What Defines the Universe: Bostrom's Philosophy vs. Hardy's Causaloids?

[kant]

Defining what is/can be included in a description of what constitutes the universe is a frequent topic of interest. Most of us generally agree it consists of 'all that is possible', but have difficulty achieving a consensus on what is vs is not 'possible'. While I tend to steer clear of purely philosophical approaches, I am attracted to efforts to marry logic with mathematical structure. So [after much adieu], I thought some similarly afflicted souls might find this interesting:

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/spacetime.pdf.

Nick Bostrom has written some very engaging and well grounded philosophy of science stuff over the past decade. He has achieved some degree of repectability in more traditional circles having coauthored a couple of papers on Arxiv with some familiar names:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512204
Title: How unlikely is a doomsday catastrophe?
Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT), Nick Bostrom (Oxford)

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9906042
Title: Cosmological Constant and the Final Anthropic Hypothesis
Authors: Milan M. Cirkovic, Nick Bostrom

I'm also fascinated by Lucien Hardy's work on causaloids, so take that into consideration.

Are we talking about universe( totality of all that exist) or our physical space-time universe? I think with enough time, the latter can be completely understood, but the former is forever hidden from us. I don t think human can really understand reality, or the totality of all that exist, or even know what it is. All that people know is what can be infered from mathematical models.

 

[Chronos]

Agreed, but, it makes for interesting discussion. Confining it to observables would be a good place to start. Landscape arguments are fairy dragons, IMO.

 

[kant]

Agreed, but, it makes for interesting discussion. Confining it to observables would be a good place to start. .

I perfer popper` s simply advice. something is scientific iff it process at least the property of being falsifiable.

 

[RussT]

I perfer popper` s simply advice. something is scientific iff it process at least the property of being falsifiable.

But that is Smolin's whole point. He is saying that there can be a way to falsify what we can 'possibly' see as evidence.

As with amny things in science over the years, once things are definined in different ways, what we thought was evidence for one thing, turned out to be something else altogether.

What if, the only way to unify gravity, is what Smolin is working on?

 

[Chronos]

Other options remain on the table, RussT.

 

[RussT]

Yes there are many options that are being considered. Just as Einstein had many options when he was developing SR and GR.

However, Einstein did not have the advantage of knowing that SMBH's, Voids, Or "Exotic Matter" even existed!

 

[RussT]

Other options remain on the table, RussT.

You are the one who started this thread, and now you are just going to wave it off just when things are getting defined well enough to actually discuss something relative?

Since marcus has stopped responding, I will make two observations.

1. Either he truly didn't fully appreciate the difference between Ashtekar's model of the bounce and Smolin's model (which may well be the case based on his statement about the two never citing each other), and once I pointed out the real difference, he felt that going down the Smolin road was undesirable. (which is the correct road to Unification) OR

2. He was PM'ed about me, and what going down that road would/could mean.

There is 'much' more evidence than you think going down that road!

 

[marcus]

... just when things are getting defined well enough to actually discuss something...

Since marcus has stopped responding, I will make two observations.

1. Either he truly didn't fully appreciate the difference between Ashtekar's model of the bounce and Smolin's model (which may well be the case based on his statement about the two never citing each other), and once I pointed out the real difference, he felt that going down the Smolin road was undesirable...

2. He was PM'ed about me, and what going down that road would/could mean.
...

Hello RussT. I wasn't PM'ed about anybody.
As far as I know you are not any sort of fanatic, and I have a high tolerance for that anyway.

I didn't stop responding so much as I simply didnt see anything i needed to reply to.

Sure, I recognize big gap between what Ashtekar and his postdocs are doing now and what you would NEED to have going in studies of the bounce if you wanted to flesh out some of Smolin's ideas.

But that is how science goes. gradual progress. little steps.

3 years ago Ashtekar wasnt doing nearly what he is doing now. look at the direction things are moving.

=================

our job, as spectators to a wonderful construction-site, is not to OUTGUESS what is going to happen but to carefully notice each girder that goes up.

Smolin has done nothing really (in this department) except to formulate a testable hypothesis that the parameters of the standard model are at a local max for BH abundance (or specifically for astrophysical BH abundance, BHs from collapsed stars). That is the kind of thing that you can test, either it is true or it isn't.

