Found: evidence of cosmic inflation: Proof of the big bang?

NorEaster
In other words, the reason that so few can comprehend what Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is about is because it flatly violates its own structural consistency, and if it had been anyone else (or if that one "bending light" prediction hadn't stunned everyone) then that theory would've cratered completely.

The facts contradict this conclusion, as relativity has much more observational support than just bending light. The very design of the LHC is based on relativity.

The truth is that Gravity cannot compress itself into an "infinite density" (Black Hole) while propagating as waves across the Universe, while gently pressing (or sucking) things to the surface of planets (without crushing them) all at the same time, while existing as a fundamental force of nature (or whatever). Those three aspects are too wildly disparate for one "dumb force" to be responsible for.

Physicists admit that a theory of quantum gravity is lacking and therefore our understanding is incomplete. It is thought that if and when a quantum gravity theory is developed it may resolve the infinite density black hole paradox with some kind of quantum formulation which doesn't involve infinite density.

There also may be new physics we haven't discovered yet but admittedly black holes are difficult to observe, especially the densities at their center, but galaxies are not and theory of relativity holds up well in many observations which you seem to ignore.

NorEaster
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

 

I've done a lot of recent research into the physical nature of gravity, and it seems as if there is a suite of physical indications that are being attributed to gravitation that directly contradict each other.

No they don't, just your present understanding.

This discovery seems to be yet another contradiction in the term gravity, but I'll admit to not being an expert.

How can gravity be a force that causes matter to compress into crushing densities if it is the result of mass density? If it's cause and effect and ramification, then how does it initiate as a force and then transition between being a cause to being an effect and then to being a ramification of its own impact on the system being so affected?

What do you mean "how"? It is so. Nonlinear partial differential equations.

What are the consequences? The equations of motion for General Relativity are nonlinear and you can get 'runaway instability', it's called a black hole.

How was it conceived? Einstein was very very very very very smart, wise and original.

Personally I believe that without Einstein, GR probably wouldn't have been discovered for 30 to 40 more years, and the process would have been more like the invention of quantum mechanics, whose modern form has had many authors prompted by extensive experimental evidence.

By contrast, GR in most of its structure and ll of its physical interpretation sprang out from Einstein, and most impressively with only the slightest hint of experimental evidence at the time.

Hilbert was also on the hunt with greater mathematical capability than Einstein, but A.E. still had all the right ideas and let Hilbert know about them.

At this point, gravity seems to have become a catch-all term - like quantum - that means something different depending on the sentence it's being used in.

Not to physicists.

Gravitation: the physical phenomenon which relates deformation of spacetime to the stress energy tensor of matter and energy density, and the consequences on equations of motion and kinematics of all other physics in that space time.

Arbitrageur

Physicists admit that a theory of quantum gravity is lacking and therefore our understanding is incomplete. It is thought that if and when a quantum gravity theory is developed it may resolve the infinite density black hole paradox with some kind of quantum formulation which doesn't involve infinite density.

There also may be new physics we haven't discovered yet but admittedly black holes are difficult to observe, especially the densities at their center, but galaxies are not and theory of relativity holds up well in many observations which you seem to ignore.

How does Relativity hold up at all once you get an entire galaxy under observation? Hell, they're being forced to invent Black Holes and Dark Matter and Dark Energy and all kinds of stuff to prop General Relativity up once you get away from one massive object with a smaller object orbiting it.

Some math guys torqued it down with a pile of equations, and even Einstein himself admitted that he had no idea what they did to it once they started getting deep into the chalk and blackboard with General Relativity. My biggest issue with that theory is that so much is assumed and inductively reasoned, and no effort has been expended on examining the "indications" that are used to grant it validity for evidence of disparate causality. I keep thinking back to the "native and the digital watch" parable, and noting that as science learns more about what's real, reality gets weirder and weirder as they scramble to make it all fit inside the templates of General Relativity, the Big Bang, and the Standard Model. Seriously. No one should be forced to invent infinite numbers of spacial dimensions, antimatter, antiparticles, universe-eating Black Holes, multiverses, Big Bounces, Big Bangs, distorted swaths writhing throughout a space-time cosmological aether, or any of that inane crap just to prop up a theory that's as solid as you claim General Relativity is. If Reality has to be interpreted as "weirder than we can imagine" just so that a theory about reality can survive what amounts to some fairly simple deductive challenges, then maybe that theory shouldn't survive.

mbkennel

At this point, gravity seems to have become a catch-all term - like quantum - that means something different depending on the sentence it's being used in.

