Regarding complexity: The standard model gets more and more complex with time as it is massaged to fit observation. (One example: Inflation that switches on, then off again in a smoothly coordinated fashion thoughout the universe.) When we hit on an accurate model, it will likely resolve and eliminate these complexities. The universe cannot obey a complex set of rules and yet remain isotropic and homogeneous. Very small imbalances in behavior would cause huge (and very obvious) anisotropies, which we do not observe. The complexities in the standard model arise because we are interpreting the behavior of the universe incorrectly and have to make adjustments (think epicycles) to make the model conform with observations.saltydog said:My goodness. We've come so far from the Middle Ages yet we still seem to have "quantatitively" a similar amount of uncertainty. Will that always be the case? Unfortunately, I think so. 10,000 years from now we will have learned so much; the amount of uncertainty in Astronomy, I think, will remain and be just of a different sort. It is perhaps best that way: an endless regression of complexity perhaps is necessary to give rise to an intellect that considers the question.
Hmm, maybe I've misunderstood ... in that there are four 'fundamental' forces, and a veritable 'zoo' of 'elementary' particles, doesn't the universe 'obey a complex set of rules', at the quantum level, yet quite clearly it remains 'isotropic and homogeneous'? Am I missing something?The universe cannot obey a complex set of rules and yet remain isotropic and homogeneous. Very small imbalances in behavior would cause huge (and very obvious) anisotropies, which we do not observe.
Do you even read and consider anything I post, or do you just lurk about waiting to call me names? Since you are apparently an expert in standard cosmology, please explain why inflation occured, especially the part about how inflation shut off simultaneously in causally-disconnected regions of the universe.Chronos said:Turbo-1, I have nothing left to say. You are a crackpot.
The observed variety of particles may arise from a very simple set of rules. The non-detection of supersymmetric particles is a plus.Nereid said:Hmm, maybe I've misunderstood ... in that there are four 'fundamental' forces, and a veritable 'zoo' of 'elementary' particles, doesn't the universe 'obey a complex set of rules', at the quantum level, yet quite clearly it remains 'isotropic and homogeneous'? Am I missing something?
That is a very fortunate anisotropy, indeed.Nereid said:There is, indeed, a 'very small imbalance' - the CP violation - and it does result in a 'huge (and very obvious) anisotrophy' ... very little matter, cf antimatter
I would like to take the "long view" on this matter, but as I will likely not survive much beyond the first quarter of the next century, I am a bit impatient. I think we already have some keys to the big puzzles in cosmology. We have to be willing to question our assumptions before they can be applied. Here is a link to a nice series of lectures in streaming video that have been given at Princeton. Roger Penrose gave a series of three lectures in October 2003 on "Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe" If you haven't watched them, you'll be interested in his "take" on modern physics.Nereid said:Yet this 'anisotrophy' was only observed in the last century; who's to say that other 'anisotropies' - perhaps more subtle, but no less 'huge' - will become glaringly obvious in the next century?
Yes, there are variations of steady state cosmology in which matter is continually created in "little bangs". There are also "bounce" models in which the universe forms, expands, collapses, and re-bangs. I have a worse problem with this model than with the conventional BB, because how do you get the previous universe to collapse to a perfect singularity so you can get the next BB? Lee Smolin has also put forward a model in which the universe is fine-tuned to produce black holes, which can spawn new universes beyond our view.NewScientist said:hey guys,
Cosmology isn't really my thing but wasn't there once an idea that there were may little bangs?! (I do not like how that sounds!)