The Big Bang Never Happened? [Archive]

ComradeRed

23rd April 2006, 05:01

If no one minds me playing the "devil's advocate" here...

That's very "ify" evidence used in that site, Shredder. For example, the compton effect being responsible for the redshift? Ignoring general relativity completely (:o) there is still special relativity to cope with, and by decreasing the mass it is like having a powerful engine in a really light car: the velocity increases!

If anything, it only confirms special relativity rather than disproving the bifurcation implications of the general theory (i.e. the "Big Bang").

Originally posted by website
What happened before the big bang?? The big bang theorists can't answer this question and just say it's a meaningless question. (They like to say it's like asking "What's north of the North Pole?" - Actually it's not like asking that at all. North is a direction; time is a measure of change. If there was no change before the big bang, then how could it have started?)

Actually, in general relativity, time is more than a "measure of change" as one would believe in either Quantum or Newtonian mechanics.

It is an (gasp!) affine parameter! That's right, an affine parameter! Need I say anymore? yes...

There is a sort of "rate" at which time "runs". This is scaled by an affine parameter.

A thought experiment shows what this means exactly. If we have twins, and send one into outer space for 50 years (supposing both were 10 years of age when this occurred), the one that remains on Earth will be 60 whereas the one that leaves has aged only a few years.

How odd!

As a consequence, time is more than merely a "rate of change"...something quite like direction.

After looking at some of this fellows writings and links ("Checkout my other website: Where the Extraterrestrial Life Is" :lol:), this fellow looks like a rather intelligent person who hasn't read up on his theoretical physics.

For example, this page "What Causes Gravity", he notes that it is a "push". Either he stole this from somewhere else, or derived it from Newtonian physics. If it was the latter, that would be damn impressive :o

However, the idea that it is a push is absurd. As Einstein points out, when you fall from your chair, you don't feel your own weight. Otherwise, if you jump off a two story building, not only would you accelerate but you would feel the force when you get down; a comically absurd scenario :lol:

redstar2000

23rd April 2006, 06:24

A real "hot button" issue, eh? :lol:

One problem for people without advanced training in physics is that we are perforce baffled by "tech-speak".

One scientist throws out a complex rebuttal of another scientist's theory and we can't tell if that rebuttal really "makes sense" or not.

This is especially likely on the "cutting edge" of physics...where the results of observation can change as of "last week".

Some time ago, for example, I recall reading a small paper which purported to demonstrate that one relatively near-by galaxy did not have any "dark matter" ("cold" or "hot")...its stars revolved about its center at speeds consistent with a mass of entirely "normal" matter.

True? Bad observation technique or poor technique in interpreting the observations?

Hell, I don't know! :o

When people press me on the issue, I frankly take refuge in my own ignorance. It is certain in my view that there is no "supernatural" explanation for the universe.

But cosmology at the present time strikes me as really "messy"...and the fact that "big bang" cosmology presently dominates the "scientific consensus" is not a "fatal blow" to rival cosmologies.

It could still be wrong.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

VermontLeft

23rd April 2006, 07:36

is this more of this "dialecticalism" stuff? cause i really dont buy that shit.

i know that some of you super-marxy types believe in all of his stuff, and i don't mean to insult you redstar, cause i like almost all of what you say (although i think i like LSD better, no offense :wub:), but i think that science is gotte be taken more seriously than some hundred year old "dialecticalism' shit.

i dont understand anything that comradered wrote, but ive done high school physics and i know that the big bang has a lot of science behind it. is it possible that theres something else, i guess :unsure:, but we should wait for some evidence first and not just throw out good theroies cause a something Marx might of said. ;)

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

23rd April 2006, 16:01

The big bang theory plagued with idealism.

Big Bang theory came about due to observations of the material universe, not idealism.

It uses cheat-science to arrive at its predetermined creationist standpoint.

Why do people insist on strawmanning Big Bang theory into something it isn't? BB requires no supernatural element for it to work.

Oh, and in case you don't know, creationists have a problem with the Big Bang because it contradicts the Bible you genius! :rolleyes:

When a big bang creationist creates a mathematical model that doesn't work, they consider it evidence for the existence of some brand new scientific concept, rather than evidence they they are religious nutcases viewing science through Moses-colored glasses.

It's pretty obvious you know nothing about either abrahamic religions or cosmology.

redstar2000

23rd April 2006, 17:00

Originally posted by Vermont Left
Is this more of this "dialecticalism" stuff? cause I really don't buy that shit.

Nope.

The "dialecticians" don't like "big bang" theory; but their objections have nothing to do with science.

Nor am I qualified to intelligently reject "big bang" theory.

I simply think it's interesting that there are people who are qualified to reject it who do...it's far from a "slam dunk" in their views.

The "cutting edge" of science is just as controversial as left politics...to say the least!

And that's something that's useful for non-scientists to be aware of.

Meanwhile, here's another site on plasma cosmology...

Plasma Universe (http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Faceless

23rd April 2006, 17:41

It's great to see that me and Redstar have something in common because I've been interested in Plasma Cosmology for quite a while.

Anyway, Im doing undergraduate physics with astrophysics and the first thing that strikes you about the astrophysics is that unlike in thermal physics, relativity, and any other branch of physics you like, the lecturer postulates these totally fantastic things without suggesting what its implications are, what the evidence is etc.

My understanding of Plasma cosomology and its difference with the "accepted" cosmology is this. The majority of material in the universe is made up of "plasma". That basically means that the atoms have been stripped of their electrons and exist in a soup of nuclei and electrons. Some scientists have gone as far as to suggest that this is the fourth state of matter (ie solid -> liquid -> gas -> plasma). Anyway, regular cosmologists see the world in a very linear manner. Electromagnetism dominates the world on a small scale and beyond a certain point this force can be reduced to nothing and we only have to deal with gravity on the large scale. Gravity comes from matter with mass. We all reckon we know matter with mass is. It is something heavy. And wherever there is a large amount of mass you expect to see it. Imagine then when cosmologists suggest that the universe is made up of mostly "dark matter". An invisible substance which has a gravity. To this day no one has seen any evidence of this.

Anyway, what is the evidence FOR the existence of dark matter. Well, the strange rotation curve of our universe. Imagine holding a string with a weight at the end of it and spinning it round. You feel the tension in the string pulling the rope. The galaxy rotates much like that. And when you incease the velocity of rotation the force increases too in the rope. Anyway, in the galaxy a high velocity of rotation would also suggest that there should be a large force. Unfortunately for cosmologists the speed of rotation of the galaxy is too great for the mass observed. Some laws of physics have withstood the great revolutions of ideas. They include the conservation of energy, momentum etc. so why is no one shocked to see the first instinct of cosmologists to be to invent a material which is invisible, concentrated only at the edge of our galaxy and maybe some other place far from the earth, but which is so massive as to be hard to miss?

Anyway, since the galaxy is mostly dissociated electrons and positive nuclei, why do scientists insist on discounting the possibility of HUGE magnetic fields and electric currents? For a start Olbers paradox is solved by the idea of a fractal universe. A fractal universe would be one more instance of the dominance of power laws which seem ubiquitous on Earth (hehe, there IS dialectics in this one redstar)

is this more of this "dialecticalism" stuff? cause i really dont buy that shit.

i know that some of you super-marxy types believe in all of his stuff, and i don't mean to insult you redstar, cause i like almost all of what you say (although i think i like LSD better, no offense ), but i think that science is gotte be taken more seriously than some hundred year old "dialecticalism' shit.

i dont understand anything that comradered wrote, but ive done high school physics and i know that the big bang has a lot of science behind it. is it possible that theres something else, i guess , but we should wait for some evidence first and not just throw out good theroies cause a something Marx might of said.