Not to physicists.

Gravitation: the physical phenomenon which relates deformation of spacetime to the stress energy tensor of matter and energy density, and the consequences on equations of motion and kinematics of all other physics in that space time.

Base terminology is not the same thing as conceptual application. Physicists see gravity very differently than cosmologists. If you gather everything that each camp claims that gravity is responsible for, the range of its property set suggests a phenomenon that hardly makes sense with itself. Some believe it's a force, while others believe it's a ramification. It certainly can't be both, and yet something is allegedly crushing matter into impossible states of mass density, and either causing inescapable gravity, or gravity is crushing that matter itself. Again, both claims can't be true.

Oh yeah....if you can get the math to balance out on your blackboard, then it can.

Right?

Christ. No wonder people are looking for evidence of one-dimensional strings at the fundamental basis of material existence, and declaring the existence of universes numbering to the 500th power as validation of the existence of these strings. Why bother with any of it making sense. Reality is just plain weird, and getting weirder all the time.

NorEaster
If Reality has to be interpreted as "weirder than we can imagine" just so that a theory about reality can survive what amounts to some fairly simple deductive challenges, then maybe that theory shouldn't survive.

Reality is exactly as it should be. The claims of weirdness are merely an admission of the limitations of human understanding.

If we've learned nothing else from our observations, it's that the universe is under no obligation to behave the way we expect it to, rather it behaves the way it does. So, we observe, and we try to make models to fit observations. Yes the models have some holes in them (like no theory of quantum gravity, dark matter and dark energy). Nobody claims to know for sure what dark matter is, the idea that it's WIMPs is an unconfirmed hypothesis.

If you've got a better model, present it and sell it. If not, I'm not quite sure what you hope to accomplish by trashing the existing models of relativity and quantum mechanics. We don't have anything better to replace them with right now (do we?), and for the most part they work pretty well. The fact that they can't explain density in a black hole to our satisfaction isn't such a limitation since we can't make observations there one way or the other.

Arbitrageur

NorEaster
If Reality has to be interpreted as "weirder than we can imagine" just so that a theory about reality can survive what amounts to some fairly simple deductive challenges, then maybe that theory shouldn't survive.

Reality is exactly as it should be. The claims of weirdness are merely an admission of the limitations of human understanding.

If we've learned nothing else from our observations, it's that the universe is under no obligation to behave the way we expect it to, rather it behaves the way it does. So, we observe, and we try to make models to fit observations. Yes the models have some holes in them (like no theory of quantum gravity, dark matter and dark energy). Nobody claims to know for sure what dark matter is, the idea that it's WIMPs is an unconfirmed hypothesis.

If you've got a better model, present it and sell it. If not, I'm not quite sure what you hope to accomplish by trashing the existing models of relativity and quantum mechanics. We don't have anything better to replace them with right now (do we?), and for the most part they work pretty well. The fact that they can't explain density in a black hole to our satisfaction isn't such a limitation since we can't make observations there one way or the other.

There's a basic requirement that all theories must adhere to, and that is system coherence. There's no system coherence between General Relativity, the Standard Model and whatever the Big Bang is all about, and that should be a deal breaker regardless of what's successfully predicted by whom. After all, the native, after carefully examining the face of the digital watch, was able to predict what designs would correspond to what sky position the sun would occupy, so prediction is not definitive when you're dealing with macro-systems.

I do have a theory that does adhere to that basic requirement of full system coherence, (between all systems, macro to quantum) and we're working to get it published now. It does rectify what have been the most significant contradictory indications without altering any of the data itself, but I'm well aware of the fact that there's very little potential for any success - even now, when the entire field of theoretical physics is in open warfare with itself.

