Thread: Entropy vs The Big Bang

Our current understanding of Entropy seems to suggest that there exists an arrow of time. The amount of entropy in the universe cannot decrease: it can only increase until the universe is in complete thermodynamic equilibrium. The argument is that if the universe was infinitely old, thus never having a definite beginning, the universe as we know it now could not exist, because the universe's entropy would be at a maximum and no energy transfer could take place.

However, that in itself seems to be a problem. How is it that the universe had such a low entropy in its very early stages? The big bang theory predicts that the universe developed from a singularity and at the time of its creation, had an extremely high temperature. So, why didn't the universe remain in thermodynamic equilibrium from its very beginning?

I would also like to add my opinion that the Big Bang never happened. There may be a process on a much larger scale which can reverse the Entropy of the universe, and if so, this could allow the universe as we know it to exist eternally and thus it may also not have had a beginning. It is an interesting question as to whether the universe has existed eternally or not, we do not yet know for sure. What are your thoughts?

It seems that your post is basically asking "how did the universe begin?".

I don't think any theory of physics, or indeed abstract mathematics or philosophy will ever be able to answer that question.

Originally Posted by Waveman28

Our current understanding of Entropy seems to suggest that there exists an arrow of time. The amount of entropy in the universe cannot decrease: it can only increase until the universe is in complete thermodynamic equilibrium. The argument is that if the universe was infinitely old, thus never having a definite beginning, the universe as we know it now could not exist, because the universe's entropy would be at a maximum and no energy transfer could take place.

However, that in itself seems to be a problem. How is it that the universe had such a low entropy in its very early stages? The big bang theory predicts that the universe developed from a singularity and at the time of its creation, had an extremely high temperature. So, why didn't the universe remain in thermodynamic equilibrium from its very beginning?

I would also like to add my opinion that the Big Bang never happened. There may be a process on a much larger scale which can reverse the Entropy of the universe, and if so, this could allow the universe as we know it to exist eternally and thus it may also not have had a beginning. It is an interesting question as to whether the universe has existed eternally or not, we do not yet know for sure. What are your thoughts?

Thoughts:

1. This crap belongs in Pseudoscienced not in the physics forum.

2. It is nice that you have an opinion on the big bang. But uninformed opinions, like yours, are not worth spit in the ocean.

You have been making noise for some time about having the ultimate theory of physics and about publishing it. So far, you have presented no theory at allm but have demonstrated a remarkable lack of understanding of the basic physics that is understood by mainstream physicists. It is about time to put up or shut up. Let's see your theory. The comic relief may be worth it.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

2. It is nice that you have an opinion on the big bang. But uninformed opinions, like yours, are not worth spit in the ocean.

Is this comming from you with or without your silk gloves on DrRocket?

Sometimes discoveries are made in science exactly because some uninformed nobody simply asks "What if?" and leaves the scientists - unable to think out of the box standing there "Why didnt we think of that?"

To quote a well known physicist:

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Sure, you may be right that 99.99% of these opinions are worthless. But when the time comes once in a while and they turn out to be right they can change the world. Am i wrong?

To the OP: I believe the universe never had a beginning and never has an end. I believe the universe has a finite sum of energy spread on the current universe (As in energy cannot be created or destroyed) but this being part of the big crunch, an everlasting chain of big bangs. Simply put i think the universe will contract and expand indefinatly creating an endless amount of different worlds and realities.

Yes, I'd say you're wrong in that you're missing an important piece of the puzzle. 99.9% of those ideas that change the world come from people who understood the ideas they're trying to change. They could point out very specifically what was wrong with the existing ideas. Also, they knew that new ideas needed to be mathematically rigorous, falsifiable, etc.