I could use this as an example of dialectics in nature but Redstar would dismiss it as mere verbiage i expect and I find this too exciting to get into a discussion on what words I use. Anyway, the individuals who have started this veritable revolution in thinking are scientists who probably have anti-marxist feelings of their own. Scientists aren't god's they interact like everyone else and are subject to the same laws. A dominant idea holds weight in scientific communities.

Faceless

23rd April 2006, 17:51

oh, Alfven is a good source for anyone interested in plasma physics. I think he invented plasma cosmology, i may be wrong though

redstar2000

23rd April 2006, 19:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:24 PM
Eric Lerner's been peddling his "Plasma Cosmology" theory for quite a while now, but its been pretty much universally rejected by the scientific community.

Errors in Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened" (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html)
Lerner replies to Wright here...

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p25.htm

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

RebelDog

23rd April 2006, 23:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:15 PM
The "dialecticians" don't like "big bang" theory; but their objections have nothing to do with science.

Nor am I qualified to intelligently reject "big bang" theory.

I simply think it's interesting that there are people who are qualified to reject it who do...it's far from a "slam dunk" in their views.

The "cutting edge" of science is just as controversial as left politics...to say the least!

And that's something that's useful for non-scientists to be aware of.

Meanwhile, here's another site on plasma cosmology...

Plasma Universe (http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I think if such people exist that spend so much of their time analysing theories like big bang theory through dialectical binoculars then we would never see them, they would constantly be holed-up with no time for anything else.

I always thought the big-bang theory sat well with Marxism in that it gave a rather 'Darwinistic' interpretation of the universe, its born, it evolves, expands, it gets old and dies. Thats whats happening to me! But seriously, there have always been more holes in BB than Swiss cheese. It has changed over the years to fit observation, which is a cardinal sin gone largely unpunished. Not enough matter, lets invent matter we can't see! BB has got serious problems, but that is not something to boast about, it leaves us in trouble and I for one do not have a clue where to turn.

Faceless

24th April 2006, 00:30

I always thought the big-bang theory sat well with Marxism in that it gave a rather 'Darwinistic' interpretation of the universe, its born, it evolves, expands, it gets old and dies. Thats whats happening to me! But seriously, there have always been more holes in BB than Swiss cheese. It has changed over the years to fit observation, which is a cardinal sin gone largely unpunished. Not enough matter, lets invent matter we can't see! BB has got serious problems, but that is not something to boast about, it leaves us in trouble and I for one do not have a clue where to turn.

:huh:

As a marxist and a physicist I am at a loss to grasp what you mean. The Big Bang theory is anathema to Marxist ideas. Here are a few reasons why:

1) It tries to suggest that the universe is homogenous
2) It creates some religious "beginning" of time contrary to the dialectical idea that things progress infinitely from a "lower" to a "higher" level.
3) From the previous point is drawn the conclusion of some mystical creator. There is some time before time when all the laws of physics are broken and pop out of nowhere comes something.
4) Dark matter lol, quite simply scientists are acting like religious nuts

This as opposed to the marxist dialectical view (please everyone who disagrees with "dialectics" refrain from expressing [disdain for] usage of the terms but instead criticise the content of my arguement) That everything, even life, comes from a previous stage with its own set of physical laws. On the other hand the plasma cosmologists present a view of:

1) It presents an inhomogenous view of the universe. A fractal view even. For anyone who cares, see the numerous posts where I have linked Marxism to chaos theory and fractal geometry (rightly or wrongly).
2) There is no beginning, only an infinitely evolving universe
3) There is no need to revert to some mystical creator.

I think if such people exist that spend so much of their time analysing theories like big bang theory through dialectical binoculars then we would never see them, they would constantly be holed-up with no time for anything else.

I think it is important to have a correct view of science, even if cosmology seems unimportant. First and foremost to banish religion from this world. Secondly of course, science is becoming more and more esoteric, worshiping the god of maths and the scientists are their priests. In such an environment the masses could be easily swayed by the experts on genetics or chemistry or physics.

Faceless

24th April 2006, 00:34

http://www.marxist.com/sky-bright-olbers-paradox131205.htm

incidentally, the website Marxist.com has been running a series of good articles discussing the subject

RebelDog

24th April 2006, 00:52

redstar2000

24th April 2006, 01:12

I likewise strongly urge people not to sidetrack this thread into the "realm" of "dialectics"...PLEASE!

Historical materialism is about human societies...not the cosmos.

What may be true about the physical reality of the universe does not necessarily relate to relevant explanations of human societies.

Cosmology must be materialist...but otherwise, it remains to be seen.

There's no such thing as a materialist cosmology that "contradicts Marxism"...that's a meaningless statement.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Faceless

24th April 2006, 16:04

The universe is homogenous, how can it be anything else. I am an atheist, you say you are a physicist, the religious undertones come from you not me. So a universe cannot come in to being without a god. Time cannot start without a deity starting it. You are the bible basher. I never mentioned god. Do you know the fluctuations of space?
Hey?
You must misunderstand me, I wasn't accusing you of being a bible basher. I am an atheist too. All I am saying is that the ideas which current science is creating have all the hallmarks of religious bullshit. The beginning of universe, as if time can have a beginning, is described by sound minded men as being a time where all the current laws of physics were broken. It stinks of creationism. I am saying time did not have a beginning, there is no reason to suppose it did unless you wont to create some god which created it with the rest of the world. It is not a matter for me of time beginning with or without a god. There should be little room for such a debate until the preposterous suggestion that there existed something before time (a contradiction in itself) is proven.

And the universe is homogenous? That is proven untrue on every scale yet observed. On the scale of our planet we see that there are numerous peculiarities, contradictions, that the same applies to our solar system is also self-evident. On this scale the world is inhomogeneous. On the larger scale BB cosmologists suggest that the world is however totally different. That One section of space is much like any other. However on the largest scales we can observe huge voids which extend across spaces so large we can barely comprehend them as well as large filimentary structures constructed of millions of galaxies. On no scale have scientists observed this so-called homogeneity which the BB cosmologists would like to suppose exists.

Historical materialism is about human societies...not the cosmos.
Historical materialism is the marxist study of human societies no doubt, but without tipping the discussion too far in the direction of dialectics, here is a similarity between two fractal structures:

density being inversely proportional to the distance of separation of objects
This is the description of the universe described in one of your links which suggests a power law symptomatic of fractal geometry.

http://www.economymodels.com/factalmarkets.asp
And the above website illustrates how the stock market works. A Gaussian distrubution is symptomatic of a series of random errors about some point towards which the results are biased. So for instance a cow's pregnancy period is biologically biased about a certain time period where the mean lies with long tails on either side, with the length of the pregnancy becoming much more unlikely as we get further from the mean.

http://w3eos.whoi.edu/12.747/notes/lect02/lectno02_files/image023.jpg
This is a Gaussian.

A fractal however has no prefered size, and is said to be scale invariant. In this sense, there is no typical size for a stock market crash, it does not know hoe big it will be when it first begins. The stock market, like the fractal universe (which has no preferred scale for the extent of objects, obeys a power law.

The suggestion is that there is some underlying LOGIC which links human interaction on the level of the stock market and the interaction of matter on the level of the celestial bodie.

Actually, maybe I didn't site enough examples. I could also have discussed the weather, earthquakes, branches on trees, rivers, sand piles and extinctions. Of course, even if the logic of human interaction, INSPITE of its complexity results in some similar relations to physical examples, much of human experience is hard to quantify so the likelyhood is that there are many other examples of power laws as a result of human interaction.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

24th April 2006, 21:19

What annoys me about some Marxists is their tendency to tread in areas where they are not qualified, such as cosmology.

But seriously, there have always been more holes in BB than Swiss cheese.

Such as what?

It has changed over the years to fit observation, which is a cardinal sin gone largely unpunished.

