Help Us Stay Informed on Mainstream Cosmology

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by danshawen, Nov 18, 2015.

  1. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    Some time ago, CBS morning evidently aired a video of Dr. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist at the City College of New York discussing the discovery of the Higgs boson ('God Particle') at CERN in connection with Alan Guth's popular and mainstream cosmology ideas about inflation that have forever modified our ideas about what must have happened in the earliest evolution of our universe.

    Now all I can find is this:



    Which is controversial to say the least. It's a short one. Don't miss his summary comments.

    I live in the United States where the video I am looking for was produced and broadcast, yet I seem to be able to find NO LINKS to the video anywhere on the internet as of November, 2015. Some links that would normally be easily linked to such a video on sites like YouTube have evidently been labeled "not available in your region code", which is a flag that usually means that a government entity has been involved with censorship, in this case, of some rather basic and general science information.

    Without going into crazy conspiracy theories about what happened to that video, something is fishy here. Either there was something seriously flawed and Dr. Kaku is self-censoring his recorded remarks or those of a commentator, or he mentioned something that impacted National Security or the teachings of the Common Core science curriculum, or (the more likely scenario), someone else has raised a copyright or other issue with something he may have inadvertently or otherwise mentioned in the video. Perhaps Dr. Kaku or one of his colleagues is planning to do one his excellent books on the subject with a more complete treatment. I can't wait to read it, but how could I be sure that this would not be censored as well?

    I've been busting my chops around here and elsewhere for some time to learn every scrap of information I could about the science connected with the discovery of the Higgs boson, an achievement which I consider to have rivaled the moon landing of my generation and which changes the field in which I received my bachelor's degree and have had a lifelong interest in. Some of the kind folks on Sciforums have been able to help me fill in the gaps and understand mainstream cosmology also.

    On a thread here in Alternative Theories, someone asked me what my ideas about Higgs gravity may have to do (if anything) with current theories of cosmology. I didn't know, and when I found out that for whatever reason, one of the videos was not available any more, it has peaked my curiosity. Evidently, if the Higgs is in any way associated with inflation and SUPERGRAVITY, it would be difficult for a mainstream cosmologist to deny that it must also be somehow associated with gravity, as some notable particle physicists such as Prof. Matt Strassler has.

    http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/26/cosmic-conflation-the-higgs-the-inflaton-and-spin/

    Besides being the foremost critic of Higgs gravity on the Internet for some time, Matt is also associated with the OPERA experiment that missed a synchronization problem that led to a misinterpretation of data that suggested a superluminal nature for neutrinos. Strassler is evidently sharply critical of Michio Kaku's remarks on the video I am trying to find.

    Despite what Strassler says, I maintain that any inertia imparted by Higgs to bound particles of matter will be rotational inertia. Since the Higgs also derives ITS OWN INERTIA from this interaction, the inertia that imparted back to Higgs will also be rotational. Since QCD can't even seem to calculate the spin of a proton, what chance is there really that they understand spin well enough to rule out the possibility that the Higgs derives enough additional spin from the matter or bound energy it interacts with to make it the graviton? Cram it already, Matt.

    About the only links left on the internet discussing Higgs and Inflation theory I can find are some older blog entries connected to a young czech national who was exiled some years ago from the physicsstackexchange blog.

    Please help me find a working link to this video so that we can all satisfy our curiosity and stay abreast of mainstream cosmology, no matter what region code we happen to reside in.

    In order to remain literate, one must first have something to read. If you are living in the age of Copernicus and all you have to read is the collected works of Ptolemy, that's a problem.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    If the link in the video does not appear above, simply Google "Michio Kaku" and "Big Bang" videos. It's easy enough to find that one. The evangelicals must really love what he said, and I can understand why.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Strassler's article makes good points, and Kaku is IMHO not to be taken seriously. Not the first article I have seen which questions the seriousness of Kaku.
     
    danshawen and Farsight like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    I watched it. It is total utter bollocks! The Higgs mechanism is said to be responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter, and the Higgs boson gets its mass from E=mc², not the Higgs mechanism.

    I very much doubt that there's any fishy conspiracy here Dan. Think about what Kaku said at the end: the Higgs boson is what gave the big bang its bang. That's the sort of thing that would get the LHC shut down. I imagine CERN have been on to Kaku, and Kaku or his agent have gone round making sure the video is taken offline.

    Don't overthink it. See above.

    IMHO you should read more widely. See for example The Discovery of What? by Unzicker and Jones.

    I know about gravity. And I also know that the Higgs boson and/or mechanism is absolutely nothing to do with it. I read the article by Matt Strassler and thought it was fairly reasonable, but it rather glossed over the issue wherein the mass of a body is a measure of its interaction with a field is at odds with the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. Matt Strassler is no Michio Kaku, but don't think he's perfection.

    Quite rightly.

    A photon in a mirror box adds mass to that system. There is no Higgs involvement.