As for trashing those theories, that's my job. They're not functional, and they don't stand up to deductive logic. Screw them. Nobody's lie should be considered inherently off limits to direct and honest challenge.

reply to post by NorEaster


I've really enjoyed your posts on this topic and have found your arguments very compelling. I'm no theoretical physicist by any stretch, but none the less I think the principles you are highlighting in your argument are sound. I am curious about this statement you made and I was wondering if you could clarify it a bit:

As for trashing those theories, that's my job. They're not functional, and they don't stand up to deductive logic. Screw them. Nobody's lie should be considered inherently off limits to direct and honest challenge.

Do you actually consider this sort of scientific orthodoxy a deliberate attempt at deception (as you seemed to indicate by calling it a "lie"), or would it be more accurate to say it is an error that has continued to be propagated since nobody has an adequate method to correct it? I'd like to hear you expand on that particular point a bit if you have the time.

NorEaster
I do have a theory that does adhere to that basic requirement of full system coherence, (between all systems, macro to quantum) and we're working to get it published now. It does rectify what have been the most significant contradictory indications without altering any of the data itself, but I'm well aware of the fact that there's very little potential for any success

This "very little potential for any success" doesn't sound encouraging. If the theory has more explanatory power than existing theories and is consistent with observation, then it should have very good potential for success. Probably the reason it has "very little potential for any success" is because it doesn't explain things better than existing models, which is why we have the imperfect models we have...nobody has proven anything better yet.

Arbitrageur

NorEaster
I do have a theory that does adhere to that basic requirement of full system coherence, (between all systems, macro to quantum) and we're working to get it published now. It does rectify what have been the most significant contradictory indications without altering any of the data itself, but I'm well aware of the fact that there's very little potential for any success

This "very little potential for any success" doesn't sound encouraging. If the theory has more explanatory power than existing theories and is consistent with observation, then it should have very good potential for success. Probably the reason it has "very little potential for any success" is because it doesn't explain things better than existing models, which is why we have the imperfect models we have...nobody has proven anything better yet.

Well, you're assuming (of course) and your assumption is likely based on the fact that I play around on this board, and (perhaps) based on your belief that the scientific community is hierarchically structured differently than it actually is. My assumption (yes, it really is only an assumption) is based on what I know about the existing theories, what I know about my own theory, what I've learned over the last 5 years about the communities that exist in academia, professional science, the mainstream media, traditional publishing, and the corporatization of every one of these professional communities and hierarchical structures. Comparing our two perspectives on my assertion, I would have to give myself the edge as a result of my having more data than you.

In today's professional climate, it's been firmly established that if it doesn't add up on a blackboard (math-wise) it cannot be true. The problem with this approach is that Reality itself is a relationship matrix that exists between all existing holons, and the "contextual dirt" that math ignores (or purposely excludes) is the actual foundation of that relationship matrix that exists between all existing holons. In short, Reality is what all other ToEs seek to filter out of their versions of the true nature of Reality. I focus on that relationship matrix itself, and not on "cleaning it up". As a result, I've been able to achieve complete system coherence, and eliminate the siloing problem that plagues every established theory without tossing out any reliable and reproducible data sets that have moved the effort forward over the last 100 years.

I may only be further along the road toward figuring all of this out due to knowing just that full system coherence is the key to a fully functional theory, and that Reality itself is just the relationship of many lesser systems that must each make sense with one another, and together, make sense as one fully coherent and functional macro-system. That said, I already know that I can take on any Theory of Everything, and nothing that's ever been published comes anywhere near close to what I'm getting ready to shop. If this isn't "it" then it's the only road leading to "it".

The hell of it all is that some extremely influential careers will be obliterated if it succeeds, and I'm not naive concerning the true nature of that reality as it concerns my ToE's chances of surviving in the face of that sort of challenge. I'm actually very good at recognizing what's real as opposed to what's delusional. Over the history of humankind, established institutions (influential careers, basically) have always won out, and there's been no evidence that this has changed to any degree in recent years.