Basically, when the average Joe comes up with an extraordinary idea that will revolutionize science as we know it, it goes like this:
- IDEA!
- Skips trying to poke holes in his own idea.
- Doesn't know who to talk to about getting things published, so posts online or in self-published books, thus damaging credibility. (Asking for help with details online is one thing, but publishing online and calling it done is another.)
- Fails to accept criticism of his theory, which usually boils down to:
--- "It's been tried before and it failed then. Here's why. How's your's different?"
--- "It conflicts with existing observations, therefore it cannot be a valid theory of the universe."
--- "There's nothing testable here. If it's not testable, it can't be validated."
--- "You're just complicating an existing theory with out actually improving it. Why bother?"
- Fails to accept that the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim (at least up to a point).
- Rants and raves about the stupidity of the establishment and how he'll have his day and basically destroys any hope of anyone ever taking him seriously again.

To get it right, you first need to take your idea and poke it full of holes. If it still stands up, let other people poke it full of holes (including comparisons to existing observations). If it's still standing, publish it (in a respectable journal) so even more people can try to poke holes in it. People might even start designing experiments just to try and poke holes in your theory at that point. Also, it's at that point that you can really call yourself a scientist. Even if it turns out that the idea really doesn't work, as long as you've gone through the rigour needed to get published and you can learn from your mistakes, you're on the right track.

I feel it important to add that you won't be able to poke holes in a new theory unless you understand what theories already exist. You just won't know where the weak spots might be.

Originally Posted by Raziell

To quote a well known physicist:

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Sure, you may be right that 99.99% of these opinions are worthless. But when the time comes once in a while and they turn out to be right they can change the world. Am i wrong?

Yes you are wrong.

That quote is from Einstein, and it is widely misunderstood and quoted by people who have no idea what they are talking about, are quite proud of that fact, and use the quote as an excuse to avoid having to learn the foundations of physics.

Einstein was talking as a research physicist. In that vein his quote is very accurate. What it means is that in order to do good research, an open mind and a willingness to experiment with ideas are more important than encyclopedic knowledge. That is absolutely true.

What is also true is that the best researchers have lots of ideas. Most of them will not pan out. But the more ideas one has the better the chance that one of them will be a good one. What is just as important is that creative researchers know the basics well enough to not entertain ideas that are patently false (such as Waveman28's so-called theories) and that they are willing to evaluate and discard ideas that don't work out. They do not cling to notions that are wrong.

Back when I was in school, Eugene Wigner told a friend that "One of the marks of genius is that when something doesn't work, the next time you try something else."

The best breakthrough research comes from the application of an imagination to create and evaluate new ideas, but that has nothing to do with "opinion". The research game, is indeed based on creativity. But in science it is a creativity that includes the discipline to recognize the constraints that are imposed by that which science has firmly established, at least within known domains of validity.

An opinion to the effect that some piece of physics, that is based on sound theory, a theory that has a great deal of experimental support, is just plain wrong is not an opinion of any worth.

Einstein was extremely creative. He also understood the fundamentals of physics. His creativity was constrained by that understanding. He did not base his work on an opinion, but rather on ideas that could be shown to explain what is actually observed, and explain it in a way that was more accurate than the explanation provided by ideas that preceeded his.

Vision is not hallucination. An open mind is not an empty head.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Yes you are wrong.

That quote is from Einstein, and it is widely misunderstood and quoted by people who have no idea what they are talking about, are quite proud of that fact, and use the quote as an excuse to avoid having to learn the foundations of physics.

Heh... spot on.

I do understand what you just said and ill admit i have no education and only very basic knowledge of physics. To many eager young people like us and i kinda understand your rather hostile and grumpy tone, as you must be sick of hearing guys like me and OP and countless others comming here spamming the same ideas over and over.

To be honest DrRocket i did genuinely think tonns of crazy and mindless ideas had to hit the jackpot eventually and actually be of HELP somehow, but as you put it i can see how it isnt really helping at all. And that to be creative and imaginative you first have to understand what the hell you are actually talking about in the first place.

Originally Posted by Raziell

Heh... spot on.

I do understand what you just said and ill admit i have no education and only very basic knowledge of physics. To many eager young people like us and i kinda understand your rather hostile and grumpy tone, as you must be sick of hearing guys like me and OP and countless others comming here spamming the same ideas over and over.