    No it doesn't. See Matt Strassler's article Does the Higgs Field Give the Higgs Particle Its Mass, or Not? The answer is no. See point 4: "The Higgs field, though it provides the mass for all other known particles with masses, does not provide the Higgs particle with its mass".

    You seem to be launching into speculation of your own here Dan. IMHO you should try to avoid this.

    Meh, inflation is bollocks too. See Physicist Slams Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive. Big bang cosmology and the expanding universe is fine, but inflation isn't.

    This isn't mainstream cosmology, this is woo.

    You betchya!
     
    danshawen likes this.
  8. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    Excellent linked article, Farsight - I believe that I had read it some months ago (been a Scientific American GEEK for 4 decades or more !!).

    Paul Steinhardt is quite good at explaining his views and does not really care for "sensationalism" or the "Pop-Science-Cult-of-Personality" that some scientist seem to revel in these days - in my opinion at least!

    Thanks for linking the article!
    I had forgotten how insightful I had found it to be when I had read it previously!

    Again, Farsight, thanks!!

    p.s., the article is a great, quick read for anyone honestly interested in the current state of a Theoretical Physics in relation to "Inflation"!
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/
     
    danshawen likes this.
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Just read the article on the Paul Steinhardt interview, at
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/
    and have selected a few questions that he answered.

    As we understand superstring theory better, I truly hope we find that there are sound reasons why the physical laws we observe are naturally selected. Superstring theory, combined with an improved cosmological picture, may then lead to a powerfully explanatory and predictive theory.

    Horgan: Have you gotten any blowback for your criticism?

    Steinhardt: For the most part, the discussion has been civil and intellectual. It has been fascinating to hear the variety of views.


    Horgan: Witten thinks string theory is still "on track" and represents physicists' best hope for a unified theory. Comment?

    Steinhardt: I share Edward’s view that string theory represents our best hope at present for a unified theory. However, I think success requires that the string landscape issue be resolved and that we find some empirical evidence for supersymmetry.

    My comment:
    While agreeing with Professor Steinhardt's remarks re Professor Whitten's views, he is still dabbling [as are all cosmologists in speculative scenarios, with no preferential evidence of one over the other with regards to the main three or four. [See my "Parallel Universe" article]


    Horgan: What is your cyclic model of the universe? Is it falsifiable?

    Steinhardt: The cyclic model emerged when my collaborators and I asked the question: is there any way of explaining the smoothness and flatness of the universe and small ripples in density without inflation? The answer was yes: the key is to have a universe in which the big bang is replaced by a big bounce. In this picture, the present period of expansion and cooling is preceded before the bounce by an epoch of contraction, and the important events that shape the large-scale structure of the universe (smoothing, flattening and generating fluctuations) occur before the bounce during a period of slow contraction. There is no high-energy inflation phase – the universe goes straight from the bounce into a period of slow expansion and cooling. Inflation is not needed to smooth and flatten the universe. Consequently, there is no multiverse.

    My comment:
    Again all Professor Steinhardt is doing is speculating based on his own interpretation of observations. And of course even if a cyclic Universe was shown to be evidenced, it still contains fully what present cosmology accept as the BB. So in essence, the BB is not replaced, just [at this stage] speculatively extended upon. [just as the parallel universe article does.]
    My own criticism of the cyclic model would be, why do we not see any blue shifted distant galaxies?

    Just as the Parallel Universe article is somewhat based on shall we say flimsy evidence, so to does the cyclic article seem based on even less then flimsy evidence. He does make the statement that finding evidence for gravity waves will falsify the cyclic speculation, but in reality the evidence for gravity waves is indirectly already evident with the "Hulse-Taylor binary Pulsar data.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  10. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    danshawen likes this.
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    As we all well know, this being a public forum, is open for discussion/debate/refutation/agreement/opinion, on any speculative scientific issue one wishes.
    As of the 19/11/2015, any hypothesis about anything preceding the BB is just that...hypothetical speculation. The cyclic issue which Professor Steinhardt champions, has no more going for it [in fact less] than the "parallel universe" article in another thread.
    Both interesting, both by learned qualified men, but none the less, both still speculative at this stage.
    And of course as I have mentioned, any cyclic scenario can still logically be argued to just be extending the parameters of the BB. I mean I'm sure nothing re the theories of how our first particles arose, or how the recombination era arose, or stars, planets and galaxies arose, will change at all.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  12. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    so...Rebut/Argue with/ Cross Swords with ones self...
    or...
    Rebut/Argue with/ Cross Swords with Paul Steinhardt...

    Web Page Link : http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/

    E-Mail : steinh@princeton.edu

    p.s. Is not the following, "Speculative" also???
    p.p.s. and this from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

    " After cosmic inflation ends, the universe is filled with a quark–gluon plasma. From this point onwards the physics of the early universe is better understood, and less speculative. "
    above quoted from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe , emphasis added...
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2015
    danshawen likes this.
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Interesting to say the least. But why would anyone see the need to "doctor" other aspects of the video or other videos, if that is what you are inferring?