So Big Bang theory has changed to fit observations. That is science in action! Big Bang theory still fits our current understanding of the universe, so it has not been thrown out.

1) It tries to suggest that the universe is homogenous

And how does this contradict Marxism, a socio-political theory that has fuck-all to do with cosmology?

2) It creates some religious "beginning" of time contrary to the dialectical idea that things progress infinitely from a "lower" to a "higher" level.

So the universe isn't dialectical.

3) From the previous point is drawn the conclusion of some mystical creator. There is some time before time when all the laws of physics are broken and pop out of nowhere comes something.

Not all things that have a beginning require a creator to begin, that is a leap of logic on your part. Big Bang theory says that time started at the actual event in the same way that all directions are South at the North Pole. There is no "time before time" because spacetime is curved in on itself.

4) Dark matter lol, quite simply scientists are acting like religious nuts

Nonsense, religious nuts say that faith cannot be comprehended by reason. Dark Matter is detectable by it's gravitational effect on other bodies.

1) It presents an inhomogenous view of the universe. A fractal view even. For anyone who cares, see the numerous posts where I have linked Marxism to chaos theory and fractal geometry (rightly or wrongly).

This contradicts astronomical observations such as the Hubble Deep Field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field) which show the universe as pretty homogenous.

2) There is no beginning, only an infinitely evolving universe

Since the universe is by definition a closed system, thermodynamics prevents this.

3) There is no need to revert to some mystical creator.

Neither is there any need for that in Big Bang theory. This is the same fallacy that creationists make - they assume that all beginnings require a personal creator when this is not the case.

Secondly of course, science is becoming more and more esoteric, worshiping the god of maths and the scientists are their priests.

This is a side-effect of our increasing knowledge of the universe around us, and it is unavoidable. It's not as if you dialecticians make it any easier with your obfuscatory Hegelian nonsense.

In such an environment the masses could be easily swayed by the experts on genetics or chemistry or physics.

No, they couldn't. Because if somebody wanted to get in a position of power, they'd become a politician, not a scientist. And also scientists themselves are a contentious lot, forever arguing amongst themselves.

All I am saying is that the ideas which current science is creating have all the hallmarks of religious bullshit.

No they don't. Science is currently under attack by religious fundamentalist forces. Cosmology, evolution, and other fields are being very publicly shouted down by people with agendas other than truth. Of course, most scientists refuse to give such people the time of day.

The beginning of universe, as if time can have a beginning, is described by sound minded men as being a time where all the current laws of physics were broken.

Try "Different". I don't see how one can propose that the laws of physics remain unchanged when the entire universe is the size of a basketball and unimaginably hot.

It stinks of creationism.

Your nose is faulty. Try looking at real creationist sites to get the real thing.

I am saying time did not have a beginning, there is no reason to suppose it did unless you wont to create some god which created it with the rest of the world.

Yet again, you make the leap in logic whereby that if the universe had a beginning it must have been begun by some intelligence. There is no reason to assume this, and most cosmologists do not make this assumption either. Try looking for any mention of an "Extra-universal intelligence" in any doctoral thesis on cosmology. You'll turn up nothing.

t is not a matter for me of time beginning with or without a god. There should be little room for such a debate until the preposterous suggestion that there existed something before time (a contradiction in itself) is proven.

The Big Bang does mention anything about a "time before time". You can't go further back in time than the Big Bang because that would be like trying to further North than the North Pole.

And the universe is homogenous? That is proven untrue on every scale yet observed. On the scale of our planet we see that there are numerous peculiarities, contradictions, that the same applies to our solar system is also self-evident. On this scale the world is inhomogeneous. On the larger scale BB cosmologists suggest that the world is however totally different. That One section of space is much like any other. However on the largest scales we can observe huge voids which extend across spaces so large we can barely comprehend them as well as large filimentary structures constructed of millions of galaxies. On no scale have scientists observed this so-called homogeneity which the BB cosmologists would like to suppose exists.

Hubble Deep Field. Both North and South look remarkably similar.

Actually, maybe I didn't site enough examples. I could also have discussed the weather, earthquakes, branches on trees, rivers, sand piles and extinctions. Of course, even if the logic of human interaction, INSPITE of its complexity results in some similar relations to physical examples, much of human experience is hard to quantify so the likelyhood is that there are many other examples of power laws as a result of human interaction.

You need to prove that it is universally applicable. You have not done so.

Janus

25th April 2006, 00:03

Well, the Big Bang theory is just that; it is only a theory. There have been some problems within it and there is much to still learn and improve on but this is what science is all about. Was Darwin's theory of evolution immediately and totally accepted? No. Sure, the Big Bang could be disproved sometime in the future.

But plasma cosmology seems to have problems with it as well. Of course, some of the main problems with the Big bang theory are dark matter, dark energy, and the point of singularity. Until new evidence comes to the foreground, this debate will last for a time yet.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

25th April 2006, 00:20

I do not have enough information on the science behind the issue. After a bit of research, I would have to say the Big Bang did occur, although perhaps not in the way modern scientists describe. Most of the scientific community seems to be behind the Big Bang, and they are much more qualified than I.

Cult of Reason

25th April 2006, 08:42

I do not know if this is relvant, but, in the New Scientist I read that, while in four dimensions a black hole and the Big Bang are quite similar, in five dimensions their mathematics are exactly the same, or some similar.

Faceless

25th April 2006, 17:06

Presumably you, Noxion, are a non-Marxist and consider yourself qualified to talk about these things. I tried to keep dialectical language out of this debate and reduced what I consider dialectical phenomenon to terms used by the scientific community so that there would be no perceived obfuscatory anything. The little connections I made between sand piles, earthquakes and the stock market was a personal aside and you can choose to ignore it although they stand as perfectly valid statistical connections. But you charge me with

This is a side-effect of our increasing knowledge of the universe around us, and it is unavoidable. It's not as if you dialecticians make it any easier with your obfuscatory Hegelian nonsense.

I have not been accused by anyone else of speaking in nonesense. Maybe my physics is faulty and you could put me to shame, I am after all only a first year student and I don't see as it would be too hard.

Before making your attack on my malicious attempts to make revolutionary politics inaccessible by my use of Hegelian nonesense with a sentence which gives free reign to anyone who uses sufficiently complicated mathematics.

This is a side-effect of our increasing knowledge of the universe around us, and it is unavoidable.

Most people have no knowledge of the modern "developments" in science and have to make a leap of faith concerning the big bang, dark matter, multiple dimensions. So when you state:

What annoys me about some Marxists is their tendency to tread in areas where they are not qualified, such as cosmology.
Not only do you deny my status as an aspiring physicist, you also deny me the right to elucidate the problems facing modern science to people with no background in the subject. Science must be popularised, if people are to regard the scientific community as anything other than high priests of knowledge who know the seasons. Scientists must be held to account, they are a potentially parasitic growth on society who consume large quantities of materials in their research.

Anyway, as for the discussion in hand.

QUOTE
1) It tries to suggest that the universe is homogenous

And how does this contradict Marxism, a socio-political theory that has fuck-all to do with cosmology?

Of course, that is not merely what marxism is, is it? Whatever new-fangeled marxism you have created, marxism is actually the theory of dialectical materialism and the practice of communism. Of course, I can not reduce marxism to a philosophy of science as its emergence is inseperable from communist practice. However, that does not reduce the philosophical method of marxism to "socio-political theory". I presume you are referring to the labour theory of value and historical materialism as the theoretical basis of a scientific socialism. However, you know as well as I that Marx and Engels studied physical phenomenon in the same spirit. I don't want to get dragged into a discussion on dialectics but suffice it to say that for better or for worse marxism has entangled itself with science from the very beginning.

