Notices
Results 1 to 42 of 42

Thread: Anthropic Principle

  1. #1 Anthropic Principle 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    6
    if the universe needs observers to exist, how did it evolve to create the observers. prob a dumb question


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Anthropic Principle 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by nightskyjam
    if the universe needs observers to exist, how did it evolve to create the observers. prob a dumb question
    Who said that the universe needs observers to exist ?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,036
    Observers are a part of the known universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    The Anthropic principle suggests that the observable universe that we live in, as we know it, requires that it be the way it is so that we (human beings) are able to exist in order to observe it, else other conditions would prevent us from coming into existence in the first place. So, the observable universe did not "know" that it needed to support sentient life forms. Instead, the observable universe evolved the way it did just by chance, inevitable chance. Leonard Susskind talks about this in relation to String Theory and his vast, innumerable possibilities for the formation of the universe in his book, overall the "megaverse", in The Cosmic Landscape.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    Leonard Susskind talks about this in relation to String Theory and his vast, innumerable possibilities for the formation of the universe in his book, overall the "megaverse", in The Cosmic Landscape.
    That book is a travesty. It is chock full of hype and falsehoods, seasoned with rank speculation masquerading as fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    Very true, I was simply referring to the fact that it talks about the Anthropic Principle being discussed in this thread. Although it does give its own spin on why it is "important", the book does a pretty good job about clarifying what is meant by the statements made by the Anthropic Principle, I believe.

    What is meant by it should not be taken as the ultimate scientific truth, but Susskind seems to find some importance in the principle and goes to great lengths to describe and discuss the principle, which could be useful for someone who doesn't understand what the Anthropic Principle is 'saying'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    Very true, I was simply referring to the fact that it talks about the Anthropic Principle being discussed in this thread. Although it does give its own spin on why it is "important", the book does a pretty good job about clarifying what is meant by the statements made by the Anthropic Principle, I believe.

    What is meant by it should not be taken as the ultimate scientific truth, but Susskind seems to find some importance in the principle and goes to great lengths to describe and discuss the principle, which could be useful for someone who doesn't understand what the Anthropic Principle is 'saying'.
    The anthropic principle, particularly as portrayed in Susskind's book is a giant cop-out and nothing more.

    It goes roughly like this:

    -- String theory was originally billed as a theory that would, on the basis of mathematical consistency, identify a single unique theory, with no arbitrary constants, that would explain all of the fundamental principles of physics
    -- Despite an inability to completely define any string theory, advocates now believe that there are on the order of 10^500 CONSISTENT THEORIES
    -- Despite an inability to demonstrate that any of the 10^500 string theories that accurately describes observed physics, they believe that the theories are so beautiful that they must ALL describe reality, somewhere
    -- Despite the inability to provide any consistent description of any structure that can accommodate all of these at least 10^500 "somewheres", and the impossibility of applying probability theory (the "measure problem"), Susskind applies probability theory anyway to propose his "landscape" in which these physical laws all apply somewhere
    -- He then makes a blind leap of faith which he describes as an unavoidable consequence of logic to conclude that we exist in one of infinitely many universes that are particularly hospitable to our form of life on the basis of probability theory -- which is somehow magically applicable in the absence of a probability space. This last leap is the "Anthropic Principle" -- we see what we see because if it were otherwise we could not live here.

    All of this conveniently ignores the fact that our own little universe is already so big and expanding so fast, and accelerating, so that the more distant parts are and forever will remain causally disconnected from us -- and hence are pretty much irrelevant. Therefore any other "pocket universes" in the "landscape" are even more distant and more irrelevant.

    In short, in the unlikely event that Susskind's theory has even a grain of truth, we will never know and never care. The theory is untestable even in principle, and hence is not science. It isn't even decent philosophy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    There are certain aspects of Quantum Mechanics, depending on interpretation, that require an observation ( and so an observer ) to be made, which the 'collapses' the wave function and leads to a physical reality. The life and death of Shroedinger's poor little kitty in the box depends on this aspect and interpretation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    There are certain aspects of Quantum Mechanics, depending on interpretation, that require an observation ( and so an observer ) to be made, which the 'collapses' the wave function and leads to a physical reality. The life and death of Shroedinger's poor little kitty in the box depends on this aspect and interpretation.
    Yes, but this does not require a living, much less human, observer. In this situation an "observation" is just an interaction with something else.