Maybe that does not sound like a lot, but it is a lot.

Maybe this hypothesis will be falsified, maybe it wont. As spectators we watch and see.

================

and then people are studying the bounce. they have a long way to go. and the QG models that eliminate the singularity have to be TESTED by observations of the CMB and other things that we can see. Predictions have to be derived that we can check.

Only then can we fit the two pieces together.

And there is this business of a bounce allowing parameters to change slightly
that will come, I suspect, if the rest works out. So I'm not especially concerned about that.

 

[Chronos]

I don't think Smolin has a road in play on the theoretical QG map, RussT. He seems more a journalist, more interested in discussing the strengths and weaknesses of those that do. The CNS conjecture, for example, has been around for over a decade and Smolin has largely ignored it. I think it is largely a didactic device, not a serious model.

 

[RussT]

As far as I know you are not any sort of fanatic, and I have a high tolerance for that anyway.

No, I am not a fanatic, and I understand all of this intimately, and have critically well formed reasoning for the concepts.

I didn't stop responding so much as I simply didnt see anything i needed to reply to.

Maybe you missed this in post #30 then...I thought for sure this would ellicit some kind of response, especially since it was in question form.

From Post #30
"In Smolin's examination, wouldn't there be an Event Horizon on the 'other side' of the singularity (In the other universe) for 'their' baryonic matter to be going into? And then, wouldn't that baryonic matter, going through the singularity, be 'stripped' of all its baryonic qualities? Wouldn't that be a likely way to get down to a=1/137, or whatever might be the most appropriate 'base' whatever?"

And I even qualified this before I posted it with...

In both of these quotes, and what I have been saying, and others have basically agreed on, is the possibility of a=1/137 (or whatever is found to be appropriate) coming through to OUR universe, and Lee Smolin has termed that definition as a 'bounce', correct?

And we have also determined that Smolin is looking for the possibility of being able to find something deterministic in/coming out of, the 'pit' of a Black Hole.

SO, the real question is...which of these scenarios has the best chance, or makes the most sense, of actually showing something that would be deterministic?

Smolin's, where we are looking at our known black hole mechanics, with an event horizon on the other end for Matter to go into, and then try to 'determine' what would be coming out to be able to say 'that' (a=1/137 or whatever) is observable, and where (The Voids for instance) it would be coming to us, (I do have some pretty compeling evidence for this, if you would like to see it), OR

Ashtekar's where there is a Naked Singularity, with NO event horizon on the other end? With basically no way to extrapolate what could be on the other side (what the String/"M" guys have been working on for decades!), and with an 'inside solution' that does not match any of our known black hole mechanics?

 

[marcus]

From Post #30
"In Smolin's examination, wouldn't there be an Event Horizon on the 'other side' of the singularity (In the other universe) for 'their' baryonic matter to be going into?

You tell me. What have you read of Smolin's?

And then, wouldn't that baryonic matter, going through the singularity, be 'stripped' of all its baryonic qualities? Wouldn't that be a likely way to get down to a=1/137, or whatever might be the most appropriate 'base' whatever?"

And I even qualified this before I posted it with...

I couldn't make sense of any of the rest.

===========================

I haven't read Smolin's book about this called "The Life of the Cosmos".
I'm not likely to because it is 10 years old, not online, and AFAIK only contributes one of the two pieces of the puzzle.

If you want to discuss, normally you have to find a book that both you and someone else have read----or (what works even better) an online journal article in the ARXIV.ORG preprint collection.

If you want to discuss with me then since I haven't read the "LoC" book but I have read or at least scanned everything Smolin has written about this that is on arxiv, and also a bunch of articles by Bojowald and Ashtekar et al., then we should find an article we want to talk about.

Just go to the search engine and put Smolin or Bojowald or Ashtekar into the author box
http://arxiv.org/find

=====================

I'll offer some advice, in case you are really interested. Start with Ashtekar's recent papers.
Smolin has not been working on this, practically speaking, for 10 years. He provided one half of the puzzle----the optimality conjecture.
He is a great guy but he has been working on other things besides the QG bounce.

The other guys, like Ashtekar, are not interested in whether Smolin's conjecture is right or wrong----that is totally out of the picture for them (as it should be). They are interested in the NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE BOUNCE and I suspect they would follow wherever the mathematical models and the computer simulations lead even if it happened to show them that something entirely different sometimes happened and a bounce wasn't always the inevitable result of gravitational collapse.

The exciting part of the story, now, and for me at least, is what Ashtekar and Bojowald are gradually finding out. Their only aim is to explore what could really be going on at the "singularities" in classical GR-----the situations where GR can't handle it and breaks down. The technical meaning of "singularity" refers to the failure of some manmade theory. If you have a theory with singularites then you try to fix the theory or replace it with an improved version that won't give singularities.

We don't think that Nature has singularites, it doesn't break down. Ashtekar and Bojowald are probing the classical GR singularities and fixing them, case by case. they have a bunch of post docs and grad students helping. Some of those postdocs are going to be famous in their turn. It is a great enterprise and very exciting to watch.

This is the other side of the puzzle---the nuts and bolts of the bounce. If you want to find out about it then I would suggest you don't read Smolin papers you look at the easy parts (introduction and summary where they talk words instead of equations) of
http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+ashtekar/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+bojowald/0/1/0/all/0/1
and nothing before June 2006.

By restricting to papers posted June 2006 or later, and by checking the titles for relevance, you can narrow it down to a few.

So far, they don't have much on Black Holes! Most of the work is about the "Big" bounce----that is, about fixing the cosmological singularity.
They are working very carefully, case by case, on this----treating various possibilities, gradually removing any simplifying assumptions, seeing which qualitative results are "robust" that is which ones carry over from case to case regardless of assumptions.

Some of what they do seems to carry over and apply to Black Hole collapses. But it seems to make a difference what you assume about symmetry. Is the collapse nice and symmetric? Or is it somehow lopsided? What happens might depend. The results are too preliminary so it is useless to speculate.
So I would advise forgetting about BH for the time being and try to understand the work on the "Big" bounce.

I want to emphasize something i said in an earlier post:

...people are studying the bounce. they have a long way to go. and the QG models that eliminate the singularity have to be TESTED by observations of the CMB and other things that we can see. Predictions have to be derived that we can check.

Only then can we fit the two pieces together.

And there is this business of a bounce allowing parameters to change slightly
that will come, I suspect, if the rest works out. So I'm not especially concerned about that.

 

[RussT]

Smolin's CNS picture is a MULTIverse picture because it allows the fundamental constants of nature (like 1/137) to change at the pit of a black hole where a new tract of spacetime sprouts off.

Marcus, you said this way back in post #3.

So, when I asked these...["In Smolin's examination, wouldn't there be an Event Horizon on the 'other side' of the singularity (In the other universe) for 'their' baryonic matter to be going into?]

I was trying to get you to see that Smolin's 'bounce' was coming forward to our universe to look for determinants. And hopefully to see that Ashtekar's was different because all he is doing is a 'lookback' shrinking the universe down to a point/singualrity, and then the bounce happens from there

You tell me. What have you read of Smolin's?

So, yes, there is an event horizon on the other end, of the singularity, in the 'other universe'. That is just a 'time reversal' of a Black Hole out of another universe to ours. That's the whole point...there is a way for 'something' (a=1/137 or whatever) to get here!

I read this paper by Ashtekar...#6 here http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+ashtekar/0/1/0/all/0/1

arXiv:physics/0605078 [ps, pdf, other] :
Title: The Issue of the Beginning in Quantum Gravity

The amazing thing was that after going through a long and involved explantion of the 'bounce' from the Cosmic Singularity, he realized that if the gravitational collapse was halted at or very nearly at the singularity, that that would cause a great difficulty for black holes even forming at all in our universe (which is probably where the ECO/MECO Gravistar stuff came from!).

And then, after all that he says at the very end...

"One might have at first thought that, since this is a tiny Portion of space-time, whatever quantum effects there maybe, they would have negligible Effect on global properties of space-time and hence almost no bearing on the issue of The Beginning. However, detailed LQC calculations have shown that this intuition may be too naive. The ‘tiny portion’ may actually be a bridge to another large universe."

Now, let me explain what I believe to be the real problem here.