I was reading about Giordano Bruno the other day. I guess my little plight could be a lot worse than it promises to be. Y'know, that guy actually intuited the fact that the sun is just another star, and that the Earth is just another planet, and that there are many other stars that also have planets, and that some of those planets could have human beings (intelligent life) just like Earth has. They burned him alive for it, but in the end, he was right. Even the astronomers of his day threw stuff at him.

I'm no Giordano Bruno. At least, I hope I'm not.

DeadSeraph
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I've really enjoyed your posts on this topic and have found your arguments very compelling. I'm no theoretical physicist by any stretch, but none the less I think the principles you are highlighting in your argument are sound. I am curious about this statement you made and I was wondering if you could clarify it a bit:

As for trashing those theories, that's my job. They're not functional, and they don't stand up to deductive logic. Screw them. Nobody's lie should be considered inherently off limits to direct and honest challenge.

Do you actually consider this sort of scientific orthodoxy a deliberate attempt at deception (as you seemed to indicate by calling it a "lie"), or would it be more accurate to say it is an error that has continued to be propagated since nobody has an adequate method to correct it? I'd like to hear you expand on that particular point a bit if you have the time.

I'll direct you to the guy who convinced me of this.

Lee Smolin

He's got a couple books - The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next and Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe that do a much better job than I could ever do. He does name names and yet, he's never lost an academic position as a result. He's extremely credible.

There are also these guys, who've pig-piled on Lee's work. They're also very credible professionals, although Lee is probably the most well regarded.

Jim Baggott

Dr. Alexander Unzicker

anothe r book by Dr. Unzicker

Peter Woit

and David Lindley, who, as senior editor of Science magazine, was the first to blow the whistle on this bizarre culture back in 1994

NorEaster
They burned him alive for it, but in the end, he was right. Even the astronomers of his day threw stuff at him.

I'm no Giordano Bruno. At least, I hope I'm not.

Yes I hope you fare better than he did!


We tend to remember the people that turned out to be right, but we sometimes don't pay as much attention to the more numerous people who turned out to be wrong. One thing I like about this presentation by Garrett Lisi is that he points out that new theories turn out to be wrong more often than they turn out to be right, and that his own theory of everything isn't exempt from this observation and has a good chance of turning out to be wrong:

TED: Garrett Lisi: A theory of everything
16m14s:
"This theory, and others like it, are long shots. One does a lot of hard work knowing that most of these ideas probably won't end up being true about nature."

This by the way is one of the reasons why string theory is criticized even by some mainstream scientists, in addition to guys like Lee Smolin.

So if you want a broader context for what assumptions I made in commenting about the likelihood of success for your theory, yes I made some assumptions based on what Lisi says about his own theory of everything's chances for success, and the knowledge you demonstrate in your posts here, etc. It seems like you and Lisi both have somewhat realistic expectations about the likelihood of success for a new theory of everything, though Lisi seems to have more respect for mainstream science than you, as he seems to have more confidence that if his ideas turn out to be consistent with observation, mainstream science will accept them. His lack of confidence is in the predictive ability of his theory to match observation, and not so much a lack of confidence in mainstream science to recognize whether such a correlation exists.

NorEaster
I'll direct you to the guy who convinced me of this.

Lee Smolin

He's got a couple books - The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next and Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe that do a much better job than I could ever do.

I don't see string theory as generally accepted within the scientific community and as at least one person pointed out, string theory is a misnomer...it should be called something like "string hypothesis". since it doesn't meet our definition of a theory.

I also prefer Smolin's definition of a universe being all that there is. If we are in one bubble and somehow learned that there were 4 other bubbles, then the universe could consist of 5 bubbles. Calling them 5 universes seems like a distortion of the word "universe".

Arbitrageur

TED: Garrett Lisi: A theory of everything

"This theory, and others like it, are long shots. One does a lot of hard work knowing that most of these ideas probably won't end up being true about nature."

This by the way is one of the reasons why string theory is criticized even by some mainstream scientists, in addition to guys like Lee Smolin.

So if you want a broader context for what assumptions I made in commenting about the likelihood of success for your theory, yes I made some assumptions based on what Lisi says about his own theory of everything's chances for success, and the knowledge you demonstrate in your posts here, etc. It seems like you and Lisi both have somewhat realistic expectations about the likelihood of success for a new theory of everything, though Lisi seems to have more respect for mainstream science than you.

oooo ... This looks like it's going to be my afternoon today. Thanks!