    The cat is either alive or dead, even before a human opens the box.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16
    Oh good grief, he's obviously talking about John Wheeler's "Participatory Anthropic Principle".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    Oh good grief, he's obviously talking about John Wheeler's "Participatory Anthropic Principle".

    lol yes. well idk i was just a bit confused since i know ive heard before that technically if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, quantum mechanics designates that it doesn't make a sound. the double slit experiment is something that has engaged my curiosity. i sometimes wonder if this is true, then how the universe came to evolve the way it did, idk perhaps its one of those unanswerable questions. or perhaps the double slit experiment is one of those things that Einstein refers to when he talks about how we label things random and spastic because we don't understand em.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by nightskyjam
    or perhaps the double slit experiment is one of those things that Einstein refers to when he talks about how we label things random and spastic because we don't understand em.
    Hidden variables... and I believe him.

    And I think that the universe evolved the way that it did for the same reason, because it is "Darwinian".

    http://www.longbets.org/476

    And I think that the reason that a tree makes no sound if there is no one to hear it, is because sound is relative to the ear, not the transmission of vibrations on the wind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    Quote Originally Posted by nightskyjam
    or perhaps the double slit experiment is one of those things that Einstein refers to when he talks about how we label things random and spastic because we don't understand em.
    Hidden variables... and I believe him.

    And I think that the universe evolved the way that it did for the same reason, because it is "Darwinian".

    http://www.longbets.org/476

    And I think that the reason that a tree makes no sound if there is no one to hear it, is because sound is relative to the ear, not the transmission of vibrations on the wind.
    So, you believe.

    http://www.barb-coolwaters.com/h001/believe.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Anthropic Principle 
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Quote Originally Posted by nightskyjam
    if the universe needs observers to exist, how did it evolve to create the observers. prob a dumb question
    Not a dumb question at all, and by the way you've phrased it therein is the answer. If the universe need's observers to exist it is not possible for observers to have evolved in the first place from a non existent universe. Assuming that the operation of physics requires observers leads to paradox, therefore Reductio ad absurdum observers are not required for the operation of physics.
    Schroedinger proposed the cat paradox to illustrate the absurdity of assuming that an observer is requisite to the collapse of the wave function.
    When a tree falls some of the energy of that event is still dissipated as sonic vibration whether there are observers or not.

    And this concerning "Hidden Variables"; If the universe were wholly deterministic then any concept of free will or choice would be wholly erroneous. If I suddenly took a hammer and smashed my kittycat's head into a bloody pulp on the vaguely light tan carpet of my domicile, it would be because that's how the universe has deterministically played out to this point. Obviously, I will not choose to do such a thing. Cogito ergo sum.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    One wonders if the confident denial of the principle would be there if I had not observed it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Do I believe in god?... no. Elvis, oh, hell yeah... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JzuZW-Lcns

    But I also don't believe in randomness, meaninglessness and purposelessness... or real words to that effect...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    6
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by nightskyjam
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-s5pP2aTiY
    Man, now I have to go find a good "Rammstein" video to one-up this punker with...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    One wonders if the confident denial of the principle would be there if I had not observed it.
    Sorry, too late. You looked, it's here. What can you do now?

    But I also don't believe in randomness, meaninglessness and purposelessness... or real words to that effect...
    I believe "stochastic" is the word your'e looking for.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
    Or perhaps "Anarchy";
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQkActP-isE
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    One wonders if the confident denial of the principle would be there if I had not observed it.
    Sorry, too late. You looked, it's here. What can you do now?

    But I also don't believe in randomness, meaninglessness and purposelessness... or real words to that effect...
    I believe "stochastic" is the word your'e looking for.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
    Or perhaps "Anarchy";
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQkActP-isE
    Excellent, on both counts.

    What if like, maybe we're just specially necessary to the thermodynamic process?

    There are a *few* scientists who recognize that there is at least local evidence for this implication, for example, only:
    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit.../30/2003204990

    People, (including scientists), typically think that the choices are only chance and god, but that's because they think like ideologically motivated culture warriors instead of honest scientists who should willingly recognize and consider that the evidence maybe calling for the the third choice... *necessity*.

    Unfortunately, they don't, and are a actually pre-disposed against any such interpretation, as they worship Copernicus with religious conviction in the face of any all evidence to the contrary.

    That was Brandon Carter's point when he formalized the anthropic principle as a necessary reaction against conscious and subconscious "anticentrist dogma":

    Unfortunately, there has been a strong and not always subconscious tendency to extend this to a most questionable dogma to the effect that our situation cannot be privileged in any sense. This dogma (which in its most extreme form led to the "perfect cosmological principle" on which the steady state theory was based) is clearly untenable, as was pointed out by Dicke (Nature 192, 440, 1961).
    -Brandon Carter

    Anywho.... "Observers" may be of secondary importance to a much simpler classial need for carbon based life, it is only the quantum weirdo's who need to elevate observers to "godliness"...

    And why don't my tags appear to work for me?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Island, I'm not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing.
    As for the exchange between me and Ophiolite, we are agreeing via facetious humor that an observer is not required for physics to operate, I think.
    As I've said before;
    If the universe need's observers to exist it is not possible for observers to have evolved in the first place from a non existent universe. Assuming that the operation of physics requires observers leads to paradox, therefore, Reductio ad absurdum, observers are not required for the operation of physics.
    Schroedinger proposed the cat paradox to illustrate the absurdity of assuming that an observer is requisite to the collapse of the wave function.
    When a tree falls some of the energy of that event is still dissipated as sonic vibration whether there are observers or not.
    My own position on absolute determinism is that it is asinine. That the universe is indeed stochastic within a determinable range of probability.
    My apologies for repeating myself but;
    And this concerning "Hidden Variables"; If the universe were wholly deterministic then any concept of free will or choice would be wholly erroneous. If I suddenly took a hammer and smashed my kittycat's head into a bloody pulp on the vaguely light tan carpet of my domicile, it would be because that's how the universe has deterministically played out to this point. Obviously, I will not choose to do such a thing. Cogito ergo sum.
    And we should all be contrite and sorry for sullying the "Astronomy & Cosmology" forum with (ick) philosophy.

    As for the "Sex Pistols", seeing that I have thrown down the penultimate OP of punk, I can now not be beat.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16
    Yeah, mostly in agreement, but I ignored your claims about strict determinism that rest on your belief you have some choice over your moral view of cats and carpets. There is, in fact, no way to absolutely determine if you are making your own choices, or not, so that should clue you to the value of ill conceived thought experiments that don't prove a damned thing.

    jes sayin...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    But I also don't believe in randomness, meaninglessness and purposelessness..
    While the concept of randomness in no way applies to a "marionette existence", I do not see how such(marionette existence) could be considered to be more purposeful or meaningful than an existence involving choice.
    There is, in fact, no way to absolutely determine if you are making your own choices, or not,
    With that statement you also invalidate your own claim to absolute determinism, so for the benefit of this discussion I am going to disbelieve your statement. Unless of course you give up already?

    Oh, and some examples of probabilistic methods used in The Standard Model of Particle Physics.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

    And so that I can quit apologizing for mucking up A&C with philosophy, could a mod please move this?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    As for the exchange between me and Ophiolite, we are agreeing via facetious humor that an observer is not required for physics to operate, I think.
    Actually, I was raising doubts as to the certainty with which some posters had dsimissed the notion of the necessity of an observer. Perhaps the universe thought itself into existence using the intelligence it had developed after 25 billion years of existence. (See my signature quote for more details.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    As for the exchange between me and Ophiolite, we are agreeing via facetious humor that an observer is not required for physics to operate, I think.
    Actually, I was raising doubts as to the certainty with which some posters had dsimissed the notion of the necessity of an observer. Perhaps the universe thought itself into existence using the intelligence it had developed after 25 billion years of existence. (See my signature quote for more details.)
    Maybe so but unconstrained flights of fancy are not likely to lead to deep understanding.

    There is a reason that good research involves imagination constrained by knowledge of facts and the rigor of logic. Even so, and Haldane notwithstanding, scientists managed to come up with quantum mechanics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    As for the exchange between me and Ophiolite, we are agreeing via facetious humor that an observer is not required for physics to operate, I think.
    Actually, I was raising doubts as to the certainty with which some posters had dsimissed the notion of the necessity of an observer. Perhaps the universe thought itself into existence using the intelligence it had developed after 25 billion years of existence. (See my signature quote for more details.)
    Well, I had provided the qualifier "I think".
    And you'r saying that the universe had 25*10^9 years to develop the intelligence to be able to think itself into existence, before it existed.
    I will concede the potentiality of the universe developing a self awareness, but I think that such would arise as the result of physics which doesn't require an observer. I would need to think awhile before I threw five on it either way though.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    And you'r saying that the universe had 25*10^9 years to develop the intelligence to be able to think itself into existence, before it existed.
    This is only problematic if you think you understand time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    While the concept of randomness in no way applies to a "marionette existence", I do not see how such(marionette existence) could be considered to be more purposeful or meaningful than an existence involving choice.
    I'm not talking about your personal feeling about it, I'm talking about whether or not there is higher purpose in nature regardless of whether or not you personally find it to be self-fulfilling. Whether the universe is strictly deterministic or not is a matter of which cosmological model is truly in effect, and I believe that I have good reason to believe that this one is correct:

    http://www.longbets.org/476

    I don't make the rules, I'm simply giving you the facts and so I have no clue what you think is so "philosophical" about any of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    This is only problematic if you think you understand time.
    Admittedly, my understanding of time doesn't extend much beyond a cheap digital display, but how doe's one have an Einstein-Rosen bridge without a universe?

    I see that five to zero bet's have been placed for the as yet nonexistent challenger. Yep, look's long to me.

    Added on Edit; I read up a little on the Higgs boson. I could find no dependencies between the existence or non existence of the Higgs boson and the stochastic nature of the Standard Model. Either way, probability still rules.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    I see that five to zero bet's have been placed for the as yet nonexistent challenger. Yep, look's long to me.

    Added on Edit; I read up a little on the Higgs boson. I could find no dependencies between the existence or non existence of the Higgs boson and the stochastic nature of the Standard Model. Either way, probability still rules.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
    The non-existence of the Higgs only speaks to the issue if falsifies the standard model at this energy level. Rather, it's the fact that Einstein didn't know about particle creation from vacuum energy that changes the whole game if the Standard Model is falsified at the higgs scale and "beyond", because this new information throws the whole game back to this strictly deterministic model:

    FYI, this is a beautiful analysis of Einstein's original cosmology:
    http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm

    There are also a number of linked articles within that longbet where I talk about the physics for this new information before many PhD toting theorists who have never even attempted to refute it, because it's too classical and obviously correct in context with the cosmological model that it is being applied to.

    You act like their failure to take me up on my bet means that it doesn't have merit or something... ???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    ..., and I believe that I have good reason to believe that this one is correct:

    http://www.longbets.org/476

    .
    Belief doesn't cut the mustard.

    What hard data and logic supports your belief ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    ..., and I believe that I have good reason to believe that this one is correct:

    http://www.longbets.org/476

    .
    Belief doesn't cut the mustard.

    What hard data and logic supports your belief ?
    Obviously you didn't dig very deep into the information on that page.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    ..., and I believe that I have good reason to believe that this one is correct:

    http://www.longbets.org/476

    .
    Belief doesn't cut the mustard.
    Obviously, you can't read, either....

    I believe that I have good reason to believe...

    And those good reasons are linked on that page and discussed MANY times before more theorists than you'll ever know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    The non-existence of the Higgs only speaks to the issue if falsifies the standard model at this energy level. Rather, it's the fact that Einstein didn't know about particle creation from vacuum energy that changes the whole game if the Standard Model is falsified at the higgs scale and "beyond", because this new information throws the whole game back to this strictly deterministic model:

    FYI, this is a beautiful analysis of Einstein's original cosmology:
    http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm

    There are also a number of linked articles within that longbet where I talk about the physics for this new information before many PhD toting theorists who have never even attempted to refute it, because it's too classical and obviously correct in context with the cosmological model that it is being applied to.
    rubbish

    of course Einstein's model is deterministic. It is based on general relativity. GR is deterministic.

    Whether or not the Higgs field exists, quantum field theories are stochastic. That is their fundamental nature. It is the reason that GR and QFT are inherently incompatible.