When you 'shrink the universe down to a point' (GR gravitational collapse Lookback) there is a problem. Either you don't come to an event horizon where the progenitor of 'out flowing stuff' would have been, with the world lines, then going inward to the singularity, OR if you are saying that the 'event horizon' is shrinking down with the universe as you are making it smaller and smaller, it is a "SPHERICAL" event horizon. coming from 'all around the singularity', with NO cone shape spiraling down to r=0, which doesn't even exist.

So, if our universe has SMBH's that the Nuker Team says are very intimately tied to the speed of the stars in the outer parts of the spiral discs, doesn't it make sense that the 'other universe' could have SMBH's and that they could be bridges to our universe? And that SMBH's could be the place where everything that goes into them gets broken down to its "Base Element" IE; "Exotic Matter"?

And there is this business of a bounce allowing parameters to change slightly
that will come, I suspect, if the rest works out. So I'm not especially concerned about that.

And as far as this goes, I would suspect that this would be VERY stable.

And I'll go one step farther. What if the 'Exotic Matter" is Strings coming through? That would make String/"M" theory Background Independent...exactly what Smolin says is needed and why he quit Strings and went back to LQG, and because of testability reasons.

and here's another piece of the puzzle once it would be "ALLOWED" to be looked at this way!


NARRATOR: Randall tried to calculate how gravity could leak from our membrane Universe into empty space, but she couldn't make it work. Then she heard the theory that there might be another membrane in the eleventh dimension. Now she had a really strange thought. What if gravity wasn't leaking from our Universe but to it? What if it came from that other universe? On that membrane, or brane, gravity would be as strong as the other forces, but by the time it reached us it would only be a faint signal. Now when she reworked her calculations everything fitted exactly. Our Bold.

 

[marcus]

I read this paper by Ashtekar...#6 here http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+ashtekar/0/1/0/all/0/1

arXiv:physics/0605078 [ps, pdf, other] :
Title: The Issue of the Beginning in Quantum Gravity

Good, that was a talk Ashtekar gave at a conference for Philosophers and Historians of Science.

Now I would suggest you look at pages 33 and 34 of this (more substantial) paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607039
Quantum Nature of the Big Bang: Improved dynamics
this was, you could say, the Penn State team's July 2007 "breakthrough"

They found that the bounce occurred EVEN IN A SPATIAL FLAT universe THAT EVEN HAS A POSITIVE COSMO CONSTANT.
They also found a value for the critical density at which the bounce occurs, and this is the same regardless of initial conditions and independent of the value of the cosmo constant

I have to go out for a moment, be back later to discuss this.

 

[RussT]

Marcus, with all due respect, if this cannot be answered, it would appear that 'shrinking the universe down to a point', is not even a valid GR gravitational collapse scenario.

Now, let me explain what I believe to be the real problem here.

When you 'shrink the universe down to a point' (GR gravitational collapse Lookback) there is a problem. Either you don't come to an event horizon where the progenitor of 'out flowing stuff' would have been, with the world lines, then going inward to the singularity, OR if you are saying that the 'event horizon' is shrinking down with the universe as you are making it smaller and smaller, it is a "SPHERICAL" event horizon. coming from 'all around the singularity', with NO cone shape spiraling down to r=0, which doesn't even exist.

 

[RussT]

OR if you are saying that the 'event horizon' is shrinking down with the universe as you are making it smaller and smaller, it is a "SPHERICAL" event horizon, coming from 'all around the singularity', with NO cone shape spiraling down to r=0, which doesn't even exist.

A point of clarification. The "which doesn't even exist" is referring to a "spherical event horizon" NOT 'cone shape spiraling down to r=0'!

Actually this question is pretty simple if you understand GR and gravitational collapse with event horizons in 'our' universe.

Based on what we know of Black Hole mechanics in our universe, is 'shrinking the universe down to a point' a valid lookback (time reversal) of a gravitational collapse?

 

[RussT]

Yep, the answer here is "Nearly" unthinkable...Huh?

Actually it is really simple though...it just means that Cosmic Censorship is true.

Since Smolin's way has a correct Event Horizon covering the singularities, and actually gets rid of them with 1/137/"Exotic Matter" coming 'Through', that would obviously be happening continuously over the last 10's of billions of years, and it still leads directly to an expanding universe, right where we 'see' it expanding...in the Voids between the galaxy clusters. And that simply means that there are SMBH's in the 'other universe' sending us our "SPACE", into each/every Void (and our SMBH's send the universe below ours, their "SPACE").

And that is actually the 'Straight Line Motion' of light at "c" for SR.

 

[jal]

Is this a private discussion?

From present observation, it appears that galaxies are distributed as if on the surfaces of connected soap bubbles.

Based on what we know of Black Hole mechanics in our universe, is 'shrinking the universe down to a point' a valid lookback (time reversal) of a gravitational collapse?

The only valid lookback that can be done is to stops at where the soap bubbles are so small that what we would be looking at is a bag of dust.
Models of a bag of dust cannot be made that evolve/agree with the distribution of galaxies as if on the surfaces of connected soap bubbles.

From the point of view of the observer at the center of the bubble, the walls are receeding and now acceleration as more space is being added between him and the walls.
jal

 

[RussT]

Is this a private discussion?

Not at all.

From present observation, it appears that galaxies are distributed as if on the surfaces of connected soap bubbles.

I am not quite sure what this means?

The only valid lookback that can be done is to stops at where the soap bubbles are so small that what we would be looking at is a bag of dust.
Models of a bag of dust cannot be made that evolve/agree with the distribution of galaxies as if on the surfaces of connected soap bubbles

Not quite. A valid lookback of a gravtitational collapse is shrinking all of the 'outgoing' (spewed outward) stuff, back to its point/area of spewing, which would be the progenitor that spewed it, which is where the Event Horizon is now.

Just think of a star large enough to create a Black Hole.

 

[jal]

Hi RussT!
The big bang model has never worked…. Observations have never supported the big bang model. We just thought that it did.
The search for an answer is happening at all scales.
1. A NEW EXPANSION MECHANISM.
2. SPECIFIC TIME REQUIRED TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OLBERS’ PARADOX
3. ORIGIN MUST HAVE HIGH ENERGY
4. EXPLAIN THE ABUDANCE OF HYDROGEN, HELIUM
5. EXPLAIN NEUTRINOS
6. EXPLAIN DARK MATTER/ENERGY
7. NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND LAW OF TERMODYNAMICS
8. EXPLAIN THE QUANTUM MINIMUM LENGTH STRUCTURE


I'll continue in my blog.
jal

 

[zankaon]

One or many "universes" always seems to imply topology i.e. the study of the continuum. Also the nature of a greater context in regards to multiple "universes" constructs ensues. What is the smallest number of elements of a set in order to have a continuum? 3 elements; for then the inbetweeness concept is possible via matching of elements of sets. Also is there topological invariance? For example, for budding universes in eternal chaotic inflation, there is not topological invariance.

 

[Chronos]

I'm going with chaotic inflation. Seems pretty reasonable.

 

[RussT]

Hi RussT!
The big bang model has never worked…. Observations have never supported the big bang model. We just thought that it did.
The search for an answer is happening at all scales.
1. A NEW EXPANSION MECHANISM.
2. SPECIFIC TIME REQUIRED TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OLBERS’ PARADOX
3. ORIGIN MUST HAVE HIGH ENERGY
4. EXPLAIN THE ABUDANCE OF HYDROGEN, HELIUM
5. EXPLAIN NEUTRINOS
6. EXPLAIN DARK MATTER/ENERGY
7. NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND LAW OF TERMODYNAMICS
8. EXPLAIN THE QUANTUM MINIMUM LENGTH STRUCTURE


I'll continue in my blog.
jal

Think about this...Smolin's deterministic a=1/137, OR "Exotic Matter" coming through Black Holes, and Lisa Randalls "Gravity Leaking to our universe is pretty darned compelling.

NARRATOR: Randall tried to calculate how gravity could leak from our membrane Universe into empty space, but she couldn't make it work. Then she heard the theory that there might be another membrane in the eleventh dimension. Now she had a really strange thought. What if gravity wasn't leaking from our Universe but to it? What if it came from that other universe? On that membrane, or brane, gravity would be as strong as the other forces, but by the time it reached us it would only be a faint signal. Now when she reworked her calculations everything fitted exactly. Our Bold.

