Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang

May 2, 2018, University of Cambridge
Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking’s final theory about the big bang
Stephen Hawking. Credit: Andre Pattenden

Professor Stephen Hawking's final theory on the origin of the universe, which he worked on in collaboration with Professor Thomas Hertog from KU Leuven, has been published today in the Journal of High Energy Physics.

The , which was submitted for publication before Hawking's death earlier this year, is based on string theory and predicts the universe is finite and far simpler than many current theories about the big bang say.

Professor Hertog, whose work has been supported by the European Research Council, first announced the new theory at a conference at the University of Cambridge in July of last year, organised on the occasion of Professor Hawking's 75th birthday.

Modern theories of the big bang predict that our local universe came into existence with a brief burst of inflation – in other words, a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang itself, the universe expanded at an exponential rate. It is widely believed, however, that once inflation starts, there are regions where it never stops. It is thought that quantum effects can keep inflation going forever in some regions of the universe so that globally, inflation is eternal. The observable part of our universe would then be just a hospitable pocket universe, a region in which inflation has ended and stars and galaxies formed.

"The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean," said Hawking in an interview last autumn. "The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested. "

In their new paper, Hawking and Hertog say this account of eternal inflation as a theory of the is wrong. "The problem with the usual account of eternal inflation is that it assumes an existing background universe that evolves according to Einstein's theory of general relativity and treats the quantum effects as small fluctuations around this," said Hertog. "However, the dynamics of eternal inflation wipes out the separation between classical and quantum physics. As a consequence, Einstein's theory breaks down in eternal inflation."

"We predict that our universe, on the largest scales, is reasonably smooth and globally finite. So it is not a fractal structure," said Hawking.

The theory of eternal inflation that Hawking and Hertog put forward is based on string theory: a branch of theoretical physics that attempts to reconcile gravity and general relativity with quantum physics, in part by describing the fundamental constituents of the universe as tiny vibrating strings. Their approach uses the concept of holography, which postulates that the universe is a large and complex hologram: physical reality in certain 3-D spaces can be mathematically reduced to 2-D projections on a surface.

Hawking and Hertog developed a variation of this concept of holography to project out the time dimension in eternal inflation. This enabled them to describe eternal inflation without having to rely on Einstein' theory. In the new theory, eternal inflation is reduced to a timeless state defined on a spatial surface at the beginning of time.

"When we trace the evolution of our universe backwards in time, at some point we arrive at the threshold of eternal inflation, where our familiar notion of time ceases to have any meaning," said Hertog.

Hawking's earlier 'no boundary theory' predicted that if you go back in time to the beginning of the universe, the universe shrinks and closes off like a sphere, but this new theory represents a step away from the earlier work. "Now we're saying that there is a boundary in our past," said Hertog.

Hertog and Hawking used their new theory to derive more reliable predictions about the global structure of the universe. They predicted the universe that emerges from eternal inflation on the past boundary is finite and far simpler than the infinite fractal structure predicted by the old theory of eternal .

Their results, if confirmed by further work, would have far-reaching implications for the multiverse paradigm. "We are not down to a single, unique universe, but our findings imply a significant reduction of the multiverse, to a much smaller range of possible universes," said Hawking.

This makes the theory more predictive and testable.

Hertog now plans to study the implications of the new theory on smaller scales that are within reach of our space telescopes. He believes that primordial gravitational waves – ripples in spacetime – generated at the exit from constitute the most promising "smoking gun" to test the model. The expansion of our since the beginning means such gravitational waves would have very long wavelengths, outside the range of the current LIGO detectors. But they might be heard by the planned European space-based gravitational wave observatory, LISA, or seen in future experiments measuring the cosmic microwave background.

Explore further: Researchers detect B-mode polarization in cosmic microwave background

More information: S. W. Hawking et al. A smooth exit from eternal inflation?, Journal of High Energy Physics (2018). DOI: 10.1007/JHEP04(2018)147 , https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.07702

Interview with Thomas Hertog: erc.europa.eu/news/stephen-haw … -cosmology-interview

Related Stories

No Universe without Big Bang

June 15, 2017

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the curvature of spacetime was infinite at the big bang. In fact, at this point all mathematical tools fail, and the theory breaks down. However, there remained the notion that ...

Have cosmologists lost their minds in the multiverse?

May 13, 2014

The recent BICEP2 observations – of swirls in the polarisation of the cosmic microwave background – have been proclaimed as many things, from evidence of the Big Bang and gravitational waves to something strange called ...

Recommended for you

How can you tell if a quantum memory is really quantum?

May 23, 2018

Quantum memories are devices that can store quantum information for a later time, which are usually implemented by storing and re-emitting photons with certain quantum states. But often it's difficult to tell whether a memory ...

Research reveals how order first appears in liquid crystals

May 22, 2018

Liquid crystals undergo a peculiar type of phase change. At a certain temperature, their cigar-shaped molecules go from a disordered jumble to a more orderly arrangement in which they all point more or less in the same direction. ...

215 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

alexander2468
1.9 / 5 (9) May 02, 2018
The vibrating strings of multiverse
The theory of eternal inflation that Hawking and Hertog put forward is based on string theory: a branch of theoretical physics that attempts to reconcile gravity and general relativity with quantum physics, in part by describing the fundamental constituents of the universe as tiny vibrating strings

All ways test your theories on phys.org public forum before releasing them into the wild Professor Thomas Hertog; to get a reaction in the light of public perception away from the closeted walls of St John's College, those hallowed corridors where only Fellows are privileged to tread, a very delicate ivory tower when the edifices of theory begin to crumble. The tiny vibrating strings of multiverse playing on our heart strings are not playing our symphony.
mackita
1 / 5 (7) May 02, 2018
The multiverse is primarily social construct - the physical theorists indeed need some "New Physics" for to get new grants and salaries - but they would also like to have existing theories preserved. One of solution of this apparent oxymoron is to have another universe, in context of which the old theories worked well, but it could still somehow interfere with this our one.

If it looks like BS for you, then because the MW concept really is BS similar way like the God concept: you can explain everything and nothing with it at the same moment. Not accidentally these nonsenses develop primarily string theorists in a futile effort to save their pet theory against experimental refusal. They're also already lobbying for it at the phillosophical level - fortunately the falsifiability is still inherent part of scientific method.
mackita
1 / 5 (6) May 02, 2018
In dense aether model the multiverse concept is contained in explanation of Hubble red shift by scattering of light - it means that distant observer would see our part of Universe red shifted and blurred in similar way, like we can already see distant portions of universe. Such an observation therefore resembles our experience of observation of fog under flash-light: locally our neighborhood looks transparent and visible at all places, wherever we move in - but at distance it looks isolated from us. It of course doesn't imply, that another Universe is lurking just around the corner, because there is no actual boundary, the transition from place to place is seamless and everything is just an effect of light scattering geometry. It merely means, that our Universe is way more hyperdimensional than it looks from perspective of relativistic distance. Which is rather obvious once we look at the things all around us: nothing actually follows 4D space-time geometry at the human distance scale
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (5) May 02, 2018
Multiverse is a misnomer for "there are more facets of this one big single Universe than we can wrap our little heads around..."
Benni
1 / 5 (5) May 02, 2018
The theory of eternal inflation that Hawking and Hertog put forward is based on string theory


.......put a few of those strings on a violin & play it, see what out. Maybe gravity at different wavelengths?

If I put the strings of the universe on my guitar, I wonder if it would take my playing Rocky Mountain High to a new level? Maybe John Denver would wake up? Ooops, sorry JD, keep resting, I seriously doubt such strings exist.
zorro6204
1 / 5 (6) May 02, 2018
This just sounds like conjecture to me, and it's based on a theory for which there's no proof at all. String theory sounds good, but so did the existence of "Risons" as fundamental particles of quarks. It was a beautiful theory, trouble is, they don't exist.

Despite his public fame, it's my understanding that while he did some good work, few rate him among the top physicists of his time.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) May 02, 2018
Well, then we'll just have to wait for LISA. We'll also see if Hertog makes the hypothesis give some more predictions that can be tested before then.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (14) May 02, 2018
Despite his public fame, it's my understanding that while he did some good work, few rate him among the top physicists of his time.
Actually depending on who you talk to Hawking was one of the greatest gravity physicists who ever lived; easily in the top ten, almost certainly in the top five. Hawking radiation was a truly inspired insight, as was the manner in which entropy manifests in black holes.
mackita
1.5 / 5 (8) May 02, 2018
Hawking was one of the greatest gravity physicists who ever lived
If nothing else, then he is the "greatest" physicist without a single testable prediction confirmed...;-) Which speaks for something about contemporary physics as well. BTW The living physicists residing at the opposite side of this measure are two ones: Nigel B. Cook and Mc Culloch, which are merely unknown not only to laymen public but also even the wider mainstream physics community - which also speaks for itself. It illustrates, that the mainstream physics adopted completely perverse effectiveness criterion: the theories and ideas which provide most jobs and grants are just these ones, which are most vague ones. Nobody looks for solutions but for solving. This is just consequence of the fact, that mainstream science transformed into a nest of clueless ants who are desperately looking for a new jobs, which would also preserve their existing social status quo.
Damon_Hastings
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2018
This article confusingly misrepresents both "multiverse" and "holographic universe".

MULTIVERSE:

Almost anyone who says "multiverse" is (generally) talking about the Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM. This article talks about an infinite space of adjacent, unrelated pocket universes dotting a sea of inflation, and calls this the usual "multiverse". It's not. The usual (MWI) multiverse involves parallel universes -- each nearly identical to its neighbors -- occupying the same traditional space and time coordinates. Think of the show "Sliders".

HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE:

The QM meaning of this is actually the mathematical definition of "holographic function", which just means the entire function can be perfectly extrapolated from perfect knowledge of any piece/boundary. This holography might be "real" or might be an artifact of the model, which happens to use a holographic wave function. But the universe is NOT a hologram in the video holography sense (3D<->2D projection).
mackita
1 / 5 (7) May 02, 2018
Hawking said in an interview last autumn. "I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested."


It just illustrates the fact that Howking mostly based his credit on providing his name to various 2nd grade publications and ideas which he even didn't believe or bother about - which is also common praxis of contemporary science. In this way his H-index gained steadily and he also helped new authors to gain credit so that both sides of contract did remain happy. The recent article about Mathew effect analyzes it in more detail. The co-authorship is the synonym for corruption of contemporary science, because the people there are valued by number of their publications and their citation impact - not by actual results.
joel in oakland
4.6 / 5 (10) May 02, 2018
Just coming up with a testable hypothesis in this area of science is pretty monumental - even if it's disconfirmed eventually.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2018
Almost anyone who says "multiverse" is (generally) talking about the Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM
Yes, this is also the context which I talked about above. The multiverse composed of random mutually different universes is indeed even less testable concept, than the bubble universe model in which each universe remain roughly the same. It's just another name for swamp-land of string theory, composed of nearly infinite number of random entities.
mackita
1 / 5 (5) May 02, 2018
Just coming up with a testable hypothesis in this area of science is pretty monumental
Only in noble idealistic theory of how science should work - in common life praxis just these ideas get ridiculed and ignored the most. As I already noted above, the physicists who already generated highest number of testable predictions are just these least known ones, respected the less.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (14) May 02, 2018
The crank Hawking rode that pseudoscience horse (it was an ADA horse) to the end, and his acolytes praise him for it. LOL!
mackita
1 / 5 (5) May 02, 2018
The truth is, the multiverse idea is violently opposed also by group of physicists supporting the quantum gravity instead of string theory. The problem is, they're doing it from ideological - rather than factual reasons (which aren't difficult to lay out at the case of multiverse concept indeed). They just see, that multiverse is string theory in disguise so they want to keep the credit of their own ideas. These opponents of multiverse aren't actually way better in their ability of testable predictions.
alexander2468
3 / 5 (4) May 02, 2018
String theory the infinity of nothing
Albert Einstein spent his last few hours on Earth scribbling something on a piece of paper in a last attempt to formulate a theory of everything. 60 years later, Stephen Hawking passed away with similar thoughts
Fundamental interactions provide unified frameworks; gravity cannot be consistently included in this picture. Describing large scale phenomena such as a planet's or galaxy dynamics, general relativity breaks down at very short distances. In the standard model, all forces are mediated by specific particles, the graviton does the job. But when trying to calculate how these gravitons interact, nonsensical infinities appear.
Relativity breaks down at quantum distances. Distances become relative to the size of electrons and their wavelengths. Gravity is the only force that is identical in both worlds even though as yet its graviton is too small for us to measure. String theory is the cart before the horse.
andyf
5 / 5 (15) May 02, 2018
The force is strong with the nutters tonight.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (13) May 02, 2018
The EU religionists hate Hawking. Especially zeph/macurinetherapy.