To be honest DrRocket i did genuinely think tonns of crazy and mindless ideas had to hit the jackpot eventually and actually be of HELP somehow, but as you put it i can see how it isnt really helping at all. And that to be creative and imaginative you first have to understand what the hell you are actually talking about in the first place.

It is the occasional person like you who sees the light that makes this worthwhile.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Thoughts:

1. This crap belongs in Pseudoscienced not in the physics forum.

2. It is nice that you have an opinion on the big bang. But uninformed opinions, like yours, are not worth spit in the ocean.

You have been making noise for some time about having the ultimate theory of physics and about publishing it. So far, you have presented no theory at allm but have demonstrated a remarkable lack of understanding of the basic physics that is understood by mainstream physicists. It is about time to put up or shut up. Let's see your theory. The comic relief may be worth it.

I do indeed have the perfect theory, but this thread is not about that. The theory is slated to be released at the end of the year because I am producing an amazing video which will explain the theory in full detail, which is going to be narrated by a proper narrator (what accent would you like?). However, in order to illustrate the dynamics of the Ether in the video, simulation software has to be created, which is the part that is taking the longest but is currently well underway. And no, it wont be comic relief, it will be a powerful shell shock to the entire scientific community.

Back on topic though, this thread is basically challenging the big bang from an already established point of view: entropy. The early universe according to current theory had an extremely high and virtually uniform temperature everywhere, thus a high entropy, but because entropy can only increase over time, why does our universe have such a low entropy today? Just answer the jolly question.

Originally Posted by Waveman28

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Thoughts:

1. This crap belongs in Pseudoscienced not in the physics forum.

2. It is nice that you have an opinion on the big bang. But uninformed opinions, like yours, are not worth spit in the ocean.

You have been making noise for some time about having the ultimate theory of physics and about publishing it. So far, you have presented no theory at allm but have demonstrated a remarkable lack of understanding of the basic physics that is understood by mainstream physicists. It is about time to put up or shut up. Let's see your theory. The comic relief may be worth it.

I do indeed have the perfect theory, but this thread is not about that. The theory is slated to be released at the end of the year because I am producing an amazing video which will explain the theory in full detail, which is going to be narrated by a proper narrator (what accent would you like?). However, in order to illustrate the dynamics of the Ether in the video, simulation software has to be created, which is the part that is taking the longest but is currently well underway. And no, it wont be comic relief, it will be a powerful shell shock to the entire scientific community.

Back on topic though, this thread is basically challenging the big bang from an already established point of view: entropy. The early universe according to current theory had an extremely high and virtually uniform temperature everywhere, thus a high entropy, but because entropy can only increase over time, why does our universe have such a low entropy today? Just answer the jolly question.

Wrong.

Go read The Road to Reality, A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe by Roger Penrose.

Or just go.

It is significant that you no longer talk of publication in a reputable, refereed journal, but now of self-publication, like many delusional nut cases have in the past.

Originally Posted by Waveman28

The theory is slated to be released at the end of the year because I am producing an amazing video which will explain the theory in full detail, which is going to be narrated by a proper narrator (what accent would you like?).

There are many reasons no one with a science education and a brain takes you seriously. There are a couple of them here.

Theories are not released. Movies are released. Software games are released. Felons who have completed their sentence are released. Not so theories.

You seem to think it is important that your amazing video will be narrated by a proper narrator. Who cares? You seem to believe that this will somehow enhance the validity of the 'theory'. If you don't think that then why mention it in a paragraph where you are defending your 'theory'.

It's all rather sad.

Of course in a few years time I may be saying to friends, "So that guy who just got the Nobel prize, I used to say some harsh things to him on a science forum. How dumb am I?"

That's possible..........but, I'm not holding my breath.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Wrong.

Go read The Road to Reality, A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe by Roger Penrose.

Or just go.

It is significant that you no longer talk of publication in a reputable, refereed journal, but now of self-publication, like many delusional nut cases have in the past.