NorEaster
I'll direct you to the guy who convinced me of this.

Lee Smolin

He's got a couple books - The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next and Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe that do a much better job than I could ever do.

I don't see string theory as generally accepted within the scientific community and as at least one person pointed out, string theory is a misnomer...it should be called something like "string hypothesis". since it doesn't meet our definition of a theory.

I also prefer Smolin's definition of a universe being all that there is. If we are in one bubble and somehow learned that there were 4 other bubbles, then the universe could consist of 5 bubbles. Calling them 5 universes seems like a distortion of the word "universe".

edit on 22-3-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

I agree. The Universe is the macro-system that we call physical reality. I do have a way that other such reality confines can (and probably do) exist, but since all such confines are based on quantum unit rate of change (synchronized quantization), then no interaction between such confines could ever be possible. This also allows for the existence of our Universe without the requirement of a "background" hosting environmental confine (a meta-verse). In-synch quantized rate of change (Time) releases spatial proximity from being the common environmental substructure, and negates the "is the universe infinite or not?" question altogether.

I actually respect the data that's been compiled by science. It's the practice of embracing inductive reasoning over deductive reasoning that I have a serious problem with. That, and the preeminence of formula mathematics as a theoretical tool (instead of its rightful place as an applications tool) have led us down some really squirrely paths over the last 100 years or so.

A functional Theory of Everything should be an investigation of "what happened that resulted in what it is that does exist as common and pervasive", and not an exploration of "what it is that might exist". Most ToEs simply aren't properly focused.

NorEaster

mbkennel

At this point, gravity seems to have become a catch-all term - like quantum - that means something different depending on the sentence it's being used in.

Not to physicists.

Gravitation: the physical phenomenon which relates deformation of spacetime to the stress energy tensor of matter and energy density, and the consequences on equations of motion and kinematics of all other physics in that space time.

Base terminology is not the same thing as conceptual application. Physicists see gravity very differently than cosmologists.

Where's the evidence for that? Cosmologists are a kind of physicist---what do you think they learned in graduate school? They publish in Astrophysical Journal and Physical Review D and other more specialized journals.

If you gather everything that each camp claims that gravity is responsible for, the range of its property set suggests a phenomenon that hardly makes sense with itself. Some believe it's a force, while others believe it's a ramification. It certainly can't be both

Yes they can and they are. If you assume flat classical space-time and are in the 'linear' first-order regime of minor deformation and with speeds much lower than 'c', you can reformulate GR to obtain Newtonian gravity where gravitation is formulated as a force.

, and yet something is allegedly crushing matter into impossible states of mass density, and either causing inescapable gravity, or gravity is crushing that matter itself. Again, both claims can't be true.

Why can't it be true? Why cant' the interaction of gravitational fields and matter self-reinforce? We are living on a planet because of that effect. Stuff (dust and gas) self-gravitates and clumps up a little bit closer, which causes stronger gravitation which causes more squeezing, etc, and then you get planets and stars. Yay for gravity, because I like being alive in a nice area instead of being an amoeba floating in cold gas.

Oh yeah....if you can get the math to balance out on your blackboard, then it can.

Right?

Yes, and only if the experimental evidence agrees, which it does.

Christ. No wonder people are looking for evidence of one-dimensional strings at the fundamental basis of material existence, and declaring the existence of universes numbering to the 500th power as validation of the existence of these strings. Why bother with any of it making sense. Reality is just plain weird, and getting weirder all the time.

Physics stopped 'making sense' about 1900. Get over it.

BTW string theory, or should we say string theories, are not currently accepted as validated physical reality by anybody other than a few deluded string theorists.

mbkennel

Base terminology is not the same thing as conceptual application. Physicists see gravity very differently than cosmologists.

Where's the evidence for that? Cosmologists are a kind of physicist---what do you think they learned in graduate school? They publish in Astrophysical Journal and Physical Review D and other more specialized journals.

Gravity at the macro-system level doesn't square with physics at the quantum system level, and that's not news to anyone. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are divided by some sort of line of demarcation involving gravity.