    Good, spare us any conspiracies, we have plenty others using that as a way out.
    I'm at a loss to explain what you are saying. I mean there are plenty other far more controversial anti scientific curriculum on the net at present.
    Why not E-Mail Professor Kaku and ask him the reasons yourself?
    Perhaps a copyright issue??

    And as we all know, this being a public forum, is open for discussion/debate/refutation/agreement/opinion, on any speculative scientific issue one wishes.
    That will continue in this and other threads of course.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    No one else can find the video either, but those who saw it thought it was bullocks. Thanks for trying. I thought I might have been hallucinating that it just wasn't there. Guess not.

    Some folks here regard Michio Kaku the way I do Brian Greene. Well, there's no accounting for taste. For the Michao Kaku videos I have found, I have no objections.

    As of May of 2014, Higgs and inflation is a done deal in particle physics, which is to say, one doesn't even happen without the other. Mainstream cosmology evidently has some catching up to do.

    http://ac.els-cdn.com/S037026931400...t=1447890691_08cedf73f963aef2cc16cce9177e5729

    This isn't a non peer-reviewed arXiv paper you are looking at.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    danshawen likes this.
  16. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Like Cox, De-Grasse Tyson, Krauss, and others, they are doing a job...bring the awesome wonder of the Universe/cosmology/particle physics/quantum theory to the average lay person. None as brilliant as Sagan, but all doing a job.
    Perhaps there successes in the public arean along with their obvious excesses in the academic field, see a touch of "tall poppy syndrome" with some on this forum.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  18. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    An excellent suggestion.

    This seems to be the most balanced account and critique of Michao Kaku's May, 2013 video I can still find online:

    https://vixra.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/oh-my-god-particle/

    Matt Strassler and Sean Carroll are by far the most prominent critics of Dr. Kaku's remarks about the Higgs boson "setting off" inflation, even though Dr. Kaku chooses his words very carefully and evidently said that this view was highly speculative.

    G-D forbid, there should be a scientific cause for inflation or the BB.

    Even on Dr. Kaku's own blog, video entries for the month of May 2013 are MISSING. So, no "conspiracy" here.

    I've seen and read enough about it for now.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2015
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    It's really interesting how some people, particularly those that see themselves as having an eye for detail [mostly more pedant than anything else] can not understand the simplicity of how scientific theories grow more certain over time, or how the further we move from t=0, the more certain we can become, as these eras are simulated in particle accelerators.
    What of course is 100% certain at this time, is anything before t+10-43 seconds is entirely speculative, and while we can reasonably logically deduce some conditions between t=0 and t+10-43 seconds, nothing can be said to simulate anything before t=0, not even time, nor space.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Some corrections to the above...."Perhaps there", should be "perhaps their", "arean" should be "arena" and "obvious excesses" should be obvious successes.
    Hang the bastard I say!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    danshawen likes this.
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    First of all even between t+10-43 to t+10-42 (your notation) is also speculative.

    Secondly we cannot reasonably logically deduce any condition between t = 0 to t+10-43, simply because thats the first step......If you wish to argue, then please first think what is so special about t = 10^-43 seconds, you will get the answer.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Rubbish again.
    You due to your lack of cosmological knowledge may not be able to logically and reasonably deduce, but educated professional cosmologists do and have done with pretty good success.
    The BB, GR and the particle zoo model, fit in well with each other without any problem/
    Let me straighten you out further. While GR fails at the Planck/quantum level, the data received from particle accelerators, some reasonable logical deductions by educated authorities on the subject [like Professors Hamilton and Thorne] are able to speculate in a reasoned manner, that in that first instant of time, matter could not exist, and all we probably had was the Superforce.
    As obviously temperatures and pressures started to drop [simple physics] it is reasonable to assume [physics again] that the superforce started to decouple, gravity being the first to depart from the others.
    This created phase transitions [similar to ice turning to water or vice versa] and false vacuums, which enabled the excesses of energy to condense if you will, into our first fundamental particles.
    More physics follows with the simple fact that as temps and pressures further dropped, these particles started to adhere creating protons and neutrons.
    After 3 minutes the first atomic nuclei would have been formed.
    The rest is history.
    Now if you have another more reasonable, more logical speculative picture as to what ocurred, please tell us all...and of course please support that with a reputable reference or link.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003

    Because they are hidden from visibility by the CMBR. You cannot look through the CMBR for the same reason you cannot look through the Sun. A light ray from the contraction phase would have to go through the dense phase, but at that time the universe was so dense that nothing, no light goes through.

    No, this is not a claim that gravitational wave do not exist at all - which would be contradicted by Hulse-Taylor - but that they have played a so important role in the big bang period that the results of these waves at that time remain visible even today if we look at the CMBR.
     
    danshawen likes this.

Share This Page