath.

Why the farther back we look, everything was younger, less evolved.

Don't tell me - this is just the problem of Big bang model instead: even the most distant galaxies appear as just mature, as the galaxies all around us.


No they don't, galaxies with a "mature" morphology are a progressively smaller fraction of the total and are much smaller than those locally.
Captain Stumpy
2 / 5 (16) Sep 23, 2013
Hi again, Q-S. Mate, how many hints do you need before you stop being so dogmatically certain about things which are changing even as you repeat them without any attention to recent important astronomical discoveries .... Bye again, for now! :)


@RealityCheck
i know you are in the middle of a discussion with others, but... i need to ask a favour. please post an explanation of these "recent important astronomical discoveries" for the layman. as i am no cosmologist or physicist, i would like to know what you are talking about.

this is NOT some loaded question, i am curious. WHAT recent discoveries are you talking about? if this is something that i can learn from, then i wish to see, but i cant without you telling me about it. Would you be so kind?

Thanks in advance.
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2013
from WAY back up in the discussion:

in regard to whether there's any way for the Universe to either gain or lose energy/mass.

For example, electromagnetic radiation red shifts, losses energy, as it moves through (and with) expanding space-time, so where does this energy go then if only considering mass-energy


I've thought about this one before, and it's an interesting thought when you take it to the extreme, though not exactly as stated in the quote I snipped.

The situation I have pondered is in regard to extreme redshift (not as seen in our present Universe, but if it keeps expanding, and especially if expansion is accelerating). I understand that as space expands, the energy is conserved, but just spread out more.

However, at some point do you reach an extreme where expansion stretches the density of energy per unit volume to the point where it runs up against the Plank limit? What happens when you have less than a single quantum of energy in a quantum of space?
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2013
The situation I have pondered is in regard to extreme redshift (not as seen in our present Universe, but if it keeps expanding, and especially if expansion is accelerating). I understand that as space expands, the energy is conserved, but just spread out more.


Good question. I've wondered at point the light wavelength becomes so long that it actually quits being a wave? Is an infinite wavelength physical?

However, at some point do you reach an extreme where expansion stretches the density of energy per unit volume to the point where it runs up against the Plank limit? What happens when you have less than a single quantum of energy in a quantum of space?


Most models have the vacuum energy density remaining constant balancing mass energy of the universe. As the mass becomes more & separated in space it contributes less and less to universal dynamics. Hopefully answers to the vacuum energy density dilemma will come with a deeper exploration & understanding of DE.
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (13) Sep 23, 2013
I don't understand. The formation of matter out of nothing and the apparent lack of anti-matter are just a problem of Big Bang model - not the steady state models.


That is true Zeph, one of the few remaining problems with the Lambda CDM model,,,, the problem is no one can explain why matter remained and anti-matter was lost. That is a big problem we face, and an exciting one to work on.

Not "matter out of nothing", Energy can form "matter AND anti-matter" out of nothing. That's done in accelerators all the time. We just need figure out the "initial conditions" before 10^ -43 seconds.

Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 23, 2013
We just need figure out the "initial conditions" before 10^ -43 seconds.
Yes lets try to figure it: the matter of the whole Universe packed inside of Planck volume at the GUT temperature.


Exactly, that's the interesting and exciting thing,,, hopefully someone will answer it during my life time. It is a BIG question. And I'm enjoying watching the search for an answer.

But does it explain something? I'd guess it doesn't. It rather brings another immediate question: how the hell the Universe got into such a crazy state?


My answer is still,,,,

Exactly, that's the interesting and exciting thing,,, hopefully someone will answer it during my life time. It is a BIG question. And I'm enjoying watching the search for an answer.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (13) Sep 23, 2013
Hi Gmr. :)
Steady state universe theories have been dead for a while now.
Old physics/astronomy data, plus more recent astronomical discoveries, now allow a re-interpretation of the same 'evidence' which purported to support big bang and universal expansion etc. So the S-S was 'dismissed' based on incorrect interpretation of evidence/data. Like I tried to tell Q-S, if you don't have the full data/evidence and you're still working to an obsolescent paradigm based on incorrect interpretation of the evidence/data, then you are not really in a position to opine about it. Merely repeating 'old erroneous interpretations' in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary is just promulgating a 'belief' rather than a scientific re-evaluation of the evidence. Catch up on all the old/new astronomical discoveries/data and re-think it all through from scratch for yourself, Gmr. That's all objective science demands. Check and re-check as new info comes in. Yes? Good luck! :)
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2013
Water ripples do not change frequency, there is no analogy. Try it in a ripple tank, or your bath..
How would you call http://people.rit...565.jpg, after then?


When you drop a stone into water, the initial motion of the surface includes harmonics but they die out more quickly, only the fundamental is left as the surface settles down to simple harmonic motion. If that was a video, you would see the pattern moving outwards without any frequency shifting. Try it, doing that experiment isn't hard.
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2013
I don't understand. The formation of matter out of nothing and the apparent lack of anti-matter are just a problem of Big Bang model - not the steady state models.


That is true Zeph, one of the few remaining problems with the Lambda CDM model,,,, the problem is no one can explain why matter remained and anti-matter was lost.

Not "matter out of nothing", Energy can form "matter AND anti-matter" out of nothing. That's done in accelerators all the time.


In the BB model the energy comes from the end of inflation in a high density and temperature phase where symmetry violations are expected.

In the steady state model, there is no energy source and matter has to be created in the present cool, low density regime.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2013
In dense aether model this behavior http://aetherwave...ime.html

My illustrations aren't faked in any way, they're collected from materials freely available on the web. No additional experiments are required.


Zeph, I'm seeing exactly what Fleet described to ya, the fundamental wave, and the harmonics dying out over time/distance.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (15) Sep 23, 2013
Hi Cpt S. :)
...please post an explanation of these "recent important astronomical discoveries" for the layman. as i am no cosmologist or physicist, i would like to know what you are talking about.
this is NOT some loaded question, i am curious. WHAT recent discoveries are you talking about?
Actually, I have made quite clear in a number of responses to Q-S that I have essentially withdrawn from 'detailed' internet posts because my complete & consistent ToE is nearly ready for publication. So, 'slips of the tongue' at this stage may allow plagiarizers (not you or anyone here, of course; but yes, they do exist in 'the wider scientific community', sadly). I want to avoid the stress and wasted time/energy that would involve for me.

Anyhow, I already hinted at/discussed briefly, relevant information/interpretations elsewhere on the net; just enough to get others researching new/old astronomy data/discoveries and re-think/re-interpret it for themselves, as I did. Good luck, CS! :)
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (22) Sep 23, 2013
For example, electromagnetic radiation red shifts, losses energy, as it moves [with] expanding space-time, so where does this energy go then if only considering mass-energy


I've thought about this one before, and it's an interesting thought when you take it to the extreme, though not exactly as stated in the quote I snipped.