And then this answers #1 above.
Since Smolin's way has a correct Event Horizon covering the singularities, and actually gets rid of them with 1/137/"Exotic Matter" coming 'Through', that would obviously be happening continuously over the last 10's of billions of years, and it still leads directly to an expanding universe, right where we 'see' it expanding...in the Voids between the galaxy clusters. And that simply means that there are SMBH's in the 'other universe' sending us our "SPACE", into each/every Void (and our SMBH's send the universe below ours, their "SPACE").

And that is actually the 'Straight Line Motion' of light at "c" for SR. How? see below.

Now, ever since "Exotic Matter" was introduced by mainstream (and that 'extra gravity' is needed to explain Galaxy rotation curves and cluster dynamics), defining it has been very problematic, to say the least.

I don't want to get into a big QM thing right here, because it will distract from the baisc 'structure' issues, so I'll just do it like this for now.

The 'Base Element' that gives the elements their mass could be described as...
Planck length Collisionless Non-Baryonic Dark Matter. And, that DM is virtually "INERT", going right through all baryonic matter, and you and I, with virtually no heat signal. Now, because it is coming from SMBH's, it is being accelerated to "c" and when it comes into the Voids, it is going in absolutely all directions Non-collisionally/inertially and right through ALL baryonic Matter, so there is only one thing that can stop its straight line path...yep...SMBH's (I could go into String/"M" Theory here, but let's keep it simple for now)

This gives a mechanism for photons traveling at "c", the Straight line motion of SR and SMBH's being created gives a mechanism for rotation/spin in our universe, as well as answering the question I posed earlier about SR forbidding Black Holes and GR demanding them.

So, this has been coming into our Voids for 10' of billions of years and makes up ALL of our 'space'

SO, what does that have to mean? That we have been misinterpreting that naked singularities (Remember here, that Inflation was dreamed up to fix problems) emit High Energy Gamma Radiation.

So, if singularities In the SMBH's send universes their DM/Gravity into the Voids, then where would the High Energy gamma Radiation come from?

I believe I have the answer to this, but let's see what other come up with here.

BTW, the structure of the Multi-verses is simply a Fractal Structure, where the universe level above ours is much larger structure of everything, from th bottom up, and the universe level below ours would be smaller. For instance the universe above ours might have a 'base element' or a=1/258, and ours would be a=1/137, and below ours might be a=1/67.

 

[jal]

I found this presentation which should be helpfull.
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~colloq/Talk22/Presentation22.pdf
Dark Energy, or Worse?
Sean Carroll
----------
jal

 

[RussT]

I found this presentation which should be helpfull.
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~colloq/Talk22/Presentation22.pdf
Dark Energy, or Worse?
Sean Carroll
----------
jal

Nope. It doesn't. If Smolin is right, that a deterministic 'base element'/a=1/137 at the 'pit' of Black Holes (in other words, coming through to our universe), can be shown to account correctly for correlations that match theory and observables, then that means that Cosmic Censorship is right and there can be NO naked singularities. SO, the FLRW expansion from a singularity does NOT exist.

Jal, please read everything I have written in this thread.

 

[jal]

RussT

Jal, please read everything I have written in this thread

I re-read the whole thread.

The reason that I directed you to my blog was for you to add minimum length to you ideas. (besides the moderators don't want speculations )
The minimum length should also be added to the bounce black holes and you get what I have in my blog or you get rid of LQG, spin foams etc.
Your idea breaks down or changes to mine (if you add minimum length).
Also, gravity under lookback, cannot bring the soap bubbles to a uniform distribution of a bag of dust (sphere).

We are now discussing what we believe and not what is supported by evidence. Since I expect CERN to find a Quantum minimum length structure
I'll wait until then to change my mind or not.
jal

 

[RussT]

RussT

I re-read the whole thread.

The reason that I directed you to my blog was for you to add minimum length to you ideas. (besides the moderators don't want speculations )
The minimum length should also be added to the bounce black holes and you get what I have in my blog or you get rid of LQG, spin foams etc.
Your idea breaks down or changes to mine (if you add minimum length).
Also, gravity under lookback, cannot bring the soap bubbles to a uniform distribution of a bag of dust (sphere).

We are now discussing what we believe and not what is supported by evidence. Since I expect CERN to find a Quantum minimum length structure
I'll wait until then to change my mind or not.
jal

I was purposely keeping the conversation focused on the difference between Smolin's approach of 'determinism at the pit of a black hole', which is exactly where "REAL" singularities reside VS Ashtekar's approach of a 'bounce' from a Naked Singularity, the ad hoc Inflation "Fix" and the 'assumed' expansion (From a point) and Gamma Radiation, with the ad hoc convoluted Cosmological Constant (DE) to find the missing ~73% of the universe in the L-CDM concordance model.