Hawking was a gravity physicist and they don't "believe in" gravity.
alexander2468
1.9 / 5 (9) May 02, 2018
The only unified force is Gravity
Every particle of mass contains gravity. Without gravity the atoms in the quantum world cannot provide the force necessary to create the energy of fusion in the stars, the force of gravity exerted by one proton is a multiplicative in how ever many protons in the nucleus. Gravity is working down below 10-15metres crossing that distance in 10-24seconds. In gravitational lensing a photon is considerably smaller than 10-15m where gravity bends the photons path when it is emitted from relativistic electrons. The time of interaction is in the order of 10-27 seconds when a photon is moving from a electron where gravity is bending its path.
Benni
1.2 / 5 (5) May 02, 2018
Multiverse is a misnomer for "there are more facets of this one big single Universe than we can wrap our little heads around..."

Not quite whyguy, I have a big head, and by the way,"misnomer" means to "miss number", is that what you meant by "one big single" as opposed to 'multiverse"?
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (13) May 02, 2018
Actually, @Lenni, "misnomer" means "mis-name." As a noun. In English. Spoken by high school graduates. On Earth. Where you apparently don't live.

Go sweep some toilets in the nuclear plant, @LenniTheLiar. Maybe your brain trouble is caused by the radiation in the leavings in the toilets.
andyf
4.3 / 5 (11) May 02, 2018
@Benni:
I don't agree with the poster, but you need to adjust your vocabulary.
https://en.wikipe...Misnomer
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) May 02, 2018
@andyf you ain't seen @Lenni operate yet. Prepare for everything being made of plasma, no one understanding plasma, and there being no gravity but only mysterious currents that only flow one way that no one can find out because they don't know anything about plasma. Not to mention no fusion and, paradoxically, fusion in the Sun's atmosphere.

Good luck with that.
andyf
4.1 / 5 (9) May 02, 2018
@DS:

Recent Activity for Benni
Average rank: 1.8
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2018
Reading these comments brought to mind a paraphrase from that ancient sage Mao Zedong "...Let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend..."
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) May 02, 2018
@rrwillsj, Mao had Chinese degrading highly refined steel in backyard forges to make pig iron for his Great Step Forward (or one or another of those 5 year plans). You can't get industrial grade output by dumping trash into the hopper.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) May 02, 2018
@andyf, OK, but understand what you're disagreeing with. At a certain point ridicule is the only reasonable response.
andyf
4.3 / 5 (11) May 02, 2018
@DS:

Agreed. But you have to work really hard to get such a low ranking so I wouldn't want to take that away from him ;-)
mackita
2 / 5 (4) May 02, 2018
..Let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend...
This is actually what the multiverse is all about: diversification of theories. The only rational core of this idea.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) May 02, 2018
This article confusingly misrepresents both "multiverse" and "holographic universe".

MULTIVERSE:

Almost anyone who says "multiverse" is (generally) talking about the Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM. This article talks about an infinite space of adjacent, unrelated pocket universes dotting a sea of inflation, and calls this the usual "multiverse". It's not. The usual (MWI) multiverse involves parallel universes -- each nearly identical to its neighbors -- occupying the same traditional space and time coordinates.
Actually in the context of the argument being made this is incorrect.

While it's true that "multiverse" can be interpreted in the Everett sense, the modern understanding is an underlying context within which universes with a separate spacetime from all others can be created from vacuum fluctuations within that underlying context.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) May 02, 2018
[contd]
In other words, these "pocket universes" are co-existent with each other but not co-incident (i.e. having the same coordinates as you conjecture). The underlying context gives different coordinates in its own terms, and the different "pocket universes" have different laws of physics. Hawking and Hertog are arguing that the "pocket universes" need not be infinite. They may be correct.
andyf
4 / 5 (8) May 02, 2018

..Let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend...
This is actually what the multiverse is all about: diversification of theories. The only rational core of this idea.

Recent Activity for mackita
Average rank: 1.9

Hmm, a tad better than Benni but still in the same ball-park. Keep trying there Mac!

mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2018
which universes with a separate spacetime from all others can be created from vacuum fluctuations Hawking and Hertog are arguing that the "pocket universes" need not be infinite. They may be correct.
Vacuum fluctuations are extremely short-living, if some separate space-times would be created there, they could be hardly infinite. But the whole article is about alternative of Big Bang scenario, i.e. not about some minuscule vacuum fluctuations - but about way, way way larger objects surrounding our universe. This carelessness about scope of speculations is also what bothers me about modern theorists. The seemingly rigorous people who are judging answers with one billionth precision suddenly babble about concepts which differ by some eighty orders of magnitude in one sentence as if nothing would ever happen.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) May 02, 2018
@macurinetherapy/@zeph, if you don't understand cosmology you probably should either not attempt it or should edumacate yourself on the strategery first.
mackita
1.8 / 5 (5) May 02, 2018
That's correct but your implication doesn't really apply to me. You're essentially saying, that our universe itself is such a giant quantum fluctuation. Too bad that normal vacuum fluctuations never grow that large. What made our Universe fluctuation so special?
mackita
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2018
Note that dense aether model reflects this similarity too - but in way more natural way: at the water surface we have tiny fluctuations of Brownian noise and also large waves. Both they will blur the surface ripples at small and large distance scales - but all the rest still remains steady-state. So that the similarity of universe formation with vacuum fluctuations is just - well, similarity.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) May 02, 2018
Multiverse is a misnomer for "there are more facets of this one big single Universe than we can wrap our little heads around..."

Not quite whyguy, I have a big head,

You mean ego.
and by the way,"misnomer" means to "miss number", is that what you meant by "one big single" as opposed to 'multiverse"?

Merriam Webster;
"Definition of misnomer
1 : the misnaming of a person in a legal instrument
2 a : a use of a wrong or inappropriate name Nowadays it is a misnomer to call a farmer a peasant.
b : a wrong name or inappropriate designation The name "Greenland" is a misnomer, since much of the island is covered by a massive ice sheet.
— misnomered play \-mərd\ adjective"
Not a thing about numbers. hmmm, Mr. Big Head...
Robert_D
5 / 5 (9) May 02, 2018
The theoretical physics articles always bring out so many geniuses in the comments section.
rrwillsj
4.6 / 5 (5) May 02, 2018
DS, we really... Really Truly Scrumptiously need, a 'Sarcasm' font for this site.
mackita
3 / 5 (4) May 02, 2018
˙ʇɔǝɟɹǝd ǝq pןnoʍ ɹoןoɔ ʇuoɟ ǝʇıɥʍ ɐ
Damon_Hastings
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2018
This article confusingly misrepresents both "multiverse" and "holographic universe".


I wish I could delete/edit this comment. (Can I?) Hawking's study does not redefine "multiverse" -- the article does. The explanation in this article was so horrifically bad that I was misled. It said "The observable part of our universe would then be just a hospitable pocket universe, a region in which..." This describes our "observable universe" as a "region" of the universe where inflation ended. But other articles make it clear that this is incorrect; it has nothing to do with "observable parts" or "regions" of our universe. Rather, it's an *entire* universe that either has runaway inflation or doesn't. And those non-inflationary "regions" contain multiple entire universes; they're not regions OF a universe.In short, it's the traditional "multiverse", and I merely misunderstood (as did this article's author, I think). Thus, I must refocus my criticism solely on the article.
mackita
1.7 / 5 (3) May 02, 2018
Note from Ethan Siegel: In their paper, there are no observable consequences; there is nothing to measure; there is nothing to test. There are tremendous limitations to the implications of this work, and there are few compelling reasons to believe that their toy model has relevance for our physical Universe. It is a seed of an idea that itself is controversial, based off of an also-controversial foundation, and this is a very small step in its development. all of what they do is based on the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary conjecture, which is still not generally accepted as true.
[...]
None of this is based off of any realistic cosmological models; these are toy models that they are calculating in. The work and calculations are highly speculative, and there is not necessarily a connection with reality.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2018
According to the Hartle–Hawking proposal, the Universe has no origin as we would understand it: the Universe was a singularity in both space and time, pre-Big Bang. Thus, the Hartle–Hawking state Universe has no beginning, but it is not the steady state Universe of Hoyle; it simply has no initial boundaries in time nor space.

Personally I can live quite comfortably with such a steady state Universe in dense aether model, until it doesn't predict anything testable.
mackita
1.7 / 5 (3) May 02, 2018
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2018
How the Big Bang model fails in graphical way: number of its failures versus time - this is how informational singularity looks like...
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (5) May 02, 2018
According to the https://en.wikipe...g_state; it simply has no initial boundaries in time nor space.

Personally I can live quite comfortably with such a steady state Universe in dense aether model, until it doesn't predict anything testable.

So.... what exactly IS the nature of "aether"? Is it matter? Vibration? What?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (7) May 02, 2018
@andyf you ain't seen @Lenni operate yet. Prepare for everything being made of plasma, no one understanding plasma, and there being no gravity but only mysterious currents that only flow one way that no one can find out because they don't know anything about plasma. Not to mention no fusion and, paradoxically, fusion in the Sun's atmosphere.

Good luck with that.