    No current theory has been able to successfully combine quantum theories and gravitation. That is the single biggest open problem in theoretical physics. Cosmologies based on GR are automatically deterministic. But most physicists (not all, and not even all of the best) believe that nature is ultimately quantum mechanical. A rigorous stochastic quantum mechanical cosmology would require a theory that successfully melds QFT and GR in some form, and it does not yet exist. It may or may not ever exist -- string theory and quantum loop gravity are two attempts at such a theory and neither have yet panned out.

    But this has veery little to do with whether the universe is open or closed, the main topic at your link. That is a question of the topology of spacelike slices of spacetime. Nobody knows the answer.

    Attempts to relate the vacuum energy predicted by QED to the stress energy tensor of GR have been a massive failure. The observed cosmological constant is overpredicted by a factor of about 10^120 -- the worst prediction in the history of physics. Nobody understands why.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    ..., and I believe that I have good reason to believe that this one is correct:

    http://www.longbets.org/476

    .
    Belief doesn't cut the mustard.
    Obviously, you can't read, either....

    I believe that I have good reason to believe...

    And those good reasons are linked on that page and discussed MANY times before more theorists than you'll ever know.
    wrong

    I read and understand rather well.

    My bullshit meter is also fully functional, and your little site pegged it.

    You have no idea who I know. The fact that you may have given some theorist a chuckle, or gas, is quite irrelevant. They see nut cases all the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    ..., and I believe that I have good reason to believe that this one is correct:

    http://www.longbets.org/476

    .
    Belief doesn't cut the mustard.
    Obviously, you can't read, either....

    I believe that I have good reason to believe...

    And those good reasons are linked on that page and discussed MANY times before more theorists than you'll ever know.
    wrong

    I read and understand rather well.

    My bullshit meter is also fully functional, and your little site pegged it.

    You have no idea who I know. The fact that you may have given some theorist a chuckle, or gas, is quite irrelevant. They see nut cases all the time.
    And you obviously don't know that unsupported speculations and crackpot theories are strictly forbidden on the linked physics research group that has PhD theorists like John Baez who pre-moderate every post for this criterion, crank.... duh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    ..., and I believe that I have good reason to believe that this one is correct:

    http://www.longbets.org/476

    .
    Belief doesn't cut the mustard.
    Obviously, you can't read, either....

    I believe that I have good reason to believe...

    And those good reasons are linked on that page and discussed MANY times before more theorists than you'll ever know.
    wrong

    I read and understand rather well.

    My bullshit meter is also fully functional, and your little site pegged it.

    You have no idea who I know. The fact that you may have given some theorist a chuckle, or gas, is quite irrelevant. They see nut cases all the time.
    And you obviously don't know that unsupported speculations and crackpot theories are strictly forbidden on the linked physics research group that has PhD theorists like John Baez who pre-moderate every post for this criterion, crank.... duh.

    Your link was to longbets.

    And even research bulletin boards have somewhat lax standards, compared to reputable journals. Even Arxiv is pretty loose, and rejects only the crankiest of the crank submittals.

    I am not even slightly impressed.

    Show me a real paper from a reputable peer-reviewed journal, the whole text, and something worth my time to read in detail.

    You are showing alll the signs of one of the professional nut jobs that frequent the internet, have web sites, and even pet journals filled with crank articles.

    Yep, crank.

    Baez does an excellent job of exposition, but he is not one of the premier researchers. It is not uncommon for well-known cranks to claim support from him -- Michael Mozina has done just that as I recall in advocating the "Electric Universe". I tend to not believe such claims. I don't know Baez personally, but I do know a colleague and former dean, and on that basis I am confident that he does not support cranks, even if he is busy and lets some questionable stuff slip through to a bulletin board.

    Edit: I think my initial recollection was wrong. It was not Mozina, but rather another disturbed individual who claimed support of Baez. No reflection on the integrity of Baez, but an example showing that participation on sci.physics.research is not indicative of credibility, or competence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16
    "Show me a real paper from a reputable peer-reviewed journal"

    Translation:

    I can't assess the validity of physics for myself, so I rely totally on authoritative sources.

    I thought so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    "Show me a real paper from a reputable peer-reviewed journal"

    Translation:

    I can't assess the validity of physics for myself, so I rely totally on authoritative sources.

    I thought so.
    ridiculous

    Read the whole sentence.