Wrong. This video will be made in addition to getting the theory published in a reputable journal. I would never skip that step, getting it published first is a necessity. The thing is though, because this theory explains everything mechanically through cause and effect with an actual mechanism, the best way to educate people is with a video because they can actually see what is really going on.

Originally Posted by Waveman28

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Wrong.

Go read The Road to Reality, A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe by Roger Penrose.

Or just go.

It is significant that you no longer talk of publication in a reputable, refereed journal, but now of self-publication, like many delusional nut cases have in the past.

Wrong. This video will be made in addition to getting the theory published in a reputable journal. I would never skip that step, getting it published first is a necessity. The thing is though, because this theory explains everything mechanically through cause and effect with an actual mechanism, the best way to educate people is with a video because they can actually see what is really going on.

I can assure you that the editors and referees of reputable journals will be able to understand your theory, if it is valid and understandable (a big IF), without need for a video.

Have you submitted it to such a journal yet ? The best journals will have a backlog, so if you want it published soon, you need to submit it ASAP.

Have you even written it up and posted it on ArXiv ?

Originally Posted by Waveman28

Our current understanding

The Laws of Physics break down during the Big Bang. Hopefully Edward and others will clear-up some off the unknown's with the LHC.

Originally Posted by Geo

Originally Posted by Waveman28

Our current understanding

The Laws of Physics break down during the Big Bang. Hopefully Edward and others will clear-up some off the unknown's with the LHC.

The LHC experiments have little to do with the Big Bang.

But it may clear up some unknowns in the world of particle physics. Detection or non-detection of supersymmetric partner particles will be of great interest.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

There are many reasons no one with a science education and a brain takes you seriously. There are a couple of them here.

Theories are not released. Movies are released. Software games are released. Felons who have completed their sentence are released. Not so theories.

"Released" is an appropriate term in this context because the whole kit and caboodle regarding the theory will be put up for availability simultaneously. So the published article, the video and the website will all be released at the same time.

You seem to think it is important that your amazing video will be narrated by a proper narrator. Who cares? You seem to believe that this will somehow enhance the validity of the 'theory'. If you don't think that then why mention it in a paragraph where you are defending your 'theory'.

Well, yes, you are right, whether or not it is professionally narrated has no bearing at all on the validity of the theory itself, but the point I was making here is that I am taking every step to ensure that the way this theory is presented to the community is of the highest possible quality. Self narrated scientific videos are also usually stereotyped as being developed by crackpots, which is not a message I wish to portray about the Theory.

Of course in a few years time I may be saying to friends, "So that guy who just got the Nobel prize, I used to say some harsh things to him on a science forum. How dumb am I?"

That's possible..........but, I'm not holding my breath.

Well, Dr. Rocket is going to be in for a rude awakening when my theory is published, so just dont step into his boat with him and you will be ok, his is going to be sunk. Admittedly, Dr. Rocket has made some useful contributions and advice regarding the external issues surrounding the theory such as getting it published and the importance of finding a decent journal etc. but his criticisms aimed at the theory itself are downright weightless and offensive.

There's a quote that goes: "If your a step ahead of the scientific community, people think your a genius. If your two steps ahead, people think your a crackpot."

Waveman28 might I ask you a few questions?

Such as:

Do you have a working knowledge of quantum field theory and the standard model? And the supersymmetry theory that is currently being developed?

Do you have a working knowledge of general relativity?

Where were you were educated in physics and mathematics?

Finally, what journal do you plan to publish in?

Let me assure you I'm not attacking your ideas. I'm just trying to get a better idea of what makes you so optimistic.

Originally Posted by sox

Let me assure you I'm not attacking your ideas. I'm just trying to get a better idea of what makes you so optimistic.

Ignorance is bliss.

And again a reaction from dr rocket that is completely not on-topic. Irritating when you think there,s something to read about an issue and all you get is this.

Any science that needs watch dogs is not even worth to be called science.