Hi there...Yep and I'm waiting for something else too. "...3-D spaces can be mathematically reduced to 2-D projections on a surface..." Wait till the 'flat Earther's get hold of that one and twist this and that way, Ha! Is Benni a FE'er?
mackita
1 / 5 (4) May 02, 2018
I perceive aether as a random space-time noise in essence - a random field of space-time events. The particles and waves are already derived concepts of this random field. Dense aether concept doesn't answer questions about its true nature by its definition (no theory explains its own postulates) - it just utilizes nested fractal emergent geometry of Boltzmann gas model. How? If we compress gas then its density fluctuations - blobs - merge from shape of particles into strings and membranes of foam, the bubbles of which gradually merge into a homogeneous continuum, which gradually forms new density fluctuations again and so on in recursive way. This geometry can be replicated by computer simulation of large field of colliding particles, so its reproducible and it can be modeled by 2D water surface. But what exactly forms this thin membrane at the water surface? It's evident, it's some energy density gradient - of what? Of many other tiny density gradients, which are moving mutually.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) May 02, 2018
Basically, aether is snake-oil-salesman-grade handwaving. Resonant nested fractal fluctuations or whatever.
PoppaJ
4.6 / 5 (10) May 02, 2018
I love watching the couch physicists, the Russian Trolls and the bible thumpers try to discredit this research. Hey guys. Your not doing anything other than showing your ignorance. But thanks for the entertainment. Its kinda like watching a guy react to a some one farting in a public bathroom stall.
P.S. Hawking and Hertog thanks for your great work.
mackita
1 / 5 (4) May 02, 2018
Water surface analogy enables to visualize inflationary geometry including the multiverses easily. If we would live at the water surface and observe it by its own waves, we would experience their red shift in similar way, like we can see inside the vacuum. And if this water surface would be inhomogeneous, we would also see the multiverses in it - in subtle manner indeed. Even the Hartle–Hawking model has a meaning in it - it just has nothing very much to do with universe formation. In dense aether model the universe is steady state and the Big Bang model is decomposed into formation of galaxies - many local Bangs. The gravitational gradients of galaxies enable to observe dark matter at their boundaries - which are just boundaries of these local multiverses. Therefore not everything is bad about Big Bang and multiverse concepts - they're just way more subtle and omnipresent, than their inventors originally intended.
mackita
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2018
Mainstream science tends to ignore and overlook subtleties, so that it already ignored examples of strings, microblack holes, supersymmetric particles, extradimensions and testable indicia of many concepts which it already developed. For their very bad the mainstream physicists dismiss just the most effective toy model, which could illustrate validity of their own models. The multiverse concept will apparently face similar destiny. They're even dismissing water surface analogy of quantum mechanics, which was already used to illustrate many quantum phenomena. So I will not teach them, where they should look for traces of multiverse concept. Once they would understand it, they would also realize, how subtle and limited scope this concept actually has.
mackita
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2018
Penrose and Gurzadyan realized first, that if our 3D universe would penetrate another one, it would create a large circle on the sky, like at the case of bubbles adhering on the surface of glass. They also reported the observation of largest circles on the sky in CMB noise. But it was nearly immediately found that actually many similar circles actually exist on the sky - and whole the idea was quickly burrowed and swept under the carpet. Despite that they actually observed exactly just the stuff, which the multiverse is all about. Such a situation, when mainstream science dismissed the first and best available evidence of its own concept repeated so many times during last few decades, it's not even an accident - but a rule on its own.
mackita
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2018
You can also think about it in following way: once our Universe is 3D, then the multiverse apparently would be higherdimensional concept, being more general entity. Therefore it has no meaning to model it like the bubbles or foam in 3D space - but rather like the bubbles or foam residing in 4D space to say at least. The projection of such 4D foam into our 3D space would be 3D spheres and 1-2 D membranes pervading our universe rather than circles glued on its 2D surface. I.e. something which would be rather close to dark matter artifacts surrounding and connecting the galaxies inside our Universe.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (7) May 03, 2018
I love watching the couch physicists, the Russian Trolls and the bible thumpers try to discredit this research. Hey guys. Your not doing anything other than showing your ignorance. But thanks for the entertainment. Its kinda like watching a guy react to a some one farting in a public bathroom stall.
P.S. Hawking and Hertog thanks for your great work.

Indeed, A very great pity That Prof. Hawking was afflicted so badly. As a layman I am thankful that he was able to pass on his theories and people like him restore my faith in human nature. As a frontiersman he will be missed. Other scientists/theorist didn't always agree with him but debates always proceeded in a respectable way. Ha, if I only knew half of what he (probably) forgot I'd be a genius (not serious, but you know what I mean).
Solon
1 / 5 (3) May 03, 2018
Da Schneib

"The EU religionists hate Hawking. Especially zeph/macurinetherapy.
Hawking was a gravity physicist and they don't "believe in" gravity."

How can we not believe in a force that is evident and can be measured right here on Earth. But we are still waiting for someone who understands it well enough to be able to control it and then perhaps reverse it. If nobody knows what it really is, then is it not possible to say that it is perhaps an emergent force that is an undiscovered relationship between the EM forces?
But if there is a way to manipulate gravity we would never be informed of the science, the military implications are far too great.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (5) May 03, 2018
BIG BANG IS PURE NONSENSE https://www.neuro...1221/961
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) May 03, 2018
Controlling gravity is easy. You just need to move some serious mass around. We've known that since the Cavendish experiment in 1798. Yep, just before the dawn of the nineteenth century, over two hundred years ago. Cavendish used two masses and a torsion balance to measure gravity and did so well enough to get figures that would later give a value of G, the gravitational constant, within 1% of the modern accepted value.

It's making gravity without those bulky inconvenient masses that we don't know how to do.
mackita
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2018
This isn't what the gravity control is.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 03, 2018
After GAIA DR2, the tension in the Hubble constant between the local measurement (Cepheids + Supernovae Ia) and the CMB measurement increases to 3.8 sigma (check Preprint of the GAIA DR2 results). The discrepancy in Hubble constant can be indeed considered a manifestation of time arrow divergence too (see for example Big Bang May Have Created a Mirror Universe Where Time Runs Backwards) The problem of this hypothesis is, it leads into data which violate Big Bang theory, so that they're ignored as well.
mackita
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2018
We already discussed it bellow article Astronomers witness galaxy megamerger. Why the galactic mergers aren't more frequent in our close neighborhood, where the Universe gets oldest and galaxies most developed? The merging of galaxies should represent the final stage of sparse matter accretion - not its first one. In addition most of massive galaxies (which would be apparently composed from many mergers in the past) are located in just most distant areas of Universe (i.e. those of highest red-shift), which are thus considered youngest. Again, this is example of time arrow reversal and as such the boundary of multiverse.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 03, 2018
So that the multiverse phenomenology is quite rich one - but as you can see, every multiverse interpretation can be replaced by assumption of higher dimensions of single Universe or even simpler by adding new terms into existing models in Ptolemy epicycles manner. And because these terms generally tend to violate the established theories (in similar way like for example MOND violates general relativity), the physicists refrain to their applications quite unwillingly and only at the case when all more conventional attempts (WIMPS, SIMPs, black holes) failed.

From similar reason many detections of extradimensions have been ignored - despite the string theorists are looking for them obstinately, because they tend to violate Lorentz invariance, which represents the basis of most local theories of mainstream physics today.
thingumbobesquire
4 / 5 (3) May 03, 2018
Here's what the blog "not even wrong: has to say: http://www.math.c...?p=10260
milnik
1 / 5 (6) May 03, 2018
All those who have rejected the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU) do not have the permission to understand the structure of the universe and can explain the causes of the phenomenon. Instead of fostering awareness as the power of understanding and understanding of all phenomena, these individuals have abandoned their free will, which introduces them into the field of revival and satisfaction of wishes that can not be tied to the truth. Every unreasonable person who has lost his / her consciousness (because he does not respect SEU), does not contain the basis on which natural laws live.
Whoever has been aware of this, he must understand that there is a SEU, who is the Creator of everything in the universe, which is formed of matter. And matter must be formed from a substance, which is neither matter nor energy. I call this substance-AETHER, and it fills the infinite universe. This Aether has nothing to do with Aether, which says mackita.
milnik
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2018
Multiverz is a multiplicity and represents "dark" matter in the minds of those who believe in it. Does any of these enthusiasts think of their originating disappearance? ?
Here I claim that the matter arises from the high vibrations of Aether, induced by the SEU, and this takes place in three spatial directions, in which the strands form the matter in two "aggregate states": solid state (3kg cesica-3 quark and 3 gluon binders) and a "liquid" state, which are free gluons, formed by annihilation of two particles formed in these strings, with their own opposite rotations.This is the energy state of the matter that causes magnetism with the connection with Aethero.The "solid" state with Aether causes the phenomenon gravity. When many consciousness rises to a higher level (you must accept the existence of a SEU)
milnik
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2018
then it will find this to be the simplest explanation of everything in the universe, and it is necessary to reject all of these "sophisticated videos" that resonate on Einstein's contaminating theories and those who believe in it as in some kind of deity.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) May 03, 2018
This is like a multiverse feeding fest down on the farm, the farmers are hiding the feed corn in the barn away from hungry mouths
Da Schneib> In other words, these "pocket universes" are co-existent with each other but not co-incident (i.e. having the same coordinates as you conjecture). The underlying context gives different coordinates in its own terms, and the different "pocket universes" have different laws of physics. Hawking and Hertog are arguing that the "pocket universes" need not be infinite. They may be correct.

Now we will have to don our white robes and beg forgiveness at the altar of SEU, the farmers just nailed a sign to his farm gate saying, don't feed the multiverse's.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 03, 2018
Here's what the blog "not even wrong: has to say: http://www.math.c...?p=10260
Peter Woit is supporter of (loop) quantum gravity and this theory handles the extradimensions by means of adding another parameters (loop scattering amplitudes) to 4D spin foam by various approaches, like the causal dynamical triangulation. The result is occasionally similar/dual to expansion of 4D solutions into higher dimensions, which is what the string field theory is doing - it just avoids extradimensions, so it remains "general relativity compliant". From the same reason its proponents dismiss multiverse concept, which is merely hyper-dimensional string theory landscape in disguise.

The proponents of both models use to fight each other, despite they're equally incompetent regarding testable quantitative predictions. The problem of both approaches is in fuzziness of their renormalization.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2018
As I already said it's effectively impossible to decide, whether some deviation from mainstream theory belongs into parallel universe or just hyperdimensional extension of it or just result of additional parameter. When you're traveling into parallel universe, you many not be aware that you're already inside of it or even better: from distant observer perspective you are already look escaped from out Universe, but from your local perspective not. This fuzziness of seamless transition from our space-time into another one is just the reason, why formal models have nowhere to fit. The boundary between our universe and another universes is "spiky" like every hyperdimensional body projected into our Universe.

Nevertheless, there exists relatively reliable criterion how to decide it inside the multiparticle systems, based on ancient shielding approach of LeSage gravity. Their shadows are spiky too and they fit relatively well the boundaries of space-time extensions.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 03, 2018
You can imagine it in the following way: inside our universe everything has positive space-time curvature in similar way, like the gravity remains only attractive force. Once we spot some negative space-time curvature or repulsive gravity, we are getting into parallel universe.