    "Show me a real paper from a reputable peer-reviewed journal, the whole text, and something worth my time to read in detail." -- underline added.l

    I assess ALL physics and mathematics for myself. I have gone through the proof, in detail, of every theorem that I have ever used professionally.

    Even your discussion technique -- using sentence fragments reeks of crankdom.

    Now, put up or shut up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    "Show me a real paper from a reputable peer-reviewed journal"

    Translation:

    I can't assess the validity of physics for myself, so I rely totally on authoritative sources.

    I thought so.
    ridiculous

    Read the whole sentence.

    "Show me a real paper from a reputable peer-reviewed journal, the whole text, and something worth my time to read in detail." -- underline added.l

    I assess ALL physics and mathematics for myself. I have gone through the proof, in detail, of every theorem that I have ever used professionally.

    Even your discussion technique -- using sentence fragments reeks of crankdom.

    Now, put up or shut up.
    You're asking me to write down the basis of wave functions in this background, including an expansion of the field in corresponding creation and annihilation operators.

    You're asking me to compute the stress-energy tensor in that background, while quantitatively describing the vacua.

    You're asking me to work out the matrix elements of the stress-energy tensor between Einstein's static vacuum and the one-particle states.

    You're asking me for stuff that you know I can't do because that would require the PhD that you already know that I don't have... or I wouldn't need to rely on the fact that I've said the same thing in that research group in 11 different ways via 4 or 5 different moderators who all must have "let some questionable stuff slip through" so many times that nobody else in the group even bothered to complain.

    I've even had a couple of physicists who tried to help me write a paper on the subject but don't know enough freaking math to do what you've asked.

    Damned sure does not make me a crackpot by anybody's standards except your own impossible and set-up expectations.

    You're pretty funny...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    The non-existence of the Higgs only speaks to the issue if falsifies the standard model at this energy level. Rather, it's the fact that Einstein didn't know about particle creation from vacuum energy that changes the whole game if the Standard Model is falsified at the higgs scale and "beyond", because this new information throws the whole game back to this strictly deterministic model:

    FYI, this is a beautiful analysis of Einstein's original cosmology:
    http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm

    There are also a number of linked articles within that longbet where I talk about the physics for this new information before many PhD toting theorists who have never even attempted to refute it, because it's too classical and obviously correct in context with the cosmological model that it is being applied to.
    rubbish

    of course Einstein's model is deterministic. It is based on general relativity. GR is deterministic.

    Whether or not the Higgs field exists, quantum field theories are stochastic. That is their fundamental nature. It is the reason that GR and QFT are inherently incompatible.

    No current theory has been able to successfully combine quantum theories and gravitation. That is the single biggest open problem in theoretical physics. Cosmologies based on GR are automatically deterministic. But most physicists (not all, and not even all of the best) believe that nature is ultimately quantum mechanical. A rigorous stochastic quantum mechanical cosmology would require a theory that successfully melds QFT and GR in some form, and it does not yet exist. It may or may not ever exist -- string theory and quantum loop gravity are two attempts at such a theory and neither have yet panned out.

    But this has veery little to do with whether the universe is open or closed, the main topic at your link. That is a question of the topology of spacelike slices of spacetime. Nobody knows the answer.

    Attempts to relate the vacuum energy predicted by QED to the stress energy tensor of GR have been a massive failure. The observed cosmological constant is overpredicted by a factor of about 10^120 -- the worst prediction in the history of physics. Nobody understands why.
    These problems as I have discussed my discovery with physicists can be resolved with my physics as it becomes clear that the negative energy solutions have been miss-reinterpreted, so it should be possible to reformulate the Dirac Equation within this vacuum as it was originally intended, to unify General Relativity and Quantum Theory, as Paul Dirac did with SR and QM.

    I know... big claims, little proof, but the funny part is that the answers are so classical that they are also highly intuitive and obviously work to resolve the problems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by island
    These problems as I have discussed my discovery with physicists can be resolved with my physics as it becomes clear that the negative energy solutions have been miss-reinterpreted, so it should be possible to reformulate the Dirac Equation within this vacuum as it was originally intended, to unify General Relativity and Quantum Theory, as Paul Dirac did with SR and QM.

    I know... big claims, little proof, but the funny part is that the answers are so classical that they are also highly intuitive and obviously work to resolve the problems.
    Unifying quantum field theories with general relativity is Nobel Prize material. Show me the math.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •