Probability of BB being correct

  • Thread starter sd01g
  • Start date
  • #26
244
0
trying for record

Hey, before they padlock this thread, let's mention Michio Kaku's book 'Parallel Worlds' which on p.89 (using Guth's idea of INFLATION) states:

But inflation suddenly expanded this tiny patch of uniform matter by a factor of 10 to the 50th power (not a misprint), much faster than the speed of light, so the visible universe today is remarkably uniform.

There is no doubt this is the most extraordinary piece of imaginary evidence ever postulated to make a supposedly scientific theory fit observed data. Unless someone can do better than this, the BBT's chance of being true are nearly ZERO.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
DrChinese
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,361
1,151
sd01g said:
Hey, before they padlock this thread, let's mention Michio Kaku's book 'Parallel Worlds' which on p.89 (using Guth's idea of INFLATION) states:

But inflation suddenly expanded this tiny patch of uniform matter by a factor of 10 to the 50th power (not a misprint), much faster than the speed of light, so the visible universe today is remarkably uniform.

There is no doubt this is the most extraordinary piece of imaginary evidence ever postulated to make a supposedly scientific theory fit observed data. Unless someone can do better than this, the BBT's chance of being true are nearly ZERO.
Not so fast. There are objects today which are receding from us at much faster than the speed of light - and always have been. In fact, the radius of our 13.7 billion year old universe is NOT 13.7 billion LY as you might exoect. It is closer to 78 billion LY. This evidence is derived by observation of high red shifts in very ancient galaxies - looking back 13 billion years!
 
  • #28
244
0
How big a radius?

DrChinese said:
Not so fast. There are objects today which are receding from us at much faster than the speed of light - and always have been. In fact, the radius of our 13.7 billion year old universe is NOT 13.7 billion LY as you might exoect. It is closer to 78 billion LY. This evidence is derived by observation of high red shifts in very ancient galaxies - looking back 13 billion years!

As a science advisor, I am sure you know that the only things that go faster than the speed of light are IMAGINARY particles that reside inside the human mind. Since the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old, its real radius would be far less than 13.7 billion light years since real quarks travel far slower than the speed of light. Are you sure the universe even has a radius? IF it does, then it is less than 13.7 billion LY.

The problem with the BB theory is the Observed Universe is too large for all the slow quarks to get to all the places where we observe them in only 13.7 billion years. An even bigger problem is that there is NO real way for this to happen.

Since we know that BB theory must be true-it just feels right-it is OK to make up IMAGINARY constructs that SEEM true to adjust the theory to match observed data. INFLATION that can make the Universe as large as anyone now observes or can ever observe no matter how large, is the perfect solution. Unfortunately it is not empirical--But who cares?
 
  • #29
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,367
2
I am sure you know that the only things that go faster than the speed of light are IMAGINARY particles that reside inside the human mind. Since the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old, its real radius would be far less than 13.7 billion light years
Actually, Dr Chinese's statement is pretty spot on, wrt modern cosmology.

What you have said is one of the most common misunderstandings - the recent Scientific American article (by Lineweaver?) addressed this (and several others).

You might like to spend some time reading Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial, and playing with the cosmology calculator he has there. Here is one of Lineweaver's papers on these confusions.
 
  • #30
244
0
Nereid said:
.

What you have said is one of the most common misunderstandings - the recent Scientific American article (by Lineweaver?) addressed this (and several others).

You might like to spend some time reading Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial, and playing with the cosmology calculator he has there. Here is one of Lineweaver's papers on these confusions.
Wow! Who would have thought it would be so easy to exceed the speed of light. All you have to do is define the Hubble sphere to be the distance beyond which recession velocity exceeds the speed of light and then make sure it is in an inertial frame that has no observer, then SR is toast.

The guys on Star Trek were right, warp factor 9 not a problem anymore.
 
  • #31
Garth
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,574
105
The point you are missing sd01g is the difference between an object's speed within space-time and the cosmological velocity of recession due to the expansion of space itself, which carries an embedded object along with it, within space-time.

The caveat is, though, that we have to define what we actually mean by that cosmological recession; i.e. how do we measure it?
Ans. The measurement we are talking about is that of cosmological (Hubble) red shift, but that itself then has to be interpreted according to a convention of definition of length and time over cosmological distances.

If particle (rest) masses are constant then rulers are 'fixed' and clocks are 'regular' and cosmological red shift is interpreted as a Doppler effect of velocity of recession. But if particle rest masses are not constant then the red shift is open to other interpretation as in Fred Hoyle's paper "On the Origin of the microwave background" Ap.J. 196 pg661-670 1975.

If this seems maverick in the extreme then note this comment about Fred Hoyle, one of my heroes:
What is extraordinary about Fred Hoyle's science is that his impact derives equally from instances when he was right and others when he was wrong! Generally within academia, an erroneous paper is quietly forgotten: it receives the silent treatment. Hoyle's contribution to the advancement of science derived much of its impetus from the way in which his colleagues recoiled at his notions. His opponents deployed enormous resources to wrong-foot him. In the twentieth century, no other figure in astronomy had to withstand for such a long period the criticisms of both the invisible college of astronomers worldwide and the parochial college of Cambridge practitioners. Hoyle’s scientific life was truly unparalleled, and unforgettable.
From the Prologue of Simon Mitton's book “Fred Hoyle - A life in science.”
 