So the universe isn't dialectical.
Great deduction mate. The universe is seemingly undialectical at this point of creation if the BB theory is correct and possibly more dialectical if the plasma theory is correct.

Not all things that have a beginning require a creator to begin, that is a leap of logic on your part. Big Bang theory says that time started at the actual event in the same way that all directions are South at the North Pole. There is no "time before time" because spacetime is curved in on itself.
The very concept of an event before time is what i am questioning as absurdity. To justify this theory we have had to step all over the idea that energy and momentum are conserved, to suggest that something can come from nothing, and all this because of a correlation between red shift and distance to a distant object, with no observational evidence that this means the universe has been expanding (IF it is expanding at all!) since it was a point. In any other scientific study to simply throw these laws out would be laughable, and to extrapolate from one mathematical formula to the very beginning of time too! I am not even contemplating what a beginning for time means, all I am saying is that it is absurd.

As for a North/South pole, they are observed phenomenon (unlike a "big bang") which have a logical geometry. Anyway, how do you know that "space time is curved in on itself" presumably you havent actually gone back to the beginning of time and found yourself accidentally at the end of time. :lol: Presumably because you arent a "religious nut" :rolleyes: who believes in a personal creator. your creator is strictly impersonal :angry:

QUOTE
In such an environment the masses could be easily swayed by the experts on genetics or chemistry or physics.

No, they couldn't. Because if somebody wanted to get in a position of power, they'd become a politician, not a scientist. And also scientists themselves are a contentious lot, forever arguing amongst themselves.

They are human beings, I am making no other assumption other than that people are subject to peer pressure. You would be surprised at the number of lecturers I have who's knowledge of the universe is sketchy, who openly admit they do not know the "mathematically complicated" details, but who accept on faith and even base their research (which deepens and extends the scope of this "theory") on these ideas. Besides which, it is the powers that be who hold the purse strings of course. We would be foolish to believe that the likes of the american space project, and capitalist universities are free from influence by private interests with much cash.

Try "Different". I don't see how one can propose that the laws of physics remain unchanged when the entire universe is the size of a basketball and unimaginably hot.
No doubt very hot = breaking of the law of conservation of momentum.

Now let me deal with your suggestion that the universe is homogeneous. You cite the fact that the Hubble Deep Field images show what at first sight appears to be homogeneity. Of course, you are correct, this two-dimensional representation of the universe does appear to be homogeneous. But hang on one moment, did I say that an inhomogenous universe in three dimensions will appear inhomogeneous in its 2D representation as seen on our sky? No. There is absolutely no contradiction between these two states. That the universe can be homgeneous as seen in 2D representation but infact exists in 3D as an inhomogeneous universe. This is described by the power law whereby, as one of the previous links described, and I quoted:

density being inversely proportional to the distance of separation of objects

In a 3D homogeneous universe one would expect to see no relationship between distance and density, as density should be constant.

You need to prove that it is universally applicable. You have not done so.
Of course I have not done so. For instance, the scale of a revolt of a downtrodden class, although it may be apparently "big" or "small" is very hard to quantify. I could also point to the size of cities though which also present a power law in their magnitudes. Secondly it is not universally applicable. In none of these instances is their a bias towards scale and power laws seem to occur where the numerous elements of the system are in constant interaction (eg "mood" of the market, frictions of rocks in the earth for earthquakes, forces between rice grains on a pile and interactions of the various bodies in the sky through gravity, magnetism etc.) There are events which take place with no interaction between the elements and which have a bias towards a more favourable outcome. I haven't much more time to describe this statistical phenomenon but I will elaborate when I have more time as to the causes.

Besides which, you point out that in your "Big Bang" the law of conservation of energy is broken, suggesting that this most respected of laws can not be proven to be "universally applicable". Maybe you would have seemed less dogmatic if you had insisted instead that I must put it beyond "reasonable doubt". I certainly doubt I could achieve that with the likes of you.

redstar2000

25th April 2006, 19:19

Originally posted by Faceless
However, you know as well as I that Marx and Engels studied physical phenomenon in the same spirit.

They "discussed it" in the same way we discuss science in this forum...they were not biologists, physicists, chemists, etc.

Their musings on the physical universe were those of "informed laymen"...not trained specialists.

Something that applies to us...except for ComradeRed. :)

And in a few years, maybe you. ;)

Plasma cosmology is interesting in its own right...not because someone can "grab it" and "use it" to prop up "dialectics".

Interestingly enough, the "cutting edge" cosmology of the 19th century was "the heat death of the universe" (the general principle of entropy had just been discovered). It may come as a surprise, but this did not bother Marx or Engels at all. They accepted it without any qualms whatsoever.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Faceless

25th April 2006, 21:05

They "discussed it" in the same way we discuss science in this forum...they were not biologists, physicists, chemists, etc.

I haven't had any formal teaching in economics or history and I often am made to feel intimidated by the use of technical expressions and esoteric language used by some other economists. It seems almost a safety net for most of my economist peers to rely on "big words" when their arguement is proving totally flawed. Inspite of this I continue to assert my right to question the professionals. I have also been fobbed of in the physical sciences by my lecturers who have on several occasions (mostly in astrophysics) referred to the "complicated" mathematics which essentially renders my "musings" obsolete, but which we must take as "accepted" in the same way as economic truths are accepted by the community of pro-economists. However, I feel I have an advantage over economists because of my perspective and ability to draw out the common features of seemingly unrelated topics. If you do not wish to discuss dialectical relationships as a candidate for one of these aspects then I have tried to make the statistical connection of the power law and the way in which matter distributed through the universe is similar to much more familiar phenomenon.

Anyway, I am a lay economist and a lay historian and a lay artist and a lay scientist. What has physical science to do with marxism though, well in the "dialectics of nature" to take the most obvious example, the founders of "marxism" certainly felt that their method applied equally there as it did in the study of the forces which govern human history. I simply can't reply to Noxion's attack with dragging the debate therefore into one of dialectics. :ph34r:

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

25th April 2006, 22:33

Presumably you, Noxion, are a non-Marxist and consider yourself qualified to talk about these things.

If in knowledge I'm found to be wanting, I won't mind at all if you point that out. I think Marx had some very interesting things to say about human society, development and maybe even it's potential future. But Marx was only human, and humans make mistakes, sometimes (often?) big ones, and I consider his taking of dialectics seriously to be a very big mistake on his part. I have yet to see Marxism be outright disproved by normal logic and reason, but like Darwin's original theory of evolution or Newton's Laws of Gravitation, Marxism could be so much better. But I personally take objection when somebody takes elements of Marxism, a theory involving human societies and the material conditions that directly affect them, and attempt to bodge it on some other field unrelated to historical materialism. The effect is hideous, like a murderer wearing his victim's face as a mask.

I have not been accused by anyone else of speaking in nonesense. Maybe my physics is faulty and you could put me to shame, I am after all only a first year student and I don't see as it would be too hard.

If you are not a dialectician then I apologise for jumping on your back like that. Otherwise, it's pretty obvious that dialectical materialism is not essential to a correct (Or as near as can possiblybe) understanding of the universe.

Not only do you deny my status as an aspiring physicist, you also deny me the right to elucidate the problems facing modern science to people with no background in the subject. Science must be popularised, if people are to regard the scientific community as anything other than high priests of knowledge who know the seasons. Scientists must be held to account, they are a potentially parasitic growth on society who consume large quantities of materials in their research.

No, non, nein, nyet. Scientists should be held accountable for their actions just like any other member of society, but the validity of scientific theory should be decided by qualified scientists not popular opinion.
"Parasitic growth"? That's the sort of language I would expect to hear from a fascist! Besides, currently there is no room for any more "parasites" because all that space is already taken by the world's ridiculously lucrative arms industry which profits off the deaths of others. Hardly comparable to science.

