Probing the dark side of the universe

May 20, 2010
Though the Planck satellite has yet to return results from the cosmic microwave background, its new results show exquisite images of cold dust in our own galaxy. This image shows the galactic plane -- the line running horizontally across the image near the bottom -- and the huge clouds of cool dust that rise far above the plane. Credit: ESA and the HFI Consortium, IRAS

Advancing into the next frontier in astrophysics and cosmology depends on our ability to detect the presence of a particular type of wave in space, a primordial gravitational wave. Much like ripples moving across a pond, these waves stretch the fabric of space itself as they pass by. If detected, these weak and elusive waves could provide an unprecedented view of the earliest moments of our universe. In an article appearing in the May 21 issue of Science, Arizona State University theoretical physicist and cosmologist Lawrence Krauss and researchers from the University of Chicago and Fermi national Laboratory explore the most likely detection method of these waves, with the examination of cosmic microwave radiation (CMB) standing out as the favored method.

During the past century, astronomy has been revolutionized by the use of new methods for observing the universe, but still today the origin of and dark matter is unknown. The answer to these and other mysteries may require us to probe back to the earliest moments of the Big Bang expansion. Questions of origins, such as 'how did the Universe begin,' provoke fascination and are at the forefront of ASU's Origins Project, which Krauss directs.

"Before a period of 380,000 years ago the universe was opaque to ," explains Krauss, a professor in ASU's School of Earth and Space Exploration and the physics department in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. "So, to explore earlier times we need to search for other observables outside of the . interact very weakly with matter and so gravitational waves produced near the very beginning of time can make their way unimpeded to us today, providing a potentially new probe of early universe cosmology."

In 1916, Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves. Based on his , objects cause the space around them to curve. When large masses move through space, a disturbance is generated in the form of gravitational waves, but because of the weakness of gravity, astronomical amounts of matter must be moved around to generate waves on a scale that might actually be detectable.

Built to feel rather than see, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, located in Livingston, La., USA, is a highly sensitive observing tool designed to find gravitational waves. Credit: LIGO Scientific Collaboration

"Imagine floating in space far away from Earth alongside two mirrors many miles apart. If a gravitational wave were propagating through space, you would see the distance between the two objects increase and then decrease rhythmically as the wave passes, perhaps by an almost imperceptible amount," explains Krauss. "As these waves propagate throughout the universe they may continue to diminish in strength, but they would never stop nor slow down since they move through matter essentially unimpeded."

"Primordial Gravitational Waves and Cosmology" was written by Krauss; Scott Dodelson, Fermi National Laboratory and University of Chicago; and Stephan Meyer, University of Chicago. In their Science review, they have determined there to be two major sources of gravitational waves: The inflation immediately after the Big Bang, and the possible phase transitions at early times. Other present-day sources may include colliding black holes or two huge stars orbiting each other.

Although these space-time ripples are imperceptible to humans, highly sensitive detectors and experiments such as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO), located in Livingston, Louisiana, are being designed to look for precisely such waves. Gravitational radiation from the early universe can be detected indirectly through its effect on the polarization of the CMB radiation (relic radiation from the Big Bang which permeates all space). However, the current generation of direct gravitational wave detectors, LIGO included, does not have sufficient sensitivity to probe for the signals of possible primordial gravitational waves.

Spatial distortion from a plus-polarized gravitational wave travels perpendicular to the computer screen. Credit: Wm. Robert Johnston

"The greatest sensitivity to a primordial gravitational wave comes from the distinctive detailed pattern of polarization in the CMB," says Krauss. "If gravitational waves produced by either inflation or phase transitions existed when cosmic microwave background radiation was created, they would be imprinted on the CMB and be detected as polarization."

As challenging as it is to detect, the technology to build sufficiently sensitive experiments is in hand - and well worth the effort, according to Krauss.

"As we enter the second decade of the 21st century, we are poised to enter a new realm of precision cosmology, one that could provide a dramatic new window on the and the physical processes that governed its origin and evolution," says Krauss. "The European Space Agency's Planck satellite was designed to image the CMB over the whole sky, with unprecedented sensitivity and angular resolution, and will provide new data on polarization within the next three to four years and with that we hope for direct observations of waves from the beginning of time."

