Help Us Stay Informed on Mainstream Cosmology

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

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    The biggest casuality would be the CMBR, then of course eternal inflation, then of course Alan Guth......but science would win.

    The unfolding of great intersting theories in cosmology would start now and the next two decades will be full of greatness and full of real understandable science, many existing pillars will be GUTHED.

    Unfortunately the prevalent alternatives lack that force whether it is string cosmology, whether it is cyclic model, matter bounce or revisiting Big bang (the Pre Big Bang cosmology)...but things will move faster, couple of more Paul Steinhardt needed.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    I don't see how such a viewpoint could survive contact with post-1960 physics research into particle physics or gravitation. Your chain of reasoning about your triangle appears unsupported by even Newtonian physics in that for the top side of the triangle, real materials require the middle of a beam supported by its corners to sag down while the ballistic model of light (which Einstein would reason with in his GR development) requires the light to be highest at the middle to reach the far corner. Your point about the spectre of absolute space seems lost since you make mention of no phenomenon which suggests its validity.

    I object to your use of the definite article and scare quotes about the qualification of speed as the one modeled by a choice of coordinates.

    All physics models describing a black hole have to agree than a black hole does not let light escape from it at all. The 1916 Schwarzschild vacuum solution to GR assumed an arrow of time that pointed to a common future which does not seem compatible with the assumption that a black hole is a final exit for light and matter from the outside universe and as a result the Schwarzschild coordinates have a singularity at the event horizon and all processes, including the propagation of light, have "coordinate time"-based rates of 0 at the event horizon as the coordinates have no other way to represent a surface from which light can't escape.

    Other coordinate choices describe the same physics and are also solutions to GR correctly model that if your are in the interior of the black hole, your future meets with the black hole's central singularity, the point where GR physics gives answers we don't know how to interpret. In such coordinates, the event horizon is another place of space-time where physics proceeds as normal, but the maximum coordinate speed of outbound light is zero because the light is "falling" into the black hole precisely as fast as it is attempting to escape. Material observers would also be falling at a coordinate speed between that of outbound and inbound light, so neglecting tidal forces (or equivalently working very small) they would notice no odd local phenomena relating to light.

    That's why the "coordinate speed of light" doesn't deserve scare quotes, because physics is local and the attempt to impose a universal coordinate system will lead to artifacts of one's choices. Similarly, there are many ways to make a 2-dimensional flat map of the Earth. Locally, attempts to map the neighborhood look fine but for large scale maps distortions abound and map makers have to balance utility and aesthetics to find an appropriate choice of 2-dimensional representation. That implies a choice of coordinate system although it is not the coordinates one uses in GPS systems, but to put lines on a map.
     
    danshawen and sweetpea like this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Enjoy your laugh and associated delusions.......Most have you on ignore, including bruce.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And bruce and I are having an intelligent exchange, something which is unable to be undertaken with you, due to your silly delusions of grandeur and inflated ego.

    Any proper reference for that quote? Or are you simply spouting bullshit?

    Science will continue to progress without your well contained nonsensical rants [on forums such as this]
    You are the cocky on the biscuit tin: You ain't in it my friend.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2015
    danshawen likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    I understand the difference, and the distortion is yours, based on one word.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  8. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Being a factual claim of Penrose's statements, it is the work of an instant to find support for it.

    2014-04-04: Science Friday. http://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/sir-roger-penrose-cosmic-inflation-is-fantasy/ (Nothing much there to support it)
    2014-04-06: Commentary by Motl http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/04/roger-penrose-continues-his-weird-anti.html

    But BICEP's assignment of B-mode polarizations to primordial physics was perhaps hasty: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31058529

    2015-06-12: Penrose makes some comments in a live discussion captured by tweets at 8:27 and 8:34 am which are accurately reflected by the poster "The God".
    2015-06-14: Peter Woit summarizes: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7812

    There is however no evidence that Penrose is right to make such claims. Because non-detection is not a demonstration of non-existence.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2015
    danshawen likes this.
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    You should know my friend, as reputable and as credentialed a scientist as Steinhardt is, he can also be wrong. The otherwise great Fred Hoyle is another.
    The way you so dramatically and fanatically grab hold of whatever apron strings you can actually says a lot about your personality [as it did about rajesh's]
    Then you pile on the ridicule for Alan Guth? How pathetic, coming from someone who is a lay person, without any credentials, other than an Electrician's license.
    The one good thing that is revealed in your nonsensical statements and claims on this forum, is that at least its keeping you away from the real physicists and cosmologists that are working at the coal face.
    At least we here can be thankful for that [and we can put you on ignore also!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ]
     
    danshawen likes this.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Thanks rpenner.
    Interesting statement in your first link thus......
    "Sir Roger Penrose calls string theory a “fashion,” quantum mechanics “faith,” and cosmic inflation a “fantasy.” Coming from an armchair theorist, these declarations might be dismissed. But Penrose is a well-respected physicist who co-authored a seminal paper on black holes with Stephen Hawking. What’s wrong with modern physics—and could alternative theories explain our observations of the universe"?
    [Rather surprised on his "quantum mechanics" faith claim.]
    And he seems to have received plenty of criticism in your second link.
    Although he was correct albeit for the wrong reasons on the BICEP2 experiment.

    Your third link of course stated the obvious. Certainly the claims by the BICEP2 people was premature and wrong, but by the same token, it was also mainstream science [and Planck] that showed that to be.
    The very nature of science is that it is self correcting.

    Your fourth link verifies what "the god"said...a pity though he could not link to that as most claimants would naturally do.
    I also note Professor Steinhardt's comment on that last link......
    "Paul Steinhardt: inflation is a compelling story, it’s just not clear it is right… I’d appreciate that astronomers presented results as what they are (scale invariant etc) rather than ‘inflationary’… Everyone on this panel thinks multiverse is a disaster".
     
    danshawen likes this.
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    And I would agree with the panel. The multiverse was a "joke". It was Leonard Susskind's joke. Why no one else laughed at the result but him, under his breath, no one else seems to understand.

    Perhaps the punch line is still under development. I hope it's a good one. When I told you you could prove literally ANYTHING with String Theory, that was not intended as a joke.
     
  12. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    There is no quantum gravity yet, rpenner.

    I don't care about post 1960 physics. I was talking about post July 4, 2012 physics. And you seem to be telling me that its effect on our understanding of relativity is exactly zero, right? Fair enough. If you are that determined not to consider it, then don't.

    A horizontal loaded string becomes an approximation to a catenary in a gravitational field. That's not what I'm talking about. I've already given you all of the raw ingredients Minkowski had to come up with invariant intervals, to show you how ridiculous a notion that really was in inertialess relativistic space. If it was going to work, it would work on that model of a right triangle, and it doesn't. A perfect physical representation of a Pythagorean triangle or any other geometrical construct literally does not exist in a relativistic universe that consists entirely of energy transfer events, other than in your head, by any means or contrivance known to any vetted science. You can't make space absolute by means of geometry. ANY geometry.
     
  13. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    I was talking about particle physics and gravity as disjoint subjects.

    The discovery of the Higgs boson (announced 2012-07-04) predicted by the theory of electroweak symmetry breaking offers little to change one's views on special relativity since it was the prediction of a theory predicated completely within the bounds of Lorentzian space-time. Please provide a peer-reviewed scientific paper which argues differently or face my reevaluation of your status from physics amateur to pseudophysicist.

    That's what I was saying in post #32:

    That same post goes on to explain everything we know about the observed particle is consistent with predictions from terms of the electroweak Lagrangian which include it.


    Instead of replying meaningfully, you just demonstrated that you don't understand how to do relativistic physics and so far you have resisted simple efforts to bring you up to 1930's understanding. You don't document your factual claims. You don't support your opinions with argument. So since you have a viewpoint that mainstream physics is wrong that you won't meaningfully explain, then you also are part of the problem you complain about.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    I don't have a collider, true. I doubt anyone would take my credentials seriously in any case, even if I wished to take my obsession to that level, which I don't.

    But I have greatly enjoyed discussing the idea with you. If you change your mind later or not, that's totally fine too. I think I got it all out this occasion. I look forward to reading about the next chapter.
     
  15. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    No. You blew it, AND you should read more. Even if I wished to publish something about what we have been discussing, it appears that I am already too late:

    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

    As these credentialed physicists (Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti) seem to have picked up on the idea we have been discussing and have already published several papers that support almost exactly what it is that I have been proposing. Three dimensions of light travel time (or space if you insist on calling it that) will do nicely. NO stupid Minkowski spacetime fourth dimension anymore. And they specifically assert that time dilation is the most basic metric for a universe that consists of energy transfer events. Beautiful work.

    You know, Einstein's associate Kurt Gödel deserves a lot more credit than he generally gets here and elsewhere. He really tried to tell mathematicians, sometimes you just have to stop staring at the matrices and the Lagrangians and try another system OUTSIDE of the crank you have been turning for inspiration and find fresh insights into the problems you need to solve using another basis of logic. It worked for Andrew Wiles who proved Fermat's last theorem with it.

    Relativity didn't just fall out of equations, and the math that describes relativity without Higgs or without entanglement is either inconsistent or else it is incomplete. Very likely, it is both.

    I still wonder what Einstein might have done with the idea, had he known for certain that the Higgs field was a tangible reality.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2015
  16. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Thats good one..
     
    danshawen likes this.
  17. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    Yes, Steinhardt was wrong about inflation and he admitted that. Nice guy.

    And about Alan Guth, I am not ridiculing him, he almost hijacked this inflation business from others, and now finding it difficlut to abandon.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I know. Something though, that is impossible with an ego inflated crank like yourself.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Whether Steinhardt is wrong or otherwise, is not as yet determined.
    Nice guy, certainly...you need to take a leaf out of his book.
    Yes you were, and total rot on the hijacking fairy tale.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  20. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    How are they credentialed physicists? -- Amrit was booted off this forum YEARS ago and now he has a press agent. phys.org is just a news aggregator which does it for the lulz and the advertising dollars, not a principled news source. The journal "Physics Essays" is nowhere near the mainstream in that the doi link which is supposed to work always doesn't.

    Anyone who bothers to read their paper discovers no physics argument from evidence but only a meta-physics not informed of the last 60 years in particle physics and general relativity. http://www.researchgate.net/profile...dean_space/links/546d8d530cf2193b94c5872f.pdf

    They cite R. Manaresi and F. Selleri, Found. Phys. Lett. 17, 65 (2004) despite the fact that it doesn't support their position. They mangle simple treatments of light clocks in special relativity because they consider length contraction but not relative motion which goes hand-in-hand with it. They perform no calculation and offer no possible utility for their ideas.

    But the really ugly point is that they obliviously replace space-time with space + absolute time and can't work out the consequences.

    See also:
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/no-time-in-space-time.108591/
    http://www.vivendodaluz.com/EN/articles/prana_has_weight.html
    http://vixra.org/author/amrit_s_sorli

    The fact is time is not just the sequencing of past and future, but that it's a personal metrical arrangement of events. Thus my heart has beat over a billion times but at times it has beat faster and slower than it is now. The rate of my heart is a valid medical diagnostic precisely because time has a metrical quality that Amrit proposes to do away with.

    That he would do so without an explanation of why clocks work so well is just evidence of his failure to heed to rule that distinguishes science from pseudo-science: “Don't carp about how everyone is doing it wrong or that they should listen to you; Do all those things better and they will listen to you.”
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2015
    danshawen likes this.
  21. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    Wow. Ok, you recaptured my attention again. Maybe I should go work up some math for it. I do have some ideas about how it could be done.

    Trouble is, the damn idea just connects to everything else I know all at once. How Einstein managed to do something like that and remain even remotely sane, I've no idea. Perhaps he really didn't.

    As a telecom engineer, a bit of trivia I picked up was that objects smaller than about 1/3 wavelength of whatever you are using to view them with will not be resolvable. Think of it as a wavelength expression of the uncertainty principle. This may apply to (only) three 'generations' of neutrinos (and three generations of everything else, too) as well as QCD's eightfold way. It predicts why neutrinos interact with electroweak as they do. Higgs is involved. It is NOT explained by the Standard model, another either incomplete or inconsistent (or perhaps both) bit if math.

    If you wanted the particle zoo (and it's a much smaller zoo these days) managed, and much smaller, and understood for its true nature, that's how you would accomplish it. Spaces between particles are important ONLY for their Doppler shifts in a universe comprised of energy transfer events, not their geometry. Similar analysis relates to Young's double slit experiment, although I haven't managed to work out exactly how.

    What would be the DeBroglie wavelength of two identical particles of bound energy traveling in the same direction and separated by a distance d less than 1/3 wavelength? This is just a whole lot of homework. It would be easy to make mistakes. Don't go for length contraction or even Bell's theorem. They don't work. I don't think they ever did.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2015
    Little Bang likes this.
  22. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    I have to say found the whole BICEP2 thing distasteful.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Sure, the official announcement somewhat jumped the gun, but it was still science and the scientific method that saw that preliminary announcement revoked by Planck.
    Science doing its job I suggest.
     

Share This Page