In dense aether model the spacetime forms foam with balanced blobs and bubbles which correspond the equillibrium of transverse and longitudinal waves at the water surface, so that it remains relatively flat. But around massive bodies this equilibrium gets broken. At short distance the shielding of way slower transverse waves results into attractive Casimir force field. At larger distances the faster longitudinal waves get shielded which results into gravity field. This applies to lone massive bodies only. But the multiparticle systems can block shielding of longitudinal waves mutually, which also results into "Casimir field" - this time long distance one. It's generally recognized as a cold dark matter field.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 03, 2018
So that on the connection lines of multiple collinear massive bodies the attractive force of gravity gets complemented by warp field, which forms famous dark matter filaments. This field contains vacuum fluctuations of preferentially negative curvature, so it can be also interpreted like the hyper-dimensional boundary of parallel universe penetrating this our one. Like it or not, both interpretations are equivalent in essence and it just depends on particular formal model, which approach would lead into more streamlined derivations. Both hyperdimensional approach both multiverse approach will get broken at high energies: you need to have background space-time flat for to have dimensions defined in it well. Once the violation of space-time curvature will get stronger, then both models will get broken in similar way because of renormalization problem - so it's relevant only for description of rather subtle phenomena.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 03, 2018
As a general clue for laymen, you should always try to understand the hyperdimensional geometry by more than single model. Once you can spot, what all models have in common, then you can have relatively robust clue, that you already understood it properly. The specialists i.e. experts in particular field often lack this holistic perspective and they tend to compete and fight each other. It also enables them to get more grant support until money are going because they have nowhere to hurry - but you - layman - have not enough of time for understanding all mainstream ballast. You should focus to reliable robust concepts which work under multiple contexts.
milnik
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2018
@mackita,
when a normal man tries to understand what you and the doctrine make, then it comes to the conclusion that there is a certain dream in the minds of you with infinitely many ambiguities, misconceptions, illogicalities, and many influences from the proclaimed theories that have no use in natural laws. What you say, what the interpretation of the universe looks like, looks like the universe is completely crazy and unconnected, and without end and beginning, without law, with complete chaos that can not be understood. And you experts take everything you take as something you've seen going on a trip through the universe packed in your heads. ENORMOUS NEBULOZES!!
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) May 03, 2018
Where two great theories meet and coalesce
The Multiverse and SEU philosophies have a lot in common. Belief in their existence, both are entities of ethereal beings and complement each other. Long after we have moved on to a better world, Multiverse and SEU philosophies will continue to battle with each in Aether of the internet.
SEU cannot manage without Multiverse and visa versa!
milnik
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2018
@granville ,Get caught up and be reasonably aware of who needs to know how it originated and who formed it. Any non-serious statement is entered on the disk of the Absolute Universe of the Universe (ACU).
SEU is not what you are mocking of, you will feel it, but it can be late. There is no arrogance in SEU, nor in ACU. But this does not have anything to do with religion, because this is a universal doctrine, without which it can not be alive, as matter can not exist without Aether. Remember this, you'll need it in the future. This is valid for all of us, especially for those who have descended and neglected their origins.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) May 03, 2018
@granville ,Get caught up and be reasonably aware of who needs to know how it originated and who formed it. Any non-serious statement is entered on the disk of the Absolute Universe of the Universe (ACU).
SEU is not what you are mocking of, you will feel it, but it can be late. There is no arrogance in SEU, nor in ACU. But this does not have anything to do with religion, because this is a universal doctrine, without which it can not be alive,...

Milnik, I am the founder, sole member and sole representative of "The 1st Church of the Living Universe". ( You can see proof of that in a number of my early posts on PO.
How's that for SUE?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) May 03, 2018
@Whydening Gyre

Milnik, I am the founder, sole member and sole representative of "The 1st Church of the Living Universe". ( You can see proof of that in a number of my early posts on PO.
How's that for SUE?

Hey, can I join...er...first tell me what membership fees are/will be when you decide. Do I get a free 'T' shirt, Journal...will I get everlasting protection from those evil trolls? Ha!
Seriously though, how do you, as a scientific artist (I hope that's correct) visualize multiverse and holgraphic ideas and then put it paper?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) May 03, 2018
@Whydening Gyre
Hey, can I join...er...first tell me what membership fees are/will be when you decide.

I don't like fees. I prefer donations via participation (your time). Oh, and it had better be fun for everyone or it's not a church, it's a business... And you'd better bring your own vice of choice (i prefer Crown Royal)
Do I get a free 'T' shirt,

Well, as soon as I can design an appropriate one one, you can have it for cost.
will I get everlasting protection from those evil trolls? Ha!

Your protection is the knowledge that they are trolls and you're not. Powerful mojo in that...
Seriously though, how do you, as a scientific artist (I hope that's correct) visualize multiverse and holographic ideas and then put it paper?

Ahhh.. the bullet to the bone...
I think I might be on my own. (With this one)
(Thanks, Golden Earring...)
(con't)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) May 03, 2018
By, example, lets start with numbers...
we all know what 1 is, right?
To the Universe, everything is a 1. So if our 3 is a 1, it's 2 would be our 6. And so on, except that the Universe still only sees - another 1 (that equals 6 of our 1's...:-)
And that's just the beginning...
Sounds crazy, I know, but it's what keeps me sane (sort of)...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) May 04, 2018
Crap, I edited over my second comment. Damn, why do they put the quote button so close to the edit button...?
Ok, again.
The "multiverse" situation;
It's a matter of perception. We process the Universe through our brain through the "sensors" and processing tool, evolved through billions of years of, basically, the same environment - a planet in a solar system. All of us generally do it the same...
Now I don't mean perception as in interpretation, I mean it as raw data and subsequent processing (based on our experience in our environment)
IE - How does a rock perceive the Universe?
And before you say "A rock doesn't think or perceive", consider all of the electromagnetic activity going on in a rock. Just like in our own brains. In different patterns, sure, but still in predictable patterns...
IOW - I don't see "multiverses", I see many interpretations of the one Universe.
Okay. More after I meditate on it a bit...
alexander2468
5 / 5 (1) May 04, 2018
Whydening Gyre> How does a rock perceive the Universe? all of the electromagnetic activity going on in a rock. Just like in our own brains

Have we just insulted as daft as a brush, there is an art to writing philosophies Whydening Gyre. Take a leaf out of Albert's book; he was a professional at the art.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
I don't see "multiverses", I see many interpretations of the one Universe
Of course, the alternative Universe can be always replaced by extending of existing theories. But as I already explained above, from sociopsychological perspective these two approaches aren't equivalent at all.

For mainstream scientists the postulates like Lorentz symmetry or equivalence principle represent the unquestionable basic principles - a golden cows of contemporary physics. The extending of existing theories would doubt them and it would made these theories too difficult for being understood and taught at schools. The doubting of established theories also undermines the authority of contemporary priests of science - i.e. the theorists.

A way more palatable for mainstream science is thus to pretend, that these theories still work perfectly - just in some parallel universe which touches this our one. This is also why the multiverse concepts are pushed so obstinately to layman public.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
Learned from negative experience with SUSY, loopy and stringy theory hypes the layman public should refuse all ideologically motivated models, until they're not able to provide any tangible testable predictions. It's as easy as it is: "shut up and calculate something first!".
With compare to mainstream science the alternative models like the McCulloch's MiHSc/QI theory of dark matter adopted quite the opposite approach: way less twaddling, way more quantitative predictions. So you can be sure, you'll get what you're paying for - the results.
The multiverse concept is just another snake-oil hype and the trick, how to get more grants from public under situation, when all attempts for confirmation of susy/stringy/loopy theories failed. Except that it's not already presented at BBS multimedia, only at the YouTube after string theory fiasco.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 04, 2018
In dense aether model the parallel universe concept violates the cosmologic principle and it's consequence of deeply relativist perspective instead. At the water surface we can also observe, how the surface ripples get scattered at distance in underwater into a sound waves, which occasionally arrive back - but this effect replicates everywhere at the water surface. Which means for any distant observer our part of Universe would look as ultramundane as we can observe his part of Universe - but they both still remain intrinsic parts of our Universe.

The multiverse also violates the recent observations according to which our Universe is at least 250x bigger than the observable part of it. It means, that if some parallel universe would exist, its effects will be merely negligible and all anomalies should be explained in context of our own universe.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
At any case, once the scientists attempted to make our location within Universe somehow exceptional or special, they were always beaten into head by later observations. Note also that all these attempts were ideologically motivated by less or more covered effort to preserve status quo of existing research - the situation just repeats by now, we already experienced it multiple-times. Our location in Universe isn't any special with respect to both solar system, both Milky Way galaxy and probably not even with respect to observable part of Universe. Every attempt to doubt the cosmological principle in the past just brought more questions than answers and it has been refused by later observations. And the period of these refusals did gradually shorten - so we can expect that the multiverse concept will be dismissed sooner before it would even gain wider credit.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
makita> In dense aether model

Out of curiosity, what is "dense Aether?"
mackita
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
The aether theories before Einstein considered that vacuum is formed by sparse gas, which gets dragged by motion of Earth. Michelson-Morley experiment refused it - but British physicist Oliver Lodge noted in 1904, that the sparse aether cannot mediate energetic light waves anyway, being too thin for it. Instead of it he proposed, that the vacuum is formed by very dense fluid in Maxwell's way instead.

Maxwell proposed in 1862 already, that vacuum could be formed by fluid of zero viscosity - but the superfluids were observed by some seventy years later (Kapica 1930). So that the aether model has been considered clueless and not having physical background and the relativity gained credit instead. If the superfluids would be observed in Oliver Loge's times in similar way like the superconductors, then the whole situation with aether concept acceptation could look quite differently by now.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
But the dense aether concept was actually invented a way before it - in particular Newton's quite close friend Fatio deDuillier used it during his speculations extensively. Robert Hooke for example wrote in 1687: "All space is filled with equally dense material. Gold fills only a small fraction of the space assigned to it, and yet has a big mass. How much greater must be the total mass filling that space?" But self-centric Newton was confirmed enemy of Hooke and once he realized that Fatio is supporting Hooke's ideas too, he immediately interrupted all communication with him too. Occasionally Newton became leading figure in physics (he also supported the particle concept of light which doesn't require any medium) - so that dense aether concept has been abandoned until the end of the 19th century.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) May 04, 2018
the sparse aether cannot mediate energetic light waves anyway, being too thin for it. Instead of it he proposed, that the vacuum is formed by very dense fluid in Maxwell's way instead.

- but the superfluids were observed by some seventy years later (Kapica 1930). So that the aether model has been considered clueless and not having physical background and the relativity gained credit instead. If the superfluids would be observed in Oliver Loge's times in similar way like the superconductors, then the whole situation with aether concept acceptation could look quite differently by now.


......the same tone of convoluted digressions we get from black hole, dark matter, and dark energy, neutron star Enthusiasts, you know, when you don't have OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE proving it's existence just challenge the naysayers to falsify your fantasies, right Schneibo, jonsey, etc?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
^^^^^^Hey, thicko, I'm still waiting for your OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE of electrons. Get to it, woo boy.
Mimath224
4 / 5 (4) May 04, 2018
@Whydening Gyre'....And before you say "A rock doesn't think or perceive", consider all of the electromagnetic activity going on in a rock...' Not me, I wouldn't say that. Strange as it may seem I've been telling folks for years that though we classify some things as inanimate that doesn't mean they're inert...nor does the universe care much about our classification. Rocks etc. are just as much a part of 'nature' as we are. Indeed there is a lot more information about the past in a rock. And then of course there black body radiation too. So you carry on, you've got my interest.
'I don't see "multiverses", I see many interpretations of the one Universe.' Interesting.
You would have done well with the ancient scholars... they'ed tell a story and stop just at the right point so that the audience would come back for more. Ha!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 04, 2018
^^^^^Hey, thicko, I'm still waiting for your OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE of electrons. Get to it, woo boy.

jonesdumb is ignorant of JJ Thompson and his observation 120-years-ago.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
@mackita i ostali,
Do you think there is an absolutely empty space? If there is such a space, what is your vacuum? If the vacuum is an absolutely empty space, could anything be formed from that empty space? If it is, it means that anything can be obtained from nothing.
According to many, this is how the universe was formed (BB), not everything was created. If this is right for you, then these theories were made out of nothing.
My theory: the universe is two entity. Spiritual Entity SEU, is the Creator of everything in the Material Energy Universe (MEEU). The universe is a sphere of infinite diameters and is filled with the Aether substance. This substance is neither matter nor energy, because matter is formed from it, and from matter all kinds of energies. There are no muptivers, nor can the universe expand.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
when you don't have OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE proving it's existence
The simplest evidence of aether is just the existence of light waves - or not? The spreading of all waves requires some inertial medium - the aether must be elastic and also sufficiently dense for not to undulate with infinite speed. Of course it's easy to say, that light waves are exception from all waves as they don't require any medium for their spreading - but each such an exception already attacks the Occam razor criterion. The universe looks simpler with aether than without it.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
Space and time have nothing in common, and they are formed: the space for the accommodation of matter and its movement, and time only as a measure of that movement.
Discard the stupid theories of Einstein and Lorenz's transformation. Aether with two aggregate states of matter causes gravity and magnetism. Gravitation has the task of bringing matter back to the form of Aether (black hole), and magnetism is the basis of the energy state of matter (all forms of waves and interaction of particles and their formation).
mackita
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
Now, how the elastic medium is actually supposed to vibrate? If we squeeze the piece of jelly in some place, then it expands in this place in opposite direction and vice-versa. This is already a prediction, because nothing else implies, that the light wave should behave so. We already know, than electromagnetic wave consist of two waves - magnetic and electric potential - which are perpendicular each other. Thanks to Maxwell, we already have system of equations which describes it quite exactly - but Maxwell himself borrowed their derivation just from aether concept - nothing else. No other theory or just a model actually predicts something like this.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
Aether with two aggregate states of matter causes gravity and magnetism.
This is indeed easy-peasy to say - but how exactly does it? This is what actually convinces people for application od aether model. Without it you can replace the "aether" word with "God" or "pink unicorn" phrase with the same factual relevance in your posts..
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
"Modern theories of the big bang predict that our local universe came into existence with a brief burst of inflation – in other words, a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang itself, the universe expanded at an exponential rate."