Last edited:
  • #32
244
0
Garth said:
The point you are missing sd01g is the difference between an object's speed within space-time and the cosmological velocity of recession due to the expansion of space itself, which carries an embedded object along with it, within space-time.

.”
THE EXPANSION OF SPACE ITSELF--a powerful concept, except I do not know anyone who has a clue what it means. No one can observe space, only the movement of real things composed of matter/energy that seem to move in what is commonly referred to as space.

Assuming the BB actually happened, it would need space for any movement to take place. Space with less than three reference points (which existed prior to the BB) should be viewed as 'potential space' as opposed to 'volume space' which has reference points that can be used to define a given volume. The BB would then merely convert 'potential' space to 'volume' space as reference points were created. This type of space can not be crated, expanded or warped. As 'things' move about in this type of space, volumes can increase as potential space decreases but total space remains the same.

Attempts to use spacetime to explain the THE EXPANSION OF SPACE ITSELF does not help much. Combining space-which is only a concept that can not be observed-with time-which in physics is that which is measured and observed using a functioning clock, one ends up with a set of math equations which really do not constitute observed , empirical reality.

Utilizing the concept of 'fabric of the cosmos' does not help much either because no one really knows what it is.

Attempting to negate aspects of SR by using red/blue shift in EM waves is very poor methodology. What we empirically verify should not be preempted by what we speculate, no matter how elegant the math.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Garth
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,574
105
Read my caveat!
The standard model of gravitation and cosmology is based on the understanding and insight of GR. That that theory has been well tested is beyond dispute, other interpretations of the same measurements of matter/photons within space-time have to take those experimental results into consideration and be equally as concordant.

Garth
 
  • #34
244
0
Garth said:
Read my caveat!
The standard model of gravitation and cosmology is based on the understanding and insight of GR. Garth
In Kip Thornes's book 'Black Holes and Time Warp' p.514 it states:

'Why the quantum laws? Because they are the Ultimate Rulers of our Universe. For example, the laws of quantum gravity have ultimate control over gravitation and the structure of space and time. Einstein's classical, general relativistic laws of gravity are mere approximations to quantum gravity laws-approximations with excellent accuracy when one is far from all singularities and looks at spacetime on scales far larger than 10 to the -35 power centimeter, but approximations nevertheless (Chapter 13).'

GR which does not even recognize gravity as a force (Michio Kaku-'Parallel worlds' p.389) is becoming obsolete. When we finally understand the the Universe, it will not be ' because of GR' but in spite of it.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,367
2
GR which does not even recognize gravity as a force (Michio Kaku-'Parallel worlds' p.389) is becoming obsolete. When we finally understand the the Universe, it will not be ' because of GR' but in spite of it.
That 'quantum laws' and GR are mutually inconsistent has been known for decades; that physicists have been working to 'unify' them for decades is also not a secret.

Do you have some special insight (or reason) for thinking that the unificiation will involve abandoning the approach which underlies GR?
 
  • #36
244
0
Nereid said:
.

Do you have some special insight (or reason) for thinking that the unificiation will involve abandoning the approach which underlies GR?
I do not have any special insight, but the reason I think GR is becoming obsolete (in the same sense that some of Newton's concepts are are obsolete but useful) is that the concepts underlying the equations do not represent anything real-they are just concepts. Concepts do not produce any known force that can affect anything that is real. Can anyone say what is 'a ripple in spacetime' actually is other than a concept? Combining space and time might produce useful equations but give no understanding of what is really happening. The concept of a graviton particle, which originates within the nucleus of an atom to produce a force, seems more compelling.

When large group of hydrogen molecules in space attract each other to produce stars, it seems more of a quantum activity than molecules warping spacetime. Molecules in deep space attracting other molecules by exchanging graviton particles just seems right.

I wish I could be more enlightening, but it seems that current knowledge levels are too low to produce anything more than just postulates.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,367
2
the reason I think GR is becoming obsolete [...] is that the concepts underlying the equations do not represent anything real-they are just concepts
We will quickly get into philosophy, I'm sure, but maybe one more round?

What is 'real'? What is 'just concepts'? How can you tell the difference (other than your intuitive sense of what 'feels right')?
Concepts do not produce any known force that can affect anything that is real
By implication then, a 'force' is 'real'? If so, why?
The concept of a graviton particle, which originates within the nucleus of an atom to produce a force, seems more compelling
But it's just a 'concept', right? (And, as an aside, where did the idea that a graviton 'originates within the nucleus of an atom' come from? In the framework you are using (or making up) for these 'gravitons', does it follow that no other form of mass-energy (e.g. electrons, neutrinos, photons) can 'originate' gravitons?
When large group of hydrogen molecules in space attract each other to produce stars, it seems more of a quantum activity than molecules warping spacetime.
OK, you said these are just your feelings, so you may have already answered this ... do you have any basis (other than your feelings) for this statement?
 
  • #38
92
0
I agree with sd01g. Space-time is an abstract mathematical construct. It's not physical.

Time dilation & time travel is also impossible. Time is an abstract invariant by definition. Time doesn't really slow down. It's the clocks (including our internal clock - the heart) which slow down due to energy conservation at work. Nature is all about logic.

Space and time are abstract (non-physical). It's only matter and energy that exists in nature. The contradiction is that the relative is abstract and depends on the absolute. In nature there are only particles (which are absolute) and their interactions. Think about it...

PS: A correct theory is also the one which is supported mostly by direct evidence and can be tested and falsified. Einstein's space-time cannot be tested nor falsified and therefore cannot be a physical property of this universe.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,367
2
PS: A correct theory is also the one which is supported mostly by direct evidence and can be tested and falsified. Einstein's space-time cannot be tested nor falsified and therefore cannot be a physical property of this universe.
Leaving aside, for the moment, that the Popperian view of science has been thoroughly falsified (:rolleyes:), I'm wondering if you could indulge me just a little Starship ... GR has passed all the good tests it's been subject to to date, and has passed with flying colours. You may interpret the maths in GR to include 'space-time'; or you may interpret the math purely as a 'black box' (input data, crunch the equations and numbers, out come predictions). To some extent, the 'how' reflects your personal, philosophical view of the world, reality, etc (including whether 'space-time' is 'a physical property' or not).

In what sense can you reject one particular interpretation of math (and accept another)? In particular, how can you do this scientifically?
 
  • #40
92
0
Nereid said:
Leaving aside, for the moment, that the Popperian view of science has been thoroughly falsified (:rolleyes:), I'm wondering if you could indulge me just a little Starship ... GR has passed all the good tests it's been subject to to date, and has passed with flying colours. You may interpret the maths in GR to include 'space-time'; or you may interpret the math purely as a 'black box' (input data, crunch the equations and numbers, out come predictions). To some extent, the 'how' reflects your personal, philosophical view of the world, reality, etc (including whether 'space-time' is 'a physical property' or not).

In what sense can you reject one particular interpretation of math (and accept another)? In particular, how can you do this scientifically?
GR did not pass all tests. Also these tests were indirect tests. Physics is not math. Math does not explain physical phenomena.

Science rests on it's philosophical foundations. The philosophy of space-time goes back Gottfried Leibniz, not to Popper. Leibniz rejected the physical existence of space (absolute or otherwise), existing seperately from absolute matter and energy.

Saying that something moves in spacetime is a contradiction in my opinion because time is an abstract invariant by definition. Time is the abstract inverse of change (motion is change in position). The conclusion is that there is no time dimension. It's abstract (in our mind).

I think physics should be about particles, their properties and their interactions.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,367
2
GR did not pass all tests.
Oh, would you be so kind as to tell us all which it did not? (I'm sure http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html [Broken] would be most interested)
Also these tests were indirect tests.
What does this mean?
Science rests on it's philosophical foundations. The philosophy of space-time goes back Gottfried Leibniz, not to Popper.
My bad; I was referring to the fact that Popper's 'falsification' had, itself, been 'falsified' :smile: IOW, science doesn't work like Popper said it does.
Leibniz rejected the physical existence of space (absolute or otherwise), existing seperately from absolute matter and energy. Saying that something moves in spacetime is a contradiction in my opinion because time is an abstract invariant by definition. Time is the abstract inverse of change (motion is change in position). The conclusion is that there is no time dimension. It's abstract (in our mind).
That's nice, and we could have an interesting philosophical discussion on it; but in what way is it science?
I think physics should be about particles, their properties and their interactions.
And I think physics should be about the ;lknserto;ih of dead DM pets, as they uiwhregdf through the 098qy34tj!

We are rapidly approaching the end of useful life to this thread; perhaps you'd like to start a thread, in Philosophy (of Science and Maths), to discuss this further?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
92
0
Nereid said:
Oh, would you be so kind as to tell us all which it did not? (I'm sure Clifford Will would be most interested)
General relativity did not past all tests. Dark matter has never been detected or produced experimentally. Another problem with GR is infinite space-time curvature and the rapid expansion of space (from a singularity). Could you please tell us where all this energy is coming from?

Sean M. Carroll gives a very good lesson about the so-called http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0410/0410270.pdf [Broken]

My bad; I was referring to the fact that Popper's 'falsification' had, itself, been 'falsified' IOW, science doesn't work like Popper said it does.
Popper was not falsified. A theory which cannot be tested or falsified is not science. It's pseudoscience.

That's nice, and we could have an interesting philosophical discussion on it; but in what way is it science?
You're right. It isn't. Spacetime and time travel is not scientific.

Everything is conserved in this universe. Energy is always needed to do work, therefore nothing can happen without a cause. No one has ever wondered about the true nature of causality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on Probability of BB being correct

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
839
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
8K
Top