(excuse me for off-topic reaction I won't make a habit of it)

Originally Posted by Ghrasp

And again a reaction from dr rocket that is completely not on-topic. Irritating when you think there,s something to read about an issue and all you get is this.

Any science that needs watch dogs is not even worth to be called science.

(excuse me for off-topic reaction I won't make a habit of it)

As always, you are wrong.

My comment was totally on topic.

It is quite impossible to be off topic in this thread.
Waveman28, the OP, has no scientific point.

Neither do you. You are rather in the same boat as Waveman28, only more so. That is quite an accomplishment.

Originally Posted by Ghrasp

And again a reaction from dr rocket that is completely not on-topic. Irritating when you think there,s something to read about an issue and all you get is this.

Any science that needs watch dogs is not even worth to be called science.

(excuse me for off-topic reaction I won't make a habit of it)

Dr.Rocket often presents many feeble excuses as to why other people may be more scientifically advanced than him. My Ether theory is a prime example.

Originally Posted by Waveman28

Originally Posted by Ghrasp

And again a reaction from dr rocket that is completely not on-topic. Irritating when you think there,s something to read about an issue and all you get is this.

Any science that needs watch dogs is not even worth to be called science.

(excuse me for off-topic reaction I won't make a habit of it)

Dr.Rocket often presents many feeble excuses as to why other people may be more scientifically advanced than him. My Ether theory is a prime example.

There are a lot of people who know more science and mathematics than do I.

Neither you nor Ghrasp are in that category.

Originally Posted by Waveman28

I do indeed have the perfect theory, but this thread is not about that. The theory is slated to be released at the end of the year because I am producing an amazing video which will explain the theory in full detail, which is going to be narrated by a proper narrator (what accent would you like?). However, in order to illustrate the dynamics of the Ether in the video, simulation software has to be created, which is the part that is taking the longest but is currently well underway. And no, it wont be comic relief, it will be a powerful shell shock to the entire scientific community.

HAHAHA what a load of crap

you're seriously expecting us to belive
a) you have a perfect theory
b) you have any theory of note
c) you're actually waiting for...the youtube video to be made? before releasing this nobel prize winning scientific iota?

Originally Posted by Waveman28

Our current understanding of Entropy seems to suggest that there exists an arrow of time. The amount of entropy in the universe cannot decrease: it can only increase until the universe is in complete thermodynamic equilibrium. The argument is that if the universe was infinitely old, thus never having a definite beginning, the universe as we know it now could not exist, because the universe's entropy would be at a maximum and no energy transfer could take place.

However, that in itself seems to be a problem. How is it that the universe had such a low entropy in its very early stages? The big bang theory predicts that the universe developed from a singularity and at the time of its creation, had an extremely high temperature. So, why didn't the universe remain in thermodynamic equilibrium from its very beginning?

I would also like to add my opinion that the Big Bang never happened. There may be a process on a much larger scale which can reverse the Entropy of the universe, and if so, this could allow the universe as we know it to exist eternally and thus it may also not have had a beginning. It is an interesting question as to whether the universe has existed eternally or not, we do not yet know for sure. What are your thoughts?

oh but sorry, I didn't respond to your original piece of trite

Originally Posted by Waveman28

Our current understanding of Entropy seems to suggest that there exists an arrow of time. The amount of entropy in the universe cannot decrease: it can only increase until the universe is in complete thermodynamic equilibrium.

Entropy does not suggest an arrow of time, is suggests things spread out evenly, and of course it can decrease, every time you make ice, you're lowering entropy, every time I tidy my room, down goes entropy

Originally Posted by Waveman28

How is it that the universe had such a low entropy in its very early stages? The big bang theory predicts that the universe developed from a singularity

...I'm just going to highlight....and underline...the word SINGULARITY you know that idea of one point? not multiple sources spread over a measureable volume, just one point, ergo either no entropy, or entropy was already at maximum

Originally Posted by Waveman28

at the time of its creation, had an extremely high temperature. So, why didn't the universe remain in thermodynamic equilibrium from its very beginning?

temperature isn't the only thing creating entropy is it mister perfect theory? entropy is dictacted by temperative, because the atoms will move less without it, but also by space and pressure, it's why 1 mol of gas will fill 1cubic meter or 24 cubic meters at 1atm, but not 25 unless you lower the pressure
again, singularity = max/no entropy, after big bang, either new heat increases the entropy, or the collosal new space dropped it much lower

Originally Posted by Waveman28

I would also like to add my opinion that the Big Bang never happened.