The situation I have pondered is in regard to extreme redshift (not as seen in our present Universe, but if it keeps expanding, and especially if expansion is accelerating). I understand that as space expands, the energy is conserved, but just spread out more.


But, 'spread out more', red-shifted, implies lose of energy, as E = h/λ, right(?), so energy must not be conserved in comoving coordinates? Does GR address the question of conservation of energy for the entire universe? This is what prompted my post above.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (21) Sep 23, 2013
@RealityCheck,

Where are you getting all those /'s? Do you sell them? I need some for purposes of appearing ambiguous in order to get me out of a jam.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2013
Hi Fleetfoot, Franklins. :)Just to add context to your discussion re 'ripples etc', it bears reminding that 'water surface' is 'incomplete' analogy beyond the merely 'illustrative principles' purpose. For example, in BECs and other superconductive/superfluidic contexts, the actual 'ripples' may look, act and persist quite differently than water surface ripples. Also, as we know from e-m and gravitational energy-conditioned 'energy-space' regions which we observe, the underlying 'surface/context' etc may differ as the ripples propagate from place to place, and so may be affected by the underlying energy-density values/effects of the regions it is traversing. So ripples can change (just as waves in lower atmosphere become longer waves and slower as they propagate into the less dense upper atmosphere; not making direct comparisons here, just pointing out 'in principle' that underlying states of energy-space etc conditions can affect things). Enjoy your discussion guys! :)
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Sep 23, 2013
But, 'spread out more', red-shifted, implies lose of energy, as E = h/λ, right(?), so energy must not be conserved in comoving coordinates? Does GR address the question of conservation of energy for the entire universe? This is what prompted my post above.


The short answer GR does in part rest on energy being conserved. The photon's energy does go down, but that loss is transferred to space. The total is still there, it's just distributed over more space,,, Fleet has a very good handle this and can explain the nuances much better than I can,,, that 1000 word limit really cramps my thoughts,

@ Fleet, ya want to give it a go?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2013
Oh, a PS to my previous post; Fleetfoot: In chaos states, no particular energy level is required to allow 'spontaneous' formation of persistent features from a seemingly amorphous 'background states' context. The Belousov (if that is his name spelt correctly?) non-linear reactions etc demonstrate that any context where sufficient randomized energy vibrations within an indeterminate quantum states background can produce all sorts of transient and evolving structure/dynamics which were not thought possible given the original starter states/contexts. Anyhow, just wanted to say that S-S creation, evolution and reversion of 'new matter' cannot be ruled out just on the grounds of 'insufficient energy' etc. Good luck and see you round, Fleetfoot, everyone! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2013
Where are you getting all those /'s? Do you sell them? I need some for purposes of appearing ambiguous in order to get me out of a jam.
Hehe. It is a 'limited text response' site, so 'compression' wherever possible is forced upon one. Good luck with your own discussions, Noumenon! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (13) Sep 23, 2013
Hi Fleetfoot, Franklins. :)... Hehe, Good luck and see you round Enjoy your discussion guys! :)
WTF? Did you smoke a pot or what? Such a senile posts aren't a quite good introductory strategy for accusation of Q-Star from social media 'cheerleadering'...;-) Now I'm seriously starting to think, who of you two is actually the greater twaddler here.
Hehe, no fear, Franklins, that was just polite closing salutation in relevant post, not the point of the post itself. Let's not over-react and throw out all polite forms of greetings and closing salutations just because some people (used to) post nothing but 'social media fluff', hey! Very funny try at humor though, Franklins. :)

Did you catch my PS to Fleetfoot?...about the S-S conditions/processes not being 'limited' to particular energy requirements for 'chaotic' processes and features (ie 'matter' etc) to arise and subside in/from the energy-space at its most fundamental chaotically undeterminate levels? Bye. :)
Gmr
1.4 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2013
RealityCheck - oh, you can re-interpret all you want. Creationists have been doing it for years. Making up stuff is another name for it.

It's still a bit morbid and creepy in this case.
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 23, 2013
@RealityCheck

i understand you are loath to lose your work over a slip of tongue, however, i am not sure how i would be able to find your "hints" on the WWW as the only profile information i can see is that you are going under the name RealityCheck on Phys.org. This leaves quite a long stretch of possibilities for search... on Google alone:

"new/old astronomy data/discoveries" gives 74,600,000 results
"new/old astronomy data/discoveries RealityCheck" 10,300,000 results

adding operators to thin the data search and specify astronomy only STILL gives me over 35 million pages to search through. the lowest amt at 1 page a second would take me a minimum of 119 days to search through, assuming i did not sleep or rest i any way, and only looked at data!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Sep 24, 2013
RealityCheck - oh, you can re-interpret all you want. Creationists have been doing it for years.
You are making up your own 'fantasy' about someone whom you have no real clue about. I first questioned all religious poppycock when I was 9. Since then, anyone within earshot was in no doubt that my approach from then on would be to seek/think on the objective world/scientific aspects to answer all questions for myself rather than 'believe' anyone or any 'authority'. That scrupulously objective scientist I still am today. From age 9, I have researched the available knowledge and connected the dots for myself, based on consistency and merits without fear or favor or any concern re the source of ideas/knowledge, including my own original insights/knowledge, building my ToE in an independent manner. I belong to no interest group or professional cadre etc because that way leads to groupthink and inevitable "publish or perish" debacle. I am patient and thorough. Your opinion is moot. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (13) Sep 24, 2013
PS to Gmr: By re-interpretation I obviously imply review. Re-interpretation of data and prior assumptions is part and parcel of the scientific method when new facts and perspectives make old paradigms/interpretations no longer tenable or the only interpretation of evidence already in hand. You seem to think that review based on new evidence should be banned from scientific process, just because you obviously equate 'scientifically objective review' with 'religious revisionism' or such like subjective/self-interested silliness. Learn the difference and look and re-think everything you have been told about big bang/universal expansion for yourself, based on the new astronomical discoveries and old astronomical data which has been misinterpreted because of limited scope of assumptions brought to that interpretation until now. Good luck! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (13) Sep 24, 2013
Hi Cpt S. :)
i understand you are loath to lose your work over a slip of tongue, however, i am not sure how i would be able to find your "hints" on the WWW as the only profile information i can see is that you are going under the name RealityCheck on Phys.org.
You misunderstand my suggestion, mate! I don't want/need any sort of 'following', because everyone should come to information 'cold' and objectively on their own initiative/searching, just as I have. I only urge everyone to do their own search of relevant astronomical news/discoveries literature, just as I have. I am not here to 'sell' any theory, but just to discuss some interesting points and encourage others along the objective path to their own insights and rethinks upon evidence old and new. Anything more that I have to say will be through my imminent complete and consistent ToE publication. So, you can do the research work for yourself and come to your own insights before then, or just wait for mine. Up to you! Bye:)
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 24, 2013
You misunderstand my suggestion, mate! I don't want/need any sort of 'following', because everyone should come to information 'cold' and objectively on their own initiative/searching, just as I have ...


