Notices
Results 1 to 61 of 61

Thread: Toward a 21st Cenury Cosmology

  1. #1 Toward a 21st Cenury Cosmology 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    1. Underlying all of modern cosmological theory (The Standard Model) is the assumption that the observed cosmos is part of a singular coherent entity, the Universe. There is no scientific basis for this belief; it is merely an archaic cultural artifact.

    2. It is a further assumption of modern cosmology that the observed cosmological redshift of light from distant galaxies is a consequence of the expansion of the assumed 'Universe'. This further assumption is also unsupported by any empirical evidence.

    3. Combining these two scientifically baseless assumptions cosmologists reason backwards to an origin point for the entire 'Universe' at a singularity some 13 billion years ago. A singularity is a physically absurd mathematical concept - an object of zero volume and infinite density. This unsatisfactory result is dismissed as a consequence of our incomplete understanding of physics in extremis rather than a failure of the model.

    4. The Standard Model required the ad hoc addition of an extra event, Inflation, for it to properly produce a distribution of matter that conforms with observation.

    5. The Standard Model, in order to conform to observations now posits the existence of unobserved matter and unobserved energy, both of an unknown nature. This invisible (dark) matter and energy are said to comprise more than 90% of the 'Universe'.

    6. The Standard Model is simplistic, illogical, absurd, unscientific and a failure.

    7. A truly modern cosmology will start with the cosmos we observe but without the 'Universe' we only imagine.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Toward a 21st Cenury Cosmology 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    1. Underlying all of modern cosmological theory (The Standard Model) is the assumption that the observed cosmos is part of a singular coherent entity, the Universe. There is no scientific basis for this belief; it is merely an archaic cultural artifact.
    wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    2. It is a further assumption of modern cosmology that the observed cosmological redshift of light from distant galaxies is a consequence of the expansion of the assumed 'Universe'. This further assumption is also unsupported by any empirical evidence.
    wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    3. Combining these two scientifically baseless assumptions cosmologists reason backwards to an origin point for the entire 'Universe' at a singularity some 13 billion years ago. A singularity is a physically absurd mathematical concept - an object of zero volume and infinite density. This unsatisfactory result is dismissed as a consequence of our incomplete understanding of physics in extremis rather than a failure of the model.
    wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    4. The Standard Model required the ad hoc addition of an extra event, Inflation, for it to properly produce a distribution of matter that conforms with observation.
    wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    5. The Standard Model, in order to conform to observations now posits the existence of unobserved matter and unobserved energy, both of an unknown nature. This invisible (dark) matter and energy are said to comprise more than 90% of the 'Universe'.
    wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    6. The Standard Model is simplistic, illogical, absurd, unscientific and a failure.
    wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    7. A truly modern cosmology will start with the cosmos we observe but without the 'Universe' we only imagine.
    huh? That is the basis for the current cosmological theories.

    BTW What is called the Standard Model deals with particle physics and has nothing to do with the large scale structure of the universe, which is based on general relativity.

    Before you argue this crap at least learn what the current theories really are and the basis for them. You are herein relying on false premises. And no, I do not intend to try to teach you the contents of several advanced monographs -- you will have to do your own research. You can start with two books by Steven Weinberg -- Gravitation and cosmology : principles and applications of the general theory of relativity and the more recent Cosmology


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    6. The Standard Model is simplistic, illogical, absurd, unscientific and a failure.
    i dont know if its illogical or absurd but certainly it will be a failure if it cant answer the following questions:

    What gives rise to the Standard Model of particle physics?
    Why do particle masses and coupling constants have the values that we measure?
    Does the Higgs boson really exist?
    Why are there three generations of particles?
    ------------------




    "Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders."- Carl Friedrich Gauss


    -------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    budrap. Yes, there are serious problems with cosmology, much of which is just IDEAS.

    However many on this forum bow down and worship those IDEAS so will get very upset if you dare to deny their gods.

    As you can see with the "infallible" DrRocket, he pronounces things wrong without any explanations and assumes that you know nothing about the subject because you dare to disagree with it. He then tells you to read some books, and you can see how little they have helped him, so not a good advert for them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    budrap. Yes, there are serious problems with cosmology, much of which is just IDEAS.

    However many on this forum bow down and worship those IDEAS so will get very upset if you dare to deny their gods.

    As you can see with the "infallible" DrRocket, he pronounces things wrong without any explanations and assumes that you know nothing about the subject because you dare to disagree with it. He then tells you to read some books, and you can see how little they have helped him, so not a good advert for them.
    Please ignore Cyberia, with only 10 more IQ points he would qualify as an idiot.

    There is a firm foundation for modern cosmology, observation and general relativity, with a dash of particle physics offering some promising ideas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Dr Rocket,

    First of all I have read extensively in cosmology and I am dissatisfied with the consensus model offered there and what I have posted here are my objections or criticisms. If you wish to disagree with me on any of the points I raised please do so with some well reasoned argumentation not some pompous and weak arguments from authority. To make that easier for you let me elaborate on my primary criticism (#1 in the original post).

    I think you would agree with me that the cosmos we observe with the Hubble telescope and other deep space instruments is vaster by far than was realized as recently as 100 years ago. Now that vast cosmos is either all or part of a singular entity, the Universe, or it is not all or part of such an entity but rather a collection of distinct, separate entities that may interact locally but are not 'universally' orchestrated. It is my central objection to the current cosmological model that the first possibility is an a priori assumption which has never been scientifically vetted or empirically verified and that the second possibility has never been given proper consideration.

    The modern cosmological model is flawed in the same way that the Ptolemaic model was flawed - its underlying premise is physically absurd. It was one thing to consider the cosmos a unitary entity when it was thought to be of galactic scale; it is quite a stretch however, to squeeze the vastness we are just beginning to comprehend into the same simplistic view. The fact that a 'successful' mathematical model has been built on the that absurd premise does not in any way prove said premise.

    Regards,

    budrap
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Dr Rocket,

    First of all I have read extensively in cosmology and I am dissatisfied with the consensus model offered there and what I have posted here are my objections or criticisms. If you wish to disagree with me on any of the points I raised please do so with some well reasoned argumentation not some pompous and weak arguments from authority. To make that easier for you let me elaborate on my primary criticism (#1 in the original post).

    I think you would agree with me that the cosmos we observe with the Hubble telescope and other deep space instruments is vaster by far than was realized as recently as 100 years ago. Now that vast cosmos is either all or part of a singular entity, the Universe, or it is not all or part of such an entity but rather a collection of distinct, separate entities that may interact locally but are not 'universally' orchestrated. It is my central objection to the current cosmological model that the first possibility is an a priori assumption which has never been scientifically vetted or empirically verified and that the second possibility has never been given proper consideration.

    The modern cosmological model is flawed in the same way that the Ptolemaic model was flawed - its underlying premise is physically absurd. It was one thing to consider the cosmos a unitary entity when it was thought to be of galactic scale; it is quite a stretch however, to squeeze the vastness we are just beginning to comprehend into the same simplistic view. The fact that a 'successful' mathematical model has been built on the that absurd premise does not in any way prove said premise.

    Regards,

    budrap
    You may have read extensively, but you have understood very little. Your assertions are incorrect.

    Your statement that "The fact that a 'successful' mathematical model has been built on the that absurd premise does not in any way prove said premise", is absurd. The ability of a theory to predict observations (which is what is meant by "successful") is the SOLE criteria for acceptance of a scientific theory. "Proof" is appropriate in mathematics but not in science. Science relies on evidence.



    Go read some general relativity, which is the basis for modern cosmology. The cosmological model of the universe results directly from GR, which is supported by a mountain of observational evidence, and therefore is not an arbitrary a priori assumption. On the other hand if you wish to make your own assumption then you are obligated to propose some theory of gravity to replace GR -- so what is it ?

    You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

    BTW the Ptolemaic model was not fundamentally wrong, but rather adopted an unwieldy perspective. The Copernican model, combined with Newtonian mechanics is an elegant model with great predictive power and in that sense is much better, but one can formulate valid geocentric models -- they are just complicated, ugly and unnecessary.

    So if YOU wish to disagree with the mainstream model, and the theoretical and empirical basis for it then YOU present well reasoned argumentation not some pompous and weak arguments from lack of authority.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Ah, Dr Rocket you do seem to have difficulty with unfamiliar concepts. Apparently you cannot grasp the distinction I was drawing between the cosmos that we observe and the imaginary entity you call the 'Universe' so you spent your entire post prattling on without addressing the issue.

    Oddly though you have managed to illuminate just why the Ptolemaic model is such a good analogy to its modern cosmological cousin. According to you "the Ptolemaic model was not fundamentally wrong, but rather adopted an unwieldy perspective." But Ptolemy's physical model is fundamentally wrong. The sun, the planets and the stars do not revolve around the earth every day. I can only guess that your tortured syntax was just a way of saying that this fundamental error is less important to you than the fact that the model could be used to make valid predictions.

    I am however attempting to understand the nature of physical reality - to me that is what science is all about. The Ptolemaic model obscured that nature for a millenium and the Standard Model of Cosmology does the same in our age. The analogy between the two systems is exact in this sense, the underlying physical premise of the Ptolemaic model was wrong and the underlying physical premise of modern cosmology, that the cosmos is a singular entity, is also wrong. The fact that mathematical structures built on these incorrect physical models can make valid predictions in no way diminishes the fact that they misrepresent the underlying physical reality. To me that's a problem, to you apparently not.

    As far as General Relativity goes, in and of itself I have no issue with it, however it is a misuse of the theory to attempt to apply it to your imaginary 'Universe'. It is after all a realtivity theory. What can it be relative to if you try to apply it to everything? Apply GR to the cosmos as if it were a singular entity and you get the Big Bang. As with computers, garbage in, garbage out.

    Regards,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    If I may presume to explain what DrR meant, GR gets rid of preferred frames of reference ( actually SR does ) such that the frame of reference where the earth is stationary and the sun and stars revolve around it ( Ptolemaic system ) is perfectly valid. The equations describing such a system would be extremely messy however, and would become unwieldly very quickly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Ah, Dr Rocket you do seem to have difficulty with unfamiliar concepts. Apparently you cannot grasp the distinction I was drawing between the cosmos that we observe and the imaginary entity you call the 'Universe' so you spent your entire post prattling on without addressing the issue.
    nope

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Oddly though you have managed to illuminate just why the Ptolemaic model is such a good analogy to its modern cosmological cousin. According to you "the Ptolemaic model was not fundamentally wrong, but rather adopted an unwieldy perspective." But Ptolemy's physical model is fundamentally wrong. The sun, the planets and the stars do not revolve around the earth every day. I can only guess that your tortured syntax was just a way of saying that this fundamental error is less important to you than the fact that the model could be used to make valid predictions.
    wrong again

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    I am however attempting to understand the nature of physical reality - to me that is what science is all about. The Ptolemaic model obscured that nature for a millenium and the Standard Model of Cosmology does the same in our age. The analogy between the two systems is exact in this sense, the underlying physical premise of the Ptolemaic model was wrong and the underlying physical premise of modern cosmology, that the cosmos is a singular entity, is also wrong. The fact that mathematical structures built on these incorrect physical models can make valid predictions in no way diminishes the fact that they misrepresent the underlying physical reality. To me that's a problem, to you apparently not.
    still wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    As far as General Relativity goes, in and of itself I have no issue with it, however it is a misuse of the theory to attempt to apply it to your imaginary 'Universe'. It is after all a realtivity theory. What can it be relative to if you try to apply it to everything? Apply GR to the cosmos as if it were a singular entity and you get the Big Bang. As with computers, garbage in, garbage out.

    Regards,
    wrong. But you are consistent, and your record remains unblemished.

    You are precisely the type of fool described in this thread: http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-b...ogy-28430t.php

    Read it, and read the references. Get your facts straight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    If I may presume to explain what DrR meant, GR gets rid of preferred frames of reference ( actually SR does ) such that the frame of reference where the earth is stationary and the sun and stars revolve around it ( Ptolemaic system ) is perfectly valid. The equations describing such a system would be extremely messy however, and would become unwieldly very quickly.
    You have the main idea right.

    A couple of clarifications:

    1. The main issue is kinematics rather than dynamics. For a purely kinematic description one does not necessarily prefer the inertial frames of Newtonian mechanics or SR. One desires, but does not actually need, the system that provides the simplest, hence most elegant and clear, description of the motion in which one is interested.

    2. A Ptolemaic description of the motion of the planets can, as you said, be formulated and be valid. It will also, as you said, be a first-class mess -- epicycles and such. The Copernican model is much more elegant.