Overblown? Matter distribution being what we're talking about, matter only making up 5% or so of the energy in the universe. Anywhere you find energy it seems you also find turbulence. 5% experiencing turbulence at an exponential rate should be no big deal. Or so it seems.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 04, 2018
"Modern theories of the big bang predict that our local universe came into existence
This is already wrong (actually ideological propaganda) after first six words. They ASSUME it - not PREDICT. The big bang event is postulate in standard model of cosmology - not theorem/deduction of it. But such a sentence already sends a subliminal message into ears of sheep: "look, how smart and complete the modern theories already are!" And poor all day working layman sheep are just consume this message without resistance.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
"Modern theories of the big bang predict that our local universe came into existence
This is already wrong (actually ideological propaganda) after first six words.
Hey we're talking about our local universe. Mine changes every day.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 04, 2018
Ironically just the aether concept itself is what is most close to another universe concept. Being more general it allows to intercept Universe behavior as if we would observe it from outside. It's similar conceptual shift, like the transition from geocentric model into a heliocentric one. The reaction of establishment is also similar.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
The EU religionists hate Hawking. Especially zeph/macurinetherapy.

Hawking was a gravity physicist and they don't "believe in" gravity.
So they say gravity just emerges from some other natural laws? Gravity relieves the tension between different rates of expansion between different regions of spacetime. That is it attempts to minimize the surface area bordering regions of different spacetime expansion.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) May 04, 2018
^^^^^^Hey, thicko, I'm still waiting for your OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE of electrons. Get to it, woo boy.


Electricity......ever hear of it? Probably not, old men like you are 75% blind.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2018
Whydening Gyre> How does a rock perceive the Universe? all of the electromagnetic activity going on in a rock. Just like in our own brains

Have we just insulted as daft as a brush, there is an art to writing philosophies Whydening Gyre. Take a leaf out of Albert's book; he was a professional at the art.

Well, Alex. Since I'm trying to create (for myself) a reality, I don't like to call it a "philosophy". I prefer "Plan of Action"...
As far as insults go, not sure what you are trying to say...
Benni
1 / 5 (4) May 04, 2018
Whydening Gyre> How does a rock perceive the Universe? all of the electromagnetic activity going on in a rock. Just like in our own brains

Have we just insulted as daft as a brush, there is an art to writing philosophies Whydening Gyre. Take a leaf out of Albert's book; he was a professional at the art.

Well, Alex. Since I'm trying to create (for myself) a reality, I don't like to call it a "philosophy". I prefer "Plan of Action"...
As far as insults go, not sure what you are trying to say...
.....uh, oh, another old man on the loose.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (3) May 04, 2018
^^^^^^Hey, thicko, I'm still waiting for your OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE of electrons. Get to it, woo boy.


Electricity......ever hear of it? Probably not, old men like you are 75% blind.


Nope, dummy. That is not OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE. It isn't a piccy I can look at. You are just inferring its existence. It could be magic electrickery dust. I need OBSERVATION EVIDENCE. Get on it.
mackita
3 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
Too bad that modern people are sorta separated from reality and practical experience, which Thompson, founder of electron routinely had. The electron beam inside the vacuum bulb bounces around walls of vessel with observable speed when being manipulated by magnet, it scatters from rough surfaces into myriads of narrow streams and it makes audible noise during it. The spreading of beam due to repulsive forces of electrons is also apparent there. The notion of particle stream is quite strong there - but this experience cannot be transferred to another people easily without direct personal involvement. I think that the toys for observation of electron beams would sell pretty well even today in similar way, like they did in England of Victorian era.
alexander2468
3 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
Whydening Gyre> How does a rock perceive the Universe? all of the electromagnetic activity going on in a rock. Just like in our own brains

Have we just insulted as daft as a brush, there is an art to writing philosophies Whydening Gyre. Take a leaf out of Albert's book; he was a professional at the art.

Well, Alex. Since I'm trying to create (for myself) a reality, I don't like to call it a "philosophy". I prefer "Plan of Action"...
As far as insults go, not sure what you are trying to say...

It's that smug feeling the brush gets knowing no one is dafter; an insult to the brush if anyone can be dafter. Albert Einstein got writing theories down to such a fine art his thought experiments are difficult to surpass, it doesn't mean there's any truth in them, that's where Albert's skill lay, he made them believable.
milnik
1 / 5 (3) May 04, 2018
Aether with two aggregate states of matter causes gravity and magnetism.
Yes, this is the logic created by the understanding of the structure of the universe and the formation of matter from Aether. This Aether that I am talking about, he is in close connection with the activity of the Spiritual Entity (SEU), none of you is aware of it, because you neither respect nor can understand it. If I gave a detailed explanation of this, then I would disenfranchise many of the Nobel Prizes that were obtained on the basis of fictional theories that delude civilization. An example of how magnetism occurs: A "liquid" aggregate state (free gluons) is formed from Aether. These gluons are the energy state of matter and they form neutrons. This is my copyright. Remember, there is no magnetism without a neutron. Proof: Every chemical element, which has more neutrons than protons, is magnetic! Why ? E, this explanation is not for this level of discussion, as there are several Nobel Prizes.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) May 04, 2018
Too bad that modern people are sorta separated from reality and practical experience, which Thompson, founder of electron routinely had. The electron beam inside the vacuum bulb bounces around walls of vessel


Errm, I think this has gone over your head a bit. I am asking Benni for observational evidence of electrons, as that, by his own words, is his test to decide if things are actually real. He thinks neutron stars aren't real, because he can't see a picture of one. We can detect GWs from them, Hubble has actually imaged one. We can detect their presence in other ways, at various wavelengths. We can see the EM afterglow, and subsequent r-process nucleosynthesis from the merger of two of them. All of this fits theory as well as the existence of electrons do. Yet neither Benni, nor anybody else, has ever seen an image of electron. I am merely placing the same burden of proof on him, as his woo beliefs place on others.
In other words, he is an idiot.
mackita
4 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
Liebig's law of minimum: The quality of every online discussion is determined by the IQ of its dumbest member.
Spacebaby2001
5 / 5 (6) May 04, 2018
I was under the impression benni was from the generation where TV dinners were considered the pinnacle of technology and culture. Now hes calling people old men? I suppose age is relative though.
alexander2468
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2018
Too bad that modern people are sorta separated from reality and practical experience, which Thompson, founder of electron routinely had. The electron beam inside the vacuum bulb bounces around walls of vessel

Errm, I think this has gone over your head a bit. I am asking Benni for observational evidence of electrons, as that, by his own words, is his test to decide if things are actually real. He thinks neutron stars aren't real, because he can't see a picture of one. We can detect GWs from them, Hubble has actually imaged one. We can detect their presence in other ways, at various wavelengths. We can see the EM afterglow, and subsequent r-process nucleosynthesis from the merger of two of them. All of this fits theory as well as the existence of electrons do. Yet neither Benni, nor anybody else, has ever seen an image of electron.

It's difficult to decide who holds the Crown for the Evil Troll King, the standards to high; maybe we should hold a competition
Benni
1 / 5 (3) May 04, 2018
^^^^^^Hey, thicko, I'm still waiting for your OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE of electrons. Get to it, woo boy.


Electricity......ever hear of it? Probably not, old men like you are 75% blind.


Nope, dummy. That is not OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE. It isn't a piccy I can look at. You are just inferring its existence. It could be magic electrickery dust. I need OBSERVATION EVIDENCE. Get on it.

Uh, oh, yet another old man still on the loose with his fantasies because he can't come up with pics.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2018
^^^^^^Hey, thicko, I'm still waiting for your OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE of electrons. Get to it, woo boy.


Electricity......ever hear of it? Probably not, old men like you are 75% blind.


Nope, dummy. That is not OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE. It isn't a piccy I can look at. You are just inferring its existence. It could be magic electrickery dust. I need OBSERVATION EVIDENCE. Get on it.

Uh, oh, yet another old man still on the loose with his fantasies because he can't come up with pics.


Hey, loony tunes, where is your pic of an electron? Otherwise I'm calling BS on this whole 'electron' woo. No such thing. Prove it. Show me a pic. Off you go, woo child.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) May 04, 2018
Hey, loony tunes, where is your pic of an electron? Otherwise I'm calling BS on this whole 'electron' woo. No such thing. Prove it. Show me a pic. Off you go, woo child.


Old man, you believe in Black Holes, Neutron Stars, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Degenerate Neutrons.......but no pics for any of them, quite a list of "beliefs in the unseen".

Now you're telling us that because you've never seen a pic of an electron that it too must exist? (you won't figure this out the first time you read it)

I'll tell you where you're sure to find some dark matter, look in a full length mirror & turn sideways, didn't know that was there did you? Have mommy toss another bag of potato chips into the basement for you.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) May 04, 2018
^^^^^^So, no electrons then? We've seen an image of a neutron star. We've seen GWs from them. We see r-process nucleosynthesis from them. Every observation of them matches theory. And what has your IQ deficient, scientifically illiterate brain come up with? "Benni want see piccy of newtwon star". Brilliant. Back to mopping the floors, you muppet. Let us know if and when you graduate grade school, and we'll see what can be done for you. I don't hold out much hope, though.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
^^^^^^So, no electrons then? We've seen an image of a neutron star. We've seen GWs from them. We see r-process nucleosynthesis from them. Every observation of them matches theory. And what has your IQ deficient, scientifically illiterate brain come up with? "Benni want see piccy of newtwon star". Brilliant. Back to mopping the floors, you muppet. Let us know if and when you graduate grade school, and we'll see what can be done for you. I don't hold out much hope, though.

........a reminder, look in s full length mirror, turn sideways & your greatest unseen fantasy will become a reality.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) May 04, 2018
^^^^^^So, no electrons then? We've seen an image of a neutron star. We've seen GWs from them. We see r-process nucleosynthesis from them. Every observation of them matches theory. And what has your IQ deficient, scientifically illiterate brain come up with? "Benni want see piccy of newtwon star". Brilliant. Back to mopping the floors, you muppet. Let us know if and when you graduate grade school, and we'll see what can be done for you. I don't hold out much hope, though.