BUT, of course, as soon as you show how the Naked singularity FLRW solutions are/could be fatally flawed, mainstreamers go running for the hills or their comfort zone, which ever comes first.

So, you were the one who brought up all the above, and listed 8 guidelines, that are mostly fatally flawed.

"Exotic Matter" changed everything, and definitely added NEW physics into the mix, and this IS where the answers lie, BUT where it is coming from, and definining it, while holding on to "Old" physics is impossible.

Einstein did NOT know anything about SMBH's, Voids, or "Exotic Matter", so the Big Bang beginning just exaccerbated a problem that already existed, because 'Science' had already made decisions/Laws without having all the facts!

And this even goes all the way to E=mc^2, which says that "Light/Photons" equal mass. SO, therefore, according to current thinking, light "Makes" gravity, right?

SO, for decades now, and evidently decades to come, we are waiting for mainstream, to unify GR and QFT, by showing us (Or making up a good enough story that even more physicists will buy into) how photons make Higgs Bosons/Gravitons...ooooooooopppppppppppppppppsssssssss

E=mc^2 ONLY applies to baryonic particles, which photons and Neutrinos are NOT!

Anyone, please show how E=mc^2 applies to the Gazillions of Neutrinos that have been going right through the bodies of countless billions of human bodies over millions of years!

The answer to how elements get their mass is actually rather simple once you understand just two simple things.

1. That the 'base element', call it what you like, The Higgs/Graviton/iterion/Neutrino/Exotic Matter...whatever, but it is the "Extra Gravity", which is actually all gravity, and it is traveling at "c" in every direction, and is the Stright-line motion of light in a Vacua. It is ALL of 'space'/darkness and is Inert, NO E=mc^2, UNTIL
2. Millions to Billions worth of sol masses of "Gravity" collide (when the "Branes" Collide), AND that creates a SMBH, which is HOW the High Energy Gamma Radiation is really created, that makes the electrons/protons>>Hydrogen/Helium for each galaxy seperately.

The "Real" shrinking down to find the baryonic matter that is created, is just that...shrink each galaxy down and you find the SMBH being created before there was Hydrogen/Helium, and the millions to billions sol masses of Gravity colliding to create that SMBH actually 'SLOWS" 'space' from its traveling at "c", and the SMBH is actually 'frame dragging/slowing' all the DM traveling at "c" to its spiral shape.

SO, that is how the elements get their mass! When the millions of billions of sol masses of gravity (Non-baryonic Inert Planck length DM) collide to create the SMBH, that causes the High Energy Gamma Radiation (highest TeV) to "UNLOCK" Via E=mc^2 the energy in the DM.

Now, that is what the QM particle physicists need to figure out...would that "Inert" DM be considered Anti-Matter, and how do the electrons protons get created when it collides with that much power.

 

[jal]

RussT!
I'm not going into your path.
I'm staying with experimental evidence and the "math kids"
jal

 

[RussT]

RussT!
I'm not going into your path.
I'm staying with experimental evidence and the "math kids"
jal

No Problem.

Just remember that the 'MATHS' are only valid if they are being applied to the right correlations!

The universe can only be working ONE way, and for over 100 years now "Science" has decided/defined and constrained/forced that to be a "Closed System".

In other words, the current paradigms are VERY VERY Constipated.

 

[pervect]

No Problem.

Just remember that the 'MATHS' are only valid if they are being applied to the right correlations!

The universe can only be working ONE way, and for over 100 years now "Science" has decided/defined and constrained/forced that to be a "Closed System".

In other words, the current paradigms are VERY VERY Constipated.

Huh? The universe is generally regarded as open. See for instance:

http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Cosmology.html

Either a flat or a hyperbolic universe would be classified as "open". There is good reason to believe the universe is nearly flat.

I'm not sure why you think anyone is "forcing" it to be closed, or how this forcing would be done, exactly, or how paradigms can be "constipated".

 

[RussT]

Marcus;

Care to explain to pervect the difference?