'Big crunch' or another 'Big Bang?'

Aug 16, 2009
Located two kilometers underground in a nickel mine in Ontario, the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory consists of a 12-meter-diameter acrylic vessel filled with 1,000 tons of ultrapure heavy water. It is surrounded by almost 10,000 light -sensitive photomultiplier tubes. Credit: Minfang Yeh, Ph.D.

Will the universe expand outward for all of eternity and end in a vast, dark, cold, sterile, diffuse nothingness? Or will the “Big Bang” — the gargantuan explosion that formed the universe 14 billion years ago — end in the “Big Crunch?” Planets, stars and galaxies all hurtle inward and collapse into an incredibly hot, dense mass a billion times smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. And then … KA-BOOOOM!!! Another Big Bang and another universe forms and hurtles outward, eventually leading to new iterations of the Sun, the Earth, and you?

A special three-day symposium focusing on the weird that could help answer those compelling questions begins here today through August 18 at the 238th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society.

Titled “The Chemistry and Physics of Neutrino Experiments,” it will include almost two dozen reports on experiments to understand what Nobel Laureate Frederick Reines once termed “the most tiny quantity of reality ever imagined by a human being.” Neutrinos ("small neutral ones") are among the subatomic, or elementary, particles that make up all matter. They have no electric charge, virtually no mass, and pass through ordinary matter without causing any disruption.

Most neutrinos traveling through Earth come from the Sun, and trillions of solar electron neutrinos pass through every person each second. Although those properties make neutrinos difficult to detect, detecting and understanding them are key scientific pursuits, partly because of the implications for cosmology.

“The neutrino has the smallest observed mass for any elementary particle, but they appear in such astonishing numbers in the that they are a large portion of its mass,” said Steven Elliott, Ph.D. He is a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. “At the moment, may be massive enough to account for more mass in the universe than all combined.”

Provided by American Chemical Society (news : web)

Explore further: Uncovering the forbidden side of molecules

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Did 'Dark Matter' Create the First Stars?

Mar 15, 2006

Dark matter may have played a major role in creating stars at the very beginnings of the universe. If that is the case, however, the dark matter must consist of particles called "sterile neutrinos". Peter Biermann ...

Probing Question: What is a neutrino?

Oct 16, 2007

Neutrinos are tiny -- really, really tiny -- particles of matter. They are so small, in fact, that they pass between, and even through, atoms without interacting at all. Neutrinos are everywhere: If you start ...

CERN neutrino project on target

Aug 16, 2005

Scientists at CERN announced the completion of the target assembly for the CERN neutrinos to Gran Sasso project, CNGS. On schedule for start-up in May 2006, CNGS will send a beam of neutrinos through the Earth to the Gran ...

Ripples In Cosmic Neutrino Background Measured For The First Time

Jun 15, 2005

Astrophysicists from the Universities of Oxford and Rome have for the first time found evidence of ripples in the Universe’s primordial sea of neutrinos, confirming the predictions of both Big Bang theory and the Standard Model of particle physics. ...

Sterile neutrinos and the search for warm dark matter

Sep 01, 2006

Matteo Viel, a research fellow at the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge, England, believes that particle physics and cosmology could be more compatible as scientists work toward understanding the origins ...

Recommended for you

Uncovering the forbidden side of molecules

18 hours ago

Researchers at the University of Basel in Switzerland have succeeded in observing the "forbidden" infrared spectrum of a charged molecule for the first time. These extremely weak spectra offer perspectives ...

How Paramecium protozoa claw their way to the top

Sep 19, 2014

The ability to swim upwards – towards the sun and food supplies – is vital for many aquatic microorganisms. Exactly how they are able to differentiate between above and below in often murky waters is ...

User comments : 77

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

deatopmg
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2009
"Will the universe expand outward for all of eternity and end in a vast, dark, cold, sterile, diffuse nothingness? Or will the %u201CBig Bang%u201D %u2014 the gargantuan explosion that formed the universe 14 billion years ago %u2014 end in the %u201CBig Crunch?%u201D Planets, stars and galaxies all hurtle inward and collapse into an incredibly hot, dense mass a billion times smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. And then %u2026 KA-BOOOOM!!! Another Big Bang and another universe forms and hurtles outward, eventually leading to new iterations of the Sun, the Earth, and you?"

THis all assumes that the so called "Big Bang" theory, accepted w/o question by consensus physicists et al, is correct (in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary).
Spinoza
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2009
There's substantial evidence to the contrary, deatopmg?
vika_Tae
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2009
Could you please link to some of this substantial evidence? If its not on the web, book and paper quotations will do.
Dance
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2009
deatopmg says there is substantial evidence to the contrary. Is any of it peer reviewed or testable?
Please share the source for your claim if you would be so kind.
Slotin
2 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2009
In Aether Wave Theory Universe simply has no organized structure, so it appears like system of nested foamy density fluctuations of random gas, simmilar to streaks of dark matter - and we are living in one node of this foam.

It means with observation at distance our Universe vanish and it seamlessly switches to Universe of another observer, for whom our Universe would appear fuzzy in the same way, like our Universe appears in Hubble ultradepth field. Such perspective may appear repetetive like bubbles of foam - but in fact it never repeats exactly and our Universe has an infinite number of pasts and futures, which actually depend on particular observer.
WarHacks
1 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2009
The Big Bang Theory to me is a Big Joke. For people to just accept the universe was basically created out of nothing is foolish. It also seems to raise more questions then it actually answers as most theories do. Just because it is a popular believe that the universe is expanding does not mean automatically that "since today the universe was bigger then yesterday it had to be smaller",and therefore at one point had to be so small only a giant explosion of unimaginable proportion can explain the origins of the universe. The Big Bang Theory has long been overdue, with our technological advances and future technology am certain this theory will be remembered as ubsurde as when men though the earth was flat!
Tissa_Perera
2 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2009
Big Bang is not a joke. But the way the bang happened as conceived today is wrong. It did not come out of nothing. To me, singularities of any kind is a no no.
I have figured out and show how the big bang happens.
Before the big bang there was an infinite long single
dimension of string, then this string went bang all along it's length( I call it a string bang) thus producing the additional 3D expanding universe:

For a partial preview see:

http://cosmicdark...ics.html

See also what dark matter really is.
Slotin
2 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2009
If we imagine splash ripples at watter surface, we can see, how these ripples are getting more dense with increasing distance due their dispersion into "extradimensions" of underwater.

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

IMO analogous effect creates an illusion of dark matter during spreading of light (and another waves, including those, which forms particles of matter) through density fluctuations, responsible for CMB field: the light appears like it spreads through more dense vacuum, which surrounds the source of radiation (i.e. dark matter).

The same effect is responsible for Hubble red shift when being observed from inside, so we can experience light dispersion into CMB at cosmologic scale. Basically it corresponds the dispersion of light in foggy atmosphere in situation, we are formed by density fluctuations of this atmosphere, too and visibility scope corresponds the observable Universe size. From this model follows, dark matter manifests by weak deceleration eqaul to product of Hubble constant and speed of light, which agrees well with deceleration observed in Pioneer spacecraft anomaly.
Slotin
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2009
From this model follows, if we send astronaut to remote part of our Universe, he would see us in Big Bang state in the same way, like we would see him - it means, we would both experience Big Bang event from the perspective of other observer at the "same time" (which we cannot compare by clock, though).
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2009

http://cosmicdark...ics.html

Tissa- you might want to check on the completeness of your article before you cite it.

Also, you would expect that any initial expansion/inflation event would leave some evidence of the event, as most matter would necessarily have been propeled outward(radiated) from that initial point(Big Bang) or axis(String Bang)- do you have any evidence of this?


Dance
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2009
Caliban states "you would expect that any initial expansion/inflation event would leave some evidence of the event as most matter would necessarily have been propelled outward from that initial point."



Herein you make the classical conceptual error that there was something propelling the universe. The hot big bang theory is stating that the ENTIRE universe began with the initial event. There was no propellent that gave a "push" to the universe in order to expand it. Spacetime was formed through the big bang so there was no expanding into something{no spacetime} but rather the expansion of spacetime from a state of extreme temperature and density in which everything in the universe we now observe {and much of what we don't} was contained.



Damon_Hastings
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2009
The Big Bang Theory to me is a Big Joke. For people to just accept the universe was basically created out of nothing is foolish.

WarHacks: the Big Bang theory makes no such claim. Rather, it claims that the universe existed as a singularity (or as an ultradense mass of strings) billions of years ago. It makes no claims as to where that singularity came from; and I'm not aware of any scientists who claim it came "from nothing". In fact, there is a popular sentiment that it came from a previous Big Crunch. And as for where it all ultimately came from -- that's a matter for theology, not science. So don't worry -- the Big Bang theory still leaves plenty of room for God. In fact, many physicists and cosmologists are led to a belief in God through their studies (i.e. because the laws of physics are "too perfect" to be accidental.)
hessimoto
4 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2009
Don't we need a medium for something to go "Bang" in? So why do we call it the "Big Bang" if, obviously, it couldn't? If Mr. Hoyle thought about it for a few seconds before blurting it out, he might have come up with something more apropos. The "Big Wow"(no confusing "bang" here), "The very, very, very first event" or the "Ahoy, there".
On second thought, some things are just better the first time, off-the-cuff-like.
I have always thought physics and humor go nicely together, right Mr. Feynman?
Caliban
1 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2009
Many thanks, Dance- I stand corrected.
Had some kind of neuro-regressive event there-I remember quite well the answer I got the first time I brought up that concept in Jr. High. Teacher's response to me was almost verbatim.
Atrophy through disuse,I suppose-
hope everyone got a good laugh out of that. It's crackin' me up right now!
Noumenon
4.9 / 5 (46) Aug 16, 2009
The article was rather short. I wish they would have provided more data on the experiment.
MorituriMax
not rated yet Aug 16, 2009
The Big Bang Theory to me is a Big Joke. For people to just accept the universe was basically created out of nothing is foolish. It also seems to raise more questions then it actually answers as most theories do. Just because it is a popular believe that the universe is expanding does not mean automatically that "since today the universe was bigger then yesterday it had to be smaller",and therefore at one point had to be so small only a giant explosion of unimaginable proportion can explain the origins of the universe. The Big Bang Theory has long been overdue, with our technological advances and future technology am certain this theory will be remembered as ubsurde as when men though the earth was flat!


Warhacks, You could at least show us enough respect to read and understand the theory before you attack it.
MatthiasF
1 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2009
Big bang is religious dogma spilling into science.

Theories based of homogeneous space are lazy.

Use of particles to describe space is antiquated.

This symposium will report nothing helpful.
Damon_Hastings
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2009
Big bang is religious dogma spilling into science.

There were those who said the same of heliocentrism. And of the "round Earth" theory. (Not to mention evolution...) But if you have evidence, then by all means present it.
Alexa
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2009
Observational problem with Big Bang is, we can see many well developed galaxies in Hubble ultradeep field, when the Universe was just 2 - 3 billions of years old. And Milky Way gallaxy is more then ten billions of years old, so that these ancient gallaxies have not enought time to separate and develop.

Onthological problem of BB hypothesis is, it brings more questions, then answers. It can "explain" red shift, but it cannot explain dark energy. And it requires mysterious inflation.
Alexa
Aug 17, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alexa
2.6 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2009
I quite seriously consider condensation models of universe formation, for example idea, Universe is formed by interior of black hole, which was formed by collisions of many other ones, like planets are formed from asteroids. But we should realize, black holes are dispersive artifacts, if we would come close to it, we should see a lotta transparent vacuum only (providing, we wouldn't evaporate during such trip).

Therefore we can apply dispersive model even to the outer Universe boundary and everything would become more consistent and simple. From abstract point of view here's no big difference, if we are seeing big bang or event horizon in fuzzy distant past of our Universe. In my opinion these two models are equivalent mutually with dispersion model of Universe - they just differ by their observational perspective.

Which indeed doesn't mean, we shouldn't try to find observational differences between these models in independent way, despite of various theories.
Alexa
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2009
Here's another approach possible: if we are living at the event horizon of black hole, then just our Milky Way can be a such private universe, because gallaxy is just a complex event horizon of central black hole. What we are seeing at distance as a distant galaxies are parallel Universes as being observed from outside, because here are not larger convex structures observable. This model would explain Big Bang well as a process of own our gallaxy formation and it corresponds Copernican principle. Before many year people have considered stars separately in the same way, like we are considering gallaxies by now. Now we know, these stars are forming their own solar systems, which are quite similar to our solar system. Galactic model of Universe is a natural extrapolation of this understanding: maybe we are observing parallel Universes already and we don't know about it.
Alexa
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2009
Because we are small part of larger object, our understanding always started by theories which have used insintric perspective (geocentric model for example). Later we realized, we can describe the same thing from outer perspective (heliocentric model). Big Bang theory has served well for fifty years as such insintric theory. Recently an ekpyrotic model was added as a model of clashing branes and idea, Universe is formed by interior of black hole.

But what if these two perspectives are equivalent in fact. We can explain black hole formation by clashing of branes as well - it would mean, we are describing by black hole evolution the evolution of our private Universe. We should simply put a boundary between insintric and exsintric models for the sake of their consistency and supersymmetry. Which part of Universe we would consider as our Universe generation and which part is a parallel Universe already is mostly matter of intersubjective discussion, because our scope of view is extending gradually. Before one hundred years our scope of view was limited to stars inside of our Galaxy.
x646d63
3 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2009
Big bang is religious dogma spilling into science.


Actually, I think new science begets new religious dogma. Eventually, though, it breaks down and new science begets new dogma.

That's the path we've taken for thousands of years, and the path we'll be unlikely to extricate ourselves from for some time.

Deal with it, find new evidence, present new theories, and move on to new dogma.
degojoey
3 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2009
my view is with Occam's razor, Universe always existed and will always exist. time has always existed and will continue to always exist. Life has always existed and will continue to exist, nothing will stop this cycle, we are not ironically stuck in some foam or point in time thats special for us. hubble deep field is a great point of this, looking 11 billion light years away and there are an uncountable amount of stars in galaxies. there might be a limit to our observable universe but that does not mean theres a big black wall where it ends. it will go on forever, as does time, life, matter and energy.
Alexa
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2009
..new science begets new religious dogma. Eventually, though, it breaks down and new science begets new dogma..
This is correct insight and it corresponds the concept of nested condensations of AWT. Our Universe really APPEARS like black hole floating in another black hole, recursively. Just a limited mass/energy density of people prohibits us to see through all these nested levels, but we are replacing our limited senses by larger apparatuses like telescopes and microscopes, which are enabling us to see through deeper levels of reality.

So that the evolution of human understanding just follows the appearance of observable reality. The question is, if we are required to handle these intermediate stages like dogma, when we know already, how such stage arises and when we can interpret them in many plural ways, which may lead to new predictions occasionally.



We should be more flexible, yet consequential in thinking. The description of things from various perspectives doesn't mean vagueness, on the contrary: just putting exact unbiased relation between observational perspective and its result of observation ("if we are thinking/observing in such and such way, then the result will be such and such").

For example, if we are observing Universe from inside, it appears like expanding space-time whose size is limited by speed of light. If we would observe Universe from outside, it would appear like condensing and collapsing black hole and we can compare it to stellar evolution. If we apply intermediate perspective, Universe appearance will be driven by dispersion of energy in inhomogeneous environment full of nested density fluctuations and we can derive another things from it. And so on...

I presume, it's quite conscious, adult approach to various concepts, in which observable reality can be described. Everyone can choose paradigm of its personal preference without need to fight blindly with another perspectives and theories based on them.
Alexa
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2009
my view is with Occam's razor, Universe always existed and will always exist
I can agree with this, but the general problem of simple, yet universal approaches is, they're rather vague in their predictions. Scientists are forced to produce discrete results, so they tend to ignore vague, yet universal concepts. They tend to follow gradients and membranes, but not chaotic interior of Aether foam, so that their thinking is naturally divergent into many theories.

So if we consider Universe size and age limited, we can derive another connections by using of light speed and so on. This doesn't mean, universal approach is wrong - but it's often too remote from everyday particular human experience - just because it's too general. It's logical - general approach requires to describe things from remote perspective under risk of lost of details and vice-versa: too formal approach tends to become divergent and misleading from more general perspective.
Alexa
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2009
...Deal with it, find new evidence, present new theories, and move on to new dogma...
At the moment, when we understand mechanism of dogma formation, we aren't forced to use dogmas anymore: we can apply plural paradigm for all existing theories, including the mechanism of dogma formation.
Alexa
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2009
New Big Bang derived theory od Dark Matter
http://www.space....ive.html
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2009
..u dickhead u got no idea wat the fuck ur talking about...


The only problem of yours is, you didn't read, what I've read. Now you can correct it and after then you can try to repeat your question with using a bit more politically correct terms..;-)



http://www.answer...xies.asp

Seeing as you jsut inadvertently confirmed that you are slotin in addition to alexa, don't you think it's a little disingenuous to pass 5 rank on yourself?
vantomic
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2009
you AWT people really need to take your comments out of here. Go write a paper, book or perform some experiments that lend credibility to your theory, otherwise GTFO. I am so sick of having to look through a thousand BS AWT comments to find good credible thoughts/ideas based on these articles. And now that you are supporting each other with boosting ratings of your fellow AWT'rs I find it unethical.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2009
..little disingenuous to pass 5 rank on yourself...
I'm not using "dickhead", "fuck" phrases and I'm not labeling the other posts by one point rank automatically.

And you're Alizee as well, so there really is only one AWT hypothesist on physorg.

Duplicitous of you in the least and certainly disingenuous.
Alexa
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2009
vantomic = Velanarris = OT sock puppets
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2009
vantomic = Velanarris = OT sock puppets


Unfortunately for you that's incorrect. I am simply me. That and if you look back you can see I've had conversations of disagreement with both, while you, you, and you complete each others' discussions and 5 rank all around.

As an aside to that you can see dramatic differences between our styles of writing while you can't change your rythym of converse. It's a common analysis technique when it comes to certifying author or authors.
Feynman1656
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2009
So I'm am studying for my Phd and yet the question which to this day still eludes me is, why is it so hard for people to read & accept experimental & observational experiments, but it is so easy to believe a book who tells you wait 7 days and poof here we are running amuk with dinosaurs and all the rest. Horrible run-on sentence, but it makes my point. I guess it takes a different type of brain. Keep smashing them with your scholastic sledgehammer Velanarris, I'm with you. I did take the time to read the so-called "answer" which Alexa provided from the world renouned and trusted "Questions in Genesis". Now I understand everything, thank you. I wasted the past 8 years of my life, when I could have just read that wonderful book and the many "scientific" websites, and still have attained the level of intelligence. Good to know for the next life. You know sometimes I have to tie half my brain behind my back, JUST to make it fair.

-Feynman
Alexa
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2009
..you can see dramatic differences between our styles of writing.
The true is, I'm not able to distinguish American English from this old continental one - not saying about more subtle differences. Anyway, if you're not Velanarris, but different person of the same name, my apology goes to You.
QED
1 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2009
Sorry. The Universe is expanding, but at an imperceptable rate. Hubble velocities used to explain redshift are negated by absorption in cosmic dust. Therefore, there is not need for dark energy.

QED
See"Universe Expansion by Blackbody Radiation" at www.nanoqed.org
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2009
..you can see dramatic differences between our styles of writing.
The true is, I'm not able to distinguish American English from this old continental one - not saying about more subtle differences. Anyway, if you're not Velanarris, but different person of the same name, my apology goes to You.

No, I am velanarris, I am not vanatomic nor am I otto. Seeing as you can't even keep the names of the person you're debating with straight, I'm guessing you don't have the cognitive ability to mathematically describe your AWH.
Mr_Man
not rated yet Aug 24, 2009
I think people should be more careful when using Black Holes in these examples - nothing is in a black hole (well, sort of nothing), the matter inside is "destroyed"/ converted into energy that does the severe space time warping. You wouldn't find a teeny tiny pebble that was infinitely dense and the event horizon isn't the edge of the black hole - not literally anyway, its just the point where light can't make it back "out" of the hole. The "inside" of the black hole, from what I understand, is just spacetime overlapping on itself.

A good question would be: How does the energy cause such a severe warping of space time? What kind of energy is it?

Maybe a question for the future would be, could we synthesize a similar or weaker energy of the same kind that can be used to bend / squeeze space time together at a lesser level to assist with space travel?



Alexa
Aug 24, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alexa
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 24, 2009
...could we synthesize a similar or weaker energy of the same kind ...
In AWT vacuum foam can be centrifuged, i.e. inside of rotating cylinder it becomes less dense, then outside of cylinder, thus enabling space-time travel in superluminal speed here, at least conceptually.
Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2009
..How does the energy cause such a severe warping of space time?..
In AWT vacuum is modelled by foam which gets more dense under energy load in the simmilar way, like soap foam under shaking. Therefore every wave propagates through foam like less or more dense blob, wave packet or particle.


So in AWH there's a method for vacuum to become a denser vacuum. This just gets better and better.
Slotin
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2009
Indeed, the vacuum around massive bodies is more dense, which we can perceive like gravitational field, exhibiting relativistic aberration or even gravitational lensing. I don't see nothing special about such approach.
Velanarris
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2009
Indeed, the vacuum around massive bodies is more dense, which we can perceive like gravitational field, exhibiting relativistic aberration or even gravitational lensing. I don't see nothing special about such approach.

You understand what the term "vacuum" is, correct?
Alexa
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2009
We're talking about phenomenological description, not semantical one. I'm physicist, not a linguist.

Do you believe, electron is made of amber, just because it was named so?
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2009
We're talking about phenomenological description, not semantical one. I'm physicist, not a linguist.
There is only one relevant definition of vacuum.



Do you believe, electron is made of amber, just because it was named so?
What?

vantomic
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2009
this is not a semantics argument...your actually applying the concept of density to a vacuum which is the most absurd thing...nevermind. I bet god said it was to apply the concept of density to a vacuum, right?

And by the way, I am vantomic and no one else. Seeing as you must have multiple accounts I guess you would think others would partake in such a malicious action as well. Drugstore psych 101, but I couldn't resist.
Alizee
Aug 26, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Aug 26, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Aug 26, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alexa
Aug 26, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2009
..actually applying the concept of density to a vacuum which is the most absurd thing...
Whole group of scientists are discussing it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3381


That is a discussion of energy density, not physical density, which your ideology prescribes.

Second, cut the crap with the double downrank, we know all 3 of you are the same person. You're propagandizing again.
Alizee
Aug 26, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2009
By Einstein equation energy density is equivalent to mass density in accordance to E=mc^2 relation. Nothing like "physical density" exist.


So you don't understand what E=mc^2 means either.

Energy density and matter density are not equal things. Using E=mc^2 you can determine the energy content of a physical body in motion. Conversely you can use E=mc^2 to determine the amount of matter density a certain amount of energy in a single location can yield under compression.

You cannot say that matter and energy are the same thing. This is akin to saying steam and ice are the same thing when they display very different properties due to energy content.

You are far from a physicist, in addition to this, your "theory" is unsupportable by your own admission. Your continued self ranking is telling of how tenuously you understand mathematics and physics as you require your "legion" personality to back up your sparsely explainable view of hydrodynamics as applied to the fabric of reality.

As I've said before, you want to prove me wrong, put some numbers up.
Alizee
Aug 26, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Aug 26, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2009
..you want to prove me wrong, put some numbers up..
It's simmilar like when proponent of epicycles model is saying:



"Look Galilo, my theory can compute eclipses and conjunctions EXACTLY - while you're just babbling some BS about Venus phases. Hey, just show me some hard numbers first."

In fact you personally even have no hard numbers, just your opinion bespoken in free sentences - so I'm not obligued to give you some numbers at all. You've some vague theory about how universe is working - well, and I've my theory as well. I've no need to prove you wrong, just because AWT can explain even your classical stance. I can understand exactly your problem...;-)

I don't have any theory for how the universe functions, therefore I have no need of numbers.

You're insiting the reality I can see, feel, and otherwise observe with my senses exists within the quantum foam of black hole ejecta.

You have the hypothesis to prove, therefore you need to "show your work".
Slotin
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2009
Galileo has proven heliocentric model by picture of Venus phases, not by calculations. You're not required to believe in models without "numbers", if you don't want to do it. But you're expected to shut up, until you've no logical objections against it.
barakn
2.3 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2009

Second, cut the crap with the double downrank, we know all 3 of you are the same person. You're propagandizing again.

We might be able to add ghidon to the list of Zephir's sockpuppets, although strangely ghidon is much more likely to rate Slotin and Alizee than Alexa.
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2009
Galileo has proven heliocentric model by picture of Venus phases, not by calculations. You're not required to believe in models without "numbers", if you don't want to do it. But you're expected to shut up, until you've no logical objections against it.

By your own admission, Galileo used observational evidence to prove the math he put into the heliocentric model.

You've done nothing other than use large words, because you're obviously well read regardless of your understanding of the material, to exemplify an untestable hypothesis.

Scientist you are not.
Slotin
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2009
Scientist you are not.
You know, I prefer to be right, rather then to be scientist.
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2009
Scientist you are not.
You know, I prefer to be right, rather then to be scientist.

Well unfortunately you have neither going for you.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2009
Sockpuppets to right of them,
Sockpuppets to left of them,
Sockpuppets in front of them

This thread is appalling. One person with three logins giving itself attaboys and its opponents low ranks.

Do you find this self congratulation satisfying Alexa?

I find it more evidence that you simply don't have anything going for you. So you get a bunch of ones and your opponents are getting a bunch of fives. I usually leave you alone but this sort of ill behaviour deserves it.

Ethelred

Sorry for the new signature. But It Needed Killun.

From QubitTamer's fake profile

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.


Qubitwit gets the rest of August in my signature for aiming his idiocy at me. Again.e
Ethelred
3 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2009
You cannot say that matter and energy are the same thing. This is akin to saying steam and ice are the same thing when they display very different properties due to energy content.


Not the same thing but the gravitational effects are the same. The energy of vacuum that the Standard Model produces is indeed WAY too high. Space would be radically curved instead of pretty much flat. I think the numbers come from vacuum fluctuations which has been an indication to me the vacuum fluctuations need a major overhaul.

Kind of reminds of a scene in The Mask.

Of course none of this supports AWT since it has NO numbers of any kind. Perhaps its just a way to avoid testing. Alexa can thus claim anything and support nothing.

Ethelred

Sorry for the new signature. But It Needed Killun.

From QubitTamer's fake profile

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.


Qubitwit gets the rest of August in my signature for aiming his idiocy at me. Again.
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2009
Alexa can thus claim anything and support nothing.

That's blasphemy against the holy church of AWT.
How dare you indulge in defamation of it's mathless quantum foam.
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2009
How dare you indulge in defamation of it's mathless quantum foam.


Just the mathless part.

I kind of like the idea of a granularity to the Universe and I don't like the idea of a grid system so a foam or something like it at the plank level seems reasonable. The only reason my likes and dislikes have any meaning on this is because its all pure speculation. Of course I saw this idea before I saw AWT.

I can go with a purely field system as well. I see them as being potentially compatible in any case. As long as we don't have any theory at the plank level we can get away with almost anything. Its Not Even Wrong. Which I have a lot less problem with than Dr. Woit does. Perhaps its my lack of a degree.

Ethelred

Sorry for the new signature. But It Needed Killun.

From QubitTamer's fake profile

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.


Qubitwit gets the rest of August in my signature for aiming his idiocy at me. Again.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2009
Agreed.
Alexa
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2009
..Of course I saw this idea before I saw AWT.
..
AWT didn't invented the quantum foam concept, which comes from J.A.Wheeler in 60's. AWT just explains this foam by density fluctuations of particle gas, existing at even more fundamental level.
ben6993
5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2009
In a fractal universe the Planck length might not be a minimum bound but only a very difficult boundary to obtain data through. We could expect space to exist at ever smaller sizes than the Planck length.

The idea that (superstring) physics at scale 1/R to identical to that at scale R where 1 represents the Planck length has been used elsewhere to imply that Planck's length is a minimum and that as size (R) reduces to below 1, 1/R gets bigger than 1 and effectively one is bounced back above the Planck length barrier. So nothing passes through the barrier.

But can the 'bounce' idea be replaced by interpreting it as the physics below the Planck limit (at R) is just like the physics above the Planck length (at 1/R) where R is less than 1. Ie the physics below the Planck length is just like the physics above the Planck length? Is the bounce interpretation the only and right one? Or is the equivalence instead suggesting a fractal universe?
vantomic
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2009
Well this is why I never post on these sites. I can't believe I let a person like alizee/alexa/slotin sucker me in. Good thing science isn't about politicing or else we would be in trouble with this person's antics. No one will remember or care about your posts alizee...so you might as well just stop. If you want to promote something scienctific do it the right way. Gain credibility through sound theories that can be backed up with predictions. Otherwise quit pretending to be a physicist, leave that to us.
Alexa
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2009
Well, I don't care, if I'm "physicist" by some anonymous troll or not. I just care, if I'm right from long time perspective. This is quite different strategy of thinking, you know.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2009
Well, I don't care, if I'm "physicist" by some anonymous troll or not. I just care, if I'm right from long time perspective. This is quite different strategy of thinking, you know.


So if you're wrong on a long term perspective, because your theories are nothing more than the rantings of someone who knows a little bit about fluid dynamics, what will your course of action be then?

If you can't support your pet hypothesis, then you'll never be right from a long term perspective. A brilliant physicist could come up with something exactly like your AWT, but if he can do the math and prove it, he's right, and you're STILL WRONG. To be right, you have to prove your work empirically, observationally, and experimentally. So get to it, or vanish until you can.

And the shitty animated gifs and poor models sans source code are not any type of proof.
Slotin
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2009
your theories are nothing more than the rantings of someone who knows a little bit about fluid dynamics
Feel free to disprove it. Animated GIF are just illustrating concepts, boolean logics is the proof.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2009
your theories are nothing more than the rantings of someone who knows a little bit about fluid dynamics
Feel free to disprove it. Animated GIF are just illustrating concepts, boolean logics is the proof.

Then post the "boolean logics".
Slotin
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2009
In a fractal universe the Planck length might not be a minimum bound but only a very difficult boundary to obtain data through. We could expect space to exist at ever smaller sizes than the Planck length.
Well, exactly. AWT explains it by principle of least action for energy spreading inside of system of dense repulsing particles. Under gradual increasing of pressure these particles are forming aggregates, then aggregates of aggregates, but after then the forces of undividual particles overlaps up to level, another formation of aggregates is difficult - the probability of mutual interaction of aggregates at very different level of space-time compactification is very low.
Slotin
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2009
We can observe the very same effect for example inside of hiearchical human society. Albeit powerfull, central government cannot affect human life at the family level in causual way - it can just influence life on district level. In the same way, individuals cannot influence central government, they can interract with local government only. This limits the number of observable levels/dimensions from every level of governement. We can interract with only few closest neighbours inside of hiearchy only.
vantomic
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2009
I just suggested that comments be removed from articles because of the stuff these people are posting. You have no idea what you are talking about alizee/slotin...whoever else. Your posts are full of gibberish that is not science and if young people interested in the subjects of these articles reads your comments you will have done them a horrible disservice.

Slotin
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2009
..You have no idea what you are talking..
Maybe it's incompatible with your religion - but can you disprove what I'm saying? For example string theory is talking about finite number of dimensions existing in our Universe - do you have idea what is it and why is it so?
Velanarris
3 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2009
..You have no idea what you are talking..
Maybe it's incompatible with your religion - but can you disprove what I'm saying?
You are the one who has to prove something.
Alexa
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2009
Yes, space appears empty. But it undulates in two perpendicular directions like elastic foam, it creates particles from "nothing" just by colliding of energy waves. In real world such behavior exhibits every particle environment. The result of M-M experiment can be explained by immense density of such environment. Naive idea of sparse Aether could never serve for light waves anyway, being to thin to propagate highly energetic waves of gamma radiation.