    3. You can also do dynamics, Newtonian or relativistic in any coordinate system. But the laws are messy if you chose unwisely. The Newtonian F=ma works only in an inertial frame. In an accelerating frome there are "pseudo-forces" with which to contend.

    4. SR is formulated so that the Lorentz transformations apply only between inertial frames. I don't know of any cases in practice where SR is applied in a non-inertial frame.

    5. Even GR is usually done in locally-Lorentzian (i.e. freely falling) frames. Rotation in GR is difficult to handle. While Mach may have influenced Einstein, GR is not really Machian.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Ah, Dr Rocket you do seem to have difficulty with unfamiliar concepts. Apparently you cannot grasp the distinction I was drawing between the cosmos that we observe and the imaginary entity you call the 'Universe' so you spent your entire post prattling on without addressing the issue.
    nope

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Oddly though you have managed to illuminate just why the Ptolemaic model is such a good analogy to its modern cosmological cousin. According to you "the Ptolemaic model was not fundamentally wrong, but rather adopted an unwieldy perspective." But Ptolemy's physical model is fundamentally wrong. The sun, the planets and the stars do not revolve around the earth every day. I can only guess that your tortured syntax was just a way of saying that this fundamental error is less important to you than the fact that the model could be used to make valid predictions.
    wrong again

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    I am however attempting to understand the nature of physical reality - to me that is what science is all about. The Ptolemaic model obscured that nature for a millenium and the Standard Model of Cosmology does the same in our age. The analogy between the two systems is exact in this sense, the underlying physical premise of the Ptolemaic model was wrong and the underlying physical premise of modern cosmology, that the cosmos is a singular entity, is also wrong. The fact that mathematical structures built on these incorrect physical models can make valid predictions in no way diminishes the fact that they misrepresent the underlying physical reality. To me that's a problem, to you apparently not.
    still wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    As far as General Relativity goes, in and of itself I have no issue with it, however it is a misuse of the theory to attempt to apply it to your imaginary 'Universe'. It is after all a realtivity theory. What can it be relative to if you try to apply it to everything? Apply GR to the cosmos as if it were a singular entity and you get the Big Bang. As with computers, garbage in, garbage out.

    Regards,
    wrong. But you are consistent, and your record remains unblemished.

    You are precisely the type of fool described in this thread: http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-b...ogy-28430t.php

    Read it, and read the references. Get your facts straight.
    All in all a remarkable display of your debating skills and intellectual capacity Rocket. The only thing I can discern from this and your infantile "basis of modern cosmology" rant is that while in school you learned what to think but not how to think. So when you are confronted with unfamiliar concepts like the distinction between physical and mathematical models or the distinction between a cosmos and a universe you compensate by hurling insults and spewing any irrelevant information you can think of. It's a sorry spectacle and you are no credit to this forum and a disgrace to science.

    Good luck son, you're going to need it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    If I may presume to explain what DrR meant, GR gets rid of preferred frames of reference ( actually SR does ) such that the frame of reference where the earth is stationary and the sun and stars revolve around it ( Ptolemaic system ) is perfectly valid. The equations describing such a system would be extremely messy however, and would become unwieldly very quickly.
    Of course you can create an abstract geocentric mathematical model like Ptolemy's but it has no physical correlate. That is to say that such a geocentric system does not and cannot exist in the physical world we inhabit. In that physical sense the Ptolemaic model is fundamentally wrong - it presents an incorrect picture of how the cosmos is structured. The fact that such a geocentric model can be used to make some accurate predictions about planetary motions is irrelevant to the fact that the physical model it uses is incorrect.

    If you don't find this distinction I'm making between physical and mathematical models clear there is a Roger Penrose lecture on youTube called Fashion, Faith and Fantasy. In several instances he explicitly states that he is switching from a mathematical mode to a more limited physical mode. In context I think the distinction will be clear.

    Regards,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    All in all a remarkable display of your debating skills and intellectual capacity Rocket. The only thing I can discern from this and your infantile "basis of modern cosmology" rant is that while in school you learned what to think but not how to think. So when you are confronted with unfamiliar concepts like the distinction between physical and mathematical models or the distinction between a cosmos and a universe you compensate by hurling insults and spewing any irrelevant information you can think of. It's a sorry spectacle and you are no credit to this forum and a disgrace to science.

    Good luck son, you're going to need it.
    Wrong little boy.

    You have yet to make any clear statement as to what your own theory is and have merely aimed vague insults at a theory that you clearly don't begin to understand.

    Since it is you who propose the new perspective, it is up to you to define it, and produce the data to support it. So far you have produced zilch. Show me the math. Show me the physics. Show me real data.

    Get yourself a decent education and a couple of decades of experience and then come back and try again.

    Luck has nothing to do with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    If I may presume to explain what DrR meant, GR gets rid of preferred frames of reference ( actually SR does ) such that the frame of reference where the earth is stationary and the sun and stars revolve around it ( Ptolemaic system ) is perfectly valid. The equations describing such a system would be extremely messy however, and would become unwieldly very quickly.
    Of course you can create an abstract geocentric mathematical model like Ptolemy's but it has no physical correlate. That is to say that such a geocentric system does not and cannot exist in the physical world we inhabit. In that physical sense the Ptolemaic model is fundamentally wrong - it presents an incorrect picture of how the cosmos is structured. The fact that such a geocentric model can be used to make some accurate predictions about planetary motions is irrelevant to the fact that the physical model it uses is incorrect.
    This statement is absurd.

    You clearly confuse elegance and economy of thought with correctness. They are two entirely different things.



    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    [If you don't find this distinction I'm making between physical and mathematical models clear there is a Roger Penrose lecture on youTube called Fashion, Faith and Fantasy. In several instances he explicitly states that he is switching from a mathematical mode to a more limited physical mode. In context I think the distinction will be clear.

    Regards,
    Interesting talk. All 10 parts.

    But Penrose says absolutely nothing that supports anything that you have said. Nothing.

    Roger is a smart guy. A very smart guy. You are not.

    Roger is a mathematician. So am I.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Wrong little boy..
    That's a little to insulting, however wrong he may be. Please make an effort to be more civil.

    This thread seems more appropriate for New Hypotheses as a subforum. Please PM me should anyone take issue with it. I'll genuinely consider any good argument for moving back or elsewhere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Wrong little boy..
    That's a little to insulting, however wrong he may be. Please make an effort to be more civil.

    This thread seems more appropriate for New Hypotheses as a subforum. Please PM me should anyone take issue with it. I'll genuinely consider any good argument for moving back or elsewhere.
    A response to his "Good luck son, you're going to need it.'

    I don't feel very contrite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    [quote="DrRocket"]
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    If I may presume to explain what DrR meant, GR gets rid of preferred frames of reference ( actually SR does ) such that the frame of reference where the earth is stationary and the sun and stars revolve around it ( Ptolemaic system ) is perfectly valid. The equations describing such a system would be extremely messy however, and would become unwieldly very quickly.
    Of course you can create an abstract geocentric mathematical model like Ptolemy's but it has no physical correlate. That is to say that such a geocentric system does not and cannot exist in the physical world we inhabit. In that physical sense the Ptolemaic model is fundamentally wrong - it presents an incorrect picture of how the cosmos is structured. The fact that such a geocentric model can be used to make some accurate predictions about planetary motions is irrelevant to the fact that the physical model it uses is incorrect.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    This statement is absurd.
    Without further elaboration by you this statement is meaningless

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    You clearly confuse elegance and economy of thought with correctness. They are two entirely different things.
    Well I'm definitely confused about what your point is. I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't really mean to say that the Ptolemaic model is physically plausible under the laws of physics as they are currently understood but now I'm not so sure. Are you really saying that a geocentric and heliocentric model of the solar system are physically (not mathematically) equivalent under the laws of physics?

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    [If you don't find this distinction I'm making between physical and mathematical models clear there is a Roger Penrose lecture on youTube called Fashion, Faith and Fantasy. In several instances he explicitly states that he is switching from a mathematical mode to a more limited physical mode. In context I think the distinction will be clear.

    Regards,
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    But Penrose says absolutely nothing that supports anything that you have said. Nothing.
    I didn't say he did. What I quite clearly said was that he demonstrated the ability to switch between mathematical and scientific modes of thinking. An ability you appear to lack.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Roger is a smart guy. A very smart guy. You are not.

    Roger is a mathematician. So am I.
    Roger Penrose is certainly a very smart man and I don't for a minute think I'm a smart as he is. But then it's obvious that you aren't either, so what?

    In addition to being a great mathematician he is also a scientist and he clearly understands the difference between the two disciplines. On the basis of everything I've read by you however, I can only conclude that you are no scientist and you do not grasp the difference at all.
    -Think first, calculate later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Well I'm definitely confused about what your point is. I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't really mean to say that the Ptolemaic model is physically plausible under the laws of physics as they are currently understood but now I'm not so sure. Are you really saying that a geocentric and heliocentric model of the solar system are physically (not mathematically) equivalent under the laws of physics?
    There is no difference. Mathematics is the language ofvphysics.

    The planetary orbits are what they are.You can describe them with a heliocentric model or a geocentric model. The orbits don't care. In most cases the heliocentric model is the clearest description. But a geocentric model describes exactly the same physics. The two perspectives are equivalent if properly formulated (nonody is saying that the planets are in elliptical orbits about the Earth).

    When one caclulates a trajectory for a spacecraft from Earth to Mars, one is in essence dealing with a geocentric model. If you think about it a bit the transformation is quite simple. You just take the Earth's position in heliocentric coordinates and subtract it (as a vector) from the position of the object of interest --- like the spacecraft or Mars.

    The key to solving problems in either mathematics or physics is being able to express a problem in many different equivalent ways. Often one way is sufficiently clear that the solution is obvious. It is a great mistake to think that one expression is correct while other equivalent expressions are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    If you don't find this distinction I'm making between physical and mathematical models clear there is a Roger Penrose lecture on youTube called Fashion, Faith and Fantasy. In several instances he explicitly states that he is switching from a mathematical mode to a more limited physical mode. In context I think the distinction will be clear.

    Regards.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    But Penrose says absolutely nothing that supports anything that you have said. Nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    I didn't say he did. What I quite clearly said was that he demonstrated the ability to switch between mathematical and scientific modes of thinking. An ability you appear to lack.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Roger is a smart guy. A very smart guy. You are not.

    Roger is a mathematician. So am I.
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Roger Penrose is certainly a very smart man and I don't for a minute think I'm a smart as he is. But then it's obvious that you aren't either, so what?

    In addition to being a great mathematician he is also a scientist and he clearly understands the difference between the two disciplines. On the basis of everything I've read by you however, I can only conclude that you are no scientist and you do not grasp the difference at all.
    You quite clearly have never done cutting-edge research.

    There are two ingredients to research -- understanding of the problem and flexibility of thought in applying that understanding.

    I am quite aware of the difference between mathematics and physics. Mathrmatics is rather helpful with both understanding and flexibility of thought.

    But there is no switching between mathematics and physics going on in Roger"s talk, although there are varying levels of rigor which is natural since he is presenting speculative ideas, not conclusions or a polished end product.

    There is no such thing as a physical model that is distinct from the mathematical model by which it is expressed, except for the unification that attends two models that describe the same physics.

    Consider string theory, which Penrose discusses in his talk. He makes the point that string theory has contributed to some spectacular mathematics -- true. He makes the additional point that, to date, string theory has produced no new physics and may not be a good description of physics -- also true. He concedes that, while is skeptical of string theory as a viable theory he does not know for sure if it will or will not eventually become a viable physical theory -- nobody knows.

    But if string theory is ever to be a viable theory it will have to be better understood than is the case today. There are, or were, several competing string theories. Your approach would say that only one, at most, could be "physically" correct. But Ed Witten would disagree. His idea of M theory unites all of these competing string theories under one umbrella. They could all be correct, just different ways of looking at a single theory. So, if M theory pans out it will be a shining counterexample to your narrow-minded approach.

    You can conclude whatever you wish. You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it might be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    There is no difference. Mathematics is the language ofvphysics.

    The planetary orbits are what they are.You can describe them with a heliocentric model or a geocentric model. The orbits don't care. In most cases the heliocentric model is the clearest description. But a geocentric model describes exactly the same physics. The two perspectives are equivalent if properly formulated (nonody is saying that the planets are in elliptical orbits about the Earth).
    It seems to me that there is a difference between mathematics and physics and it is well illustrated by your comments and by the Penrose comments on String Theory you mention below - the theory is good in the mathematical realm not so good in the physical realm.

    It's only my opinion but I've never cared for the math is the language of physics metaphor. I prefer to think of mathematics as an essential tool of physics. This is probaly because I don't think in mathematical terms when I think about physics but in a kind of internal visual imagery. No doubt this contributes a great deal to our mutual misunderstanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The key to solving problems in either mathematics or physics is being able to express a problem in many different equivalent ways. Often one way is sufficiently clear that the solution is obvious. It is a great mistake to think that one expression is correct while other equivalent expressions are wrong.
    But in the physical world some expressions are correct while other mathematically equivalent expressions may be clearly wrong, as in not true. The earth revolves around the sun - true. The sun revolves around the earth - false. I am almost always thinking in terms of the physical world and I gather you are always thinking in mathematical terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    There is no such thing as a physical model that is distinct from the mathematical model by which it is expressed, except for the unification that attends two models that describe the same physics.
    Not sure what you mean here.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Consider string theory, which Penrose discusses in his talk. He makes the point that string theory has contributed to some spectacular mathematics -- true. He makes the additional point that, to date, string theory has produced no new physics and may not be a good description of physics -- also true. He concedes that, while is skeptical of string theory as a viable theory he does not know for sure if it will or will not eventually become a viable physical theory -- nobody knows.

    But if string theory is ever to be a viable theory it will have to be better understood than is the case today. There are, or were, several competing string theories. Your approach would say that only one, at most, could be "physically" correct. But Ed Witten would disagree. His idea of M theory unites all of these competing string theories under one umbrella. They could all be correct, just different ways of looking at a single theory. So, if M theory pans out it will be a shining counterexample to your narrow-minded approach.
    So if M theory doesn't pan out will that be a shining counterexample to your narrow-minded approach? Would you like to put money on the chances of it panning out over a reasonably short time frame - say another 50 years maybe?

    String theory is a zombie idea that has been lumbering through the halls of academia tieing up resources in physics departments all over the world for more than 30 years without contributing a single thing to physics (as Penrose pointed out). So I have a simple question for you: what is the criteria for finally driving a stake through the heart of this ugly beast and burying it once and for all? How many more wasted years will finally be enough?

    You shouldn't have asked me to consider string theory, it make me twitchy. Kind of like the way the suggestion that the cosmos might not be a singular entity seems to make you apoplectic.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    You can conclude whatever you wish. You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it might be.
    Thank you, that's very generous of you. You are entitled to your own opinion no matter how wrong it might be also.
    -Think first, calculate later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    It's only my opinion but I've never cared for the math is the language of physics metaphor.
    It is not a metaphor. That is just the way that it is. All physical theories are expressed in terms of mathematics, and by mathematics I do not mean symbolism, but rather the study of order.

    "Mathematics is the study of any kind of order that the human mind can recognize" --Pasquale Porcelli, Professor of Mathematics

    Until you can formulate a physical theory in terms of mathematics you don't really understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    So if M theory doesn't pan out will that be a shining counterexample to your narrow-minded approach? Would you like to put money on the chances of it panning out over a reasonably short time frame - say another 50 years maybe?

    String theory is a zombie idea that has been lumbering through the halls of academia tieing up resources in physics departments all over the world for more than 30 years without contributing a single thing to physics (as Penrose pointed out). So I have a simple question for you: what is the criteria for finally driving a stake through the heart of this ugly beast and burying it once and for all? How many more wasted years will finally be enough?
    There is nothing narrow-minded in my approach. Just disciplined. That comes from education and actually doing meaningful original research -- peer-reviewed publication in major journals.

    I have no idea if string theory will ever be a viable physical theory, and have never stated otherwise. Quite the contrary.

    It has already proved itself a marvelous conjecture machine for mathematics, particularly algebraic geometry.

    Your criticism of string theory can also apply to supersymmetry, quantum loop gravity, and research into Grand Unified Theories. In fact not much has panned out since Gel Mann formulated quantum chromodynamics.

    I certainly don't think that string theory should be the only game in town. But it would be a bad idea to abandon the research entirely at this stage. Clearly something better than just the Standard Model is needed -- but nobody knows what it is.

    Bashing string theory is fashionable, but it is just as narrow-minded as thinking that string theory is the clear route to ultimate understanding. You will note that while Penrose has justified doubts regarding string theory, he also said that he could be wrong. Penrose's position is reasonable and reasoned. Yours is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    You shouldn't have asked me to consider string theory, it make me twitchy. Kind of like the way the suggestion that the cosmos might not be a singular entity seems to make you apoplectic.
    I am not at all apoplectic over that idea, but you cannot make it sufficiently precise for reasoned discussion. You have no clear framework for any such discussion. That is likely due to your inadequacies with mathematics.

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    You can conclude whatever you wish. You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it might be.
    Thank you, that's very generous of you. You are entitled to your own opinion no matter how wrong it might be also.
    The great difference is that I know what I am talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    "Mathematics is the study of any kind of order that the human mind can recognize" --Pasquale Porcelli, Professor of Mathematics
    So is navel gazing. One good quote deserves another.

    "So-called professional mathematicians have, in their reliance on the relative incapacity of the rest of mankind, acquired for themselves a reputation for profundity very similar to the reputation for sanctity possessed by theologians." - Georg C. Lichtenberg

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Until you can formulate a physical theory in terms of mathematics you don't really understand it.
    Until you can empirically verify the physical assumptions of your mathematical model it is not a physical theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Your criticism of string theory can also apply to supersymmetry, quantum loop gravity, and research into Grand Unified Theories.
    Absolutely, I couldn't agree more which brings me back to a question I asked previously: What is the criteria for terminating these unproductive lines of 'cutting-edge' research? Is there a criteria? And if not, why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I certainly don't think that string theory should be the only game in town. But it would be a bad idea to abandon the research entirely at this stage. Clearly something better than just the Standard Model is needed -- but nobody knows what it is.
    Instead of clinging to the carcass of String Theory or trying to come up with some new far-fetched piece of mathematical fantasia why not consider just re-examining the physical assumptions of the current model?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Bashing string theory is fashionable, but it is just as narrow-minded as thinking that string theory is the clear route to ultimate understanding. You will note that while Penrose has justified doubts regarding string theory, he also said that he could be wrong. Penrose's position is reasonable and reasoned. Yours is not.
    Your first sentence seems to imply that you think String Theory's chances of 'panning out' are about even. But they aren't even close. Not after 30+ years and all these real smart people working away and nothing to show for it in physics. I don't know what Penrose makes the odds but it's clear from his comments that he doesn't think they're very good. Of course the theory could still prove useful to physics. But I make the odds as likely as you being struck by lightning tomorrow. Holding out any hope for string theory is a fool's bet and you're welcome to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I am not at all apoplectic over that idea, but you cannot make it sufficiently precise for reasoned discussion. You have no clear framework for any such discussion. That is likely due to your inadequacies with mathematics.
    What are you kidding me, I'm supposed to do the math for you? Look let me take you a couple of steps down the road. If the cosmos is not a singular entity then the cosmos must be larger by some considerable amount than the Schwarzschild radius implied by the average density of the visible cosmos. How much larger is unknowable. Can you build a mathematical model on those physical assumptions?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The great difference is that I know what I am talking about.
    You are a legend in your own mind sir, and a truly humble man.
    -Think first, calculate later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    What are you kidding me, I'm supposed to do the math for you? Look let me take you a couple of steps down the road. If the cosmos is not a singular entity then the cosmos must be larger by some considerable amount than the Schwarzschild radius implied by the average density of the visible cosmos. How much larger is unknowable. Can you build a mathematical model on those physical assumptions?
    Given that the universe appears to be homogeneous on the largest wscales, the concept of a Schwartzchild radius is meaningless.

    So is "not a single entity" which is word salad of your own making.

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The great difference is that I know what I am talking about.
    You are a legend in your own mind sir, and a truly humble man.
    Not at all.

    Your perception is distorted by delusions of adequacy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Instead of clinging to the carcass of String Theory or trying to come up with some new far-fetched piece of mathematical fantasia why not consider just re-examining the physical assumptions of the current model?
    If you think you know a productive avenue to the nest great physical theory, then why don't you just go ahead and pursue it ? Publish the results in a reputable journal and collect your prize.

    In the absence of any product from you, people who can and have actually done original research can get a chuckle from the nincompoop who sits on the sidelines and criticizes the pros who actually do research but who offers no viable approach himself.

    Re-examine the physical assumptions of the current model ? --- that happens every day. You have just described a very typical graduate class.

    There are all sorts of difficulties, ragged edges and issues of rigor with current theory. That is very well known. But there are even bigger issues. QED is not well-defined. Nobody can rigorously define a Feynman path integral. Yet the theory has made remarkably accurate predictions. None of this stuff is being ignored, and one aspect of cutting-edge research is formulating a theory without those problems -- a fundamental theory rather than a perturbative theory. That is one of the appeals of string theory.

    Dilettante. You sit on the sidelines and criticize without understanding. You really need to understand what Penrose was trying to say, which is nothing like your interpretation. Your incompetence in mathematics is showing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Your incompetence in mathematics is showing.
    But he's quite good at emotionally charged, unsubstantive rhetoric.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Instead of clinging to the carcass of String Theory or trying to come up with some new far-fetched piece of mathematical fantasia why not consider just re-examining the physical assumptions of the current model?
    If you think you know a productive avenue to the nest great physical theory, then why don't you just go ahead and pursue it ? Publish the results in a reputable journal and collect your prize.

    In the absence of any product from you, people who can and have actually done original research can get a chuckle from the nincompoop who sits on the sidelines and criticizes the pros who actually do research but who offers no viable approach himself.

    Re-examine the physical assumptions of the current model ? --- that happens every day. You have just described a very typical graduate class.

    There are all sorts of difficulties, ragged edges and issues of rigor with current theory. That is very well known. But there are even bigger issues. QED is not well-defined. Nobody can rigorously define a Feynman path integral. Yet the theory has made remarkably accurate predictions. None of this stuff is being ignored, and one aspect of cutting-edge research is formulating a theory without those problems -- a fundamental theory rather than a perturbative theory. That is one of the appeals of string theory.

    Dilettante. You sit on the sidelines and criticize without understanding. You really need to understand what Penrose was trying to say, which is nothing like your interpretation. Your incompetence in mathematics is showing.
    What, I should submit a paper to one of the approved 'reputable journals' of the Guild of Mathematicians Posing as Scientists where it would be sure to receive the same open minded hearing it's getting here? Why would I waste my time submitting a challenge to the dogma of GOMPAS; it would be as fruitless an endeavour as challenging the dogma of any rigid belief system. Your whole attitude as exhibited here is like a B-movie caricature of a High Priest. I would expect no better from the rest of your caste.

    What you fail to grasp is that I'm not interested in discussing your mathematical models. What I'm trying to discuss are the physical assumptions that underlie your models but you seem incapable or unwilling to think in those terms and we can't have a mathematical discussion about those assumptions anyway because they are physical assumptions not mathematical assumptions.

    Since you don't grasp the concept of a cosmos that is not a unified singular entity let's try a level up. Can you conceive of any possible cause of the redshift-distance correlation for galaxies discovered by Hubble other than the currently accepted recessional velocity interpretation? Any approach, either physical or mathematical will do. Something like Zwicky's tired light. I'm not asking you to defend such a position just whether you can conceive of the idea that there might be such an alternative.
    -Think first, calculate later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    [What, I should submit a paper to one of the approved 'reputable journals' of the Guild of Mathematicians Posing as Scientists where it would be sure to receive the same open minded hearing it's getting here? Why would I waste my time submitting a challenge to the dogma of GOMPAS; it would be as fruitless an endeavour as challenging the dogma of any rigid belief system. Your whole attitude as exhibited here is like a B-movie caricature of a High Priest. I would expect no better from the rest of your caste.
    Translation: I am incompetent in physics and mathematics and my so-called theories cannot stand up to the objective scrutiny of review by experts. But I cannot admit this, even to myself and prefer to bluster and accuse the most open-minded community on the planet, the research community, of bias.

    The scientific community does not reject notions like yours due to narrow-mindedness. Such ideas are rejected because they are not supported by empirical data, or, as in your case, because they are nonsensical.

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    What you fail to grasp is that I'm not interested in discussing your mathematical models. What I'm trying to discuss are the physical assumptions that underlie your models but you seem incapable or unwilling to think in those terms and we can't have a mathematical discussion about those assumptions anyway because they are physical assumptions not mathematical assumptions.
    Translation: I don't know what in the hell I am talking about and don't dare to discuss physics in its natural language, so I hide behind my self-manufactured semantic issue of the difference between physical assumptions and the mathematics in which those expressions are defined and quantified.

    I grasp the situation quite fully. You are intimidated by and incompetent in mathematics. Your defense is bluster, and an affectation of superiority. This is pretty common behavior among those who fancy themselves intelligent, but are unable to understand the basic principles of modern science. It is a rather transparent strategy.

    Mathematics is the language of physics. If you can't speak it you are effectively illiterate. Denial will not change that fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Since you don't grasp the concept of a cosmos that is not a unified singular entity let's try a level up. Can you conceive of any possible cause of the redshift-distance correlation for galaxies discovered by Hubble other than the currently accepted recessional velocity interpretation? Any approach, either physical or mathematical will do. Something like Zwicky's tired light. I'm not asking you to defend such a position just whether you can conceive of the idea that there might be such an alternative.
    Translation: I can't handle real physics so I resort to meaningless semantic arguments.

    ANY scientist or mathematician, and that includes me, not only can but regularly does consider alternatives to currently accepted theory. Not only are alternatives considered, but they are evaluated against the data that supports or refutes all potential theories. Those with promise are retained for further consideration and those found wanting are discarded.

    Tired light has been evacuated and found wanting.

    "Not a unified entity" is meaningless word salad. Moreover, given the size of whatever you wish to call the piece of the universe in which we find ourselves -- large enough that parts are causally disconnected from us -- there is no possibility of testing a hypothesis advocating anything that is even larger.

    Your incompetence in mathematics has blinded you to the implications of what is known and allowed you to advocate ideas that are untestable )apparently indescribable) and therefore scientifically irrelevant. Science is limited to that which is in principle testable. Your semantic nonsense is not science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Translation: I am incompetent in physics and mathematics and my so-called theories cannot stand up to the objective scrutiny of review by experts. But I cannot admit this, even to myself and prefer to bluster and accuse the most open-minded community on the planet, the research community, of bias.

    The scientific community does not reject notions like yours due to narrow-mindedness. Such ideas are rejected because they are not supported by empirical data, or, as in your case, because they are nonsensical.
    Should we consider you an example of the open-mindedness of the community you represent?

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    What you fail to grasp is that I'm not interested in discussing your mathematical models. What I'm trying to discuss are the physical assumptions that underlie your models but you seem incapable or unwilling to think in those terms and we can't have a mathematical discussion about those assumptions anyway because they are physical assumptions not mathematical assumptions.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Your defense is bluster, and an affectation of superiority.
    That's very funny coming from you. Bluster and an affectation of superiority characterize almost the entire content of your posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Mathematics is the language of physics.
    It is not however the only language that physics can be discussed in.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Tired light has been evacuated and found wanting.
    Can you briefly explain why?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    "Not a unified entity" is meaningless word salad.
    Under the current conception the cosmos is a Universe with a singular origin, and a series of universal epochs, inflation, decoupling, and finally the universal simultaneity of now. In that sense the Universe as currently conceived is a singular unified entity.

    All I am suggesting is that consideration be given to the possibility that the cosmos cannot be treated either mathematically or conceptually as such a singular unified entity because it may be far vaster than we currently believe and therefore not everywhere causally connected. Note the stress on consideration I'm not insisting that it is this way, only that the possibility be considered. To date I do not believe it has. If you know otherwise please provide references; I'd be happy to read them.
    -Think first, calculate later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Your defense is bluster, and an affectation of superiority.
    That's very funny coming from you. Bluster and an affectation of superiority characterize almost the entire content of your posts.
    Only to those lacking in perception.

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    ]Mathematics is the language of physics.
    It is not however the only language that physics can be discussed in.
    Actually it is. You can do away with the symbology, but if you do away with specificity and the predictive power of physical models (and that is what is enabled by mathematics) you are no longer talking about physics, or indeed science.


    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Tired light has been evacuated and found wanting.
    Can you briefly explain why?
    Briefly -- there is no mechanism for any such phenomena.

    More detail: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

    Still more : Cosmology by Steven Weinberg


    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    "Not a unified entity" is meaningless word salad.
    Under the current conception the cosmos is a Universe with a singular origin, and a series of universal epochs, inflation, decoupling, and finally the universal simultaneity of now. In that sense the Universe as currently conceived is a singular unified entity.

    All I am suggesting is that consideration be given to the possibility that the cosmos cannot be treated either mathematically or conceptually as such a singular unified entity because it may be far vaster than we currently believe and therefore not everywhere causally connected. Note the stress on consideration I'm not insisting that it is this way, only that the possibility be considered. To date I do not believe it has. If you know otherwise please provide references; I'd be happy to read them.
    The "universality of time" is a convenient fiction that is adopted in cosmology.

    General relativity makes it quite clear that time is a local, observer-dependent parameter. There is no such thing as universal time.

    However, if you make the assumption of the "cosmological principle", that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic then things are a bit different. Under that assumption spacetime decomposes as a one-parameter (timelike) foliation by 3-dimensional spacelike hypersurfaces of constant curvature. The parameter and hypersurfaces are not unique, but they serve asurrogates for "time" and "space" in cosmology. That parameter is what cosmologists mean by "time".

    This model is only an approximation. It is quite clear that the universe is not truly homogeneous and isotropic. It does however appear to be so on the very largest scales, and therefore is a useful assumption in cosmology.

    Unfortunately for you one needs to understand mathematics in order to understand both the current theory and the assumptions that define and limit it.

    As you have been told, the existing model of the universe includes parts that, due to apparent accelerating expansion, are and will remain causally disconnected from any chosen location -- see "Hubble sphere". If the expansion were to reverse, and that could happen depending on what is eventually learned about "dark energy" those portions of the universe could return to causal contact.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_volume

    There are some extremely speculative and inherently untestable theories involving "pocket universes" that are not only causally disconnected but that also have different physical laws. See The Cosmic Landscape by Susskind. The problem with these theories is not only that they are untestable, but also, since anything causally disconnected from our universe can neither affect or be affected by us, they are irrelevant. You may postulate anything that you please about something causally removed from us without fear of contradiction or any prospect of confirmation.

    It is not a matter of being open-minded or closed-minded about these theories. I don't care if they are right or not. We can never know. It doesn't matter.

    This stuff is basically an over-reaction to "intelligent design" nuts by people who have turned atheism into its own religion, just a different brand of zealot.. Religion and science are not incompatible as long as religion does not dictate science and science sticks to science (science can neither prove nor refute the existence of God). They are really independent.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/bo.../15powell.html

    This stuff, because it is untestable in principle, is not science. It is philosophy that can be discussed forever, but regarding which no confirmable conclusion is possible. Data talks. Bullshit walks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30 Toward a 21st century cosmology 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Calabria (Italia)
    Posts
    8
    Without appearing to be poking my nose in, I cannot refrain myself from saying something. I shall say it simply because DrRocket appears to be a scientist as well as a mathematician. In the last month or so I have come to appreciate DrRocket’s worth and I am doing now something that I don’t like to do.
    Here it is. I would like to say that if we are aiming at portraying mother nature in its pristine form; then, the physical reality hence the physical concept must of necessity prevail over the mathematical counterpart. The operative implications of a physical concept are much more complex than mathematical reasoning no matter how elaborate this may be. It seems to me, then, that the thought being capable, in its mental processes, of gathering in synthesis many elements, often at the same time, will give better results than a 2+2=4 may be doing. With mathematics the thought is bridled in the same way that a river is harnessed, and that is, I guess, the unavoidable restriction imposed by the written paper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31 Re: Toward a 21st century cosmology 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by mico
    Without appearing to be poking my nose in, I cannot refrain myself from saying something. I shall say it simply because DrRocket appears to be a scientist as well as a mathematician. In the last month or so I have come to appreciate DrRocket’s worth and I am doing now something that I don’t like to do.
    Here it is. I would like to say that if we are aiming at portraying mother nature in its pristine form; then, the physical reality hence the physical concept must of necessity prevail over the mathematical counterpart. The operative implications of a physical concept are much more complex than mathematical reasoning no matter how elaborate this may be. It seems to me, then, that the thought being capable, in its mental processes, of gathering in synthesis many elements, often at the same time, will give better results than a 2+2=4 may be doing. With mathematics the thought is bridled in the same way that a river is harnessed, and that is, I guess, the unavoidable restriction imposed by the written paper.
    You are a bit limited in what you understand as mathematics. It is not just arithmetic.

    "Mathematics is the study of any kind of order that the human mind can recognize" -- Pasquale Porcelli, professor of mathematics

    Mathematics is the language in which physics is expressed. Period. That does not mean that intuition plays no, or even only a small, role in the discovery process. It takes intuition to understand the physics and to formulate mathematical laws that capture the physics.

    Even mathematical research is largely based on intuition. Mathematicians guess the right solution to a problem and then use logic to prove that the guess is correct. Non-mathematicians typically only the end product and get no taste of the complete process.

    Mathematics is not just about solving equations. That is actually a very small part. VERY SMALL.

    Mathematics does not bridle the thought process. Rather it enables and liberates the process, and permits thoughts to be expressed precisely. But it only serves this purpose for people who understand mathematics and have some aptitude.

    "To summarize , I would use the words of Jeans, who said that ‘the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician’. To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. C.P. Snow talked about two cultures. I really think that those two cultures separate people who have and people who have not had this experience of understanding mathematics well enough to appreciate nature once." – Richard P. Feynman in The Character of Physical Law
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    ]Mathematics is the language of physics.
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    It is not however the only language that physics can be discussed in.
    Actually it is. You can do away with the symbology, but if you do away with specificity and the predictive power of physical models (and that is what is enabled by mathematics) you are no longer talking about physics, or indeed science.
    Nonsense. There are any number of books written in any number of languages by well known physicists that discuss physics without elaborate mathematical content. Mathematics may be the only language you can discuss physics in but then you are limited in the way you understand physical reality, the comprehension of which is the ultimate object of physics, indeed of all science.

    Your confusion in this area is evident in the difficulty you have admitting that Ptolemaic cosmology misrepresents physical reality and is therefore an incorrect physical model despite the predictive power of the mathematical structure built on that model. Therein lies the danger of thinking about physics only in terms of mathematical models. Call it the map/territory problem. If you only study the maps you'll never really know the territory.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Tired light has been evacuated and found wanting.
    Can you briefly explain why?
    Briefly -- there is no mechanism for any such phenomena.

    More detail: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
    You guys didn't try very hard. How about this:

    Consider an expanding spherical wavefront of light at a radial distance of 1 million lightyears from its source galaxy. Calculate the gravitational redshift at the surface of the sphere so-defined using the currently estimated average density of the observed universe to determine the mass. Repeat the calculation for increasing radial distances out to 1 billion lightyears. Twenty data points or so will yield an interesting curve of increasing redshift with distance. Works well in any spreadsheet with a graph function. And since we're talking GR, time dilation is of course built in.
    -Think first, calculate later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33 Re: Toward a 21st century cosmology 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by mico
    Without appearing to be poking my nose in, I cannot refrain myself from saying something. I shall say it simply because DrRocket appears to be a scientist as well as a mathematician. In the last month or so I have come to appreciate DrRocket’s worth and I am doing now something that I don’t like to do.
    Here it is. I would like to say that if we are aiming at portraying mother nature in its pristine form; then, the physical reality hence the physical concept must of necessity prevail over the mathematical counterpart. The operative implications of a physical concept are much more complex than mathematical reasoning no matter how elaborate this may be. It seems to me, then, that the thought being capable, in its mental processes, of gathering in synthesis many elements, often at the same time, will give better results than a 2+2=4 may be doing. With mathematics the thought is bridled in the same way that a river is harnessed, and that is, I guess, the unavoidable restriction imposed by the written paper.
    You are a bit limited in what you understand as mathematics. It is not just arithmetic.

    "Mathematics is the study of any kind of order that the human mind can recognize" -- Pasquale Porcelli, professor of mathematics

    Mathematics is the language in which physics is expressed. Period. That does not mean that intuition plays no, or even only a small, role in the discovery process. It takes intuition to understand the physics and to formulate mathematical laws that capture the physics.

    Even mathematical research is largely based on intuition. Mathematicians guess the right solution to a problem and then use logic to prove that the guess is correct. Non-mathematicians typically only the end product and get no taste of the complete process.

    Mathematics is not just about solving equations. That is actually a very small part. VERY SMALL.

    Mathematics does not bridle the thought process. Rather it enables and liberates the process, and permits thoughts to be expressed precisely. But it only serves this purpose for people who understand mathematics and have some aptitude.

    "To summarize , I would use the words of Jeans, who said that ‘the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician’. To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. C.P. Snow talked about two cultures. I really think that those two cultures separate people who have and people who have not had this experience of understanding mathematics well enough to appreciate nature once." – Richard P. Feynman in The Character of Physical Law
    Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore. - Albert Einstein
    -Think first, calculate later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Nonsense. There are any number of books written in any number of languages by well known physicists that discuss physics without elaborate mathematical content. Mathematics may be the only language you can discuss physics in but then you are limited in the way you understand physical reality, the comprehension of which is the ultimate object of physics, indeed of all science.
    Sure there are. But those are not serious physics texts. They are popularizations, over-simplifications for people not capable of handling the real thing -- like you.

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Your confusion in this area is evident in the difficulty you have admitting that Ptolemaic cosmology misrepresents physical reality and is therefore an incorrect physical model despite the predictive power of the mathematical structure built on that model. Therein lies the danger of thinking about physics only in terms of mathematical models. Call it the map/territory problem. If you only study the maps you'll never really know the territory.
    I am not the one who is confused -- or incompetent.

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Tired light has been evacuated and found wanting.
    Can you briefly explain why?
    Briefly -- there is no mechanism for any such phenomena.

    More detail: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
    You guys didn't try very hard. How about this:

    Consider an expanding spherical wavefront of light at a radial distance of 1 million lightyears from its source galaxy. Calculate the gravitational redshift at the surface of the sphere so-defined using the currently estimated average density of the observed universe to determine the mass. Repeat the calculation for increasing radial distances out to 1 billion lightyears. Twenty data points or so will yield an interesting curve of increasing redshift with distance. Works well in any spreadsheet with a graph function. And since we're talking GR, time dilation is of course built in.
    That won't work at all. The observed redshift is proportional to distance. Your mathematical incompetence is showing. Again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35 Re: Toward a 21st century cosmology 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    [ince the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore. - Albert Einstein
    Yep, things have progressed since Einstein invented the theory in 1915. He probably would not understand the modern formulation in terms of differential forms. For that matter Marcel Grossman helped him quite a bit in deciding to use Riemannian geometry in the first place, and with tensor analysis after that. Nevertheless it is the mathematics that makes any formulation of general relativity possible.

    GR is frankly impossible to understand for those, like you, with a severe case of "math anxiety'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Nonsense. There are any number of books written in any number of languages by well known physicists that discuss physics without elaborate mathematical content. Mathematics may be the only language you can discuss physics in but then you are limited in the way you understand physical reality, the comprehension of which is the ultimate object of physics, indeed of all science.
    Sure there are. But those are not serious physics texts. They are popularizations, over-simplifications for people not capable of handling the real thing -- like you.
    I have read a number of popular science texts (some decent ones) on physics and cosmology, but I have always believed that less technical texts meant much more superficial texts.
    I do have a regard for certain statements you have made, budrap, but I put this down to my lack of expertise in mathematics. It is clear that DrRocket has a deep knowledge of maths and physics altho' I would not rate his comments on other subjects, such as current affairs, as being necessarily better than those of other posters.
    I only studied maths until I was 18 years (some time ago now) so maybe I can be excused if the next part is nonsense. If one takes a subatomic particle such as the electron it seems that maths gives by far the best description of the behaviour of this particle, but the electron is an object, and not simply an idea, which exists and has physical reality. In other words it has properties, such as appearance and structure, which cannot be completely described by mathematics. It may be possible that these properties will be discovered with new scientific discoveries leading to advances in technology,
    One could argue that we would then have a deeper understanding of some aspects of physical reality than that given by pure mathematics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    If one takes a subatomic particle such as the electron it seems that maths gives by far the best description of the behaviour of this particle, but the electron is an object, and not simply an idea, which exists and has physical reality. In other words it has properties, such as appearance and structure, which cannot be completely described by mathematics. It may be possible that these properties will be discovered with scientific discoveries leading to advances in technology,
    One could argue that we would then have a deeper understanding of some aspects of physical reality than that given by pure mathematics.
    The best available theory of the electron describes it as an elementary particle, a single point haveig neither appearance nor structure. Thanks to the uncertainty principle it doesn't even have a definite location.

    Quantum mechanics is sufficiently weird that words fail and only mathematics can adequately describe it. Even classical mechanics requires mathematics to describe fields, "action", energy, etc. Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics are in the same boat, and in fact so is all of physics.

    Popularizations eschew mathematics in order to boost sales. But a lot is lost to that omission. There is a reason that ALL serious physics texts are chock full of mathematics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Sure there are. But those are not serious physics texts. They are popularizations, over-simplifications for people not capable of handling the real thing -- like you.
    The "real thing" is physical reality, the "mathematical thing" is a product of the human imagination. Mathematics is an invaluable and absolutely essential tool of physics. But like the human imagination it is remarkably malleable and prone to flights of fancy. A solid grounding in the the nature of physical reality is essential to the properly constrained (by empiricism) use of mathematics in physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I am not the one who is confused -- or incompetent.
    Methinks thou doth protest too much.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    That won't work at all. The observed redshift is proportional to distance. Your mathematical incompetence is showing. Again.
    And you confuse physical with mathematcal models, again. I offered that as a proof of concept model only. It no doubt would require some fine tuning and incorporation of other factors before it is fully realized. Given that the current cosmological distance scale assumptions result in a "universe" that is composed of 73% invisible dark energy and 23% invisible dark matter, it is past time to consider other alternatives.
    -Think first, calculate later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    The "real thing" is physical reality, the "mathematical thing" is a product of the human imagination. Mathematics is an invaluable and absolutely essential tool of physics. But like the human imagination it is remarkably malleable and prone to flights of fancy. A solid grounding in the the nature of physical reality is essential to the properly constrained (by empiricism) use of mathematics in physics.
    Translation: I am incompetent in mathematics, but entertain the delusion that I am knowledgeable of physics and desperately want to be taken seriously.

    Sorry Charlie, it just doesn't work that way. Even the most empirical of experimental physicists recognize that serious physics is expressed in terms of mathematics.

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I am not the one who is confused -- or incompetent.
    Methinks thou doth protest too much.
    You have provided no convincing evidence that you think at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    That won't work at all. The observed redshift is proportional to distance. Your mathematical incompetence is showing. Again.
    And you confuse physical with mathematical models, again. I offered that as a proof of concept model only. It no doubt would require some fine tuning and incorporation of other factors before it is fully realized. Given that the current cosmological distance scale assumptions result in a "universe" that is composed of 73% invisible dark energy and 23% invisible dark matter, it is past time to consider other alternatives.
    Rubbish

    The only one confused here is you.

    You offered up an ill-considered model that simply proves that you fail to understand "physical reality" because you are incompetent to understand the logical ramifications of mathematical model by which physics is understood. When your elementary mistake is shown to you, rather than recognize it and learn something you retreat back into your shell and go into denial.

    You have done it again here. The hypothesis of dark energy and dark matter address entirely different issues, and have nothing to do with "the current cosmological distance scale assumptions ". Before you consider alternatives, you need to first understand what the current ideas really are.

    Dark energy is nothing but a name. Empirical data indicates that space is expanding. Nobody knows why, and several ideas have been explored. The unknown cause has been dubbed "dark energy". So there is no real alternative, since whatever it is can certainly be called whatever we want to call it. The issue is find out what is at the root of the accelerating expansion, or equivalently to determine what generates the observed positive cosmological constant.

    Dark matter is also a name given to the unknown explanation for a problem. In this case the problem is that the rotation rate of the outer arms if spiral galaxies is inconsistent with the gravity attendant to the visible matter. There is evidence for some sort of unseen matter in terms of gravitational lensing as ell. But the real issue is still to determine what is creating these observed phenomena.

    You would do better to stop protesting that you are not ignorant, and instead educate yourself, including learning the mathematics necessary to understand physics. Ignorance is curable. Ignorance denied is indistinguishable from stupidity.

    Bottom line: Physics is understood in terms of the mathematical models that describe it, including those aspects that are imperfectly modeled.. As understanding increases the models are improved and refined, and the imperfections become progressively more subtle and of lesser importance.

    You seem to have the opinion that current research in physics is badly misdirected. You seem to think that your opinion should count. Yet you demonstrate extremely poor understanding of both current mainstream physics and of the nature of on-going research. You compound this with disdain for, ignorance of, and incompetence in the mathematical tools and descriptions that are integral to all physics since Newton published the Principia in 1687. If you think about it criticism of well-educated scientists on this absurd basis is unbelievably arrogant, not to mention abysmally stupid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Physical reality is a perceptual simplification of existence that permits cognitively limited entities to get up in the morning and make a cup of tea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Physical reality is a perceptual simplification of existence that permits cognitively limited entities to get up in the morning and make a cup of tea.
    Yet another quote worthy of repeat.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Physical reality is a perceptual simplification of existence that permits cognitively limited entities to get up in the morning and make a cup of tea.
    With a chaperone present to prevent being scalded.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Physical reality is a perceptual simplification of existence that permits cognitively limited entities to get up in the morning and make a cup of tea.
    Exquisite! Would you mind if I threw this on my tag line?
    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  
     

  45. #44  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Physical reality is a perceptual simplification of existence that permits cognitively limited entities to get up in the morning and make a cup of tea.
    Exquisite! Would you mind if I threw this on my tag line?
    It is indeed exquisite, but what makes it so is the context. In your tag line, lacking the context of this thread, it would be merely puzzling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Translation: I am incompetent in mathematics, but entertain the delusion that I am knowledgeable of physics and desperately want to be taken seriously.
    Translation: I do not know how to frame a logical argument so I defend my position by hurling insults. These childish taunts say much about your intellectual and emotional maturity.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Dark energy is nothing but a name. Empirical data indicates that space is expanding. Nobody knows why, and several ideas have been explored.
    The one idea you refuse to explore is the possibility that your model is wrong. The empirical data does not indicate that space is expanding unless you view it through the prism of your model. Try a new prism. The problem with you is you cannot even imagine that another prism might exist and if anyone suggests otherwise you throw a hissy-fit.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The unknown cause has been dubbed "dark energy". So there is no real alternative, since whatever it is can certainly be called whatever we want to call it.
    Why not "dark devils" or "dark angels"? Whatever, dude.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    You would do better to stop protesting that you are not ignorant, and instead educate yourself, including learning the mathematics necessary to understand physics. Ignorance is curable. Ignorance denied is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    Ascribing stupidity to those who disagree with you is the soul of ignorance and narrow-mindedness.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    As understanding increases the models are improved and refined, and the imperfections become progressively more subtle and of lesser importance.
    Oh really? The current model has been undergoing improvement and refinement for 50+ years and has arrived at the unedifying conclusion that 95% of the "universe" is composed of some invisible matter and energy or (in your words) whatever of an unknown nature. You call that an imperfection of subtle and lesser importance? I call that imperfection a huge gaping hole representing a monumental failure of the Standard Model.

    The problem with you and others of your coterie (and I by no means wish to implicate all mathematicians) is that you lack any critical faculty for judging when one of your models has failed. I have asked you twice for the criteria by which we might finally judge String Theory to have failed and apparently you cannot say what the criteria might be. Apparently you cannot judge any model in which you have vested some interest a failure and that is a big problem because the ability to recognize failure is essential to the doing of science. Science proceeds by failing and learning from failure. If you can't recognize a failure you can't learn from it. Science simply grinds to a halt under those conditions and becomes nothing but a rigid belief system.

    So with people of your limited abilities and rigid dogmatism posing as scientists we find ourselves as a society poised once again on the precipice of a millenial Dark Age of dark matter and dark energy. I object and I will continue to object until people like you are sequestered back in the Math Department where you belong and people who are called scientists once again do science.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    You seem to have the opinion that current research in physics is badly misdirected.
    You are very perceptive
    -Think first, calculate later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    The one idea you refuse to explore is the possibility that your model is wrong. The empirical data does not indicate that space is expanding unless you view it through the prism of your model. Try a new prism. The problem with you is you cannot even imagine that another prism might exist and if anyone suggests otherwise you throw a hissy-fit.
    Wrong again, as usual.

    There are several known potential "prisms"
    1) general relativity
    2) Einstein-Cartan theory
    3) any of several string theories
    4) quantum loop gravity

    GR and ECT are experimentally indistinguishable with current measurement technology, though ECT admits torsion and may not have the singularities that occur with GR. String theory and LQG are at best tentative.

    But, because of the correspondence principle, and the huge amount of empirical data supporting GR, any refinement must reduce to GR in the appropriate limit -- so space will be expanding, at least in the current epoch in ANY valid model.

    You confuse an open mind with an empty head, understandably. You further confuse vision with hallucination.



    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The unknown cause has been dubbed "dark energy". So there is no real alternative, since whatever it is can certainly be called whatever we want to call it.
    Why not "dark devils" or "dark angels"? Whatever, dude.
    You stumbled on the truth and fail to recognize it. You can call it anything that you want. "Dark energy" is the accepted term, but so is "positive cosmological constant". Call it "Oscar" if you like -- it doesn't matter.

    Geez, you can't even recognize truth when it slips from your lips. Pitiful. dud

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    You would do better to stop protesting that you are not ignorant, and instead educate yourself, including learning the mathematics necessary to understand physics. Ignorance is curable. Ignorance denied is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    Ascribing stupidity to those who disagree with you is the soul of ignorance and narrow-mindedness.
    I did not ascribe it. I simply recognized some strong evidence, and reached the same logical conclusion as would other perceptive readers.


    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    The problem with you and others of your coterie (and I by no means wish to implicate all mathematicians) is that you lack any critical faculty for judging when one of your models has failed.
    Any theory has failed when it makes a prediction that is inconsistent with any measurement.

    Having failed, it may be discarded, or it may, as with classical mechanics, be retained as an adequate approximation under certain conditions.





    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    I have asked you twice for the criteria by which we might finally judge String Theory to have failed and apparently you cannot say what the criteria might be.
    What you fail to understand is that "string theory" is not a theory. It is a category of research that may or may not ever produce testable predictions. If it does, then it will be judged as above. If not, it will never be part of physics.

    This simply points out, again, that you lack the competence to understand what string theory is. Talk about narrow-minded -- condemning the unknown.


    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Apparently you cannot judge any model in which you have vested some interest a failure and that is a big problem because the ability to recognize failure is essential to the doing of science.
    As usual you don't know what you are talking about. I have no vested interest whatever in string theory. It has produced some spectacular mathematics, and that alone has justified its study.

    I have no idea if it will ever become a viable theory of nature.


    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Science proceeds by failing and learning from failure. If you can't recognize a failure you can't learn from it. Science simply grinds to a halt under those conditions and becomes nothing but a rigid belief system.

    So with people of your limited abilities and rigid dogmatism posing as scientists we find ourselves as a society poised once again on the precipice of a millenial Dark Age of dark matter and dark energy. I object and I will continue to object until people like you are sequestered back in the Math Department where you belong and people who are called scientists once again do science.
    Wrong again.

    Science does learn from failure. But string theory has not failed. It is not yet even in the game, and won't be unless and until it makes a testable prediction.

    Your criticism is not one of science, but rather one directed towards funding -- i.e. it is political. You need to learn the differences among science, politics, and philosophy.

    If someone has a viable alternative to current research avenues, and there is a lot more under investigation than string theory, then by all means it deserves support.

    You are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Not all opinions are worthy of consideration. That certainly applies to those who protest out of ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    You seem to have the opinion that current research in physics is badly misdirected.
    You are very perceptive
    I know. You are not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    I want to reiterate the central point of my previous post. I don't think DrRocket and I disagree that this properly characterizes the current consensus in regards to dark matter and dark energy:

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    ...95% of the "universe" is composed of some invisible matter and energy.....of an unknown nature.
    Based on that I want to attempt to clarify my criticisms of the Standard Cosmological Model (SCM). Whether this "dark matter" and "dark energy" can actually be considered matter and energy is irrelevant to this discussion; those are the commonly used terms and I will stick with them.

    Dark matter is proposed as a solution to the problem that arises when certain General Relativity calculations are attempted on the galactic scale; the results of those calculations do not agree with observation. One possible reason for this disagreement is thought to be that the average matter density of the cosmos is considerably higher than that currently estimated by the SCM.

    The dark matter hypothesis proposes that the cosmos is suffused with enough "dark matter" to bring the GR calculations into agreement with observation. This is, of course, a totally ad hoc solution to the problem and there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of "dark matter". Saying that however does not invalidate the hypothesis as a hypothesis.

    Another possible cause of the discrepancy between theory and experiment has also been considered, that GR itself is incorrect in some fundamental way. However nothing satisfactory has emerged from that line of reasoning so we are left with the "dark matter" solution to the problem.

    Dark energy is proposed as a solution to the observation first reported in 1998 that cosmologically distant galaxies are further away from us than expected under the SCM. The dark energy hypothesis proposes that the cosmos is suffused with an otherwise undetected and unspecified force or energy or something else that is causing the expansion of the "universe" to accelerate just enough to bring the SCM expectations into agreement with observation. Again, this is a totally ad hoc solution to the problem and there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of "dark energy". And again saying that does not invalidate the hypothesis as a hypothesis.

    My criticism of modern cosmology then is that nothing other than two extraordinary (in the scientific sense) hypotheses, "dark matter" and "dark energy" have been offered as possible solutions to the discrepancies SCM has with observations and in particular absolutely no serious effort has been instituted or even suggested to re-evaluate the foundational assumptions of the SCM in light of those discrepancies.

    I have offered some suggestions in my original post as to which assumptions might be profitably reconsidered but I do not insist on the correctness of my particular views except in the broadest sense of thinking that a re-evaluation of any and all foundational assumptions is long overdue. If my suggestions only initiate a larger, more broad-based re-evaluation along other lines of thought that will suffice. What will not suffice is the status quo.
    -Think first, calculate later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Based on that I want to attempt to clarify my criticisms of the Standard Cosmological Model (SCM). Whether this "dark matter" and "dark energy" can actually be considered matter and energy is irrelevant to this discussion; those are the commonly used terms and I will stick with them.

    Dark matter is proposed as a solution to the problem that arises when certain General Relativity calculations are attempted on the galactic scale; the results of those calculations do not agree with observation. One possible reason for this disagreement is thought to be that the average matter density of the cosmos is considerably higher than that currently estimated by the SCM.

    The dark matter hypothesis proposes that the cosmos is suffused with enough "dark matter" to bring the GR calculations into agreement with observation. This is, of course, a totally ad hoc solution to the problem and there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of "dark matter". Saying that however does not invalidate the hypothesis as a hypothesis.

    wrong

    The problem has nothing to do with general relativity.

    The problem that lies at the root of the dark matter hypothesis is that stars in the outer orbits around the center of spiral galaxies are moving too fast for the observed orbits if the gravitational force keeping them in orbit is attributed solely to the amount of matter that is observed. The calculations are in fact done using Newtonian gravitation models, which are quite adequate. Of course, the conclusions are compatible with general relativity, but the additional accuracy of Gr
    R is not needed and the considerable additional effort to solve the equations of GR is not warranted.



    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Another possible cause of the discrepancy between theory and experiment has also been considered, that GR itself is incorrect in some fundamental way. However nothing satisfactory has emerged from that line of reasoning so we are left with the "dark matter" solution to the problem.
    wrong

    see above

    see below

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Dark energy is proposed as a solution to the observation first reported in 1998 that cosmologically distant galaxies are further away from us than expected under the SCM. The dark energy hypothesis proposes that the cosmos is suffused with an otherwise undetected and unspecified force or energy or something else that is causing the expansion of the "universe" to accelerate just enough to bring the SCM expectations into agreement with observation. Again, this is a totally ad hoc solution to the problem and there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of "dark energy". And again saying that does not invalidate the hypothesis as a hypothesis.
    If you don't like "dark energy" replace it with "positive cosmological constant". The idea of a cosmological constant in the Einstein field equations has been known since GR was invented.' Einstein used it to support a static model, which he recanted on seeing Hubble's data.

    The real problem is that nobody knows why there should be a positive cosmological constant, but it does match the observed expansion.

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    My criticism of modern cosmology then is that nothing other than two extraordinary (in the scientific sense) hypotheses, "dark matter" and "dark energy" have been offered as possible solutions to the discrepancies SCM has with observations and in particular absolutely no serious effort has been instituted or even suggested to re-evaluate the foundational assumptions of the SCM in light of those discrepancies.
    Utterly wrong

    see below



    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    I have offered some suggestions in my original post as to which assumptions might be profitably reconsidered but I do not insist on the correctness of my particular views except in the broadest sense of thinking that a re-evaluation of any and all foundational assumptions is long overdue. If my suggestions only initiate a larger, more broad-based re-evaluation along other lines of thought that will suffice. What will not suffice is the status quo.
    You have offered no specific suggestions whatever. Your original post was both vague and plagued by factual error. So were your subsequent posts.

    You don't even know what the foundational assumptions are. To understand them one must understand the mathematics which you eschew and in which you are manifestly incompetent.

    There is LOTS of research that explores variations in the foundations, but one must understand mathematics in order to comprehend it -- which leaves you out.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403694
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The problem has nothing to do with general relativity.
    This statement is directly contradicted by the link you provided below wherein an alternative gravitational model to GR is considered as a means of resolving the missing mass problem without invoking "dark matter". If you can't manage to construct a logical argument in defense of your position you should at least try to be self-consistent.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The problem that lies at the root of the dark matter hypothesis is that stars in the outer orbits around the center of spiral galaxies are moving too fast for the observed orbits if the gravitational force keeping them in orbit is attributed solely to the amount of matter that is observed. The calculations are in fact done using Newtonian gravitation models, which are quite adequate. Of course, the conclusions are compatible with general relativity, but the additional accuracy of Gr
    R is not needed and the considerable additional effort to solve the equations of GR is not warranted.
    Correct but beside the point. GR is the conceptual gravitational model of modern cosmology. That quotidian calculations are performed using the Newtonian gravitational model because it is functionally equivalent at that scale is irrelevant to the issues under consideration here.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    If you don't like "dark energy" replace it with "positive cosmological constant".
    I don't like either of those names so I'm going to use the following terminology:
    1. For "dark energy" - AdHocProposition #3 (AHP3)
    2. For "dark matter" - AdHocProposition #2 (AHP2)

    Both AHP2 and AHP3 are as you admitted without any empirical support. They exist only for the purpose of patching the predictive failures of the SCM. As such they are of dubious scientific merit and the Standard Cosmological Model (SCM) should be adjudged a failure by the standard you offered earlier:
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Any theory has failed when it makes a prediction that is inconsistent with any measurement.
    By your own criteria then, how is it that you are still touting such an abysmal failure as the SCM?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The real problem is that nobody knows why there should be a positive cosmological constant, but it does match the observed expansion.
    There is no direct observation of either a "universal" expansion or an acceleration. Expansion is the SCM interpretation of the Hubble redshift-distance relationship and acceleration is the SCM interpretation of the observed discrepancy between the predicted (by the redshift-distance proportionality assumption of SCM) and observation.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    You have offered no specific suggestions whatever. Your original post was both vague and plagued by factual error. So were your subsequent posts.

    You don't even know what the foundational assumptions are. To understand them one must understand the mathematics which you eschew and in which you are manifestly incompetent.

    There is LOTS of research that explores variations in the foundations, but one must understand mathematics in order to comprehend it -- which leaves you out.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403694
    Here is my original point:
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    1. Underlying all of modern cosmological theory (The Standard Model) is the assumption that the observed cosmos is part of a singular coherent entity, the Universe. There is no scientific basis for this belief; it is merely an archaic cultural artifact.
    That you appear to not understand this is obvious, so let me restate it in this form:

    The cosmos is far vaster than was realized when the current cosmological structure was conceived back in the 1920s. It is likely also that the cosmos is larger than the cosmos we can currently observe. Given then the law of the constancy of lightspeed and the absence of a universal spacetime reference frame as a consequence of relativity theory, it follows that the cosmos is subject to a cosmological uncertainty principle such that the cosmos itself (and any of its sub-components such as human beings) cannot possess complete and simultaneous knowledge of its state at any particular local time whether past present or future.

    If you don't like that come up with something yourself. Any attempt to fundamentally recast the SCM would be welcome. What is not acceptable is for you to pretend, given its failures, that the current SCM is not fundamentally flawed.
    -Think first, calculate later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The problem has nothing to do with general relativity.
    This statement is directly contradicted by the link you provided below wherein an alternative gravitational model to GR is considered as a means of resolving the missing mass problem without invoking "dark matter". If you can't manage to construct a logical argument in defense of your position you should at least try to be self-consistent.
    You have simply proved that you don't understand the problem. You don't have either the background or apparently the intelligence to understand a logical argument when it is thrust upon you.

    The basic issue has nothing to do with GR, but is quite evident in the Newtonian model.

    One proposed solution Modification of Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) is a small deviation from the inverse square law. It fails to explain gravitational lensing effects (a GR phenomena) that support the dark matter hypothesis. Beckenstein's paper offers a modification of GR that generalizes MOND and overcomes that objection.



    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The problem that lies at the root of the dark matter hypothesis is that stars in the outer orbits around the center of spiral galaxies are moving too fast for the observed orbits if the gravitational force keeping them in orbit is attributed solely to the amount of matter that is observed. The calculations are in fact done using Newtonian gravitation models, which are quite adequate. Of course, the conclusions are compatible with general relativity, but the additional accuracy of Gr
    R is not needed and the considerable additional effort to solve the equations of GR is not warranted.
    Correct but beside the point. GR is the conceptual gravitational model of modern cosmology. That quotidian calculations are performed using the Newtonian gravitational model because it is functionally equivalent at that scale is irrelevant to the issues under consideration here.
    You have missed the point entirely. Again.

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    ] If you don't like "dark energy" replace it with "positive cosmological constant".
    I don't like either of those names so I'm going to use the following terminology:
    1. For "dark energy" - AdHocProposition #3 (AHP3)
    2. For "dark matter" - AdHocProposition #2 (AHP2)

    Both AHP2 and AHP3 are as you admitted without any empirical support. They exist only for the purpose of patching the predictive failures of the SCM. As such they are of dubious scientific merit and the Standard Cosmological Model (SCM) should be adjudged a failure by the standard you offered earlier:
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Any theory has failed when it makes a prediction that is inconsistent with any measurement.
    By your own criteria then, how is it that you are still touting such an abysmal failure as the SCM?
    You fail to understand just about everything.

    First, the Lambda CDM model does match observations, so it has not failed the test of matching empirical data.

    Second, because neither dark energy nor dark matter are either confirmed or understood, the model is provisional.

    Third, this is irrelevant to the broad big bang model that is based on general relativity.

    Your mathematical incompetence leaves you blind.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The real problem is that nobody knows why there should be a positive cosmological constant, but it does match the observed expansion.
    There is no direct observation of either a "universal" expansion or an acceleration. Expansion is the SCM interpretation of the Hubble redshift-distance relationship and acceleration is the SCM interpretation of the observed discrepancy between the predicted (by the redshift-distance proportionality assumption of SCM) and observation.

    [quote="budrap"]
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    al point:
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    1. Underlying all of modern cosmological theory (The Standard Model) is the assumption that the observed cosmos is part of a singular coherent entity, the Universe. There is no scientific basis for this belief; it is merely an archaic cultural artifact.
    That you appear to not understand this is obvious, so let me restate it in this form:

    The cosmos is far vaster than was realized when the current cosmological structure was conceived back in the 1920s. It is likely also that the cosmos is larger than the cosmos we can currently observe. Given then the law of the constancy of lightspeed and the absence of a universal spacetime reference frame as a consequence of relativity theory, it follows that the cosmos is subject to a cosmological uncertainty principle such that the cosmos itself (and any of its sub-components such as human beings) cannot possess complete and simultaneous knowledge of its state at any particular local time whether past present or future.

    If you don't like that come up with something yourself. Any attempt to fundamentally recast the SCM would be welcome. What is not acceptable is for you to pretend, given its failures, that the current SCM is not fundamentally flawed.
    Bold added to highlight self-contradiction.

    The current model works quite well, given the uncertainties noted earlier.

    Your gibberish regarding a cosmological uncertainty principle overlooks the fact that there is no meaning whatever to global simultaneity. You managed to produce a self-contradiction within a single sentence.

    BTW "local time" means time at a point, not a local clock that can be applied to time at some distant location -- this is a fundamental difference between special relativity and general relativity. You have been tripped up by your mathematical incompetence, yet again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    If you don't like "dark energy" replace it with "positive cosmological constant".
    I don't like either of those names so I'm going to use the following terminology:
    1. For "dark energy" - AdHocProposition #3 (AHP3)
    2. For "dark matter" - AdHocProposition #2 (AHP2)

    Both AHP2 and AHP3 are as you admitted without any empirical support. They exist only for the purpose of patching the predictive failures of the SCM. As such they are of dubious scientific merit and the Standard Cosmological Model (SCM) should be adjudged a failure by the standard you offered earlier:
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Any theory has failed when it makes a prediction that is inconsistent with any measurement.
    By your own criteria then, how is it that you are still touting such an abysmal failure as the SCM?
    You fail to understand just about everything.

    First, the Lambda CDM model does match observations, so it has not failed the test of matching empirical data.

    Second, because neither dark energy nor dark matter are either confirmed or understood, the model is provisional.

    Third, this is irrelevant to the broad big bang model that is based on general relativity.
    First and Second, Lambda=AHP3 and CDM=AHP2 so the "Lambda CDM model" is just the failed SCM arbitrarily patched with just the right amount of "somethings which cannot be named" to bring it into agreement with observation. This neatly bypasses your criteria for judging a model to have failed and effectively renders the SCM unfalsifiable. Clever, but an unfalsifiable model is an unscientific model. You are proferring a turd and calling it a rose, but LCDM doesn't look like a rose and it doesn't smell like a rose because it is an unscientific turd.

    Third, hardly irrelevant since the big bang is an integral part of the falsified (by your stated criteria) SCM.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The real problem is that nobody knows why there should be a positive cosmological constant, but it does match the observed expansion.
    There is no direct observation of either a "universal" expansion or an acceleration. Expansion is the SCM interpretation of the Hubble redshift-distance relationship and acceleration is the SCM interpretation of the observed discrepancy between the predicted (by the redshift-distance proportionality assumption of SCM) and observation.

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    1. Underlying all of modern cosmological theory (The Standard Model) is the assumption that the observed cosmos is part of a singular coherent entity, the Universe. There is no scientific basis for this belief; it is merely an archaic cultural artifact.
    That you appear to not understand this is obvious, so let me restate it in this form:

    The cosmos is far vaster than was realized when the current cosmological structure was conceived back in the 1920s. It is likely also that the cosmos is larger than the cosmos we can currently observe. Given then the law of the constancy of lightspeed and the absence of a universal spacetime reference frame as a consequence of relativity theory, it follows that the cosmos is subject to a cosmological uncertainty principle such that the cosmos itself (and any of its sub-components such as human beings) cannot possess complete and simultaneous knowledge of its state at any particular local time whether past present or future.

    If you don't like that come up with something yourself. Any attempt to fundamentally recast the SCM would be welcome. What is not acceptable is for you to pretend, given its failures, that the current SCM is not fundamentally flawed.
    Bold added to highlight self-contradiction.

    The current model works quite well, given the uncertainties noted earlier.

    Your gibberish regarding a cosmological uncertainty principle overlooks the fact that there is no meaning whatever to global simultaneity. You managed to produce a self-contradiction within a single sentence.

    BTW "local time" means time at a point, not a local clock that can be applied to time at some distant location -- this is a fundamental difference between special relativity and general relativity. You have been tripped up by your mathematical incompetence, yet again.
    Bold italics added to highlight a deliberate misrepresentation of the argument. Sleazy even by your standards Rocket.

    I completely agree "...that there is no meaning whatever to global simultaneity." That is in fact the point of the Cosmological Uncertainity Principle. And if it is true then there is no meaning to such statements of global simulteneity as:

    The Universe is 13.7 billion years old.
    13.7 billion years ago the Universe was smaller and denser than it is now.
    The Universe is expanding.
    The expansion of the Universe is accelerating.


    And if those statements have no meaning then the currently accepted Standard Cosmological Model is devoid of meaning also.
    -Think first, calculate later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    I completely agree "...that there is no meaning whatever to global simultaneity." That is in fact the point of the Cosmological Uncertainity Principle. And if it is true then there is no meaning to such statements of global simulteneity as:

    The Universe is 13.7 billion years old.
    13.7 billion years ago the Universe was smaller and denser than it is now.
    The Universe is expanding.
    The expansion of the Universe is accelerating.


    And if those statements have no meaning then the currently accepted Standard Cosmological Model is devoid of meaning also.
    Your mathematical incompetence is showing again. This has been explained several times elsewhere, but here it is again for those who, unlike you, are capable of understanding.

    The cosmological model is based o general relativity and the additional assumption that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. While the universe is manifestly neither homogeneous nor isotropic on the small scale observation does indicate that it is homogeneous and isotropic on the largest scale, and that is sufficient for cosmology.

    Under general relativity a homogeneous and isotropic spacetime decomposes as a one-parameter foliation by 3-dimensional space-like hyperspaces of constant curvature. Those hypersurfaces inherit a true Riemannian metric from the Lorentzian metric of the full spacetime. The time-like parameter of the foliation serves as a surrogate for time.

    The age of the universe is measured by the parameter which serves as global time..

    The space-like hypersurfaces are what is called space.

    Expansion of space is measured by the increasing distance between points as measured by the Riemannian metric thereon as a function of the parameter, time.

    Density is determined by mass density on the hypersurfaces.

    Acceleration is determined by the rate of change of the expansion of space.

    Cosmologists in addition typically select a convenient reference frame, the frame in which the CMB is isotropic

    So you see, there is a well-defined meaning to each of the concepts that you challenge. As usual, lack of mathematical competence has rendered you scientifically illiterate.

    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    I completely agree "...that there is no meaning whatever to global simultaneity." That is in fact the point of the Cosmological Uncertainity Principle. And if it is true then there is no meaning to such statements of global simulteneity as:

    The Universe is 13.7 billion years old.
    13.7 billion years ago the Universe was smaller and denser than it is now.
    The Universe is expanding.
    The expansion of the Universe is accelerating.


    And if those statements have no meaning then the currently accepted Standard Cosmological Model is devoid of meaning also.
    Your mathematical incompetence is showing again. This has been explained several times elsewhere, but here it is again for those who, unlike you, are capable of understanding.

    The cosmological model is based o general relativity and the additional assumption that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. While the universe is manifestly neither homogeneous nor isotropic on the small scale observation does indicate that it is homogeneous and isotropic on the largest scale, and that is sufficient for cosmology.

    Under general relativity a homogeneous and isotropic spacetime decomposes as a one-parameter foliation by 3-dimensional space-like hyperspaces of constant curvature. Those hypersurfaces inherit a true Riemannian metric from the Lorentzian metric of the full spacetime. The time-like parameter of the foliation serves as a surrogate for time.

    The age of the universe is measured by the parameter which serves as global time..

    The space-like hypersurfaces are what is called space.

    Expansion of space is measured by the increasing distance between points as measured by the Riemannian metric thereon as a function of the parameter, time.

    Density is determined by mass density on the hypersurfaces.

    Acceleration is determined by the rate of change of the expansion of space.

    Cosmologists in addition typically select a convenient reference frame, the frame in which the CMB is isotropic

    So you see, there is a well-defined meaning to each of the concepts that you challenge. As usual, lack of mathematical competence has rendered you scientifically illiterate.
    Well we've reached an interesting point. I think we both agree that your statement "...there is no meaning whatever to global simultaneity" derives from the relativity of simultaneity which is a direct consequence of the Special Theory of Relativity that carries over into the General Theory.

    In my statement quoted above I meant to question the physical meaning of these statements:

    The Universe is 13.7 billion years old.
    13.7 billion years ago the Universe was smaller and denser than it is now.
    The Universe is expanding.
    The expansion of the Universe is accelerating.


    But what I really should have said is that they contradict the relativity of simultaneity and therefore Relativity Theory. That would have been more to the point. However I don't think you would have answered any differently and I find your answer quite remarkable for it provides the smoking gun that illustrates one of the main criticisms I listed in my original post:
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    1. Underlying all of modern cosmological theory (The Standard Model) is the assumption that the observed cosmos is part of a singular coherent entity, the Universe. There is no scientific basis for this belief; it is merely an archaic cultural artifact.
    I have highlighted the first sentence of your second paragraph above because it clearly shows that your mathematical model assumes that the cosmos is a "universe" and from there you explain how to generate the contradictory (to Relativity Theory) statements listed above. And it's true - if you make an a priori global assumption you will generate global statements such as "the universe is expanding." Your elaborate explanation above doesn't justify those contradictory statements as you seem to think, it only demonstrates how you got them.

    If you are having trouble grasping the distinction between a cosmos that exists and a universe that you only imagine try this alternative cosmology just as an excercise (it's not mine but I do like it): Grab one of those Hubble deep field photos and stare at it for a few minutes seeing all those galaxies the way the first astronomers to perceive the nature of galaxies did, as Island Universes. Not one big Universe out there, just a lot of Island Universes stretching away in all directions as far as our enhanced eyes can see; but how far beyond that no one will ever know.

    A few sharp young scientists just starting out could make quite a name for themselves elaborating a model like that. Certainly would be more fun than flogging the dead horse of a cosmology we have now.
    -Think first, calculate later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    (from Sciam on-line)

    …The kind of nonlocality one encounters in quantum mechanics seems to call for an absolute simultaneity, which would pose a very real and ominous threat to [Einstein’s] special relativity.

    …What is uncanny about the way that quantum-mechanical particles can nonlocally influence one another is that it does not depend on the particles’ spatial arrangements or their intrinsic physical characteristics…but only on whether or not the particles in question are quantum mechanically entangled with one another.

    …The trouble is that special relativity tends to mix up space and time in a way that transforms quantum-mechanical entanglement among distinct physical systems into something along the lines of an entanglement among physical situations at different times—something that in a perfectly concrete way exceeds or eludes or has nothing to do with any sum of situations at distinct temporal instants.

    …Quantum-mechanical wave functions cannot be represented mathematically in anything smaller than a mind-bogglingly high-dimensional space called a configuration space. If, as some argue, wave functions need to be thought of as concrete physical objects, then we need to take seriously the idea that the world’s history plays itself out not in the three-dimensional space of our everyday experience or the four-dimensional spacetime of special relativity but rather this gigantic and unfamiliar configuration space, out of which the illusion of three-dimensionality somehow emerges. Our three-dimensional idea of locality would need to be understood as emergent as well. The nonlocality of quantum physics might be our window into this deeper level of reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by questor
    (from Sciam on-line)

    …The kind of nonlocality one encounters in quantum mechanics seems to call for an absolute simultaneity, which would pose a very real and ominous threat to [Einstein’s] special relativity.

    …What is uncanny about the way that quantum-mechanical particles can nonlocally influence one another is that it does not depend on the particles’ spatial arrangements or their intrinsic physical characteristics…but only on whether or not the particles in question are quantum mechanically entangled with one another.

    …The trouble is that special relativity tends to mix up space and time in a way that transforms quantum-mechanical entanglement among distinct physical systems into something along the lines of an entanglement among physical situations at different times—something that in a perfectly concrete way exceeds or eludes or has nothing to do with any sum of situations at distinct temporal instants.

    …Quantum-mechanical wave functions cannot be represented mathematically in anything smaller than a mind-bogglingly high-dimensional space called a configuration space. If, as some argue, wave functions need to be thought of as concrete physical objects, then we need to take seriously the idea that the world’s history plays itself out not in the three-dimensional space of our everyday experience or the four-dimensional spacetime of special relativity but rather this gigantic and unfamiliar configuration space, out of which the illusion of three-dimensionality somehow emerges. Our three-dimensional idea of locality would need to be understood as emergent as well. The nonlocality of quantum physics might be our window into this deeper level of reality.
    questor,

    Actually I think relativity theory provides a kind of basic template which can be expanded and extended to provide a framework for resolving a lot of the conceptual difficulties that attend quantum level phenomenon. Consider the following propositions:

    1. There are no universal reference frames. (This just makes explicit the well known consequence of relativity theory.)

    2. There are two distinct types of reference frames in the cosmos: the 4-dimensional time independant reference frame of electro-magnetic radiation and the 3-dmiensional + time reference frame of matter.

    With this framework in hand it is possible to think about previously mystifying quantum phenomenon in rational ways that "make sense". For instance the differing results of the double-slit experiment can be interpreted as a being the result of two different experiments performed at the slits, one in the 4D reference frame and the other in the 3D+1 reference frame. The "spooky action at a distance" aspect of entanglement can be seen as a consequence of there being no time separation between the two entangled photons in the 4D reference frame they share.

    It needs a lot of work of course but overall the idea seems promising - and it gets one of the great successes of 20th century science off the hook. Relativity theory is just fine.

    Regards,

    budrap
    -Think first, calculate later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    Well we've reached an interesting point. I think we both agree that your statement "...there is no meaning whatever to global simultaneity" derives from the relativity of simultaneity which is a direct consequence of the Special Theory of Relativity that carries over into the General Theory.

    In my statement quoted above I meant to question the physical meaning of these statements:

    The Universe is 13.7 billion years old.
    13.7 billion years ago the Universe was smaller and denser than it is now.
    The Universe is expanding.
    The expansion of the Universe is accelerating.


    But what I really should have said is that they contradict the relativity of simultaneity and therefore Relativity Theory. That would have been more to the point. However I don't think you would have answered any differently and I find your answer quite remarkable for it provides the smoking gun that illustrates one of the main criticisms I listed in my original post:
    Proving only that your mathematical uncompetence prevents you from understanding what the theory does and does not say.

    We don't agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    1. Underlying all of modern cosmological theory (The Standard Model) is the assumption that the observed cosmos is part of a singular coherent entity, the Universe. There is no scientific basis for this belief; it is merely an archaic cultural artifact.
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    I have highlighted the first sentence of your second paragraph above because it clearly shows that your mathematical model assumes that the cosmos is a "universe" and from there you explain how to generate the contradictory (to Relativity Theory) statements listed above. And it's true - if you make an a priori global assumption you will generate global statements such as "the universe is expanding." Your elaborate explanation above doesn't justify those contradictory statements as you seem to think, it only demonstrates how you got them.

    If you are having trouble grasping the distinction between a cosmos that exists and a universe that you only imagine try this alternative cosmology just as an excercise (it's not mine but I do like it): Grab one of those Hubble deep field photos and stare at it for a few minutes seeing all those galaxies the way the first astronomers to perceive the nature of galaxies did, as Island Universes. Not one big Universe out there, just a lot of Island Universes stretching away in all directions as far as our enhanced eyes can see; but how far beyond that no one will ever know.
    Again you prove that you are clueless. An "island universe" is no universe at all.



    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    A few sharp young scientists just starting out could make quite a name for themselves elaborating a model like that. Certainly would be more fun than flogging the dead horse of a cosmology we have now.
    They would certainly make a name. And guarantee permanrnt unemployment.

    And now that your nonsense has been banished to Pseudoscience where it belongs, we are done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    To sum things up to this point:

    With the inestimable help of DrRocket this thread has demonstrated that the Standard Cosmological Model is a scientific failure by the criteria that DrRocket himself provided.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Any theory has failed when it makes a prediction that is inconsistent with any measurement.

    Having failed, it may be discarded, or it may, as with classical mechanics, be retained as an adequate approximation under certain conditions.
    DrRocket also helpfully provided this statement, a well known consequence of Relativity Theory, with which I am in complete agreement:

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    "...there is no meaning whatever to global simultaneity."
    When I pointed out that this statement would seem to render meaningless such statements of global simulteneity as "the universe is expanding" or "the universe is 13.7 billion years old" DrRocket responded with the following description of the mathematical techniques used to arrive at those contradictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The cosmological model is based o general relativity and the additional assumption that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. While the universe is manifestly neither homogeneous nor isotropic on the small scale observation does indicate that it is homogeneous and isotropic on the largest scale, and that is sufficient for cosmology.

    Under general relativity a homogeneous and isotropic spacetime decomposes as a one-parameter foliation by 3-dimensional space-like hyperspaces of constant curvature. Those hypersurfaces inherit a true Riemannian metric from the Lorentzian metric of the full spacetime. The time-like parameter of the foliation serves as a surrogate for time.

    The age of the universe is measured by the parameter which serves as global time..

    The space-like hypersurfaces are what is called space.

    Expansion of space is measured by the increasing distance between points as measured by the Riemannian metric thereon as a function of the parameter, time.

    Density is determined by mass density on the hypersurfaces.

    Acceleration is determined by the rate of change of the expansion of space.

    Cosmologists in addition typically select a convenient reference frame, the frame in which the CMB is isotropic

    So you see, there is a well-defined meaning to each of the concepts that you challenge.
    Well yes, there is a well-defined mathematical meaning to the contradictory concepts as long as one makes the contradictory (to Relativity Theory) assumption that the cosmos comprises a singular "universe". DrRocket makes just that assumption in his first sentence quoted above, demonstrating clearly the validity of criticism #1 of my original post that 'the universe' is a pre-scientific and pre-mathematical assumption of the Standard Cosmological Model.

    The reason that in Relativity Theory "there is no meaning whatever to global simultaneity" is that in Relativity Theory there is no universal reference reference frame and absent a universal reference frame there can be no "universe" and therefore there can be no global simultaneity.

    This thread has established then that the Standard Cosmological Model has failed and identified the probable cause of that failure as an a priori assumption (of a "universe") that contradicts one of the fundamental consequences of Relativity Theory.
    -Think first, calculate later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    To sum things up to this point:

    With the inestimable help of DrRocket this thread has demonstrated that the Standard Cosmological Model is a scientific failure by the criteria that DrRocket himself provided.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Any theory has failed when it makes a prediction that is inconsistent with any measurement.

    Having failed, it may be discarded, or it may, as with classical mechanics, be retained as an adequate approximation under certain conditions.
    Are you sure this doesn't mean that, rather than being a failure, the Standard Cosmological Model should be retained as an adequate approximation under certain conditions?

    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    The reason that in Relativity Theory "there is no meaning whatever to global simultaneity" is that in Relativity Theory there is no universal reference reference frame and absent a universal reference frame there can be no "universe" and therefore there can be no global simultaneity.
    A tautology? You just said the reason there is no global simultaneity is that there is no universal reference frame and if there is no universal reference frame there can be no global simultaneity. That is not a reason for there being no global simultaneity, that is simply the result of their being no global simultaneity.

    There is no local simultaneity either, between two frames in relative motion, but both frames can be local to each other - does this mean we cannot describe our locality?

    Not only is there no global simultaneity, there is no absolute simultaneity at all. Simultaneity is relative, full stop.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    Are you sure this doesn't mean that, rather than being a failure, the Standard Cosmological Model should be retained as an adequate approximation under certain conditions?
    In order to reconcile the Modern Cosmological Model with observations the matter-energy content of the "universe" has to be increased by an ad hoc addition of "dark matter" and "dark energy" for the existence of which there is no empirical support whatsoever but which nonetheless are said to comprise 95% of the "universe". That is not an approximate error; it is a failure of monumental proportions.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    Quote Originally Posted by budrap
    The reason that in Relativity Theory "there is no meaning whatever to global simultaneity" is that in Relativity Theory there is no universal reference reference frame and absent a universal reference frame there can be no "universe" and therefore there can be no global simultaneity.
    A tautology? You just said the reason there is no global simultaneity is that there is no universal reference frame and if there is no universal reference frame there can be no global simultaneity. That is not a reason for there being no global simultaneity, that is simply the result of their being no global simultaneity.
    There is no tautology but I did state things badly. That "there is no meaning whatever to global simultaneity" is not a consequence of the absence of a universal reference frame as I made it sound. The absence of a universal reference frame and of global simultaneity are both direct consequences of Relativity Theory. Sorry for the confusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    Not only is there no global simultaneity, there is no absolute simultaneity at all. Simultaneity is relative, full stop.
    Agreed although I am not sure what distinction you are making between global, which in this context means universal, and absolute. Do you agree though that as a consequence, there is no validity to such absolute (or global or universal) statements of simultaneity as "the universe is expanding" and "the universe is 13.7 billion years old?
    -Think first, calculate later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Absolute simultaneity:

    You see two events separated by space. You see those events when their light reaches you. You may, or may not see those events simultaneously, but you measure the distance to those events and calculate out the light-travel time and you calculate that those events occurred simultaneously.

    Are those events absolutely simultaneous? Does everyone agree, after making their calculations, that the events happened simultaneously? Can any two events, separated by space, be considered to be absolutely simultaneous?

    Note: These two separate events can happen within a few meters of you, if you like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    Absolute simultaneity:

    You see two events separated by space. You see those events when their light reaches you. You may, or may not see those events simultaneously, but you measure the distance to those events and calculate out the light-travel time and you calculate that those events occurred simultaneously.

    Are those events absolutely simultaneous? Does everyone agree, after making their calculations, that the events happened simultaneously? Can any two events, separated by space, be considered to be absolutely simultaneous?

    Note: These two separate events can happen within a few meters of you, if you like.
    No, the events are not absolutely simultaneous if by that you mean that all observers regardless of their state of motion relative to you would agree that the events were simutaneous as seen from their own reference frame.

    Could observers in motion relative to you, knowing your relative velocity calculate that the events were simultaneous in your reference frame? Certainly but that doesn't make the simultaneity "absolute" in any meaningful sense.
    -Think first, calculate later.
    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
  •