Of course, that is not merely what marxism is, is it? Whatever new-fangeled marxism you have created, marxism is actually the theory of dialectical materialism and the practice of communism.

I would contend that the most important tenet of Marxism would be Historical Materialism, not DM. Communism has never been in practice so obviously something is lacking there.

Of course, I can not reduce marxism to a philosophy of science as its emergence is inseperable from communist practice. However, that does not reduce the philosophical method of marxism to "socio-political theory". I presume you are referring to the labour theory of value and historical materialism as the theoretical basis of a scientific socialism. However, you know as well as I that Marx and Engels studied physical phenomenon in the same spirit. I don't want to get dragged into a discussion on dialectics but suffice it to say that for better or for worse marxism has entangled itself with science from the very beginning.

In that case, I consider it a grevious mistake on Marxism's part.

The very concept of an event before time is what i am questioning as absurdity. To justify this theory we have had to step all over the idea that energy and momentum are conserved, to suggest that something can come from nothing, and all this because of a correlation between red shift and distance to a distant object, with no observational evidence that this means the universe has been expanding (IF it is expanding at all!) since it was a point. In any other scientific study to simply throw these laws out would be laughable, and to extrapolate from one mathematical formula to the very beginning of time too! I am not even contemplating what a beginning for time means, all I am saying is that it is absurd.

Why is it absurd? And do you have a better model?

As for a North/South pole, they are observed phenomenon (unlike a "big bang") which have a logical geometry. Anyway, how do you know that "space time is curved in on itself" presumably you havent actually gone back to the beginning of time and found yourself accidentally at the end of time. :lol: Presumably because you arent a "religious nut" :rolleyes: who believes in a personal creator. your creator is strictly impersonal :angry:

Impersonal or not, you're still making the unfounded assumption that things need creators in order to begin. It doesn't rain becuase the Rain God wishes it so - it rains because of natural processes that have nothing to do woth intelligence.

They are human beings, I am making no other assumption other than that people are subject to peer pressure. You would be surprised at the number of lecturers I have who's knowledge of the universe is sketchy, who openly admit they do not know the "mathematically complicated" details, but who accept on faith and even base their research (which deepens and extends the scope of this "theory") on these ideas. Besides which, it is the powers that be who hold the purse strings of course. We would be foolish to believe that the likes of the american space project, and capitalist universities are free from influence by private interests with much cash.

Of course, proof that cosmologists are being intimidated into formulating "creationist" theories would be nice.

Now let me deal with your suggestion that the universe is homogeneous. You cite the fact that the Hubble Deep Field images show what at first sight appears to be homogeneity. Of course, you are correct, this two-dimensional representation of the universe does appear to be homogeneous. But hang on one moment, did I say that an inhomogenous universe in three dimensions will appear inhomogeneous in its 2D representation as seen on our sky? No. There is absolutely no contradiction between these two states. That the universe can be homgeneous as seen in 2D representation but infact exists in 3D as an inhomogeneous universe. This is described by the power law whereby, as one of the previous links described, and I quoted:

Funny, I was under the impression the galaxies in the Hubble Deep field were three dimensional not two-dimensional :unsure:

Besides which, you point out that in your "Big Bang" the law of conservation of energy is broken, suggesting that this most respected of laws can not be proven to be "universally applicable".

How so? the Melon-sized universe has the exact same amount of energy in it a our current universe, just compressed in a smaller space.

ComradeRed

25th April 2006, 23:53

Originally posted by Redstar2000+--> (Redstar2000)
They "discussed it" in the same way we discuss science in this forum...they were not biologists, physicists, chemists, etc.

Their musings on the physical universe were those of "informed laymen"...not trained specialists.

Something that applies to us...except for ComradeRed. :)[/b] Well, when Engels tried to be a specialist (see his comically out of date Dialectics of Nature -- the "theoretical physics", more accurately the String theory, of his time) there was either nonsensical explanations through dialectics or worse :(

The correspondence between Marx and Engels on math/science is rather interesting, since they took what was something rather remote and gave it a familiar form.

Or at least a form relating it to what they were doing. Check out what Marx said (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1866/letters/66_08_07.htm) about Darwin in the social sciences :o

But everyone (myself included) begins as an informed layperson, then (if interested enough) pursues it further. Finally, then end up as incoherent as me :lol:

Originally posted by [email protected]

I haven't had any formal teaching in economics or history and I often am made to feel intimidated by the use of technical expressions and esoteric language used by some other economists. It seems almost a safety net for most of my economist peers to rely on "big words" when their arguement is proving totally flawed. Inspite of this I continue to assert my right to question the professionals. I have also been fobbed of in the physical sciences by my lecturers who have on several occasions (mostly in astrophysics) referred to the "complicated" mathematics which essentially renders my "musings" obsolete, but which we must take as "accepted" in the same way as economic truths are accepted by the community of pro-economists. However, I feel I have an advantage over economists because of my perspective and ability to draw out the common features of seemingly unrelated topics. If you do not wish to discuss dialectical relationships as a candidate for one of these aspects then I have tried to make the statistical connection of the power law and the way in which matter distributed through the universe is similar to much more familiar phenomenon.Well, economists are failed scientists. They feel the only way that they can beat those "rotten scientists" is by "out-jargon-ing" them.

Ironically, they stole their entire mathematically framework from the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian formalism of Newtonian mechanics :lol: ever notice how strange they treat time? In that Newtonian sense of it!

But math is a powerful tool and, from experience, language for theoretical physics. It's kinda hard to say "Fold a piece of paper counter-anti-symmetrically clockwise, then at the point next to the other point is like a black hole" and make sense. It's easier to say "Use De-Rham cohomology to demonstrate the properties of a black hole".

It's also easier to "do" though not necessarily understand for those who aren't mathematically inclined; consequently most of its meaning is lost :(

But you would be right if you are talking about String theorists and the number of dimensions. They say, if you give man the concept of "God", then anything is justifiable through "Him"..."God told me to kill him", etc. Likewise, if you give a String theorist a virtually infinite number of dimensions, he can justify anything.

One problem I have is that people who are interested in Astrophysics often take the universe as a toy that can be played with while the observer is outside of the universe, and notice that a lot of theoretical physics "doesn't work".

The problem is quite simple: theoretical physics is based on relativity (which emphasizes the observer and the system) and quantum mechanics (ditto holds for QM). When you neglect the observer, then all you've got is a strange system described by a nonexistent observer to have nonexistent properties. Yet the system is still being observed :o

Anyway, I am a lay economist and a lay historian and a lay artist and a lay scientist. What has physical science to do with marxism though, well in the "dialectics of nature" to take the most obvious example, the founders of "marxism" certainly felt that their method applied equally there as it did in the study of the forces which govern human history. I simply can't reply to Noxion's attack with dragging the debate therefore into one of dialectics. Then start something about it in the Philosophy forums :)

NoXion

How so? the Melon-sized universe has the exact same amount of energy in it a our current universe, just compressed in a smaller space. It depends how you model the universe; for example, if you accept the "cosmological constant", then that would be impossible.

Neglecting the cc, and incorporating the ideas of quantum mechanics, it would be feasible. For the exact same reason, come to think of it, that it would be impossible for someone to "walk through walls" because we know where the particles of the walls are with absolute certainty: because the momentum would be anything, and that means that it has potentially infinite "virtual" energy (via uncertainty principle).

The melon sized universe would be victime to this same concept :) There is no breach of any conservation laws.

Faceless

26th April 2006, 16:21

Fuck, I just wrote a whole post about hubble deep field and dialectics and then pressed Ctrl + w which closed my screen.

In brief galaxies ARE 3D but the sky appears 2D. So whilst the distribution in 3D space might be inhomogenous, it can APPEAR homogenous in 2D space principly because we can not show the depth they are placed at.