I'm sure you would, as I'm sure you're aware however, you're opinion means squat to most here





(I realise Drocket will probably tear this arguement apart but hey, I'm a student, I'm just happy to post and pick holes in blatantly stupid posts, it's what we do )

Booms, it would be helpful if in shooting down a known idiot you did not commit your own idiocies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy...row_of_time%29

Originally Posted by Booms

Entropy does not suggest an arrow of time,

Yes it does. As I understand it, it is the only thing that does.

Originally Posted by Booms

... and of course it can decrease, every time you make ice, you're lowering entropy, every time I tidy my room, down goes entropy

The entropy of the ice goes down, the entropy of your room goes down, the entropy of the universe goes up. To cause either event requires work be done in which heat is generated. entropy increases.

The singularity you are so hung up on is generally considered to be a reflection of the breakdown of te effectiveness of our equations/models/understanding at a a very early stage in the universe, rather than a true single point.

temperature isn't the only thing creating entropy is it mister perfect theory? entropy is dictacted by temperative, because the atoms will move less without it, but also by space and pressure, it's why 1 mol of gas will fill 1cubic meter or 24 cubic meters at 1atm, but not 25 unless you lower the pressure
again, singularity = max/no entropy, after big bang, either new heat increases the entropy, or the collosal new space dropped it much lower

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. It seems the semantic fairy stole away with your meaning.

Booms, I usually enjoy your posts, but this one was crap. I hope you aren't coming down with something. :wink:

Originally Posted by Booms

Originally Posted by Waveman28

Our current understanding of Entropy seems to suggest that there exists an arrow of time. The amount of entropy in the universe cannot decrease: it can only increase until the universe is in complete thermodynamic equilibrium.

every time you make ice, you're lowering entropy, every time I tidy my room, down goes entropy

You've never been taught thermodynamics have you? Have a look at the second law.

Originally Posted by Booms

I'm just happy to post and pick holes in blatantly stupid posts, it's what we do

Perhaps this should be changed to be:

Originally Posted by Booms

I'm just happy to post blatantly stupid posts, it's what I do

Deleted.

Formally Booms is right entropy can decrease. It,s just that the sum of entropy within a system and outside the system adds up to an increase. Good example of analogue is to tidy you,re room by throwing things out of the window or cleaning a car emptying the ashtray through the window.

What one can question though is if this is something of nature or something coming out of "theorie of nature". The gas laws are not exact in all circumstances. There have been experiments where a gas-constant showed not exactly constant.
If you beleive theorie and reality match one to one for a hundred procent then yes the idea is something of nature (theorie says so) but why would on believe that persé ?
Only because there is no other idea ? That could be a "not yet" just as well.

Classical gas theorie neglects cohesion of gasses allthough it is known that gasses have viscosity. I can,t imagine the idea of viscosity without cohesion between molecules.
Thus not as chaotic behaviour of single molecules as often assumed.

Viscosity of gasses can be seen for instance with a sigaret or cigar. How would it be possible to blow cirkles without cohesion between the molecules ?

How would it be possible to influence the smoke that has left a cigaret earlier by moving the cigaret without cohesion (which is possible) ? It would imply reversed logic in time ; the smoke that left the sigaret would be influenced by sort of an entanglement of the smoke with the sigaret ?

That smoke from a cigaret can be influenced this way just the same as influencing water pouring from a tab by moving the tab ; typical viscosity, typical cehesion. The smoke is the same but upside down to the water.

Originally Posted by sox

Waveman28 might I ask you a few questions?