........a reminder, look in s full length mirror, turn sideways & your greatest unseen fantasy will become a reality.


Still no science, eh woo boy? Told you; get back to the mopping.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) May 04, 2018
It's that smug feeling the brush gets knowing no one is dafter; an insult to the brush if anyone can be dafter. Albert Einstein got writing theories down to such a fine art his thought experiments are difficult to surpass, it doesn't mean there's any truth in them, that's where Albert's skill lay, he made them believable.

So... You're saying my thought experiments are not believable...
That's okay, because the only person that I ask to believe them, is myself...
If anyone else does, then that's their concern...
That said, my thoughts on this matter are a WIP - still hashing it out. No claim to be right - they're just my thoughts.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) May 04, 2018
Liebig's law of minimum: The quality of every online discussion is determined by the IQ of its dumbest member.


Anyone taking bets on who that might be?
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) May 04, 2018
Mimath.
Our "processor" is conditioned (via both nature and nurture) to see only certain aspects of the total Universe. A certain defined (for and by our "sensors") set of "patterns", if you will. It is an interpretation of our combined sensory input.
Other states of being - not "alive" by our definition - have other sensory avenues to the Universe. Those avenues might provide different interpretations than our own.
Or - none at all...:-)

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2018
^^^^^^So, no electrons then?

According to jonesdumb, scanning electron microscopy is not real.
Anyone taking bets on who that might be?

It's no coinkydink that post followed immediately after a jonesdumb post.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) May 04, 2018
According to jonesdumb, scanning electron microscopy is not real


Oh dear. More idiocy. You are seeing things that are INFERRED to be due to electrons. You are NOT seeing electrons. Nobody has ever seen an electron.
https://en.wikipe...croscope

It may well precisely match theory - but so do the observations of neutron stars. Therefore, there is as much proof for electrons as there is for neutron stars. You can decide how much that is. And it was Pauli's work that explains the electron structure of atoms, and therefore the periodic table, stability, chemical reactions, etc. Due to quantum. It was the same Pauli whose quantum description of such leads to electron degeneracy in white dwarfs and neutron stars. You want to throw it out? Better tell the genius Thornhill that he needs to start rewriting chemistry, pronto.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 04, 2018
Comparing the hands on science involved in the discovery and confirmation of electrons to the highly speculative pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo of neutronium and the claimed neutron stars is the height of stupidity and ignorance of science.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) May 04, 2018
Comparing the hands on science involved in the discovery and confirmation of electrons to the highly speculative pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo of neutronium and the claimed neutron stars is the height of stupidity and ignorance of science.


Not everybody is as thick as you, woo boy. Baade & Zwicky proposed neutron stars in the 30s. Chandrasekhar built on the idea a couple of years later. Bell-Burnell discovered pulsars in '67 (for which her boss got a Nobel). Hulse & Taylor discovered the first binary NS pair in '74. They got the Nobel in '93. Meanwhile, all these observations were confirming theory that went back decades before their discovery. One of those predictions was the formation of GWs when two NSs merged. And that we would see r-process nucleosynthesis. ALL of this has been achieved by real scientists, doing real science. If you think otherwise, please point to the peer reviewed material that says they are all wrong. Not the idiot Scott on frigging Youtube.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) May 04, 2018
I'm still waiting for @cantthink69 to explain why, if neutrons always decay after 15 minutes, there are stable atoms with neutrons in their nuclei that appear to last for at minimum billions of years without decaying.

Well?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2018
I bet those GW's are created when neutronium and "strange matter" gets mixed together by the leprechaun in his pot 'o gold, and of course he uses an alicorn to do so.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) May 04, 2018
I bet those GW's are created when neutronium and "strange matter" gets mixed together by the leprechaun in his pot 'o gold, and of course he uses an alicorn to do so.


Like I have said for a long time - you will never get any science out of these loons. It is beyond their capabilities. They merely parrot idiotic nonsense from their Velikovskian overlords, who are barely more scientifically literate than themselves. That is why they are a complete irrelevance, and have no influence whatsoever on real science. Thickos, the lot of 'em.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 04, 2018
Neutronium and strange matter are actual types of matter proposed in highly speculative NS, it's utterly laughable.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) May 04, 2018
Neutronium and strange matter are actual types of matter proposed in highly speculative NS, it's utterly laughable.


No, you are just an uneducated idiot. Please tell us who is saying that such things are impossible. That electron and neutron degeneracy are impossible. Lend some weight to your argument, bozo. Nobody is interested in anything you say, or the idiots Thornhill or Scott. Back your crap up, or STFU.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) May 04, 2018
So basically @cantthink69 said something really stupid- that neutrons always decay after 15 minutes- and @cantthink69 what to say now, so the troll is just avoiding it.

Run away and hide, @cantthink69 troll. Coward. Grow a pair.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) May 05, 2018
It's not only possible, but it is highly likely you are a degenerate jonesdumb. Right on par with Ellen Degenerate.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) May 05, 2018
See, this is how people can tell you're lying, @cantthink69. You don't have the courage to admit it when you said something stupid. If you'll lie about that, you'll lie about anything. And you do.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) May 05, 2018
It's not only possible, but it is highly likely you are a degenerate jonesdumb. Right on par with Ellen Degenerate.


So, we can take that to mean that nobody of any scientific note has questioned the formation of white dwarves or neutron stars due to degeneracy pressure. As expected, it is only the scientifically illiterate Velikovskians. Given what they believe, then they can be safely ignored. And are. Next.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) May 05, 2018
"Nobody of any scientific note" has proposed or agreed with neutron stars, only plasma ignoramuses and pseudoscientists. The only thing to match the hypothetical density of neutronium or strange matter (LOL) is jonesdumb.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) May 05, 2018
Unbelievable. Einstein, Chandrasekhar, and Baade are apparently not "of any scientific note" according to @cantthink69.

Just another lie. Do you ever stop lying?
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (6) May 05, 2018
"However, the dynamics of eternal inflation wipes out the separation between classical and quantum physics. As a consequence, Einstein's theory breaks down in eternal inflation."

As I understand it, this relies on H&H assuming chaotic eternal inflation. Then going back in time there appears a state of curvature fluctuations as large as particle field fluctuations. But Planck showed that eternal inflation is most likely non-chaotic [see the Planck legacy archives, IIRC especially the relatively recent paper that weighs in BICEP2 data], and never reach a breakdown or even need an initial state as classical quantum fluctuations will keep sufficient inflating volumes that they grow exponentially in relation to non-inflating volume (i.e. local universes).

It seems to me (not a cosmologist) that this work is unlikely to be useful.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (6) May 05, 2018
Continuing speaking of useful, this:

"But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested."

Not exactly true, I take it. Cosmologist Weinberg showed already in the 80's that it is testable on the cosmological constant by a local test of having stars, despite the presumed mathematical problem of "infinite diversity in infinite combinations" (infinite number of infinite distributions).

As an irony here I note that essentially the same idea is often levered against string theory despite that it comes out with a finite but large number of states. (Something that can be traced in Hawking's formulation I think, re "large" vs "infinite" scale.) And I do not see H&H shirking from its use but gets a similar - if as per above unlikely - result.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (7) May 05, 2018
[ctd]

Another note is that everything else alike models with fewer constraints - here no constraint on number of universes - are the best in a model test of nested models. It is the absence of pinning remaining parameters that irks many, I take it. But it is the same situation as in - the testable [!] - theory of evolution. Its contingency will not allow unique traits, just guarantee a set of survivable ones (or not, i.e. extinction).

So if biology makes contingency against a potentially infinite number of sometimes large scale trait distributions work, why cannot cosmology? Which takes us back to Weinberg again, it seems to work the same.
jonesdave
4.8 / 5 (6) May 05, 2018
"Nobody of any scientific note" has proposed or agreed with neutron stars, only plasma ignoramuses and pseudoscientists. The only thing to match the hypothetical density of neutronium or strange matter (LOL) is jonesdumb.


Really? Want a list? Perhaps you could do yours first, as it will be considerably shorter! So, what are you waiting for? Or do your 'scientists' only include Velikovskian woo merchants?
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (7) May 05, 2018
I love watching the couch physicists, the Russian Trolls and the bible thumpers try to discredit this research.


It was a veritable troll feast involving EU or criticism of cosmology, big bang, inflation, multiverses, standard particle model and string theory (here used mainly as mathematical tool, I think); I noticed now after posting. Not much to do except downvoting, thanks to heroic work from DS, JD and others to show the trolls for what they are.

As currently becoming a couch physicist and instead bioinformatician I note though that articles from BBC, Science and individual cosmologists such as Ethan Siegel criticizes the relevance - but not the physical model details - in much the same manner as I did. (FWIW using Peter Woit as source is problematic since he is a couch physicist too, managing computers in a student lab last I heard.) If the criticism is valid it does not matter what is its source.

Which takes us back to the downvote feast; trolls are useless.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2018
So.... what exactly IS the nature of "aether"? Is it matter? Vibration? What?
I think if he'd try quantum fluctuations he might have a snowball chance. Certainly wouldn't harm his credibility.
mackita
3 / 5 (2) May 05, 2018
Dense aether model doesn't care about it - it just assumes, that deterministic or even intelligent structures of universe arise from seemingly random quantum fluctuations of space-time at all levels. The space-times are itself formed in the same way like the dual counterpart of these structures.

The simplest experiment how to demonstrate it is the condensation of highly compressed gas inside the sealed capillary. The molecules of gas condense into a fluctuations which are itself independent enough for to form sorta liquid embedded inside the original condensing gas, which can furthermore form even more complex fluctuations, which form another layer of liquid and so on.

Similar process - just even more consequential - can run inside black holes, the material of which is already so dense, that even subtle density fluctuations of it would behave like independent massive particles, capable of mutual interaction and further condensation.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) May 05, 2018
This model is also based on paradigm shift according to which the natural intrinsic state of existence isn't zero, negative or whatever else particular state - but simply the ETERNAL RANDOM state. Only such a random state doesn't bring further silly questions about its origin or past - which the concept of beginning or zero state of Universe undoubtedly raises. The assumption of Universe beginning just immediately brings another questions: why and how Universe formed and what was before it? Such an assumption therefore rises more questions than answers and as such it violates the Occam's razor.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) May 05, 2018
if he'd try quantum fluctuations he might have a snowball chance
Quantum fluctuations are OK, but we can still ask, where they come from? In dense aether model these fluctuations just correspond the Brownian noise at the water surface, which is itself formed by another much smaller water molecules, which form density gradient - i.e. the local space-time. The actual aether would correspond these molecules - except that these ones are just density fluctuations of another aether phase - and so on, ad infinitum... Dense aether model therefore has no natural boundaries in time, space or energy/matter density, being infinite in all aspects.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) May 05, 2018
The mainstream physics concept (which is rarely used nevertheless less or more accepted) most close to aether model is the concept of false vacuum of mainstream science, the phase transition of which gave origin to our universe during Big Bang. This is nice, but false vacuum itself isn't supposed to be fully stable, so we can ask, if itself isn't condensate of more stable phase (false false vacuum) and so on? In certain sense the dense aether model is just a consequential extrapolation of false vacuum concept to an infinite number of nested dimensions similarly to concept of nested Hilbert subspaces of quantum mechanics.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2018
Nobody has ever seen an electron.
I think the retina was designed to pick up photons. That is electrons in the retina are excited to a higher energy level and send signals off to the optic nerve. Anything which sufficiently excites the optic nerve may be seen as a flash of light, particularly cosmic rays.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2018
why and how Universe formed and what was before it? Such an assumption therefore rises more questions than answers and as such it violates the Occam's razor.
Best rhetorical argument I've heard so far for the existence of the deity. Occam's razor. Only problem is it just kicks the can down the road.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) May 05, 2018
Only problem is it just kicks the can down the road
And the Big Bang doesn't? It also doesn't care what exploded there and why. I'm just saying that from solely formal mathematical and also thermodynamical perspective the random state is way more probable than some particular state, zero state the more. The question about Universe start is thus ill defined from its very beginning - in nature every beginning suggests existence some previous state and thus infinite eternal cycle. The concept of Universe formation is just an anthropomorphizing of the situation - the very complex and well organized creatures must be short-living for to have opportunity to develop. Infinitely random and chaotic Universe not.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) May 05, 2018
Quantum fluctuations are OK, but we can still ask, where they come from? [\q]My best guess, unless somebody has a better idea, is they come from the uncertainty principle. Where that comes from I'm uncertain except it's just one of the laws of nature. Where they come from I'm uncertain. True to form I guess.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) May 05, 2018
My best guess, unless somebody has a better idea, is they come from the uncertainty principle
It just kicks the can down the road... ;-) In addition, this is circular reasoning as the uncertainty principle itself comes as a consequence of space-time blurred by quantum fluctuations at small distance scale.

The dense aether model is such a better idea, because the Boltzmann gas model enables not only to observe structure of nested density fluctuations in it, but also simulate by computers to a degree of precision limited only by computational power. Except that no one still attempted to find out, what will happen if we would compress it enough.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2018
Only problem is it just kicks the can down the road
And the Big Bang doesn't?
Hardly. The BB is over-rated. Highly over-rated. Turbulence involving maybe 5 or 10% of the total energy in the universe. You add up all those quantum fluctuations in some particular form every 10 or 20 billion years and you're going to get some pretty strange results.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 05, 2018
BB is over-rated. Highly over-rated
Big Bang primarily faces number of problems increasing with exponential rate - like if the Titanic boat is sinking... Dense aether model just shows why it's so...
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) May 05, 2018
...the uncertainty principle itself comes as a consequence of space-time blurred by quantum fluctuations at small distance scale.
Good thinking!
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2018
Big Bang primarily faces number of problems increasing with exponential rate
If you have problems with naturally occurring events that's your problem - not the BB.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2018
Cosmologists Can't Agree on the Hubble Constant and it could be worse. This is a general problem in today's academic world. You can't publish a known result if you didn't at least improve the errors. No publications, no money for research. Thus, if only results with smaller errors get published, they're bound to have underestimated those errors eventually.

Not to say, Hubble's constant was already subject of false consensus (expectation bias) in the past. The physicists are just repeating it again.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) May 05, 2018
After @torbjorn speaks, the trolls grow excited and caper for attention.

Disgusting. I won't contaminate a response to you, @torbjorn, with troll responses. More innaminnit.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2018
...You're essentially saying, that our universe itself is such a giant quantum fluctuation. Too bad that normal vacuum fluctuations never grow that large. What made our Universe fluctuation so special?
This particular fluctuation involved maybe 5 or 10% of the total energy in the U so I don't see anything so special.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) May 05, 2018
@torbjorn, I get the impression H&H are talking about universes that are finite but unbounded, and larger than the cosmic horizon. While Hertog talks about tests for their conjectures, I think a rigorous analysis to show what tests are unique to them might be useful, and will no doubt happen.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2018
Hubble's constant was already subject of false consensus (expectation bias) in the past. The physicists are just repeating it again.
Could the physicists just be discovering natural variability? Really?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) May 05, 2018
Also, Hertog misspeaks in the video; the theory of a multiverse doesn't allow just anything in the universes created. It's a large number but it's not infinite. There are still constraints.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2018
...(you must accept the existence of a SEU)
Did somebody drink the Kool-aid?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2018
"The EU religionists hate Hawking...Hawking was a gravity physicist and they don't "believe in" gravity."
...If nobody knows what it really is, then is it not possible to say that it is perhaps an emergent force that is an undiscovered relationship between the EM forces?
Jeez. Nobody ever accused me of being a religionist. Emergent force, partly. But I don't see any undiscovered relationships. Between regions of spacetime expanding at a different rate. or not expanding at all (as in quantized matter) there is some form of friction or potential energy built up which is minimized by rounding up all the regions of similar expansion rate and organizing them so as to minimize the total surface area of friction. A form of relaxation, actually. But there is more to it than that, namely the differential forces of pressure and spacetime density due to different expansion rates or pressure and energy density.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2018
Space and time have nothing in common, and they are formed: the space for the accommodation of matter and its movement, and time only as a measure of that movement.
Nothing in common except matter, the stuff that moves in space and time. Not saying that energy doesn't move in space and time also, notably photons.
Discard the stupid theories of Einstein and Lorenz's transformation.
Sure. Like e=mc*2+...So just hand over your weapons, put your hands over your head, and follow your new leader!
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) May 05, 2018
Belief in science depends whether its religious science
alexander2468
3.7 / 5 (3) May 05, 2018
Excluding religious science, are whole edifices will come crumbling down as Georges Lemaitre an ordained priest wrote the rules for our very existence
alexander2468
3.7 / 5 (3) May 05, 2018
The statement it doesn't mean there's any truth in them is two pronged!
Whydening Gyre> So You're saying my thought experiments are not believable

The statement It doesn't mean there's any truth in them is two pronged when applied to people who prefer not believe our theories, that's where Albert's skill lay, he made them believable which we also have to do - There are always aspects of our theories that other people don't believe, that is where our skill lies making our theories believable to non believers!
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (2) May 05, 2018
Another way to look at it...
What if you "processor" only processed odd numbers or only even numbers? Or maybe only counted by Fibonacci or even primes?
THAT universe would sure look different...
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2018
Sorry, and with all due respect for this great man, but this theory is just scratching the surface, with some good assumptions. Our own tiny universe is currently still in expansion mode lasting 155.5 million x million years, it will then for the same time period be in contraction mode. Scientists have still no clue of what happened before the big bang, they don't know about the immaterial belts of our own universe, they don't know about our universe's twin universe. They don't know about the vast number of other universes of the same maturity level as ours existing in our neighborhood. They don't know about the subsequent development stages of universes, once done with their material form of presence. Should you want to seek some inspirations in that regard, you need to…
1) Learn some German
2) Check out this book
https://shop.figu...guage=en
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) May 06, 2018
Hey #physicscranks!! Advertise your woo here! In 1000 characters or less, let us know all about your unpublished, unreviewed fantasies! After all, this is what Phys.org is for! Who needs the scientific literature, when we have sites such as this, and the wonderful Youtube, on which to promote your favourite pseudoscience? Come one, come all, it's free woo promotion week every week at Phys.org! Sign up now!
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) May 06, 2018
Thought experiments are responsible for what you are now observing
jonesdave> Hey #physicscranks!! Advertise your woo here! In 1000 characters or less, let us know all about your unpublished, unreviewed fantasies! After all, this is what Phys.org is for! Who needs the scientific literature, when we have sites such as this, and the wonderful Youtube, on which to promote your favourite pseudoscience? Come one, come all, it's free woo promotion week every week at Phys.org! Sign up now!

Albert Einstein with his thought experiments are specifically responsible for what you are now observing jonesdave, when you let priests rewrite the rule of the universe, undo the work of Michelson Morley bringing back Aether you get Fritz Zwicky and darkmatter then darkenergy then theirs Heisenberg's uncertainty which opens up a whole plethora of obnoxious possibilities which are now being refuted and to top it all we have LIGO spinning gravity as warped vacuum of space. What can you expect
granville583762
2 / 5 (4) May 06, 2018
Jonesdave a little word
When we have graduates of your calibre and antialias_physorg
antialias_physorg> An author once dubbed it "lies to children". You have to feed children little lies in order to make them ready for bigger truths (or if you want to be picky: "bigger lies", because we're certainly not at an end with our knowledge of the universe). You have to go *through* Newton's laws to get up to speed.

Whether we like it or not jonesdave, antialias_physorg was calling Sir Isaacs Newton's Laws of Motion for little children and worse, he was encouraging telling lies to little children to tell them the bigger lies of relativity and Quantum Mechanics!

Sir Isaacs Newton's Laws of Motion are not taught as little lies, the fact that its been stated to teach the bigger lies of relativity and Quantum Mechanics is a state of mind indicating "relativity and Quantum Mechanics" are problematic and you are noticing the consequences
milnik
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2018
Einstein was a very resourceful man, who took two concepts and phenomena in the universe, which have neither the end nor the beginning, and that is space and time. He "screwed up" that couple and invented the phenomenon of gravity, in a completely unconscious way, as Lemetr invented BB and thus entangled both science and religion, inventing something totally unknown to our consciousness. Einstein's theories formed on the claims of Lorenz's transformations completely erased the awareness of most scientists who, therefore, wander through the spaces of multiverse, dark matter and energy, of the expanded universe.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) May 06, 2018
Come one, come all, it's free woo promotion week every week at Phys.org! Sign up now!

Why yes it is, and Phys.org is leading the charge. Free woo promoted here;
https://phys.org/...ize.html
I don't think jonesdumb realizes Hawking was a master wooist.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) May 06, 2018
@seeker2,
Do you agree with my claims, or is it your mockery of what I said? If you agree, then you understand what many will never understand.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) May 06, 2018
@G-G-G-G-Granville,

teach the bigger lies of relativity and Quantum Mechanics


Right, off you go. Start listing the tests that relativity and quantum have been subjected to, and failed. I'll give you singularities as a starter. Anything else? Don't be shy. No word salad, just a numbered list will be fine. I'll start working on a list of tests that they've passed, but may have to post it elsewhere, as it'll never fit in the 1000 character limit. Your list will. I've just done it for you.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) May 06, 2018
@seeker2,
Do you agree with my claims, or is it your mockery of what I said? If you agree, then you understand what many will never understand.
I'm always agreeable. Sorry about the mockery. Are you agreeable too?
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) May 06, 2018
Jonesdave:- It was nor me that said it, on physicsworld Sir Isaac Newton is respected and in 60 years I've never heard anything like this before
Teach the bigger lies of relativity and Quantum Mechanics

This is the first I've heard this "Sir Isaac Newton Laws of motion and gravity is only for little children to teach them the bigger lies of relativity and quantum mechanics". Albert Einstein's by his thought experiments attracted follows that over the years have imagined more in theorising than reality demands. Albert Einstein would have nipped them in the bud at a moment's notice but he's not here, it's free for all. I am not criticising Albert or Heisenberg's uncertainty or LIGO for their achievements, its what follows after their achievements that problematic - The one I like the best is LIGO spinning gravity as warped vacuum of space and who came blame them, because it is an extension of gravity wells. Yet another theory.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) May 07, 2018
Newton's laws of motion and gravity, Relativity and Quantum theory
Sir Isaac Newton's laws of motion and gravity are never tested to an inch of their lives persistently
johnsdave> Start listing the tests that relativity and quantum have been subjected to, and failed. I'll give you singularities as a starter

So why are Relativity and Quantum theory constantly tested to an inch of their lives persistently, constantly and brought out constantly as proof to non believers, is this not johnsdave, giving sucker to all the scientists who have alternative theories, as you eloquently describe them, reason to doubt the very testing that proves Relativity and Quantum theory to be Correct.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) May 07, 2018
Relativity and Quantum theory are attempts to describe to them as incomprehensible terms everything that their "inventors" have not understood, nor will they ever be able to understand, if the mathematics of their guidance is stronger than consciousness.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) May 07, 2018
..., giving sucker to all the scientists who have alternative theories, as you eloquently describe them, reason to doubt the very testing that proves Relativity and Quantum theory to be Correct.

The word is "succor"...
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) May 07, 2018
..., giving sucker to all the scientists who have alternative theories, as you eloquently describe them, reason to doubt the very testing that proves Relativity and Quantum theory to be Correct.

The word is "succor"...

thanks for the spelling correction
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) May 07, 2018
Steven Hawkins suggestion that Georges Lemaitre Cosmic-Egg is billions in number

Everyone has heard of light radius stars as the equivalent of the cosmic egg and the light radius is the escape velocity of light, in effect we are living in a blackhole with a 15billion light year radius. All a multiverse is, are light radius stars spread throughout the vacuum of space. There are no intellectual gymnastics hoops of the imagination to jump through to realise it is the same as Georges Lemaitre's Cosmic-Egg but in billion of numbers. Just like when the sun when round the earth and we realised our arrogance and believe differently. It is equally arrogant to refute Steven Hawkins's suggestion that Georges Lemaitre's Cosmic-Egg is billions in number!
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) May 07, 2018
Back to where it all started, the final straw!
Steven Hawkins suggestion that Georges Lemaitre Cosmic-Egg is billions in number

If viewing this theory in the cold light of day sends shivers down your spine it is the evolution of centuries of excessive theorising culminating in the multiplicity of Cosmic Eggs in the vacuum of space, a reflection on how this all started in the begging.
milnik
not rated yet May 08, 2018
Is it logical and logical to make conclusions and claims about phenomena in the universe at distances of billions of light years, and no one has yet learned from science: why our moon, which is only one light-time from us, no one knows what our moon always has one side facing the earth?
Do you know who you give many of your claims about these remote femmes? If science finds out this about the moon, then it will find out what are the true and true paths of the celestial bodies and will see that Einstein's, Lorenz's and Hablov's claims are only fabrications and their fossom. Who wants to discuss the position of the moon?
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
1 / 5 (1) May 08, 2018
Hi milnik,

If curious, you can over there read a little bit more about some only partially known mysteries of our moon. Why it is that imbalanced etc. Paragraph 62 onwards. And yes, the fairy-tale of its origin by Earth's collision with a major celestial object gets rightly ridiculed.

http://www.future...port_220
savvys84
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2018
Da Schneib

But if there is a way to manipulate gravity we would never be informed of the science, the military implications are far too great.

Yes there is a way to manipulate gravity
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2018
,,,no one knows what our moon always has one side facing the earth?
Probably the heavy side?
milnik
not rated yet May 09, 2018
@StudentofSpiritualTeaching and @Seeker2,
Any other story of the month is unfounded, if you do not know the laws of the movement of heavenly bodies. There is also a logical and mathematical proof of why the Moon always has one side facing the Earth. Science has not explained it, and that's why all its theories about the movement of celestial bodies are completely illogical and wrong. And you are participants in these ignorance.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2018
There is also a logical and mathematical proof of why the Moon always has one side facing the Earth. Science has not explained it...
So science is ignoring the logical and mathematical proofs? How could this happen?
milnik
not rated yet May 09, 2018
I have this logical and mathematical proof, not science, you did not understand me well!
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2018
I have this logical and mathematical proof, not science, you did not understand me well!
True. So as I understand logic and mathematics are not science, correct?
milnik
not rated yet May 09, 2018
Seekers,
you did not understand me well. I said: I have logical and mathematical proofs, and science does not have it (I said "and science does not, which means that science does not have what I have).
And how do you agree: logic and mathematics are not science. If this is true, what is the basis of the science?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2018
Seekers,
you did not understand me well. I said: I have logical and mathematical proofs, and science does not have it (I said "and science does not, which means that science does not have what I have).
And how do you agree: logic and mathematics are not science. If this is true, what is the basis of the science?

Well, maybe you could give the rest of the world just a little hint...
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) May 09, 2018
Da Schneib

But if there is a way to manipulate gravity we would never be informed of the science, the military implications are far too great.

Yes there is a way to manipulate gravity

And I think DS outlined them pretty well..
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) May 09, 2018
Just to interject a little, science is quantification of the behavior of reality; to quantify requires math, and logic is both part of math and necessary to order thought and connect pieces of the world to one another. So for example, lightning is connected to electricity which is connected to magnetism which is connected to forces and currents. And if you push X amount of electrons through a wire and make a current, then it makes Y amount of magnetism around the wire, and the magnetic force acts in direction Z. See? Logic, and math, but also the "stuff the world is made of," too, and how it behaves.

Logic and mathematics are tools to rationalize and quantify the world so that one person can describe what they saw in a manner that another can understand without error. Then people can build on what other people saw, and science progresses and improves all our understandings of what the world is like and how it behaves.
Benni
not rated yet May 09, 2018
science is quantification of the behavior of reality


We know this about SCIENCE, it's the unseen depths of COSMOLOGY masquerading as science that's the biggest problem, yeah, barely one rung above the ladder on which ASTROLOGY is the bottom rung.

Schneibo, I read something somewhere once about faith being a belief in things that are unseen, you know, things like black holes, dark matter, dark energy, degenerate neutrons, neutron stars, the usual slop & swill pseudo-science of Cosmology.......it seems schneibo YOU have lots of FAITH.

Seeker2
not rated yet May 09, 2018
Logic and mathematics are tools to rationalize and quantify the world so that one person can describe what they saw in a manner that another can understand without error.
it seems schneibo YOU have lots of FAITH.
I guess we all do. Probably should leave a little wiggle room though.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2018
As has been pointed out repeatedly to you, @Lenni, electrons are unseen.

If you get all butthurt because I call you @Lenni, you can start calling me by my proper handle anytime and eventually when I read one of your posts doing so I'll stop. If it makes you feel so bad, poor baby @Lenni.
savvys84
not rated yet May 10, 2018
Da Schneib

But if there is a way to manipulate gravity we would never be informed of the science, the military implications are far too great.

Yes there is a way to manipulate gravity

And I think DS outlined them pretty well..


Da Schneib

But if there is a way to manipulate gravity we would never be informed of the science, the military implications are far too great.

Yes there is a way to manipulate gravity

And I think DS outlined them pretty well..

Yes quite true unfortunately as I discovered thru my own experience
milnik
not rated yet May 10, 2018
All those who do not know what gravity is, how it arises, and who provokes it, are great manipulators, not only with gravity, but with all the phenomena related to gravity.
@Whudening
What you say that I could give the world something that would change some terms, I'm not sure what you mean. But I am sure that my knowledge in this field of science must change many erroneous conclusions and even theories.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) May 10, 2018
All those who do not know what gravity is, how it arises, and who provokes it, are great manipulators, not only with gravity, but with all the phenomena related to gravity.
@Whudening
What you say that I could give the world something that would change some terms, I'm not sure what you mean. But I am sure that my knowledge in this field of science must change many erroneous conclusions and even theories.

Well, then...
Get started.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) May 10, 2018
All those who do not know what gravity is, how it arises, and who provokes it, are great manipulators, not only with gravity, but with all the phenomena related to gravity.
@Whudening
What you say that I could give the world something that would change some terms, I'm not sure what you mean. But I am sure that my knowledge in this field of science must change many erroneous conclusions and even theories.

Well, then...
Get started.

@Whydening Gyre, yep, I got my paper and pencil ready too.
milnik
not rated yet May 11, 2018
@Whydening and other,
What I own, in my opinion, is worth several Nobel Prizes, provided that the accuracy of my evidence is proved.
Is it realistic and is this the place where I need to show you that. I gave enough basics and showed that, first and foremost, it must be known: what is matter and how and from what is formed, and behind that how gravity and magnetism appear, as two basic factors and drivers of everything in the material-energy entity.
Find a scientific institution where I can publish it without paying that post!
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
5 / 5 (2) May 11, 2018
@milnik:
It seems that you are certainly not suffering from an overdose of humbleness. Is it asking too much to receive a tiny little evidence of your sensational model? You talk about gravity and magnetism as basic factors and drivers of everything in the material-energy realm. How many other forces/factors are there according to your model? As you know, scientists call them "fundamental interactions". Does your sensational model say anything about the 3 out of a total of 7 that our scientists have not yet discovered?
milnik
not rated yet May 11, 2018
Gentlemen,
To date, there is no simpler way to explain everything in the universe than I am offering. I respect all the efforts of scientists to find out the causes of the phenomenon. But the bases on which they base their theories and proofs have no support in natural laws. I always say: there is no way of knowing how something behaves in nature, if you do not know the way and the substance from which the element you want to know about the cause of the formation is formed. I repeat you again: The universe is an infinite diameter sphere and is filled with the substance Aether from which matter is formed. A variety of energies are formed from matter, and matter in two basic forms, with the substance aether causes gravity and magnetism.
milnik
not rated yet May 11, 2018
These are three factors that cause each other to interact with one another, going from subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies. Gluons and quarks are basic particles, all of which form everything from matter and energy. Why scientists do not go that way, then they would come, first, to their consciousness, which would be linked to the SEU by means of intuition, and there are all explanations of the phenomenon there. But you can only find out about this if you believe in the existence of a SEU. !!
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2018
@milnik Why are you wasting time telling us you have 'Nobel prize' worth as yet unproven theories. If it were me I'd be 'out there' chasing the proof...or disappointment as the case may be. You want to end your days regretting someone else got there first?
There are plenty of people, organizations, with non-mainstream or alternative views. Go and give them a try and maybe they'll give you backing for testing you ideas...it certainly won't happen by just posting comments here...or are you expecting us to sponsor you? Somehow I don't think that is going to happen.
milnik
not rated yet May 11, 2018
@Mimath224,Today's science is a tycoon of science; it is not a science that wants to help those people who offer something new from science. Every today's scientific institution seeks to pay them to publish the work, no matter how much this work is worth. I do not want to pay anyone to teach him something to find out. They should help those who have something new to declare. How much time is needed for you to understand what matter is and how and from what is formed. If every scientific institution acts like you, then there is no progress in science, never.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2018
@milnik, sorry, your argument doesn't 'hold water' as they say. You can SELF PUBLISH at any time you want or as I have already said go to any of the other organizations that sympathize with you...and there are several. If you self publish then you can take copies to whom you wish, for them to evaluate, advise etc. If you feel your work is so important and of such high value, you are logically dictated to self publish.
Nope, I doubt your authenticity and I'm not going to repeat myself again. So our conversation is over.
milnik
not rated yet May 11, 2018
@Mimath, OK !!!!!!!!
savvys84
not rated yet May 12, 2018
@Whydening and other,
What I own, in my opinion, is worth several Nobel Prizes, provided that the accuracy of my evidence is proved.
Is it realistic and is this the place where I need to show you that. I gave enough basics and showed that, first and foremost, it must be known: what is matter and how and from what is formed, and behind that how gravity and magnetism appear, as two basic factors and drivers of everything in the material-energy entity.
Find a scientific institution where I can publish it without paying that post!


@Whydening and other,
What I own, in my opinion, is worth several Nobel Prizes, provided that the accuracy of my evidence is proved.
Heck send your work to Nature Physics or Scientific American
milnik
not rated yet May 12, 2018
@savvy84,
Heck, thanks !

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.