As for dialectics, yes I do believe in dialectics and I object to some of your criticisms NoXion but I'd be flogging a dead rabbit and I might start a post in philosophy if I feel like giving it a flogging

bloody_capitalist_sham

27th April 2006, 21:54

I think that the big bang did happen, but it was nothing unusual and other big bangs are being made constantly by the meeting of different universes.

This article explians it in simple terminology. Its a total head fuck thinking about this sort of stuff hehe.

Scientists are slowly acknowledging that the big bang was not the start of everything - it was just a process by which new universes are born all the time. The hyperspace and multidimensional time was there. The hyperspace consists of at least eleven dimensions. There are at least seven parallel universes in our vicinity. And in the whole hyperspace there is infinite number of universes. The way a new universe is born is as follows: two parallel universes sometimes collide, At that point the universes start imploding and form one little point containing all the matter and energy. That point experiences what we know as the big bang. A new universe with specific dimensions is created which starts expanding like a bubble again.

The process is similar to a pot of boiling water. Bubbles are formed, they expand, collide and new bubbles are formed. Similarly in the endless hyperspace, universes are bubbles that are born with big bangs. The universes expand and if two of these bubble universes collide (happening all the time), the universes go through a multidimensional collapse of matter, time and energy in an imploding process. The point source created with hyper-dimensional implosion process goes through a process of super explosion or expansion - the big bang. A new Universe is born till it expands enough to collide with another Universe.

The collision of Universes are not that simple. The hyperspace has at least eleven dimensions and possibly many more. And therefore some parallel universes exist less that one-millimeter away from us. The universes overlap. So you may be questioning what do you mean by Universes collide?

These parallel universes exist in much higher dimensional hyperspace. It is not physical collision in three dimensions that make the Universes collide. That probably happens once in a million cases. But the collision of Universes happens when two parallel universes with different dimensions try to occupy the same spatial structure in the hyperspace. Parallel universes have different dimensions. When two parallel universes have a common dimension other than the multidimensional time and their natural expansion over these common dimension make both universes demand the same spatial in the hyperspace, a collision occurs. The hyper-implosion sets in a process of collapsing everything in the two parallel universes into a point and start of new big –bang.

This is process of birth and death of universes. There are parallel universes out there expanding like that of ours. And at some point of time, our Universe will collide with another. A new Universe will be born again through the process of hyper-implosion followed by a big bang.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/6992.asp

Crazy shit, but one the bible bashers wont like. hehe

RebelDog

28th April 2006, 22:32

Classic physics is under great strain with this emerging theory; http://www.answers.com/topic/modified-newt...amics?method=22 (http://www.answers.com/topic/modified-newtonian-dynamics?method=22)
Readers of the New Scientist will be familiar with modified newtonian dynamics and those who are not convinced by BB will rejoyce in the fact that this theory bins 'dark matter' and challenges our conception of gravity instead of 'dreaming up' invisible matter to explain why stars do not shoot off from the edges of galaxies we view.
Our current understanding of gravity, I am almost certain, is flawed.

ComradeRed

29th April 2006, 05:47

The problem is that this modified "Post-Newtonian Formalism" (known as PPN) is internally inconsistent dynamically.

It faces the same problem that "old skool" Newtonian gravity faced: as you fall, you would feel your own weight and your own force. That means if you fall from two stories (say 9.5 meters), you would experience several newtons of force.

But if you do fall, you don't feel it until you hit the ground. The fall doesn't kill you, the ground does.

Gravity is nothing more than the allocation of spacetime; let Newton be our "dead dog", we have something better :P

RebelDog

29th April 2006, 07:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 05:02 AM
The problem is that this modified "Post-Newtonian Formalism" (known as PPN) is internally inconsistent dynamically.

It faces the same problem that "old skool" Newtonian gravity faced: as you fall, you would feel your own weight and your own force. That means if you fall from two stories (say 9.5 meters), you would experience several newtons of force.

But if you do fall, you don't feel it until you hit the ground. The fall doesn't kill you, the ground does.

Gravity is nothing more than the allocation of spacetime; let Newton be our "dead dog", we have something better :P
Where do you think the problem lies? Dark matter, Gravity or something else? Where, fundamentaly have humans been 'barking up the wrong tree'.

ComradeRed

29th April 2006, 16:14

Well, dark matter comes up if we work with a static universe. The reason why one would want to is because the solutions to Einstein's field equations drastically simplify to (4/3 \frac{ \dot{x}_{\alpha} }{c} \frac{ \dot{x}_{\beta}{c} = metric tensor, or the "gravitational field"). This implies an "average density of a vacuum", i.e. dark matter.

However, this is doubly emphasized as people are too lazy to figure out that the equation simplifies! So, people use an even further approximation called "linearized gravity"; this implies an absolute space and time that doesn't change. Such a property would imply dark matter to counter balance the gravitational fields of "baryonic matter" ("non-dark" matter).

The metric tensor tells us the distance from a given point to the next point in space, and the time it would take light to travel there. In effect, gravity determines the allocation of space and time.

There is no problem with gravity, except with how difficult the math is (Einstein himself lamented that it was extraordinarily difficult). And this doesn't have anything to do with the explanation of gravity itself ;)

RebelDog

29th April 2006, 23:56

There is clearly a problem with quantum gravity, with no theory forthcoming.
Comrade Red; What do you say to the proposition that the 4 forces are just manifestations of one single force? I assume you give no value to any more than the conventional 4 dimensions also? What do you think of 5 dimension GR? What I really want to know is; what do you think of extra dimensions that dilute the strength of gravity and give reason to its mysterious weakness?

Cult of Reason

30th April 2006, 01:01

Is the mystery of gravity that it is so weak, or is the mystery that there is so little mass. ;) I ask this because I like the idea of Planck/Natural units.

RebelDog

30th April 2006, 01:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:16 AM
Is the mystery of gravity that it is so weak, or is the mystery that there is so little mass. ;) I ask this because I like the idea of Planck/Natural units.
Well gravity is the weakest of the 4 forces by a great deal. The earth has great mass but a simple raising of ones hand defies this strength. I don't know what you mean by 'little mass' , little mass of what? I do also have a great interest in planck units but I'm not sure where all that stands now that the relationship between an electron and a proton (mu constant) has now been found not to be constant and indeed appears to have changed over time. I don't know if planck units require mu to be constant. Perhaps mu is for another thread as it is a massive discovery.

ComradeRed

30th April 2006, 02:03

Originally posted by TheDissenter+--> (TheDissenter)There is clearly a problem with quantum gravity, with no theory forthcoming.
Comrade Red; What do you say to the proposition that the 4 forces are just manifestations of one single force? I assume you give no value to any more than the conventional 4 dimensions also? What do you think of 5 dimension GR? What I really want to know is; what do you think of extra dimensions that dilute the strength of gravity and give reason to its mysterious weakness?[/b] I have said this once and I shall say it a million times String theory is bull shit!

I know you haven't gotten to it yet (or if you were aiming to at all), but you don't need to unify everything to quantize gravity.

I was reading several hypotheses from the 1960s and '70s that when we know "everything" about "Strong" force, that will come about if we explain it and the problem of getting rid of renormalization theory at once (just as String theorists are trying to unify all the theories at once). Nice try, but it didn't work then and it won't work now.

In order to explain all of these forces as a "manifestation" of the same force, you would require such absurd quantities of energy to describe gravity that you should notice it from an electron(!). The problem is the naive belief in the fictitious particle dubbed the "graviton".

I assume that 1) Quantum mechanics is right and 2) General Relativity is right. But if I had to make a concession in one or the other, I'd choose to give up Quantum Mechanics for General Relativity.