After then I don't know, why to refuse such concept, if it can explain many things at the same moment and it violates nothing, what we know about vacuum and particle word so far. It's just another step forward in human understanding of reality - no less, no more. This is not rocket science, just a trivial logics. If we didn't analyze this trivial model before, it's just time to do it now. Research is too expensive and we don't understand too many things about Universe to ignore such ideas just from religious reasons. Are we conscious creatures or not?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2009
Usually I don't rate people posts unless they go around giving me ones. But this particular thread is totally out of hand with the fantasists giving all opponents ones whether well written or not.

So I will continue to counter rate all people that are getting these childish rating from the AWITBS group. And that is a pretty radical assumption that is a group and not just one person with three handles.

I recommend that all others that have been rated down by the Alexa/Aleeza/Slotin Triumvirate/multilogin give them back exactly what they give.


Ethelred

Sorry for the new signature. But It Needed Killun.

From QubitTamer's fake profile

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.


Qubitwit gets the rest of August in my signature for aiming his idiocy at me. Again.
Alexa
2 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2009
Negativistic people like you are illustrating formation of antiparticle concept during evolution of human society: while they still could understand stance of others, they decided to oppose them at any price and each contact with the rest of society leads to violent confrontation. They're not opened to any rational explanation anymore: it just increases their anger.
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2009
Negativistic people like you are illustrating formation of antiparticle concept during evolution of human society: while they still could understand stance of others, they decided to oppose them at any price and each contact with the rest of society leads to violent confrontation. They're not opened to any rational explanation anymore: it just increases their anger.

I liken you statement above to a Vatican release statement in support of the Vatican. It's all bullshit, and it's all bad for you.
QubitTamer
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2009
Ethelred works retail...He "helps" people with their virus infections on their computers. Sometimes he has to beat the crap out of them to get them to cop to the porn sites they have been that have been the cause of their viral infections. He HATES that computers are so WIDELY available to all of the morons who come in his store that have SOOOOOOO much more money than him. He has repeatedly lied that he is 58 years old. In fact he's not far past high school and still has a great deal of psychological baggage from being abused and probably raped in high school by the bigger boys. Evidence is all here: http://www.physor...236.html

I hate to treat my little bag boy this way after all my attempts to reform him, but sometimes a broken egg is a broken egg.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2009
Ethelred works retail.


Indeed I do. What I don't do is lie about being a physicist. What a troll. But you are MY troll till the end of the month. Thank you for it so very clear to everyone that you are owned.

Sometimes he has to beat the crap out of them to get them to cop to the porn sites they have been that have been the cause of their viral infections.


I don't lie about others either. Unlike Grendel here. How is your mother. Is she still staying in the lake?

He HATES that computers are so WIDELY available to all of the morons who come in his store that have SOOOOOOO much more money than him.


Indeed I hate PCs so much I have owned one kind or another since 1979.

He has repeatedly lied that he is 58 years old.


Lying is for life and death and Grendel is neither.

In fact he's not far past high school and still has a great deal of psychological baggage from being abused and probably raped in high school by the bigger boys.


What bigger boys? As a Beowulf I ripped their arms out of their sockets. Want your arm back Grendel?

I hate to treat my little bag boy this way after all my attempts to reform him, but sometimes a broken egg is a broken egg.


And sometimes Trolls lie more than usual.

All this begging won't help. You WILL stay in my sig till the end of the month.

Ethelred

Sorry for the new signature. But It Needed Killun.

From QubitTamer's fake profile

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.


Qubitwit gets the rest of August in my signature for aiming his idiocy at me. Again.
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2009
All bizarre and non sequitor responses...Beowulf, Grendel? I


Ignorance is its own reward oh green and scaly one.

I said you hate that computers are available to EVERYONE


So a troll lied. What else is new?

based on your comments that i referenced.


That at an exceedingly ignorant troll lied about.

I didn't say YOU hated computers, moron.


You lied and that is all that matters troll.

Read my tiny little responses and stop and think before you reply, retail warrior.


I always do. It is you that has the comprehension difficulty. You don't even know what a troll is. Or how stupid it is to lie in a flame war.

This silly self-defeating flame war of yours will not get you out till the end of the month.

And I am not giving your arm back. It will stay over the door where it belongs.

----------------^===
QubitTroll's Arm ===
----------------~===

Ethelred

Sorry for the new signature. But It Needed Killun.

From QubitTamer's fake profile

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.


Qubitwit gets the rest of August in my signature for aiming his idiocy at me. Again.