Hmm. i guess i was not very clear. there is an obvious miscommunication. i'm not asking to buy anything, or follow anyone. just learn. thats it.

i was not sure what you meant by "recent important astronomical discoveries" and asked for clarification. i dont have TV. internet is over the CB radio. extremely slow. the nearest library is over 1hr drive to me, and less than 800ft square (only 1 computer, 15 minute limit), and the nearest university is over 300 miles (and small). i assumed that the information you had was something of note that the average citizen should be aware of. as i live pretty remote, i thought you had some breaking news.

i apologize for the assumptions. good night.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2013
Hi Fleetfoot, Franklins. :) ... So ripples can change (just as waves in lower atmosphere become longer waves and slower as they propagate into the less dense upper atmosphere


The wavelength changes because the speed changes, that will happen where ripples move through water of varying depth, but if you put a stick into the water at any point and measure the frequency, it is the same regardless of distance and depth.

That's why I was careful to talk of frequency, not wavelength in my previous comments, you can't overlook these details ;-)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2013
My illustrations aren't faked in any way, they're collected from materials freely available on the web. No additional experiments are required.


Oh I'm not accusing you of faking the images, they're perfectly reasonable. They just don't show what you think. Let me try to explain in simple terms using sound as an analogy.

Suppose somebody sings an ascending scale and you can take a photo of the compression waves in the air. You will see short wavelength close to the singer but longer wavelength far away and you might infer they were singing a single note and the wavelength was lengthening. However, in reality that pattern propagates without change, two listeners, one close and one far away will hear the same notes, there is no change of frequency with distance. A still camera can't show that, a video would. No matter how many stills you post, they can never support your claim.

In reality, the ripples don't change frequency so your water model is not an analogy for redshift.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2013
The short answer GR does in part rest on energy being conserved. The photon's energy does go down, but that loss is transferred to space.

Had a bit of a dig on that one, as the question stumped me for a second.

From what I read it looks like this: Conservation of energy only applies if you do not change your inertial reference frame between sending and receiving energy. Stretching of space changes the reference frame (just as accelerating towards or away from the source of the photon would - which would also blue/redshift the photon and make it appear more/less energetic)

Between the instant distant stars sending a photon and us receiving it spacetime has stretched. So we're no longer in the same reference frame as when the photon was emitted.

In its OWN reference frame the energy of the photon is unchanged. If you send it back and contract space where you expanded it before the energy will come out the same.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2013
... any context where sufficient randomized energy vibrations within an indeterminate quantum states background can produce ...


... S-S creation, evolution and reversion of 'new matter' cannot be ruled out just on the grounds of 'insufficient energy' ...


You failed to spot the contradiction, the key words are "sufficient" versus "insufficient".

The problem is that where average energies are higher than the particle masses, they are readily produced but in low energy environments, you are running on the tail of the distribution. The has a major impact on the statistics and the problem for S-S is then producing a sufficient fraction of helium nuclei without too much deuterium.

Good luck with your theory, I'll be very interested to see how you calculate the primordial element mix ;-)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2013
The situation I have pondered is in regard to extreme redshift (not as seen in our present Universe, but if it keeps expanding, and especially if expansion is accelerating). I understand that as space expands, the energy is conserved, but just spread out more.


But, 'spread out more', red-shifted, implies lose of energy, as E = h/λ, right(?), so energy must not be conserved in comoving coordinates? Does GR address the question of conservation of energy for the entire universe? This is what prompted my post above.


GR says the total energy is conserved. It also (almost) says it is zero ;-)

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

In particular, read the final section.

To go a step farther, try this:

http://iopscience...ext.html

Also available in preprint and PDF here:

http://arxiv.org/.../0212574

That is from 2002, there are probably more recent works on the subject.
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
Sep 24, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2013
Warning. Brainfart ahead:

Wouldn't it be fun if the passage of photons themselves were the agent of the expansion of space? A result would be nonuniform expansion of space (slightly more close to galaxies, with a tiny bit less further out). Unfortunately photons don't interact with a Higgs field (unless there are more than one Higgs type), so I have no mechanism for this. Damn.

This would even be testable, as photons of various energies would interact differently with quantized spacetime. (E.g. if one were to send blue laser light along a stretch of space and red laser light along another of equal length the amount of redshift should eventually differ (at an increasing rate, too).)
However the mix of frequncies we observe coming from distant stars would not show a different shift of the high vs. the lower energy lines in spectrographic images, as they both travel along the same stretch. So the stretching would be a summation of the effect of all energies. No test there :-/
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (20) Sep 24, 2013
Wouldn't it be fun if the passage of photons themselves were the agent of the expansion of space? A result would be nonuniform expansion of space (slightly more close to galaxies, with a tiny bit less further out). Unfortunately photons don't interact with a Higgs field (unless there are more than one Higgs type), so I have no mechanism for this. Damn.

Yes, it would be AWT. Photons do indeed interact with Higgs field or even CMBR field (which is essentially the Higgs field at the human scale in AWT).


Neat thought, but why would you need the Higgs mechanism, while in GR all forms of energy are a source of gravitation?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2013
Neat thought, but why would you need the Higgs mechanism

Well, it would need some means of interaction with the quantized spacetime. The Higgs field seemed like the obvious candidate at the time of the brainfart (which was all of 15 minutes ago and lasted for 30 seconds). So no time to work on this, yet.

Just kidding. I'm not going to work on this. No time and probably not enough background knowedge to make much headway in any case.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2013
www.indjst.org; Sep 2010


"Server not found"

Standing open challenge could be seen at http://www.worlds...mp;tab=2


An abstract only with two links, both "Page not found".

and http://gsjournal.net/scie...


Incomplete URL.

You need to do some housekeeping.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2013
interstellar gas can actually not fall into black hole, because it's heated to overly high temperature.


It is indeed, and it radiates that heat away, that's why quasars can be brighter than whole galaxies, no problem there.

The cosmologists already have a problem, how the black holes got the time for their formation,


That's one that is being worked on. It isn't a problem for the BB model though, it is a question of how SMBH were seeded.
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2013
But, 'spread out more', red-shifted, implies lose of energy, as E = h/λ, right(?), so energy must not be conserved in comoving coordinates


Imagine a flashligh that you turn on for 1 second. It is shining on a PV cell and gives you 1 watt, with no expansion/redshift.

Shine that same light for 1 second at a PV cell x billion LY away. Imagine that the frequency of the light is halved by expansion/redshift before reaching a PV cell.

The area of the light beam will be larger and the time it takes for the entire 1 second initial burst of light to be received by the PV cell will be longer than 1 second. The light is stretched out in all directions. The total energy received by the PV cell will still be 1 watt.

So, energy is conserved.
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2013
The physicists already know well, that the photons can interact with CMBR background.


True but you seem to be forgetting that the CMB is simply photons itself.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2013
True but you seem to be forgetting that the CMB is simply photons itself
Of course not, a lotta gravitons, axions and dark matter stuff is there. The water surface appears smooth, void and empty - yet it scatters the surface ripples reliably.


Nope, the "M" stands for "microwave", it's just pure photons as you know, your efforts to change the subject are rather obvious.

So have you now grasped that your photographs of ripples are worthless? Do you understand what I said about singing a scale? It shouldn't be too hard for you.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2013
Imagine a flashligh that you turn on for 1 second. It is shining on a PV cell and gives you 1 watt, with no expansion/redshift.


1 joule but no matter.

Shine that same light for 1 second at a PV cell x billion LY away. Imagine that the frequency of the light is halved by expansion/redshift before reaching a PV cell. ... The total energy received by the PV cell will still be 1 watt.


Time dilation means that the photons emitted over 1 second will arrive over 2 seconds, but the total number of photons is unchanged so the rate of arrival is halved. The total energy is the number of photons multiplied by energy per photon, and the latter is reduced by the redshift.

It's a complex subject but "antialias" has it right. Think about simple Doppler which does conserve energy. We typically talk about energy loss in co-moving frames but such a frame here is moving relative to one over there.

The other aspect is the effect of gravitational potential, consider the Pound-Rebka expt.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Sep 24, 2013
Hi Cpt S. :)
i dont have TV. internet is over the CB radio. extremely slow. the nearest library is over 1hr drive to me, and less than 800ft square (only 1 computer, 15 minute limit), and the nearest university is over 300 miles (and small).
You seem doubly unfortunate! Your circumstances (self researching scope seemingly limited to almost 'third world' standard/capability), and my timing/situation dictating reticence (for ToE publishing reasons already stated), conspire against easy learning opportunities/curve. Beyond my control as things stand, mate; sorry.

The relevant data/discoveries are 'sprinkled' over many years/sources; requiring much study/search time, diligence and connecting-of-dots for objective, coherent understanding and novel consistent review/interpretation insights. That process has engaged me for many years. You may be stuck with studying current theories/texts until my ToE comes out? Then you have something to compare it to, at least! Good luck, CS! :)
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (19) Sep 24, 2013
Yes correct Fleetfoot,... 'doppler red shift' is not to be equated with 'cosmological red shift' and conservation of energy is not being questioned of the former. In my 1st post I supposed that total energy conservation has to be the case, if the dynamics of space-time is considered,.. but if not then one can say it isn't.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Sep 24, 2013
The wavelength changes because the speed changes, that will happen where ripples move through water of varying depth, but if you put a stick into the water at any point and measure the frequency, it is the same regardless of distance and depth.

That's why I was careful to talk of frequency, not wavelength in my previous comments, you can't overlook these details ;-)
No problem with what you say, mate. But I already pointed out that Zephyr's/Einstein's water surface analogy was limited to only illustrating the principle of deducing possible hidden contexts as such, as used; and not a complete theory capable of extension to all aspects 'as is'.

Also, I specifically made the general point that underlying energy-space density/flux etc 'conditions' affect features/propagations in/through same. That was all. Specific, localized dynamics/phenomena are sub-sets of the overall universal set/context. That was the point. No specific support/claims re water surface analogy from me. :)
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (17) Sep 24, 2013
Not that my posts have been very great, but I don't think you have actually said anything so far of substance.

Translation: Not that my posts/comments have/where been great/worthy, but/however I don't think/believe/understand that you have actually said/conveyed anything/of substance so far.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Sep 24, 2013
You failed to spot the contradiction, the key words are "sufficient" versus "insufficient".

Good luck with your theory, I'll be very interested to see how you calculate the primordial element mix ;-)
Fundamental/ground-state chaotic systems levels imply no such thing as 'insufficient', ever. Because ground-state/fundamental level is 'balanced' (not 'zero' energy). Localized fluctuations in overall chaos system at that level imply only localized 'imbalances'. Else one is implying absolute immobility and absolute nothing globally. This is obviously not the case for a universe, else nothing would ever 'happen' or arise to produce observed universal phenomenon? And the chotic 'cascade upwards' from physical ineffectiveness to physical effectiveness can happen to build the 'sufficiency' in the 'higher level' harmonics/contexts where observable dynamis/features form and eventually subside. The characteristic of chaotic system is 'complexity from simplicity'.

Thanks, mate! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Sep 24, 2013
GR says the total energy is conserved. It also (almost) says it is zero ;-)

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

That is from 2002, there are probably more recent works on the subject.
Hmmm. GR is by definition treating a manifold/topological space 'model' having no 'edge' or 'boundary' to it, isn't it?

If so, then again, by GR definition/model construct, the GR treatment/model is actually of a FINITE universal domain without any attempt to identify real constraints. And that's all it can say about the 'metrics' within that arbitrarily 'open' model. Yes?

If so, if so, it can in no way say anything about the ACTUAL PHYSICAL EXTENT of the universe itself. Hence GR treatments cannot say anything about energy conservation in the overall universe, but only in localized arbitrary regions/under study? :)
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 24, 2013
Neat thought, but why would you need the Higgs mechanism, while in GR all forms of energy are a source of gravitation?
Hmmm. If CMBR microwaves are a 'background' feature rather than 'localized' features, then the 'gravity effects' of the CMBR 'background' are as diffusely distributed as the CMBR photons themselves, yes? So their gravity effects would not be obvious unless they are concentrated and localized somehow. So their influence would 'cancel out' overall, such that only the gravity effects of the usual mass/energy concentrations would 'stand out' in observations. Yes? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (13) Sep 24, 2013
Well, it would need some means of interaction with the quantized spacetime.

Just kidding. I'm not going to work on this. No time and probably not enough background knowedge to make much headway in any case.
Don't sell yourself short on this one, mate. I have often in the past asked the experts to identify the 'coupling mechanism' beteen photons and space that would effect that 'photon stretching' relied upon by the 'cosmological expansion redshift of th photons to CMBR wavelengths' etc. So far no explanations forthcoming to support that assumed 'cause' of stretching as being due to 'space' itself somehow affecting the photon. Can't have it both ways, but the space-expansion hypotheses and photon stretching hypotheses DO keep wanting it both ways, it seems. :)
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 24, 2013
Not that my posts have been very great, but I don't think you have actually said anything so far of substance.

Translation: Not that my posts/comments have/where been great/worthy, but/however I don't think/believe/understand that you have actually said/conveyed anything/of substance so far.


Cpt S, Q-S and others have got that I have a complete and consistent ToE publication imminent and so cannot risk plagiarism at this stage. Did you miss it while busy composing your empty smart-alecky posts? That is why I have limited my posts to points/observations/hints (hehe) intended to encourage further thinking and discussion in light of those points/observations/hints (hehe). No crime in encouraging original/alternative trains of exploration/interpretation, is there, Noumenon? :)
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (18) Sep 24, 2013
Neat thought, but why would you need the Higgs mechanism, while in GR all forms of energy are a source of gravitation?
Hmmm. If CMBR microwaves are a 'background' feature rather than 'localized' features, then the 'gravity effects' of the CMBR 'background' are as diffusely distributed as the CMBR photons themselves, yes? So their gravity effects would not be obvious unless they are concentrated and localized somehow. So their influence would 'cancel out' overall, such that only the gravity effects of the usual mass/energy concentrations would 'stand out' in observations. Yes? :)


You are correct for CMBR [but is that absolutely homogeneous?], but AA didn't mention CMBR (i.e. he said "slightly more close to galaxies"), and I thought he was speaking in terms of GR. He is apparently still working on his theory with a can of lysol on hand, so he does not want to go into anymore details.

And thank you for excluding the /'s as they are like speed bumps in reading.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (20) Sep 24, 2013
Not that my posts have been very great, but I don't think you have actually said anything so far of substance.

Translation: Not that my posts/comments have/where been great/worthy, but/however I don't think/believe/understand that you have actually said/conveyed anything/of substance so far.


Cpt S, Q-S and others have got that I have a complete and consistent ToE publication imminent and so cannot risk plagiarism at this stage. Did you miss it while busy composing your empty smart-alecky posts? That is why I have limited my posts to points/observations/hints (hehe) intended to encourage further thinking and discussion in light of those points/observations/hints (hehe). No crime in encouraging original/alternative trains of exploration/interpretation, is there, Noumenon? :)


Just dump it into arXiv.org. Apart from Franklins, we are just speaking in mainstream context anyway.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 24, 2013
You are correct for CMBR [but is that absolutely homogeneous?], but AA didn't mention CMBR (i.e. he said "slightly more close to galaxies"), and I thought he was speaking in terms of GR. He is apparently still working on his theory with a can of lysol on hand, so he does not want to go into anymore details.

And thank you for excluding the /'s as they are like speed bumps in reading. :)
Those CMBR comments were made in the context of the side-discussion between Teech2 and AA. Teech2 brought up the CMBR, as follows:
Wouldn't it be fun if the passage of photons themselves were the agent of the expansion of space?
Yes, it would be AWT. Photons do indeed interact with Higgs field or even CMBR field (which is essentially the Higgs field at the human scale in AWT).


True, those "/" are not pretty things. I only resort to them when otherwise the post would expand greatly to cover all the 'permutations' involved. But I will minimize their use as a favor. :)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2013
Good luck with your theory, I'll be very interested to see how you calculate the primordial element mix ;-)


The characteristic of chaotic system is 'complexity from simplicity'.


I don't have a problem with your approach in principle, as I said it's the details of applying a statistical analysis to that model to get the abundances that will be challenging. I look forward to seeing that.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2013
GR says the total energy is conserved. It also (almost) says it is zero ;-)
Hmmm. GR is by definition treating a manifold/topological space 'model' having no 'edge' or 'boundary' to it, isn't it?


Not GR itself, it applies locally in differential form, but if you add the cosmological principle, you get the FLRW metric and that only describes manifolds which are unbounded.

If so, then again, by GR definition/model construct, the GR treatment/model is actually of a FINITE universal domain without any attempt to identify real constraints.


The solutions can be finite or infinite constrained by the mean energy density.

.. Hence GR treatments cannot say anything about energy conservation in the overall universe, but only in localized arbitrary regions/under study? :)


The Hamiltonian is well defined and is zero for any finite universe. It's harder to prove for open universes but as the paper I cited discusses, there are good reasons to think it is zero too.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (13) Sep 25, 2013
Hi Fleetfoot. :)
Good luck with your theory, I'll be very interested to see how you calculate the primordial element mix ;-)


The characteristic of chaotic system is 'complexity from simplicity'.


I don't have a problem with your approach in principle, as I said it's the details of applying a statistical analysis to that model to get the abundances that will be challenging. I look forward to seeing that.
The logical and physical indications and consequences of my ToE have the processes that create that 'abundance ratio' continuing to this day. :) In other words, what we 'observe' is only a short 'snapshot' of a continuing process that varies in intensity and location over evolutionary epochs, but does not demand 'singular origin' or 'one off process' like BB etc. Trivial aspect really. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (13) Sep 25, 2013
Hi Fleetfoot. Yes, good points!
Not GR itself, it applies locally in differential form, but if you add the cosmological principle, you get the FLRW metric and that only describes manifolds which are unbounded.
However, that was my point. GR must include the cosmological principle but still does not identify actual physical extent, but only an arbitrary mathematical topology 'subset', yes?

The solutions can be finite or infinite constrained by the mean energy density.
How is the 'mean' identified if there is no 'final extent' values for both the space or the energy?

The Hamiltonian is well defined and is zero for any finite universe. It's harder to prove for open universes but as the paper I cited discusses, there are good reasons to think it is zero too.
That's the problem. Far regions beyond mutual causal reach, make GR treatment automatically 'finite' and cannot be extrapolated because no 'averaging out' is possible due to speed of light/info? :)
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 26, 2013
Cpt S, Q-S and others ... smart-alecky posts?


@RC

if you are referring to MY reply being "smart-alecky", it was not. it was a statement of fact. I didn't miss anything you said here. i wish to learn, so i asked. others have answered. i was trying to be polite, & explain my limitations. you seemed to assume i was a groupie in search of a leader.

i understand your need for secrecy, but when i asked about your comment "recent important astronomical discoveries", i simply wished to know specifics. if it was "published", i wanted to know. if it was NOT, you could have said it wasn't.

you made statements about "current events" that did not seem to fit observation. i asked for clarification and received...what? either you DID not want to clarify or you COULD not. that is where it stands now.

after re-reading everything, i am not sure it would be worth pursuing, as i do not need more advice on "how to come to my own conclusions". i can do that just fine.

PEACE
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 26, 2013
...now, that LAST post you may take as being smart-alecky if you wish, as it was intended to be cantankerous, yet truthful.

i was taught that the only stupid question was the unasked one. i did not wish admonishment in return, i wished insight. you may be used to being defensive with others, but i am NOT the others.

sometimes i tend to be a little too analytical, and sometimes i get impertinent or just plain abrasive. i was trying to be analytical and learn until your post about my "smart-alecky" composition.

PEACE
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (13) Sep 26, 2013
if you are referring to MY reply being "smart-alecky", it was not. it was a statement of fact. I didn't miss anything you said here. i wish to learn, so i asked. others have answered. i was trying to be polite, & explain my limitations. you seemed to assume i was a groupie in search of a leader.

PEACE
No no no, mate! That was ONLY directed at Noumenon's smart-alecky remark quoted in that post! (No offense taken and no hard feelings by the way, Noumenon :) )

Your (Cpt S) and Q-S names came into it only to highlight (in answer to Noumenon therein) that you and Q-S are already aware of the reasons why I cannot go into deeper detail in discussions for the time being.

See?....I actually explicitly excluded you and Q-S from that 'smart alecky' instance because you and Q-S were fully aware of my publishing-related reticence. Yes? :)

Lucky I was read-only 'surfing' by and caught your post!

Good luck and good thinking, Cpt S! And also PEACE to you, in kind and in full, CS! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (13) Sep 26, 2013
...now, that LAST post you may take as being smart-alecky if you wish, as it was intended to be cantankerous, yet truthful.

i was taught that the only stupid question was the unasked one. i did not wish admonishment in return, i wished insight. you may be used to being defensive with others, but i am NOT the others.

sometimes i tend to be a little too analytical, and sometimes i get impertinent or just plain abrasive. i was trying to be analytical and learn until your post about my "smart-alecky" composition.

PEACE
Please read above post. Also, please be assured that I in no way meant 'admonishment' or any disrespect. This site's limited text responses produce 'curt' posts which may be misunderstood. Happens all the time. I only wished the best for your own future exploration and learning trajectory, however that may be effected given your stated internet etc constraints. Best respect, regards and enlightenment to you, mate! PEACE :)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2013
.. if you add the cosmological principle, you get the FLRW metric and that only describes manifolds which are unbounded.

However, that was my point. GR must include the cosmological principle


That was my point, it doesn't have to include it. If the Milky Way was the only galaxy (pre the "Great Debate"), the Schwarzschild Metric would apply. It is included because observations support that postulate.

but still does not identify actual physical extent, but only an arbitrary mathematical topology 'subset', yes?


GR doesn't predict the energy density so only measurement can set a limit on the extent. At the moment, it is confidently at least 250 times the observable portion. Inflation models greatly increase that but there are several different versions of inflation so until we can tie down which applies, those are less trustworthy.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2013
The solutions can be finite or infinite constrained by the mean energy density.

How is the 'mean' identified if there is no 'final extent' values for both the space or the energy?


Simple statistical analyses. Deep surveys are used to measure the variability over a range of volumes. They show that in general the average becomes consistent on scales greater than ~100MPc.

That's the problem. Far regions beyond mutual causal reach, make GR treatment automatically 'finite' and cannot be extrapolated because no 'averaging out' is possible due to speed of light


And yet we have the so-called "horizon problem", the temperature of the CMB is consistent to a few parts per million between regions that can never have communicated. Why that is the case is a topic for research but observation tells us that it is the case. Ockham's Razor says the Cosmological Principle is the simplest characterisation of that observation.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (13) Sep 26, 2013
That was my point, it doesn't have to include it. If the Milky Way was the only galaxy (pre the "Great Debate"), the Schwarzschild Metric would apply. It is included because observations support that postulate.
Ah, I see what you meant. Thanks. That again brings up the question of how realistic GR is. Eg, without sufficient 'gravity containment by minimum value 'cumulative mass', a black hole cannot exist and remain stable due to Quantum Vacuum states/scale forces/dynamics. Ie, less-than sufficient cumulative mass, even if concentrated in a region smaller than its 'Shwartzchild radius, cannot form a black hole. So 'GR metric' is moot in Quantum reality?

GR doesn't predict the energy density so only measurement can set a limit on the extent. At the moment, it is confidently at least 250 times the observable portion. ...but there are several different versions of inflation so until we can tie down which applies, those are less trustworthy.
Agreed. Models only.:)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (13) Sep 26, 2013
Simple statistical analyses. Deep surveys are used to measure the variability over a range of volumes. They show that in general the average becomes consistent on scales greater than ~100MPc.
The assumptions being that the observable extent is not going to differ much in energy-space conditions from that further (infinite?) energy-space extent not yet observable at all now or ever?

And yet we have the so-called "horizon problem", the temperature of the CMB is consistent to a few parts per million between regions that can never have communicated. Why that is the case is a topic for research but observation tells us that it is the case. Ockham's Razor says the Cosmological Principle is the simplest characterisation of that observation.
Again, the assumption being that there was a 'big bang' beginning to its production/spread? In infinite eternal S-S universe, each region has a local CMBR 'average' over evolutionary epochs, even if causally disconnected from others? :)
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Sep 27, 2013
That was my point, it doesn't have to include it. If the Milky Way was the only galaxy (pre the "Great Debate"), the Schwarzschild Metric would apply. It is included because observations support that postulate.
Ah, I see what you meant. Thanks.


I may think the Big Bang is correct but that doesn't mean I lose sight of its postulates ;-)

.. without sufficient 'gravity containment by minimum value 'cumulative mass', a black hole cannot exist and remain stable due to Quantum Vacuum states/scale forces/dynamics. Ie, less-than sufficient cumulative mass, even if concentrated in a region smaller than its 'Shwartzchild radius, cannot form a black hole.


If the material is within the Schwarzschild radius, then it is a black hole by definition. The smallest possible BH is probably the Planck Particle with a mass of about micrograms. Anything larger loses mass by Hawking Radiation, the quantum process you allude to.

For anything significantly more massive, GR is valid.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Sep 27, 2013
Simple statistical analyses. Deep surveys are used to measure the variability over a range of volumes. They show that in general the average becomes consistent on scales greater than ~100MPc.
The assumptions being that the observable extent is not going to differ much in energy-space conditions from that further (infinite?) energy-space extent not yet observable at all now or ever?


Yes. A sphere of 100MPc diameter has a volume of 0.00052 cubic GPc. The comoving radius of the observable universe is about 14GPc giving a volume of about 11800 cubic GPc, or 22 million times larger. If you look at 22 million independent volumes and they all have the same mean with Gaussian variation and there is no evidence for any deviation, then you have to assume that continues in the adjacent volumes you cannot measure. Essentially, that is the effect of Okham's Razor.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Sep 27, 2013
And yet we have the so-called "horizon problem", ... Why that is the case is a topic for research but observation tells us that it is the case. Ockham's Razor says the Cosmological Principle is the simplest characterisation of that observation.

Again, the assumption being that there was a 'big bang' beginning to its production/spread?


No, we simply observe that there was uniformity at that epoch. Some models postulate previous phases which allow for equilibrium to be reached. However it came about, the Cosmological Principle is observed to apply then.

In infinite eternal S-S universe, each region has a local CMBR 'average' over evolutionary epochs ..


That is one reason why S-S doesn't work. We would see the average radiation from all the regions integrated along the line of sight but progressively redshifted. That integral gives a nearly flat spectrum with a high-frequency cutoff, not the black body spectrum that is observed.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) Sep 27, 2013
I may think the Big Bang is correct but that doesn't mean I lose sight of its postulates ;-)


Yes, that is why I enjoy our sporadic exchanges, because it is a real pleasure conversing with someone who doesn't lose sight of where the model has its beginnings/limitations. :)

If the material is within the Schwarzschild radius, then it is a black hole by definition.
I should have phrased it better. I meant to say that for insufficient cumulative energy-mass, no amount of concentration into smaller volume will produce a Schwartzchild Radius effect in the surrounding energy-space 'metric' (whether GR or Quantum models); hence no black hole effect arises; hence no 'definition' can be made valid according to that reality of insufficient energy-mass concentration 'containment' effect in the first instance to induce bh effects in the surrounding (GR or Quantum) metrics. If you see what I mean? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) Sep 27, 2013
Yes. A sphere of 100MPc diameter has a volume of 0.00052 cubic GPc. The comoving radius of the observable universe is about 14GPc giving a volume of about 11800 cubic GPc, or 22 million times larger. If you look at 22 million independent volumes and they all have the same mean with Gaussian variation and there is no evidence for any deviation, then you have to assume that continues in the adjacent volumes you cannot measure. Essentially, that is the effect of Okham's Razor.
Couldn't agree with you more, mate. It seems we only disagree about the S-S 'smoothing' versus 'smoothing' by Big Bang Inflation/Expansion? In short, my Occam's Razor applied to the same 'observations' gives S-S 'smoothing' as the 'less convoluted' Occam's Razor conclusion. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) Sep 27, 2013
No, we simply observe that there was uniformity at that epoch. Some models postulate previous phases which allow for equilibrium to be reached. However it came about, the Cosmological Principle is observed to apply then.
That 'epoch' in Standard Model is dependent on the "inflationary Hypothesis" which has yet to identify the actual physical mechanism for it. As such, it is a more convoluted interpretation, ie as a Big Bang 'epoch' rather than just 'contiguous S-S epochs to infinity'.
We would see the average radiation from all the regions integrated along the line of sight but progressively redshifted.
Again, maybe interpretation rather measurement of the data/observations, is the problem?
That integral gives a nearly flat spectrum with a high-frequency cutoff, not the black body spectrum that is observed.
Hmmm. What observations/interpretations lead to 'flat spectrum & high freq. cutoff' and/or 'blackbody spectrum' expectation? Back in a few days. Thanks, mate! :)
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Sep 28, 2013
If you look at 22 million independent volumes and they all have the same mean with Gaussian variation and there is no evidence for any deviation, then you have to assume that continues in the adjacent volumes you cannot measure. Essentially, that is the effect of Okham's Razor.

Couldn't agree with you more, mate. It seems we only disagree about the S-S 'smoothing' versus 'smoothing' by Big Bang Inflation/Expansion? In short, my Occam's Razor applied to the same 'observations' gives S-S 'smoothing' as the 'less convoluted' Occam's Razor conclusion.


In terms of the horizon problem, there are different explanations but both work. The problems with steady state lie in other areas, most obviously the lack of an explanation for the spectrum of the CMB and the prediction of observed primordial abundances. Gravitational instability of the mean density is another but that's harder to discuss since there is no known mechanism for the "creation field".
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Sep 28, 2013
If the material is within the Schwarzschild radius, then it is a black hole by definition.
I should have phrased it better. I meant to say that for insufficient cumulative energy-mass, no amount of concentration into smaller volume will produce a Schwartzchild Radius effect in the surrounding energy-space 'metric' (whether GR or Quantum models); hence no black hole effect arises


No, the mass required is simply proportional to the radius, there is no lower limit other than at the Planck scale. There is a practical limit that the only way to get sufficient compression is by piling on more mass, but that's not fundamental to the GR solution.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Sep 28, 2013
No, we simply observe that there was uniformity at that epoch. ..
That 'epoch' in Standard Model is dependent on the "inflationary Hypothesis" ..


By "that epoch", I meant the surface of last scattering, sorry if the shorthand was confusing.

We would see the average radiation from all the regions integrated along the line of sight but progressively redshifted.
Again, maybe interpretation rather measurement of the data/observations, is the problem?
No, it's purely empirical. We observe redshift regardless of any interpretation.

That integral gives a nearly flat spectrum with a high-frequency cutoff, not the black body spectrum that is observed.
Hmmm. What observations/interpretations lead to 'flat spectrum & high freq. cutoff' and/or 'blackbody spectrum' expectation?


The observation of the Hubble Law and the assumption of Euclidean space give you a flat spectrum prediction. What is observed is black body. SS has no explanation for that AFAIK.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) Oct 03, 2013
Hi Fleetfoot. Sorry for the tardiness of my reply. Been very busy! :)
In terms of the horizon problem, there are different explanations but both work. The problems with steady state lie in other areas, most obviously the lack of an explanation for the spectrum of the CMB and the prediction of observed primordial abundances. Gravitational instability of the mean density is another but that's harder to discuss since there is no known mechanism for the "creation field".
As to the CMB 'spectrum', there is now increasing astronomical discoveries which could explain all the various characteristics of any and all of the e-m radiation 'spectrum' including the observed range of wavelengths we characterize as "CMB". That is the point. The assumptions & interpretations attached to observed CMB are themselves under question, not the CMB 'spectrum' observed.

Similar situation re 'abundance ratio' etc. As I mentioned before. Trivial really. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) Oct 03, 2013
No, the mass required is simply proportional to the radius, there is no lower limit other than at the Planck scale. There is a practical limit that the only way to get sufficient compression is by piling on more mass, but that's not fundamental to the GR solution.
But that is the point I make. Just because we can 'imagine' that a BH feature will form once we compress mass to a particular critical 'density', it does not follow in reality physis (as pointed out already) that a bh hole WILL form/persist against the same quantum indeterminacy that you mention due to quantum scale forces and factors as already known which act against such 'containment' and hence any bh formation/stability at anything less than critical 'cumulative mass' total (not 'density' as such).

ie, only with a min. critical mass, and its overall critical 'saturation' of surrounding gravity-conditioned space in proportion to that mass (not density), can an event horizon form due to such 'saturation' effect. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) Oct 03, 2013
By "that epoch", I meant the surface of last scattering, sorry if the shorthand was confusing.
No problem. Makes no difference to what I am trying to point out; ie: that 'the mean surface of last scattering' is STILL going on, because processes which produce observed abundance proportions and spectrums are STILL going on throughout space. This is evident now from recent/old astronomical discoveries now re-interpreted without 'big bang/expansion' assumptions brought into it or needed.

No, it's purely empirical. We observe redshift regardless of any interpretation.
Yes. But interpretations OF those observations, and the assumptions used, is what I meant. :)

The observation of the Hubble Law and the assumption of Euclidean space give you a flat spectrum prediction. What is observed is black body. SS has no explanation for that AFAIK.
Again, assumptions/interpretations re what we observe/expect etc are in question. Hence such arguments are not 'ironclad' anymore. :)
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Oct 06, 2013
Hi Fleetfoot. Sorry for the tardiness of my reply. Been very busy! :)


No problem, me too.

The problems with steady state lie in other areas, most obviously the lack of an explanation for the spectrum of the CMB and the prediction of observed primordial abundances. ..


As to the CMB 'spectrum', there is now increasing astronomical discoveries which could explain all the various characteristics of any and all of the e-m radiation 'spectrum' including the observed range of wavelengths we characterize as "CMB".


Oh it's quite easy to come up with alternative sources, getting the spectrum right is where the problem lies.

That is the point. The assumptions & interpretations attached to observed CMB are themselves under question, not the CMB 'spectrum' observed.


That it could come from a hot source is not an assumption, it is a feasible model and _a_ valid interpretation. It is not the only possible model of course but I don't see anyone saying it is flawed.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2013
No, the mass required is simply proportional to the radius, there is no lower limit other than at the Planck scale. There is a practical limit that the only way to get sufficient compression is by piling on more mass, but that's not fundamental to the GR solution.
But that is the point I make. Just because we can 'imagine' that a BH feature will form once we compress mass to a particular critical 'density', it does not follow in reality physis (as pointed out already) that a bh hole WILL form/persist against the same quantum indeterminacy ...


Which, "form" or "persist"?

It does follow that it will form as long as the mass exceeds about 22µg, and we observe black holes such as Sag A* so we know they do form (one way or another).

However, they are not expected to persist, the decay of a BH is expected to occur through Hawking Radiation, a quantum process as I'm sure you know.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2013
processes which produce observed abundance proportions and spectrums are STILL going on throughout space.


Are you saying there is an observed process that generates deuterium?

No, it's purely empirical. We observe redshift regardless of any interpretation.

Yes. But interpretations OF those observations, and the assumptions used, is what I meant. :)


I know but the observation alone causes SS a problem _without_ applying any interpretation.

The observation of the Hubble Law and the assumption of Euclidean space give you a flat spectrum prediction.


Again, assumptions/interpretations


Which, "assumptions" or "interpretations"?

I am not aware of any untested assumptions in the Hubble Law.

Any BB interpretation is irrelevant when looking at SS.

re what we observe/expect etc are in question.


Which, "observe" or "expect"?

What we observe is not in question.

What we expect from an SS model is not what we observe.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2013
Hi Fleetfoot. :)
Oh it's quite easy to come up with alternative sources, getting the spectrum right is where the problem lies.
No such problem for my S-S (allowing for localized causally/temporally disconnected regions/dynamics, of course) ToE, as it explains the observations nicely.
That it could come from a hot source is not an assumption, it is a feasible model and _a_ valid interpretation.
In my ToE there are MANY such hot sources, spread over MANY epochs of 'observable universe' volumes and the energy-space processes therein. No need to posit 'a' hot source if there are 'many' such sources over many regions/epochs in an OVERALL S-S infinite universe.
It is not the only possible model of course but I don't see anyone saying it is flawed.
I have been saying just that; as per above? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2013
Which, "form" or "persist"?
In physics there are 'transient' states which are 'unstable' transition states between ultimately 'persistent' stable configurations. Any 'transient formation' of a black-hole-LIKE configuration is NOT a black hole per se; since it does NOT create its own 'containment' (insufficient mass). Hence it cannot stably 'form' nor 'stably 'persist' AS a black hole unless it IS stable at ANY stage of the QM process involved.
It does follow that it will form as long as the mass exceeds about 22µg, and we observe black holes such as Sag A* so we know they do form (one way or another).

However, they are not expected to persist, the decay of a BH is expected to occur through Hawking Radiation, a quantum process as I'm sure you know.
A 'transitional state' that isn't stable cannot be considered as anything BUT a transitional state. A black hole can only form AS a black hole if it persists against the QM processes (hypothetical Hawking Radiation included). :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2013
Are you saying there is an observed process that generates deuterium?
What exactly constrains the generation of deuterium to a big bang scenario?

I know but the observation alone causes SS a problem _without_ applying any interpretation.
Observations being 'interpreted' according to 'assumptions' which are being brought into question. So your assertion is based on said questionable assumptions/interpretations.
Which, "assumptions" or "interpretations"?
The 'assumptions' brought to the 'interpretation' at present.
I am not aware of any untested assumptions in the Hubble Law. Any BB interpretation is irrelevant when looking at SS.
RE-testing and re-interpretation is happening now via review of assumptions and old/new observations, as I've been saying.
Which, "observe" or "expect"? What we observe is not in question. What we expect from an SS model is not what we observe.
In context, it is the 'assumptions' brought to both of these that are in question. :)
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Oct 14, 2013
Hi Fleetfoot. :)


Hi RC.

Oh it's quite easy to come up with alternative sources, getting the spectrum right is where the problem lies.


No such problem for my S-S ... In my ToE there are MANY such hot sources, spread over MANY epochs of 'observable universe' volumes ..


Then you will have a problem, the integral of those sources will be a mix of apparent temperatures due to redshift hence you won't get a thermal spectrum. That's exactly the problem I have been flagging up.

I have been saying just that; as per above? :)


No, you haven't been saying there is a problem with the BB explanation, you have been claiming you have an alternative. That's not the same thing ;-)
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Oct 14, 2013
A 'transitional state' that isn't stable cannot be considered as anything BUT a transitional state. A black hole can only form AS a black hole if it persists against the QM processes (hypothetical Hawking Radiation included). :)


The formation involves bodies of several solar masses imploding. As the core compresses, we are not talking of a single quantum object but the whole core. There will be Hawking radiation but at a very low level because it decreases as the mass increases, for a stellar mass it is negligible. The surrounding core material is at millions of degrees or higher so the inward radiation vastly exceeds the outward flow, and mass is falling inwards too so there is no problem with formation.

Presistence is a different matter as I said but BH evaporation is a very slow process even by astronomical standards.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Oct 14, 2013
Are you saying there is an observed process that generates deuterium?
What exactly constrains the generation of deuterium to a big bang scenario?


The absence of a viable alternative.