If you gather everything that each camp claims that gravity is responsible for, the range of its property set suggests a phenomenon that hardly makes sense with itself. Some believe it's a force, while others believe it's a ramification. It certainly can't be both

Yes they can and they are. If you assume flat classical space-time and are in the 'linear' first-order regime of minor deformation and with speeds much lower than 'c', you can reformulate GR to obtain Newtonian gravity where gravitation is formulated as a force.

"If you assume..."? I don't assume. Doing math workarounds that are based on altering set properties to fit new reformulations isn't science. It's a parlor stunt. Reality is what it is, and you can't impose property alterations onto it just to make your math equations balance out. If space-time is flat (that suggests a two-dimensional plane) then distorting it can only present a limited surface interaction between a 3 dimensional object (distorting that flat space-time) and the flat space-time itself. As for speeds much lower that 'c', ....what actual, non-mathematical, existing out there in the space that surrounds this planet, difference does velocities below the speed of light make in regards to how the distortion of space-time (allegedly providing gravity as a default ramification) transforms the property set of gravity into being both a default ramification and a fundamental force? That statement makes no sense at all.

, and yet something is allegedly crushing matter into impossible states of mass density, and either causing inescapable gravity, or gravity is crushing that matter itself. Again, both claims can't be true.

Why can't it be true? Why cant' the interaction of gravitational fields and matter self-reinforce? We are living on a planet because of that effect. Stuff (dust and gas) self-gravitates and clumps up a little bit closer, which causes stronger gravitation which causes more squeezing, etc, and then you get planets and stars. Yay for gravity, because I like being alive in a nice area instead of being an amoeba floating in cold gas.

There has to be a triggering function that is tipped before anything naturally occurring can become self-reinforcing. No triggering function has ever been suggested or even imagined. And yet, multiple levels of theoretical structure have been built upon this notion of self-reinforcing runaway gravity. Makes no sense. The question should not be "why can't the interaction of gravitational fields result in runaway gravity?". The question should be "would the interaction of gravitational fields result in runaway gravity? And if so, then how come the interaction between Earth's gravitational field, the Sun's gravitational field and the Moon's gravitational field haven't resulted in runaway gravity?" The issue - as I stated already - has to do with system coherence. You can't arbitrarily isolate segments of any system from any other se3gment of that same system as it pertains to fundamental aspects (like primordial forces - like gravity) of that system. Well, I suppose that you can, but if you do, then your theory will fail. Period.

Oh yeah....if you can get the math to balance out on your blackboard, then it can.

Right?

Yes, and only if the experimental evidence agrees, which it does.

Experiments are always performed within artificially prepared closed systems. Las Vegas illusionists use the same heavily prepared systems for their tricks. That might be fine for proving what can happen in the exact same artificially prepared closed system (like a man made machine, as to whether it will perform as designed) but it fails miserably when this form of process is applied to proving theories that are meant to reflect reality "in the wild". Unless you can fully replicate reality (as the macro-system that it is) you're stuck working with deductive logic, and that's what you're stuck with. And blackboard math fails when lined up with macro-system reality when deductive reasoning is used to separate fact from conjecture.

Christ. No wonder people are looking for evidence of one-dimensional strings at the fundamental basis of material existence, and declaring the existence of universes numbering to the 500th power as validation of the existence of these strings. Why bother with any of it making sense. Reality is just plain weird, and getting weirder all the time.

Physics stopped 'making sense' about 1900. Get over it.

I guess we all have our jobs to get to. Mine is to not 'get over it', so I won't. Reality actually isn't weird at all. Commercial science is weird.

BTW string theory, or should we say string theories, are not currently accepted as validated physical reality by anybody other than a few deluded string theorists.

There are presently approximately 1500 theoretical physicists working full time on String Theory and M Theory. String Theory (M Theory is an ill-defined offshoot of String Theory) is the only real game in theoretical physics, and it's been that way for many years. Deluded? No. Career-minded and pragmatically realistic? Yes. It's a pretty odd culture that's developed around String and M Theory, but it's extremely influential within academia.