Thus I "assume" that what I experience (the four dimensions of spacetime, or more accurately the 3+1 dimensions) is correct. It's a burden that I am willing to take. Until you or anyone else can give empirical data supporting anymore dimensions, it's just math not science.

But it's always "next year" that there will be experimental data that proves the nonsense of "extra dimensions" or "super symmetry" will be available. This has been happening for 15 years! :o And no data.

The reason why gravity is "so weak" is because of its purpose: it "is" the distribution of space and time. THere is no magic to it other than that.

But I want to emphasize there is no proof for any number of dimensions other than 4 to exist empirically, and we've waited a long time for it. For the love of Einstein, don't be a String theorist! You know how Rosa and Redstar and I feel about dialecticians? I have the same feelings reserved for String theorists...those punks :P

What I really want to emphasize is String Theory is WRONG!!! :angry:

Originally posted by [email protected]
Is the mystery of gravity that it is so weak, or is the mystery that there is so little mass. ;) I ask this because I like the idea of Planck/Natural units. The mystery is that we know nothing about it. The big benefit of the planck scale (planck units what have you) is that we can simply omit the constants.

Newton's universal gravitational law becomes Mm/(r^2). The other laws simplify correspondingly.

The key is that there is a discrete spectrum, and every measurement has to be a whole integer multiple of the planck scale for the appropriate units. This leads to uncertainty when there is a value that is not an integer ;)

TheDissenter
I do also have a great interest in planck units but I'm not sure where all that stands now that the relationship between an electron and a proton (mu constant) has now been found not to be constant and indeed appears to have changed over time. I don't know if planck units require mu to be constant. Perhaps mu is for another thread as it is a massive discovery. Well, mu isn't supposed to be constant because it depends on the medium (I assume you mean mu for the permeability within electromagnetism?). Then there's that whole relativity thing.

I think the biggest advantage of the Planck scale is the abolition of constants, it helps us lazy people :P

Cult of Reason

30th April 2006, 02:56

The key is that there is a discrete spectrum, and every measurement has to be a whole integer multiple of the planck scale for the appropriate units. This leads to uncertainty when there is a value that is not an integer wink.gif

So there is an indivisible minimum possible energy, and all photons have an energy that is an integer multiple of it? The possibility has always intrigued me, but I did not know it was true! Would it be reasonable then to think of the minimum possible energy as being an indivisible particle?

ComradeRed

30th April 2006, 03:32

So there is an indivisible minimum possible energy, and all photons have an energy that is an integer multiple of it? The possibility has always intrigued me, but I did not know it was true! Would it be reasonable then to think of the minimum possible energy as being an indivisible particle? That is an interesting dilemma, and exception! The planck mass is the most mass that can exist within a planck volume. The planck density creates a black hole, you see.

Which leads to an interesting dilemma: is energy the exception, or some alternative, to the uncertainty principle?

Which leads me to a paper I am writing at this moment (which you bastards are distracting me from :P), gravity is facing the same problem! Except that in gravity we are concerned with curvature, which is (2/r^2). But if you use r= a planck length, the "Planck curvature" is extremely large! :o What the hell is quantum theory supposed to do?!

Historically, it has been really really small, but not now. Now it's god damned huge! That's one of the problems.

But what we do with energy is say "Over a volume of x planck volume, there are y planck energy units". Where x is presumably a really large number and y is a really small number. It's hard to do that with gravity because at each point in space and time there is a different defined curvature!

A black hole has a planck curvature of 1 if its mass is also 1 planck mass as well as its volume being 1 planck volume, but as volume approaches infinity the curvature approaches zero :(

So as we can see curvature and density are directly related, that's Einstein's field equation in a nutshell :) things only get more complicated from there.

However, there is no reason to accept or even propose that there is some atom of particles composed of a planck mass or a planck energy. String theory has led to some nonsensical results if we accept it, and that's proof enough that it's wrong. And energy, by the by, begins really really large for the Planck scale oddly enough :huh:

RebelDog

30th April 2006, 18:34

Here is the mu story; (which is the mass of a proton in relation to that of an electron and always regarded as the proton being 1836)
All hail string theory!

Universal constant, constant no more?

* 29 April 2006
* From New Scientist Print Edition.
* Amarendra Swarup

Printable version Email to a friend RSS Feed

YET another fundamental constant of nature may have changed over the last 12 billion years. If confirmed, the result could force physicists to radically rethink their theories and provide support for string theory, which predicts extra spatial dimensions.

This is not the first time such constants have been suspected of changing over the universe's lifetime. Most famously, there has been controversy over the "fine-structure constant" alpha, which governs how light and electrons interact, with some claiming and others denying that it is changing (New Scientist, 3 July 2004, p 6).

Now up for grabs is the ratio of the proton's mass to that of the electron, known as mu, which is among the most mysterious of the constants. No one knows why the proton's mass should be 1836 times that of the electron. Mu governs the strong nuclear force, which holds protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei and is also responsible for binding the quarks that make up protons, neutrons and most other fundamental particles.
“Up for grabs is the ratio of the proton's mass to that of the electron, among the most mysterious of constants”

Researchers at the Free University in Amsterdam, the Netherlands and the European Southern Observatory in Chile have discovered evidence of variation in mu by comparing the spectrum of molecular hydrogen gas in the laboratory with what it was in quasars that emitted their light 12 billion light years ago. The spectrum depends on the relative masses of protons and electrons in the molecule. "We concluded that the proton-electron mass ratio may have decreased by 0.002 per cent in the past 12 billion years," says team member Wim Ubachs (Physical Review Letters, vol 96, p 151101).

"This claimed result is very interesting if true," says Thibault Damour at the Institute of Advanced Scientific Studies (IHES) in Bures-sur-Yvette in France, who co-authored a 1996 paper that found no change in alpha.

Any change in mu would support theories that posit extra dimensions, because as these dimensions evolve, in a manner similar to our expanding 3D universe, the "constants" would in fact vary over both space and time. Or, it could be that we still do not fully understand the proton, which may itself be evolving, leading to the observed variation.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this does not exist yet," says Victor Flambaum of the University of New South Wales, Australia. "This result must be confirmed by other groups before a revolution in cosmology is needed."
From issue 2549 of New Scientist magazine, 29 April 2006, page 10

ComradeRed

30th April 2006, 19:49

Originally posted by TheDissenter
Here is the mu story; (which is the mass of a proton in relation to that of an electron and always regarded as the proton being 1836)
All hail string theory! Wait, that's all the mu nonsense is about? Geeze, Feynman diagrams could easily explain this (photons being exchanged in the electromagnetic field and repulsion, which is essentially taking energy and giving it based on a quantized relation)!

Maybe this energy exchanged could explain the "phenomena"? Afterall, E=mc^2, as infinitesmal as the E may be, that still affects m!

Out of curiousity, why are you interested in String theory anyways?

Any change in mu would support theories that posit extra dimensions, because as these dimensions evolve, in a manner similar to our expanding 3D universe, the "constants" would in fact vary over both space and time. Gravitation (http://www.sky-watch.com/books/misner1.html) anyone? <_<

RebelDog

30th April 2006, 20:31

Why are you interested in GR?

I have no great knowledge of string theory. I am a fan of Brian Greene and other string theorists. I have a passion for the theory but I like anyone on this planet cannot propose it as 'the truth'. I like the ideas of string theory and was first drawn to it when I read that it predicts gravity. I think the postulation that space/time is warped by a string and that the vibration manifests itself as a particle makes sense.

I said "all hail string theory" to wind you up!

Deep down I would like to see one unified theory and I believe 'super-string theory' (as it should actually be called) is the leading attempt to do this. I think that by saying that if given a choice between quantum mechanics and GR you would choose GR is wrong. Nobody is compeling you to make such a choice and doing so is wrong. Neither of these brilliant discoveries fully describe the universe that we live in. There cannot be 2 theories of our universe. There must be a theory that can describe the universe on the most massive of scales and the tiniest. In the last stages of the 19th cenrury some scientists proclaimed that physics needed only a few loose ends tidied up and that would be things complete. Now we can all see the folly in that.

ComradeRed

30th April 2006, 23:27

Originally posted by TheDissenter
Why are you interested in GR? GR itself is uninteresting (not necessarily boring, though!), the concepts at least. What interests me is QGR (Quantum General Relativity), how the deuce do you quantize geometry?

Or was Einstein wrong? Gravity isn't the geometry of spacetime and it really is a force? Then how do you reconcile the predictions and empirical confirmations of the theory?

But if you take the fourier transform of the (relativized) Newtonian potential, the left handed coefecients are the same as the right handed coeffecients; that means gravity as a force is not like other forces :o That means canonical quantization procedures fail to work!

That's where it just starts to get interesting.

Will we have to change Quantum Theory to take into account an observer, like Newtonian mechanics (the Galilean transformation) reconciled with Maxwell's equations to deliver special relativity, or does it matter whether we take into account the observer?

Should we start with GR then go to quantum field theory? Or the other way around? Or something else?

What are the canonical variables for QGR? There are a million questions to ask, and these are only a few; a problem with this many questions is fascinating!

I have no great knowledge of string theory. I am a fan of Brian Greene and other string theorists. I have a passion for the theory but I like anyone on this planet cannot propose it as 'the truth'. I like the ideas of string theory and was first drawn to it when I read that it predicts gravity. I think the postulation that space/time is warped by a string and that the vibration manifests itself as a particle makes sense. I must admit that when I was beginning to study theoretical physics, String theory had an appeal to me too. However, it rather disregards quantum phenonena by incorporating more dimensions.

The appeal of supersymmetry is rather strong; but the problem is that there is no empirical support for it.

A lot of String theory is based on stuff we wish were true rather than stuff that is empirically valid :( and that's the source of the appeal of it!

One problem, rather technical, with using a "graviton" is that it is not capable of renormalization; in other words, the gravitational force will always be infinite. Worse, it works only in the weak field (outside of a distance of approximately 2Gm/c^2 for the mass of the body m, gravitational constant G, and the speed of light c).

Further, Einstein pointed out that the force one feels from "gravity" is because of the reference frame; it is a "bastard" of a force (a farce of force). The way to go is not to introduce a particle for a force dubbed gravity but introduce pseudo-particles for spacetime.

That is the playground of gravity, that is gravity!

Deep down I would like to see one unified theory and I believe 'super-string theory' (as it should actually be called) is the leading attempt to do this. But you don't need a "Unified" field theory prior to quantizing gravity (or during the process of quantizing gravity). Maxwell didn't need to unify every force to write his equations. Electro-weak force was unified without unifying every other force into it.

We don't need to unify everything into a single force for quantizing gravity either.

I think that by saying that if given a choice between quantum mechanics and GR you would choose GR is wrong. Nobody is compeling you to make such a choice and doing so is wrong. No, I'd choose GR to be right. I'm more willing to give up QM because it has some rather wacky interpretations that leads to nonsense.

But there is a choice between: a) Einstein was right, gravity is the geometry of spacetime; or b) Einstein was wrong, gravity is a force that can be described by a particle.

This boils down to: where do we start: 1) GR or 2) QM? We didn't start with QM to quantize electrodynamics, why would we start there for "geometrodynamics" (gravity)? :huh:

Then, as I mentioned earlier, there is a third camp that says (paraphrased, of course): fuck this, let's start from scratch! This has been the more radical approach via twistors, black hole thermodynamics, dynamical triangulizations, and a large number of other paths.

I am an old skool physicist, I think that the first option is the correct one.

Neither of these brilliant discoveries fully describe the universe that we live in. There cannot be 2 theories of our universe. There must be a theory that can describe the universe on the most massive of scales and the tiniest. In the last stages of the 19th cenrury some scientists proclaimed that physics needed only a few loose ends tidied up and that would be things complete. Now we can all see the folly in that. Well, they said in the latter part of the 19th century "Next year, it will all be unified". They've been saying that for over 120 years now, and we discovered 2 new forces in that time.

I think it is safe to say that we won't find "the answer" any time soon. But like the latter half of the 19th century, we have two theories very much like electricity and magnetism: they are both related though in seemingly unrelated ways.

That's the problem: how do we change the relation such that it becomes obvious? Do we have to unify every field? History says no, and I agree; when there were unifications between two fields it didn't require every other field be unified too.

It is important to unify the fields of QM and GR, though this need not be a UFT (or even a GUT!).

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

1st May 2006, 00:08

But there is a choice between: a) Einstein was right, gravity is the geometry of spacetime; or b) Einstein was wrong, gravity is a force that can be described by a particle.

Why can't it be both? Why not have gravitons as the products of certain space-time geometries?

RebelDog

1st May 2006, 00:15

Certainly the fabric of space time is interesting. GR was such a breakthrough and I am thankful that I live in a time where I can picture the simple warping of space by mass in my mind as I write this. It will be interesting to find out what Gravity Probe b has found. I think we all suspect it will give futher weight to GR and confirm that the prediction that the earth slightly drags space/time as it spins. Very elegant.

I assume 'Quantum General Relativity' is trying to find a elemental, discrete manifestation for space/time. This I believe is also predicted by superstring theory.

Physics does seem to have got a little lost these days. Our technology has allowed us to probe deeper and further, but it seems to have thrown up more questions than answers. But at least we know these questions exist to be asked.

ComradeRed

1st May 2006, 00:44

Originally posted by NoXion+--> (NoXion)Why can't it be both? Why not have gravitons as the products of certain space-time geometries?[/b] Abhay Ashtekar, one of the founding figures of Loop Quantum Gravity, certainly thinks so. But the problem is that by doing this, you introduce the "left-handedness" and "right-handedness" in the quantized field which can't exist if Einstein was right.

It requires us to use something called the Weyl tensor which is nonlocal (meaning it has problems preserving causal relations) as opposed to the Ricci tensor which is local (preserves causality). The problem that occurs is that torsion both exists and doesn't exist :o

Another problem is that the gravitons would have energy (that is, mass) which would cause more curvature and the creation of more gravitons, ad infinitum until the universe collapses in on itself :(

TheDissenter
Certainly the fabric of space time is interesting. GR was such a breakthrough and I am thankful that I live in a time where I can picture the simple warping of space by mass in my mind as I write this. It will be interesting to find out what Gravity Probe b has found. I think we all suspect it will give futher weight to GR and confirm that the prediction that the earth slightly drags space/time as it spins. Very elegant. I actually spoke to Pete Mason, one of the experts on gravity probe B, on the matter. He had an interestingly cynical idea: if something went wrong, they will say there was a flaw in the experiment and thus Einstein is right; if the experiment didn't go wrong, they'll say Einstein was right.

It's a bit of a paradox ;)

I assume 'Quantum General Relativity' is trying to find a elemental, discrete manifestation for space/time. This I believe is also predicted by superstring theory. Well, no one really knows how to define quantum gravity in the sense that Quantum Electrodynamics is defined as the interaction of charged particles via photons, etc.

The route working on discrete spacetime and gravity, then quantizing it, is "Canonical Quantum Gravity" (dubbed canonical because it uses the Hamiltonian, not because it is the "most prominent" or "most used" theory) or other routes like noncommutative geometry, or Quantum regge Calculus, or other sorts (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-1998-13/) of quantum geometry.

String theory went the other way. The difference is background dependency (which String theory takes) or background independency (which the other two camps take).

In other words, it disagrees with GR or it agrees with it (respectively). This leads me to my statement that I'd rather take GR over QM any day; which is why I so vehemently dislike String theory :angry: