before the big bang,

Do you have a source on that? Or what did you use as your search term? "vacuum heat"? I'm not denying it: just never heard of it. I figure if you create a vacuum, then you suck out all the heat too. At least in a perfect vacuum?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I researched "perfect vacuum" and "heat" under google and came up with the following. Most sources say that a perfect vacuum cannot be achieved, and Wikipedia does an excellent job of summing up everything I came across is scientific articles. However, what's stated below, how can anyone take Dr. Andrei Linde's theories seriously when he doesn't himself? He's throwing out multiple possibilities, but doesn't know which one is right or which one that a person should believe in. Then he puts up complicated formulas during a lecture and says, "I won't bother to explain them." If you're not going to explain them, then why confuse the audience by putting them up in the first place? Sounds like he's just trying to impress people.

"A perfect vacuum is an ideal state that cannot practically be obtained in a laboratory, nor even in outer space.... [but then]

The quantum-mechanical vacuum:
Even an ideal vacuum, thought of as the complete absence of anything, will not in practice remain empty. One reason is that the walls of a vacuum chamber emit light in the form of black-body radiation: visible light if they are at a temperature of thousands of degrees, infrared light if they are cooler. If this soup of photons is in thermodynamic equilibrium with the walls, it can be said to have a particular temperature, as well as a pressure.

More fundamentally, quantum mechanics predicts that vacuum energy can never be exactly zero. The lowest possible energy state is called the zero-point energy and consists of a seething mass of virtual particles that have brief existence. This is called vacuum fluctuation. While most agree that this represents a significant part of particle physics, it is a concept that would benefit from a deeper understanding than currently available. Vacuum fluctuations may also be related to the so-called cosmological constant in the theory of gravitation, if indeed this entity were to be observed in nature on a macroscopic scale. The best support for vacuum fluctuations is the Casimir effect.

In quantum field theory and string theory, the term "vacuum" is used to represent the ground state in the Hilbert space, that is, the state with the lowest possible energy. In free (non-interacting) quantum field theories, this state is analogous to the ground state of a quantum harmonic oscillator. If the theory is obtained by quantization of a classical theory, each stationary point of the energy in the configuration space gives rise to a single vacuum. String theory is believed to be analogous to quantum field theory but one with a huge number of vacua - with the so-called anthropic landscape."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

In astrophysics, string theory needs to postulate multiple dimensions (10 or 21) and the hypothetical "worm holes" are thought to connect one location of the same universe to another location in it, or to connect parallel universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

High level theory tends to get weird sometimes... doesn't mean it's incorrect / correct. What it does mean is it's waiting for validation / contradiction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No doubt, but like I said, "How can you take Dr. Andrei Linde's theories seriously when he doesn't himself? He's just throwing out multiple possibilities," but doesn't even belief in anyone of them himself? Then he posts a bunch of technical equations, but slides away from trying to explain any of them, so everyone starts laughing. To me it sounds like he's just trying to impress people.

 

If he was an isolated incident, then I would share a similar view. He's not though. 'Many Worlds' theory has grown in adoption since then (I am unsure what has changed though to make this happen).

 

Valich,

And:

Just curious here, Valich. Why is it that you believe in an infinite universe? One that expands and contracts over and over again? As has been stated already, the general consensus (last I heard) was that there isn't enough mass in the universe to cause the universal expansion to slow down and contract again.

Do you understand the math involved? Have you actually performed the necessary equations? Or do you simply like the idea of an infinite universe? Simply dislike the idea of a beginning? The idea of an end in an eternally expanding universe is ludicrous, of course, so I won't even mention that. But, why is it that you prefer one explanation over another? I suspect that you have no true understanding of the actual physics involved and are merely following your intuition. Can you prove me wrong?


As to the "Many worlds" theory, try reading some David Deutsch (of Oxford) as well. He's one of the champions of this idea. The particular theory espoused by Crunchy Cat with daughter universes budding from a parent due to collisions among themselves is one I've never heard before, but is as likely as any other, I suppose. There are many possibilities. We are at a stage of understanding where we can only theorize such things and not truly be able to test them yet. The operative word is yet. But, if we stick to only the tried and true, mundane, blahdy blah, then what's the point?

You have far too much of a fascination for scientific 'laws' and 'facts'. It shows in every post you make. You really need to learn just how precarious are all these things you google up. Theories come. Theories go. Their true value lies in their explanatory value. And as we learn more about the world around us, we learn of different problems in need of explanation and thus the theories must change with us to explain those problems from our new point of view.

Anthropomorphic? Can science be otherwise?
Ha!

Your lack of imagination is astounding. Ever think that he actually didn't attempt to try and explain because he wanted to inspire his audience to do it themselves? Christ. You want to eat pre-chewed food your whole life? I find it amazingly arrogant of you to judge this man as a hoaxer or what the fuck ever when physicists trained in his field think highly of him. Even if they don't believe his theories one hundred percent, they respect the mind that comes up with them. They weren't laughing him off the podium. They were laughing with him. A man who finds enjoyment and beauty in his work.

And you call him a writer of fiction.
You're a real piece of work.
Stick with your scientific laws and facts, they suit you.
And you say you want to learn?
Ha! You want to know. You have no idea what it is to learn.

Interesting interpetation. And not a surprising one, coming from you.
But, if he were trying to impress people, then wouldn't he be googling up dry facts to show off how much he knows rather than coming up with 'fiction'?
Ha!

 

Oh, my oh my. How ironic.

 

This has been stated a few times, I just wanted to point out that this is no longer held as absolute truth.

The entire idea of Virtual Particles *is* the act of matter/energy being created and destroyed. On a very minute level, yes, but it is still big enough to create a measurable effect on "absolute" zero.

 

You know, your post get so ridiculous and just filled with criticism, condescending remarks, and foul language that when I see the name Invert, I normally just skip right over it. Just so you realize how much time you waste on even replying, because it's always a bunch of voidless bull.

90% of matter in the universe is still unaccounted for: thus they call it "Dark Matter." Still, I find the eternal uniberse as the best explanation: expand-contract-expand-contract. The creationist's view or a belief in a god complicates by view of the universe: just like pollution.

I have no time to read David Deutsch, but if you post a reply without criticism or foul language that summarizes his views, I might read it.

 

Those of you unfamiliar with the weasel vallich may be interested in this analysis of his debating technique. I have place debating technique in italics since I am not certain it is a technique. It could be evidence of limited cognitive skills, or even of a psychotic personality. [Others have proposed he is an AI construct!]
At any rate, I shall give him the benefit of the doubt, here, and presume it to be a debating trick.

This is what I shall call VD1 (Vallich Delivery 1). In VD1 vallich simply states the other poster is not raising any points, but merely indulging in ad hominem attacks. This allows him, ostensibly, to avoid dealing with the issues that have been raised.
Typically he will address one such issue, because he feels it lies within his comfort zone of knowledge. [This is usually a false perception, evident to all except vallich.]

This is VD2. Actually, quite elegant, if rather old hat. The explicit structure is this.
I believe A. It is a good thing to believe.
Believing B is really quite foolish.
You must be really quite foolish.
The unstated data is:
Actually, there is another alternative. This is alternative C. It is adhered to by the majority of scientists practicing in the field. This is the alternative favoured by those disagreeing with vallich. None of those challenging vallich in this debate have espoused alternative B, the foolish one, but have opted for alternative C, that held by the majority of scientists.

I commend you all to study vallich's posts for evidence of this, and other, techniques of obfuscation, misdirection and the like. You will find it educational.

 

Are you saying you don't agree with this? Post the math involved but be sure you explain and define the equations. Remember, over 90% of the matter in our universe is still unexplained (that is why we call it "Dark Matter"?), but it is a fact that our universe is now expanding, but slowing down. And your counter facts?

 

...This is an incredibly stupid question.

Best analogy I can think of is that it's like arguing about what it's like before the birth of a person (from said person's perspective).

To elaborate a little, let's say at t = 0, the universe was confined to singularity like say, in the inside of a black hole.

Laws of physics don't apply in singularities.

Therefore, just like how we will never know what's inside a black hole, we will never know what happened before t = 0.

It's a trite metaphysics question that should just be laid to rest.

 

Locked

 

Robert P. Kirshner Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Vol. 96, Issue 8, 4224-4227, April 13, 1999
Perspective: Supernovae, an accelerating universe and the cosmological constant
Observations of supernova explosions halfway back to the Big Bang give plausible evidence that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating since that epoch, approximately 8 billion years ago and suggest that energy associated with the vacuum itself may be responsible for the acceleration.


This is now accepted by cosmologists as accurate. Theorising over the last half decade has sought to account for this unexpected observation.

 

I don't think I would get much out of reading this article, if that's what it says. But isn't this article only positing an acceleration originating from one supernova? Do they posit proof or evidence that the entire universe is expanding? If so, I'll look it up. Thanks.

 

I have to correct that. Of course one supernova will show an "acceleration," and the universe is still expanding, but what do they say about "How long the "entire" universe will be "accelerating""?

 

Valich,

Miss me so much that you had to call me back?
I love you too, pumpkin.

I've stated no predilection for anyone of the particular theories.
Why?
Because I don't understand the maths. I always find it funny when people have this fanatical belief in one scientific theory or another when they, in fact, have no clue about the underlying maths and other foundations of the theory. Laymen who've read a nifty Scientific American article and are now 'experts' in string theory or some such.

Heh.

I find it amusing that you answer my question with a repeat of it. As if my questioning why you believe that the universe is one which expands and contracts infinitely when I believe you have no knowledge of the underlying foundations means that I hold the same fallacy on the opposite side of the fence.

All I can say is that the common consensus in cosmological theory, as far as I'm aware, is that our universe is one that will expand forever. And that the expansion is accelerating even.

But, this theory is conjectured with full knowledge of the dearth of data necessary to truly make the proper computations.

It's theory. Which means that it could well be wrong. But, according to presently accepted models, it is the most likely outcome conjectured at the present time.

But, seeing as how I don't understand the foundations of the theory further than that which a layman can, I can't say with any kind of surety that I believe in one more than the other except to fall back on the age old dependence on authority.

So. I keep my options open.

Now.
Back to my question to you.
Why is it that you believe the universe is a cyclic universe? Do you understand the maths involved? In even a simplistic sense? Or does it just sound good?

 

You're wasting your time. As I said, I don't read your posts: I really don't! Your normal habit is to go line-by-line and just cut me down. Why would I want to subject myself to such depressing abuse.

Post a small comment and I might decide to read it and we'll go from there, but I'm not going to waste my time with what I know will be bull. You started to post some intelligent scientific posts regarding the Avian Flu Virus months ago, but since then, I see your name and just say "no way." It's just abusive language and behavior.

 

Oh?
Is that why you posted to me on the 10th? You know. The post that I'm replying to? You know. This one?

You brought me back into this thread. Not vice versa. Come on. Do you remember the things you do from minute to minute? Do you suffer from Korsakov's syndrome, by any chance?

Well. Since you asked nicely and all. I suppose I'll once more follow my S.O.P. (You may call me an S.O.B. if you wish. I won't mind. She was a real bitch. I'll admit it.)

Dunno. Why would you? Seems like you were up for it 5 days ago though when you decided to respond to a post of mine.

Anyway. It's only depressing and it's only abuse because you make it so.

A small comment? What like, "How much cock could Valich suck if Valich could suck cock?" Nah. I lalready did that one.
Heh. Anyway.
What? My short comment up above wasn't short enough for you?
Where was the abuse?
Where was the derision?
I did briefly get on you for basically reiterating my question to you about believing in a theory without understanding the underpinnings of the theory, but nothing derisive. Personally, I think you'd be well-served to learn that theory is only the best explanation available at present. You've always seemed to denote far too great a solemnity upon scientific research and theoretical explanations.

Well. You tend to bring out the worst in me, my friend. You could at least give me a reacharound.

Would it make you feel better if I kissed you when I was done?

 

Vallich, go read the article. Here is a link to the on-line version. The full paper is available.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/8/4224

As I said in my prior post "This is now accepted by cosmologists as accurate. Theorising over the last half decade has sought to account for this unexpected observation."
This is the paradigm, an accelerating expansion, that the large majority of cosmologists are working from. The only ones who seem to be opposed are those who dispute the Big Bang in any form, and half of them are probably playing Devil's Advocate.