Do you have a working knowledge of quantum field theory and the standard model?And the supersymmetry theory that is currently being developed?

Indeed. I have studied quantum theory in a fair amount of depth. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject by any means, but I have important knowledge of its postulates and assumptions, as well as the history of the development of quantum theory.

Do you have a working knowledge of general relativity?

I am currently studying general relativity at a university level.

Where were you were educated in physics and mathematics?

I live in Australia and I am currently studying science and nanotechnology at university.

Finally, what journal do you plan to publish in?

This has not been decided as of yet.

Let me assure you I'm not attacking your ideas. I'm just trying to get a better idea of what makes you so optimistic.

I am oozing with optimism because I know that my theory is revolutionary and simple. In science at present, we have explained most phenomena in the universe, however there is no unity in these theories. There is a separate theory for virtually each and every observation. My theory ties all our theories together and can explain all our observations in a consistent, simple, logical way using a single mechanism, the Ether.

Booms, everything you have just said is a poisonous load of garbage. Your attacking me for being wrong, yet you dont even know the simple laws of thermodynamics, which underpins many other areas of science. You sir, are a drop kick.

Dr. Rocket, I would like to personally invite you to review my theory which is situated in the New hypothesis and ideas section: The Best Ether Theory. I would like to hear any criticisms of the theory itself, should you have any.

What's posted in the New Hypothesis section isn't rigorous enough to constitute a proper physical theory, but perhaps you have more details than you've so far provided.

Originally Posted by Waveman28

Dr. Rocket, I would like to personally invite you to review my theory which is situated in the New hypothesis and ideas section: The Best Ether Theory. I would like to hear any criticisms of the theory itself, should you have any.

I read what you have posted there.

It is not a theory. Not even close. If that is what you intend to submit to a refereed journal of physics, you will not even get a reveiw and rejection letter. It will go straight to the waste basket.

You have explaine absolutely nothing and have failed to address any real physics of the sort that is actually handled by relativity, and in particular the dynamics of mechanics and electromagnetism, including optics.

You have not substantiated your assertion of an aether being an elastic medium, have not described in those terms mathematically, and have not related that hypothesis to the rest of physics or to any experimental evidence.

IF the aether were elastic then it should be describable using the methods of continuum mechanics. That would result in a wave velocity dependent on density and stiffness, in the limit of small amplitude --- what is called the speed of sound. But that speed is not an absolute limit and in fact stress waves in elastic materials travel faster as the amplitude increases.

As predicted this is no more than comic relief. It is not a physical theory by any stretch of the imagination.

IF the aether were elastic then it should be describable using the methods of continuum mechanics.

Spacetime In Einsteins relativistic ideas has elastic properties as it can deform.

Nothing against the use of the word elastic properties there. Light that would pass between two planets won't curve where the gravitational influences of both planets compensate each other. Nearer to one of the planets it "curves" that way thus away from the planets on bigger distance. The two (and many more) opposite directions gives an idea of spacetime that is stretched elastic.

Also if you go in a spacecapsule (or even a train or car ) with mathbooks, papers, drawn images of space with dimensions etc. Lengthcontraction will not only count for the things described in and by the book existing in space. The whole book and all the papers, drawings, meters, everything it images and the person reading will undergo the same effects a mathbook is not existing out of nature describing it allthough the book may pretend it and some may experience it that way. Because of this spacetime (or any space) imagined in and by the book as anything undergoes the same effects.

As the book deforms and deforms back when the train slows down the description of spacetime described in the book behaves elastic because the book does and the described spacetime can,t be seperated from the book it is not something sacret hovering above the book as a holy ghost.

I am inclined to say that the author of this posting, “Entropy vs. Big Bang” has a making of a brilliant mind.

Let me further: , aether of old and spacetime are one and same banana. Stripped of the erroneous concept that aether is “luminiferous”, it is one and the same with the revived aether of Einstein in a speech in 1920. If we can read between the lines, he was referring, impliedly, to his spacetime.

Jsaldea12
3.28.10

Originally Posted by DrRocket

It is not a theory. Not even close. If that is what you intend to submit to a refereed journal of physics, you will not even get a reveiw and rejection letter. It will go straight to the waste basket.

This is no where near the complete theory. What I am doing here is releasing the theory in separate instalments so that it is easier to follow. Obviously, I am starting off with the fundamental foundation of the theory first. The foundation of the theory is the structure and dynamics of the Ether, so once those are well understood and accepted, I will continue on.

You have explaine absolutely nothing and have failed to address any real physics of the sort that is actually handled by relativity, and in particular the dynamics of mechanics and electromagnetism, including optics.

As I said, I will get to those phenomena after the fundamentals are understood first. Not much point blurting it all out at once.

You have not substantiated your assertion of an aether being an elastic medium, have not described in those terms mathematically, and have not related that hypothesis to the rest of physics or to any experimental evidence.

Mathematics should always come after the Ether is mechanically explained first. Mathematics only describes what is physically happening in reality, it should never replace the knowledge of what is really going on, this is how many errors have been developed throughout the history of physics. So, once it is understood and accepted how the ether mechanically works, I will release my mathematical equations which describe it further.

And as a reviewer, you should review what I have done, not what I haven't.

IF the aether were elastic then it should be describable using the methods of continuum mechanics. That would result in a wave velocity dependent on density and stiffness, in the limit of small amplitude --- what is called the speed of sound. But that speed is not an absolute limit and in fact stress waves in elastic materials travel faster as the amplitude increases.

Dr. Rocket, admittedly, you have a very strong knowledge in the fields of Quantum Mechanics and relativity, but waves are clearly not your area of expertise. The Ether I have described does not have a wave speed which is dependant upon amplitude or frequency, it remains constant irrespective of these factors. This is because the force that is exerted on a point in the ether is completely determined by one factor, the distance from its surrounding points. Can you describe why the Ether I have described would not have a constant wave speed?

As predicted this is no more than comic relief. It is not a physical theory by any stretch of the imagination.

I will repeat again that I am releasing the theory in instalments. This first instalment describes the underlying mechanism of all physical phenomena, and future instalments will show how this mechanism can explain these phenomena.

Originally Posted by Waveman28

I will repeat again that I am releasing the theory in instalments. This first instalment describes the underlying mechanism of all physical phenomena, and future instalments will show how this mechanism can explain these phenomena.

Your first installment has zero valid content. Utter nonsense. Comic relief, as one might have anticipated.

If you want to explain the whole thing then go ahead. But releasing pieces only increases the surface area and hence the odor. It stinks pretty badly so far.

BTW nobody has the onus to show why your theory does not work. It is up to you as the proposer of the theory to show that it is well-defined, self-consistent, and accurately describes nature. Thus far it fails to meet any of these three criteria.

"That's not right. It's not even wrong," -- Wolfgang Pauli

IF the aether were elastic then it should be describable using the methods of continuum mechanics. That would result in a wave velocity dependent on density and stiffness, in the limit of small amplitude --- what is called the speed of sound. But that speed is not an absolute limit and in fact stress waves in elastic materials travel faster as the amplitude increases.

How could C (for sound) be observer dependant and L*f not ? Cs=L(ambda)*f is not supposed to be observer dependant as far as I know.

Originally Posted by jsaldea12

I am inclined to say that the author of this posting, “Entropy vs. Big Bang” has a making of a brilliant mind.

Let me further: , aether of old and spacetime are one and same banana. Stripped of the erroneous concept that aether is “luminiferous”, it is one and the same with the revived aether of Einstein in a speech in 1920. If we can read between the lines, he was referring, impliedly, to his spacetime.

Jsaldea12
3.28.10

Thankyou kind sir. Yes the luminiferous concept is indeed erroneous. The Ether is not just a medium which transmits light, it transmits waves which everything in the universe is made of.

Waveman you haven't set any foundations for your work at all. You need to explain WHY you think the ether is an elastic medium. To simply say the ether is elastic is not enough.