Explore further: What's next for the Large Hadron Collider?

Related Stories

Scientists aim to unlock gravitational wave mysteries

Oct 19, 2006

Scientists at The Australian National University today joined a consortium of universities launching plans for a new observatory to detect a space phenomenon that has challenged physicists since it was first proposed by Einstein ...

Cosmologists aim to observe first moments of universe

Feb 16, 2009

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

LIGO once again looking for gravitational waves

Mar 03, 2006

The quest to detect and study gravitational waves with the National Science Foundation-funded Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, or LIGO, is on again. LIGO is currently conducting its first sustained observational ...

Catching the Gravitational Wave

Jul 17, 2007

For nearly a century, scientists searched to uncover the tremors Einstein believed were produced by waves in the fabric of space and time.

NASA to Probe the Universe's First Moments

Apr 29, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Sophisticated new technologies created by NASA and university scientists are enabling them to build an instrument designed to probe the first moments of the universe's existence.

Recommended for you

What's next for the Large Hadron Collider?

7 hours ago

The world's most powerful particle collider is waking up from a well-earned rest. After roughly two years of heavy maintenance, scientists have nearly doubled the power of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) ...

User comments : 65

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Alizee
May 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (13) May 20, 2010
Gaffe alert:
"Before a period of 380,000 years ago the universe was opaque to electromagnetic radiation," explains Krauss...
I had to do a double-take on that one =)

What he really meant to say, is that for 380,000 years (plus/minus a few thousand) following Big Bang, the universe was opaque to EM radiation. Then the universe cooled enough to form atoms (so it wasn't any longer filled with seething plasma), and became transparent to EM, which today we perceive as the Cosmic Microwave Background. This event unfolded not 380,000, but more like 14 billion years ago...
Alizee
May 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hard2grep
4 / 5 (4) May 20, 2010
I believe that the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light. nothing has been proven to go faster than the speed of light. For people to think that entangled particles defeat this, they are not realizing the "magic of the trick."
gideon
1 / 5 (1) May 20, 2010
What if the expansion of the universe is that gravity waves (gravity being curved or 'compressed' spacetime) ironing themselves smooth. The waves were created during the universes initial formation of galactic bodies and as the waves all spread from their points of origin they become weaker from expansion and in the process stretch space, and that's where all of the 'new' space between galaxies is coming from - ancient gravity waves from distant points in the universe decompressing into more spacetime as they spread.
ZeroX
2.1 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
What if the expansion of the universe is that gravity waves ironing themselves smooth.
In dense aether theory the gravity is dual to pressure of radiation. The gravity forms an inhomogeneities, the radiation including gravitational waves is smoothing them.

Basically, whole universe is behaving like giant density fluctuations of dense random gas.
ZeroX
2.3 / 5 (9) May 21, 2010
..nothing has been proven to go faster than the speed of light...
Nothing observable by light can go faster, then the speed of light, be more specific. The same situation occurs at the water surface, when we would use only water surface ripples as the only source of observation.

But the observation by weak underwater sound waves is theoretically possible there too at the water surface. Such observation would be noncausal with respect to the surface ripples spreading, though - because underwater sound waves are spreading a much faster. You can be never sure by your partner in communication, because the source of waves would surround you from all directions at the same time like voice of God.

Under consideration of such restriction the superluminal communication should be feasible, though. As you can see, dense aether model is quite rich in its predictions - even without abstract math.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) May 21, 2010
Yeah, I laughed at that one too Pink. The concept of imagining it the way he said is kind of cool though. Imagine only being able to see 380,000 light years away. The sky would prety much just be our galaxy and andromeda wouldn't it? Wierd.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) May 21, 2010
"If gravitational waves produced by either inflation or phase transitions existed when cosmic microwave background radiation was created, they would be imprinted on the CMB and be detected as polarization."
More precisely, the inflation hypothesis implies a special polarization mode ("B-mode") of the CMB. Until now, only "E-mode" polarization has been detected. This, of course, is attributable to instruments which don't have sufficient sensitivity.
Once we have better data they could be decisive. Is there B-mode polarization? Then the inflation hypothesis wins.
If not, new physics will be here. Beautiful physics without BigBang, without inflation but with an endless universe.
Alizee
May 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JayK
1.6 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
Dense foamy Santorum aether once ran over my dog in a 1972 Dodge Dart just before it expanded like soap foam on a watery grave.
Alizee
May 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JayK
2.1 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
Or do you want to learn some physics and dispute about it in meaningful way?

Sure, can you put your daddy on the computer now, because you have nothing to teach anyone except conspiracy theories, a persecution complex and crackpot ideas. None of those are physics, btw, I think you might be a little confused as to what makes up actual physics. Sorry, it does involve formal math, as well, something you seem to be a little afraid of.
Alizee
May 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JayK
2.6 / 5 (5) May 21, 2010
#1 Your equation doesn't make any sense, which probably means that you attempted to copy and paste from a source that used a font to display certain variables within it and didn't even realize that they didn't display properly for everyone else.

#2 Deceleration doesn't exist, which is another indicator that you're nothing but a fraud. Go away.
Alizee
May 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PinkElephant
3.4 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
Damn, JayK. *I* have NEVER been called "a fractal noise in causality only". Now I'm jealous =)

Seriously though, try to consider impartially, whom you're arguing with. Just suspend, for a moment, your assumption that the person on the other end is actually rational, and re-read some of those posts with that open mind. Might make you think twice about goading him/her on...
Alizee
May 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) May 21, 2010
Deceleration doesn't exist
Why not? http://en.wikiped...arameter

Wikipedia:
The deceleration parameter in cosmology is a dimensionless measure of the cosmic acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

Alizee
May 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JayK
2.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2010
You're right PE, it is pointless to argue with a crackpot that doesn't have a clue about rounding errors and why theories that don't have an answers are just hypothesis.

Deceleration is just negative acceleration, and most physics academics that I've dealt with over the years have been very aggressive about not calling it deceleration because the term itself is a fallacy. There is positive and negative acceleration only.

OK, that was the last time, I swear! That is, until the next time I get trolled by an attention whore posing as a physicist.
Alizee
May 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JayK
2.3 / 5 (6) May 21, 2010
Deceleration is a crap term that is used incorrectly. There is no such thing as develocity, so how is there a deceleration, especially when the very site you included explains that there is no parameter called "deceleration" just a vector called acceleration? They contradict themselves because they're caught using the term and then they try to explain their usage. Unfortunately, the term has appeared to gain traction, so in that you are correct. Being slightly correct on this matter, however, doesn't make you right on anything else.

Now go away, sockpuppet.
Alizee
May 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JayK
2.6 / 5 (5) May 21, 2010
Who is this "we" you speak of, because if it is all your commenters on your site, you're gonna be awful lonely, which is why you come here for attention.
Alizee
May 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
1.9 / 5 (8) May 22, 2010
I am not sure we will like being stretched by these hypothetical gravitaitonal waves. Let me know of any significant very large mass events that occur, so I can eat some peanuts, drink a few pints and get my towel. The whole idea of gravitational waves belongs in the same fiction category as the existence of Vogons. Rosen was (initially) correct, No detectable gravity waves exist as they are at best unstable and likely just an unfortunate mathematical artifact derived from incomplete understanding. The scientific onus is to directly prove a hypothesis (not for skeptics to disprove) and in the case of gravity waves, no direct evidence exists. Walks like a duck, squarks like a duck - does NOT in science, make it a duck. You must sight the duck.
Au-Pu
1 / 5 (3) May 22, 2010
Why expend so much time and energy looking for any stray scrap of evidence that might lend support to a theory that lacks roughly 80% of the matter it needs.
Surely their time would be more productively spent seeking a better theory.
Or has the big bang theory assumed the status of a cosmological religion?
Let us hope not.
Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (6) May 22, 2010
If deceleration doesn't exist, why this parameter is called a "deceleration parameter"?
This is a textbook example of confusing designation and description. Why are some lepidoptera called butterflies?
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) May 22, 2010
The whole idea of gravitational waves belongs in the same fiction category as the existence of Vogons.
Why?
Rosen was (initially) correct, No detectable gravity waves exist as they are at best unstable
Why?
and likely just an unfortunate mathematical artifact derived from incomplete understanding.
Our understanding certainly is incomplete but we (including you) don't have a better understanding just now.
The scientific onus is to directly prove a hypothesis (not for skeptics to disprove)
This is not the way science works. There is no direct proof. There is only falsification or confirmation.
and in the case of gravity waves, no direct evidence exists.
Yes. But your implication "no evidence now" ==> "no existence" is wrong.

frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) May 22, 2010
Why expend so much time and energy looking for any stray scrap of evidence that might lend support to a theory that lacks roughly 80% of the matter it needs.
That's only part of the picture. Equally important is the chance that we find a "stray crap of evidence" that might not be compatible with the dominant theory.
Surely their time would be more productively spent seeking a better theory.
Never heard of alternative cosmologies? Maybe you read the wrong pages?
Or has the big bang theory assumed the status of a cosmological religion?
Let us hope not.
It may seem so if you get your info from second hand physics articles only. But have a look at physicsforums.com, for instance. The problem is not science but translating science for non-scientists. It is an art like translating a poem from one language into another one. Often simply impossible; often you just have to learn the other language if you really want to understand.
Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
5 / 5 (4) May 22, 2010
Albert Einstein: "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
Obviously A.E. was lucky enough not to have met Aether Theory addicts. Otherwise he would have said "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother without resorting to fairy tales".
Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
daywalk3r
3.8 / 5 (16) May 22, 2010
It indeed does the difference, if we assume, our Universe is of limited size or if we assume, it is infinite. When its infinite, then the things like BigBang and inflation are simply BS at the conceptual level.
Not quite true as those "things" you mentioned could still be only local events in an infinite Universe.
Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) May 22, 2010
@frajo

Even overcoming Rosens objections to the conclusion that General Relativity predicts Gravitational waves, they would be so weak and unstable that even with the slightest change in conditions they are extinguished.

Do you believe that anything is possible sometime? Do you keep throwing a ball in the air endlessly just in case one day it does not fall back down. No. You satisfy yourself that the ball always falls down. Same with Gravity waves, when do you stop looking for an effect that does not exist?

Perhaps time to start considering the implications of the absence of gravitational waves.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (4) May 23, 2010
Certain configurations of large spinning masses should radiate gravitational waves through the distortion of space-time. IF we assume they do not (as the evidence to date suggests) then how else is the associated energy (if any) radiated or dissipated?

Is the indirect evidence for Gravitational waves due to an alternative explanation and is it testable?

Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) May 23, 2010
Even overcoming Rosens objections to the conclusion that General Relativity predicts Gravitational waves,
Why "even"? Do you have a better explanation for the decay of the orbital period of a neutron star binary system like PSR B1913+16?
they would be so weak and unstable that even with the slightest change in conditions they are extinguished.
You don't mention the considerations which lead to your conclusions. Anyhow, there seem to be physicists who think differently. Experiments will show who is right.
when do you stop looking for an effect that does not exist?
When there are no more open questions I might accept your assumption.
Perhaps time to start considering the implications of the absence of gravitational waves.
If you doubt the existence of grav. waves you should begin ASAP to setup your alternative to GR.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) May 23, 2010
Sometimes it's simply necessary to understand things at their qualitative, intuitive level, when the formal math approach becomes singular/invariant to them.
This is not science, this is philosophical ponderance and has no place here.
If nothing else, it will save money of tax payers for dumb experiments and it will not threat the credit of science.
Actually it would serve to create more "dumb" experiments as now you'd be allowing any wacko with an idea he dreampt up to recieve funding to test his "dream". The only threat to science is qualitative reasoning. Science is a field of fact, not feeling. If I come up with a hypothesis and my experiment shows that the hypothesis is wrong I am forced to say I am wrong. There is no dogma in science precisely because it is quantitative. If you do not understand that, science isn't for you.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) May 23, 2010
Other paradigms exist and although I may disagree with Alizee, I admire the brave challenge presented to our current understanding. Certainly Alizee has at least an inquiring mind.

In the meanwhile frajo, you are still waiting for a ball to fall up, just be to sure the ball always falls down.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2010
Other paradigms exist and although I may disagree with Alizee, I admire the brave challenge presented to our current understanding. Certainly Alizee has at least an inquiring mind.
If ignoring evidence and spouting off lies are bravery in your world, and comming up with magical mechanisms attempting to disprove reasoned and rational theories, then you're far off the mark, and also not really suited to comment here.

In the meanwhile frajo, you are still waiting for a ball to fall up, just be to sure the ball always falls down.

No, he's adhering to his current theory as no contradictory evidence has been (or likely ever will be, ) found to discredit the theory.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2010
They're salary oriented, not understanding oriented
This statement discloses a mind which has lost any touch with reality.
Whoever strives for big money certainly doesn't delve into physics. He'd delve into medicine or jurisprudence instead.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 23, 2010
He'd delve into medicine or jurisprudence instead.

Half right, there's not much money to be had in medicine unless you're a pharmaceutical exec.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2010
In the meanwhile frajo, you are still waiting for a ball to fall up, just be to sure the ball always falls down.
Oh thanks, I'm relieved.
Folks who rate statements high which denounce physicists to strive more for money than for cognition are not compatibel with my entourage. Neither are folks who take a papal stance be defining unilaterally which things are "balls" and which phenomena are equivalent to "falling".
Analogies don't work without collusion.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2010
He'd delve into medicine or jurisprudence instead.

Half right, there's not much money to be had in medicine unless you're a pharmaceutical exec.

Maybe these things are different in Europe and in the States.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) May 23, 2010
@Skeptic
(re: No, he's adhering to his current theory as no contradictory evidence has been (or likely ever will be, ) found to discredit the theory.)

... and NOT detecting Gravitational waves supports the current hypothesis how?

@frajo
and the papal balls are colluding with which folk to fall where and do what with your entourage? Sounds like more fun over your way!
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2010
... and NOT detecting Gravitational waves supports the current hypothesis how?
I'll use your favorite argument and go with "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence".
Maybe these things are different in Europe and in the States.
I concur. They're quite different, and that's largely to our detriment, but I wouldn't put a value on one style over the other. Both are not quite right as they are, or should I say were with this climate of change on both sides of the ocean.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2010
... and NOT detecting Gravitational waves supports the current hypothesis how?
It doesn't support the standard model. But that's not strong enough evidence to declare the standard model to be falsified. Especially as long as you don't have any alternative explanation/hypothesis/theory.
yyz
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2010
Still waiting for a response to frajo's query concerning PSR B1913+16. Ever hear of it?

Per wiki: "The measurements on the Hulse-Taylor system[PSR B1913+16] have been carried out over more than 30 years. It has been shown that the gravitational radiation predicted by general relativity allows these observations to be matched within 0.2 percent. In 1993, Russell Hulse and Joe Taylor were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for this work, which was the first indirect evidence for gravitational waves."

We know Alizee has this figured out(Dense aether wave theory), but back to reality. Got any consistent, superior alternate theories for this object? Links to published alternatives concerning PSR B1913+16?

Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2010
Nope, this is exact equivalent of physical situation. Scientists are ignoring my explanation of gravitational waves (GWs), because they consider my comments as a random noise, in the same way, like CMB noise. They don't understand, my comments are low dimensional projection of logics (causual waves of information) in higher number of dimensions, then they can comprehend.
So you just pick phrases out of physics weekly and use them to attempt to insult the people who define those terms.

Why aren't you clever.... not really. Question still stands:
Do you have a better explanation for the decay of the orbital period of a neutron star binary system like PSR B1913+16?
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2010
In fact it's not so difficult to become more clever in notion of dense aether at all
It never has been difficult to become schooled in fantasy. Understanding reality requires actual work. Work you haven't done based on your statements.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic,
It never has been difficult to become schooled in fantasy.
I wouldn't be making such sweeping statements. There are PhDs granted based purely on nothing other than the study of fantasy (a.k.a. folklore.) Ever heard of Tolkien? Ever tried to learn Quenya? And those dwarvish rune-scripts: they're a bloody nightmare, I assure you. And don't even get me started on the black speech of Mordor...

;D
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 23, 2010
Nobody says, understanding of dense aether theory requires no work. But its learning curve (as measured by volume of information required for generating testable predictions) is considerably steeper, then at the case of other theories.
Well if you're the leading proponent, which you are, and you don't know anything about it, it couldn't be that hard to make it all up as I go along, would it?
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2010
Aether theory is for masses.

No, truth is for the masses. Aether theory is for the mindless.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2010
For example, when you're inside of gravity field, you're basically sitting inside of blob of dense vacuum, being deformed by it into more dense state too. After then the path of light observed will be straight and the speed of light will appear constant - this is a relativity view.
No it isn't.
When you're sitting outside of this field, you're not affected by it and would see the path of light curved and speed of light variable - this is a quantum mechanics view.
No, it isn't.
Who is more true by now?
Well certainly not you.

The understanding of this dependence of reality perceived to the observer position is more relevant here, then the adherence to some particular view.
No, that is called delusion. When you purposefully ignore reality and established definition and make them up as you go along that is called delusional thinking.

You are a crackpot by your own definition.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2010
It's quite easy to imagine it:
The flying purple people eater?
if the speed of light will be always invariant
Which it isn't
then the path of light will be always straight, right?
No and why?
This trivial insight leads into conclusion, every gravitational lensing (predicted by general relativity) violates postulates of relativity.

Not sure where you came up with that as you've neither discussed relativity nor gravitational lensing.

You cannot make up new definitions because you feel like it.
ZeroX
1.8 / 5 (5) May 24, 2010
Your stance is nothing exceptional between theorists, because they cannot think about their theories in non-formal way. The weren't trained about it at schools, or they even were untrained by learning about formal models, which are based on inconsistent postulate sets.

A physmatic(* see the link bellow) educated in such way for many years can see absolutely nothing wrong, if he uses the equations derived for CENTER of gravity lens (where the deformation of light path goes to zero) for description of the same deformation from OUTSIDE. Such subtleties are usually bellow his display resolution.

http://www.clayma...tics.pdf

So I can perfectly understand your stance, because from my model follows, every formal theory violates its postulates by deriving exact results from them. It's a consequence of Goedel's incompleteness theorem.
ZeroX
1.8 / 5 (5) May 24, 2010
For example string theorists can see nothing wrong in an attempt to prove existence of extradimensions by VIOLATION of Lorentz symmetry, and after then to use these extra-dimensions TOGETHER with Lorentz symmetry in their derivations. They're willing to switch intrinsic and extrinsic observational perspective anytime during their derivations.

As the result, their theory leads to landscape of 10E+500 or so solutions, which basically corresponds the number of observable particles inside of our Universe (which basically corresponds the number of distinct permutation of 10E+22.3 particles inside of our brain). Such theory is able to predict virtually everything, what we could ever see, after then.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
Just because you don't understand the math involved, doesn't mean that the math involved is flawed. Leave it to people who actually have an education to tell you whether the math is flawed if you're unwilling to put in the work to learn it.
ZeroX
1.8 / 5 (5) May 24, 2010
I'm not saying, this math is flawed. Math based on formal logics has its own limits.

Every formal theory is based on at least single implication, i.e. causal vector (so called the "causal time arrow") between antecedent and consequent tautologies (postulates or scalars in causual space). When more postulates are used, then the implication vector changes into N-rank tensor in multidimensional space, but the principle remains the very same.

http://en.wikiped..._of_time

But the consistency of two or more different postulates can be never confirmed with certainty - or we could replace them by the single one and we would base our theory on TAUTOLOGY, i.e. scalar (zero-rank tensor) predicate in causal space with true value undefined.

In this way, the validity scope of every theory based on formal logics is limited, because it remains based on intrinsically inconsistent axioms. Without it we couldn't have some formal theory at all.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
I'm not saying, this math is flawed. Math based on formal logics has its own limits.

Every formal theory is based on at least single implication, i.e. causual vector (so called the "causual time arrow") between antecedent and consequent tautologies (postulates or scalars in causual space). When more postulates are used, then the implication vector changes into N-rank tensor in multidimensional space, but the principle remains the very same.

Are you trying to say causality doesn't exist? Formal math accurately describes everything that has a cause and effect.
In this way, the validity scope of every theory based on formal logics is limited, because it remains based on intrinsically inconsistent axioms. Without it we couldn't have some formal theory at all.
You are. If you want to dispute causality you're going to need to bring a bigger hammer and a lot of proof.
ZeroX
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2010
You apparently didn't understood my point. Every theory must be able to predict something, or it's useless. Such prediction could be done by extrapolation of implication vector, based on postulates (axioms), for example:

Postulate A: "Energy spreads through matter in waves"
Postulate B: "Light is energy and it spreads in waves too"

Then you can extrapolate prediction, i.e. theorem C based on entailment vector A ^ B => C:

If proposition 1) and proposition 2) are valid, then the theorem "the vacuum is formed by matter" is valid too. You just extrapolated two known facts into assumption, whose could be validated in future.

But for to be perfectly sure by such prediction, you should be sure, the A, B axioms aren't dependent mutually. Without it you could replace them by single predicate, which would lead into tautology.

But if A, B aren't dependent mutually, it means, they're not consistent, too - you cannot derive one postulate from another one. We based our logics on inconsistency.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
Every theory must be able to predict something, or it's useless.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Every Theory must be able to accurately describe all known observations and facts.

Hypotheses must predict, not theories. Theories do not predict, they establish. You can make a prediction based on a theory, but that is not the role of a theory.
ZeroX
1 / 5 (3) May 24, 2010
The causality indeed exists, but in gradient driven reality of dense aether theory it's based on local violations of causality. We can compare such state to the observation of laser ray in atmosphere. If this atmosphere will be completely transparent and clear, you wouldn't see nothing, because the light of laser wouldn't disperse.

If the atmosphere will be foggy, then the light of laser would disperse and you would see the laser beam from distance. But the same reason leads to the fact, the path of beam will not be completely narrow, because the same dispersion, which has visualize it leads into gradual dispersion of beam of light.

In this way, for to be able to see at least something in our Universe, the causality of all phenomena observed must remain always broken at low scales. Which means, it would become broken at sufficiently distant scale too - the laser ray would disperse with distance, until its light would cover the whole sky.
ZeroX
3 / 5 (4) May 24, 2010
Hypotheses must predict, not theories. Theories do not predict, they establish.
The Popper's methodology of science is based on falsifiability of theories. In order to theory remain falsifiable, it must be able to predict at least something in formal sense, i.e. to extrapolate new quality, which isn't contained in its postulates explicitly - or it would remain tautology in formal sense.

It doesn't mean, this theory must predict something very new.

For example, many physicists would be quite happy, if they would have theory, which would be able to predict exact mass of electron - despite of such mass was measured many times before.
ZeroX
2.6 / 5 (5) May 24, 2010
Theories do not predict, they establish. You can make a prediction based on a theory, but that is not the role of a theory.
You know - your stance is nothing new between many formal theorists.

For example, many theorists, who are facing the inability of string theory to give some testable prediction are trying to evade scientific method by speculating, string theory may not be quite wrong, even though it predicts nothing testable.

But the theory, which is predicting 10E+500 solutions can be right in formal sense, but it violates the Occam's razor criterion, which is based on utilitarian principle. Such theory is simply useless for the rest of people, so we needn't to keep it at all for the sake of simplicity of our description of observable reality.

Of course, the theorists involved have quite different meaning about usefulness of string theory. For them such theory is serving as a salary generator - so they tend to ignore Occam's razor principle by all means possible.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
3 posts of junk to answer my 3 line explanation.

Crackpot rule numbers 1, 2, and 3 all employed within your posts.
ZeroX
1 / 5 (3) May 24, 2010
3 posts of junk to answer my 3 line explanation.

OK, I'll give you a more straightforward "explanation", too...

I never met with claim, "only hypothesis must predict something, theories only 'establish'". From where you got such BS (link, please...)? This is simply completely wrong categorical claim which has no support in anything, explanation the less.

How some scientific theory could be made falsifiable, if it wouldn't predict anything? You've apparently no idea of what the scientific theory means.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
From where you got such BS (link, please...)? This is simply completely wrong categorical claim which has no support in anything, explanation the less.

How some scientific theory could be made falsifiable, if it wouldn't predict anything? You've apparently no idea of what the scientific theory means.

From the AAAS, which I'm a memebr of, and rather obviously, you are not. Secondly a theory is falsified if the statement of the theory is no longer accurate due to new evidence or observation.
Methodological Thinking, an introduction to Scientific Method: Hypothesis, Test, Verify
It is not Theory, Test, Verify.

We do not start with theories. We never have. We do not jsut come up with a theory and say, that's the way it is. That's religion, and we don't engage in it.

Example: if Crocoduck was naturally born tomorrow, evolution would no longer be a functional theory as that works contrary to the theory.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 24, 2010
Cont: Which is the whole point here. Theories are composed of facts and observations. The Theory is the overall statement of understanding taking all evidence into account. If the evidence makes the theory untrue, then we scrap the theory, or re-write the theory to account for the new information.

When you hear the word Theory, come out of a scientist's mouth, that means there is absolutely NO known contradictory evidence. The Theory of Evolution is a theory because there are no facts that are contrary to evolution. NONE. If there were facts, that were contradictory to the theory, ie:Mr. Crocoduck, we would no longer call the Theory of Evolution a theory. It would become the "concept" or "hypothesis" of evolution. We have millions if not billions of facts for evolution. To make me recant and say, Evolution is no longer a scientific Theory, you only need to find 1 piece of evidence that is contrary to the theory. Just 1. And none of you can.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
From the AAAS, which I'm a memebr of
LOL... Just a link proving your private definition of scientific theory, please.... ;-)

The definition is above. Since you have an inability to use the same screen name when you reply, and have a huge inability to comprehend what you read I elaborated so you can follow along if you're so inclined.

Again, because you're a little slow,
Theory - A statement, inclusive of all current facts and observations, that accurately describes reality.
If you have an established scientific theory that you think shouldn't be a theory, list the theory, its statement, and your contradictory evidence.

If you have nothing further to add, have a nice day.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 24, 2010
..is BS. You probably confused meaning of "hypothesis" and "theory" words. Hypothesis must give testable predictions for to be considered a scientific theory in the sense of Popper's methodology of science.

Do you have some problem with it?
yes, because you butchered it. Thanks for playing. If you're going to cite Popper, you may want to actually read Popper.

Popper "Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment."

I don't see theory or hypothesis in there anywhere. Makes sense, since Popper was a philosopher, not a scientist.

Popper did do one thing for scientists, he set the gates for disposition of theories. He did not redefine the term.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary consequence of using inductive logic.


That is Popper's statement on theory.
Karl Popper's formulation of hypothetico-deductive method, which he called the method of "conjectures and refutations", demands falsifiable hypotheses, framed in such a manner that the scientific community can prove them false (usually by observation).
And that is his statement on hypothesis.

I'm going to start charging you for this education Alizee. PM me your contact info so I know where to send the bill.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
If theory has no predictions, then it has nothing to falsify. If it's not falsifiable, then it's not a scientific theory anymore. Got it?
Wrong again!

A theory that makes no predictions is still falsifiable. It is still falsifiable because observational evidence can rebut the basic statement of the theory.

The official difference between hypothesis and theory is that a hypothesis makes a prediction, which will either be verified or falsified. Once verified it becomes a fact.

A theory is a collection of facts resulting in an overarching statement on reality. It is never provable as your next result could always upset the theory, and it is falsifiable as once you find a piece of evidence that doesn't fit, the theory is no more.
Thanks for playing.

Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
And I don't represent the AAAS, their PR board does. My commentary represents me.

Your commentary, and the commentary of your thousands of alias screen names, represents quackery.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
basic statement of the theory
I'm more and more surprised. What is the "basic statement" of - let say - quantum mechanics? I never heard about this secret...

Tough to say. Currently there isn't a "Theory of Quantum Mechanics" however there are multiple sub-theories, like relativity, schroedinger's equation, etc.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 24, 2010
Therefore I wouldn't use in definition of theory such vague concepts, being you.. But the quantum mechanics is relatively well defined by its six postulates, with compare to string theory, for example - where the above comment of yours remains basically valid.

I think you tried to insult me and then english got in the way. I don't speak to theoretical quantum physics often. I can speak to certain sub theories but not to the whole of QM.

I can refute your aether hypotheses at every turn because they're so blatantly uninformed when it comes to even introductory physics, let alone quantum mechanical basics.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
Wow kid, you've flipped.

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

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