kristalris Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html Now just include the forgotten instrument between the ears and bang. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 The BB hasn't been considered the beginning, starting from an infinitely dense point, for a number of years; it was a new epoch in the universe's evolution..It is consistent with a universe with no beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Now just include the forgotten instrument between the ears and bang. I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. You do realise that this doesn't change anything significant about the big bang model? If it turns out to be correct then it gets rid of the initial singularity. But most people don't think the singularity was a thing, anyway. It is generally thought that combining quantum theory and relativity will remove the singularity. This paper may be an approach to doing that. (Or it might be completely wrong). Beyond that, we still live in an expanding universe that was originally in a hot dense state. https://plus.google.com/100479352836033641546/posts/3wW3fNH7GMV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. It seems like an attempt to discredit the validity of the Big Bang Theory that, um, blew up in his face. It can be embarrassing to criticize the brains of others and then not read the article you base your criticism on. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristalris Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. You do realise that this doesn't change anything significant about the big bang model? If it turns out to be correct then it gets rid of the initial singularity. But most people don't think the singularity was a thing, anyway. It is generally thought that combining quantum theory and relativity will remove the singularity. This paper may be an approach to doing that. (Or it might be completely wrong). Beyond that, we still live in an expanding universe that was originally in a hot dense state. https://plus.google.com/100479352836033641546/posts/3wW3fNH7GMV Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."[29] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble Hubble had an instrument between the ears of a non authority driven composer textwriter. He could "google" for pictures in his brain i.e. the logic or picture mathematics intuitively, above par and text logic on the relation below par and checking numerative logic as a retard i.e. non existent. like Einstein, Bach types, Churchill, Mozart Hubble types as composers can/ could. His brain told him intuitively: he it's expanding! with very few dots he drew the line as a conclusion and provided the mathematics. Yet got it wrong he had earth older than the universe. Others with the instruments between the ears to do the intuitive number logic check spotted this, corrected it and showed what was to become Hubbles law. Yet as Hubble correctly maintained until his death: whatch out for the model in which no expansion exists. Bang goes the Champagne cork! -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature." And yet it turns out that Hubble was wrong about that. And this has NOTHING to do with the article you linked to. Perhaps you only read the headline and don't actually know what it was about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristalris Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 And yet it turns out that Hubble was wrong about that. And this has NOTHING to do with the article you linked to. Perhaps you only read the headline and don't actually know what it was about? Bayesian inversion. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 And this has NOTHING to do with the article you linked to. Perhaps you only read the headline and don't actually know what it was about? We see this happen far too much. It seems in line with the rigor-free attitude towards science that many theory-deniers display, but at a certain point it's a little demeaning to think that these folks aren't bothering to read their own supporting links, so they certainly aren't reading yours in refutation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Bayesian inversion. Would you care to expand on that. It makes zero sense. Did you read the article? Do you understand what it says? Do you realise that the universe is still expanding (and Hubble was wrong)? Would you like me to ask the mods to move this to Speculations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristalris Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 Would you care to expand on that. It makes zero sense. Did you read the article? Do you understand what it says? Do you realise that the universe is still expanding (and Hubble was wrong)? Would you like me to ask the mods to move this to Speculations? Have you taken into account your instrument between the ears according to current scientific insights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 We see this happen far too much. It seems in line with the rigor-free attitude towards science that many theory-deniers display, but at a certain point it's a little demeaning to think that these folks aren't bothering to read their own supporting links, so they certainly aren't reading yours in refutation. Yep. I guess he didn't get beyond the first three words. Even skimmed right over the question mark. That article is quite amusing. It says things like "no dark energy" but then goes on to say that their model can be treated as a cosmological constant (er, that'll be dark energy) and that space is filled with a quantum fluid (which is another of the current hypotheses for dark energy). I wonder how those people who object to dark matter and dark energy are going to feel about that "quantum fluid". I guess they will label it aether and crow about being right all along. Sigh. Have you taken into account your instrument between the ears according to current scientific insights? Please stop making cryptic comments and state what is on your mind. Use your brain to explain your point of view. And: Did you read the article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristalris Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Yep. I guess he didn't get beyond the first three words. Even skimmed right over the question mark. That article is quite amusing. It says things like "no dark energy" but then goes on to say that their model can be treated as a cosmological constant (er, that'll be dark energy) and that space is filled with a quantum fluid (which is another of the current hypotheses for dark energy). I wonder how those people who object to dark matter and dark energy are going to feel about that "quantum fluid". I guess they will label it aether and crow about being right all along. Sigh. Please stop making cryptic comments and state what is on your mind. Use your brain to explain your point of view. And: Did you read the article? Yes I read the article. And the question put towards you what sort of instrument between the ears you think you've used in order to ascertain what it means - according to current broadly held - scientific insights, I put to you: what sort of instrument between the ears do you think you are using? Any physicist who got his or her degree by doing experiments without taking into account all of the instruments used should have flunked any exam. Well, the instrument between the ears according to current broadly held scientific insights hold very different sorts of instruments between the ears, leading to different conclusions on what is thought to be observed on the same data. Edited February 12, 2015 by kristalris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Yes I read the article. And the question put towards you what sort of instrument between the ears you think you've used in order to ascertain what it means - according to current broadly held - scientific insights, I put to you: what sort of instrument between the ears do you think you are using? Any physicist who got his or her degree by doing experiments without taking into account all of the instruments used should have flunked any exam. Well, the instrument between the ears according to current broadly held scientific insights hold very different sorts of instruments between the ears, leading to different conclusions on what is thought to be observed on the same data. Incomprehensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristalris Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Incomprehensible. Well, indeed read up on current psychology and it won't be incomprehensible (maybe dependent on the instrument between the ears used.) Like Shakespeare already knew as common sense alswell: William Shakespeare > Quotes > Quotable Quote “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.” ― William Shakespeare, As You Like It So are you a fool or wise? (as Shakespeare already grasped there are different sorts of fools. Wise fools who know what their instrument between the ears can and can't do for being then a fool, and those that think themselves on all issues wise. The latter are inherent fools. Are you wise on picture logic? Are you wise on number logic? Are you wise on verbal logic? What sort of logic required do you think on grasping what the OP is about? Edited February 12, 2015 by kristalris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 "The brain's not a tool, so you are the fool." --Phi for All, That's The Way I Like It And btw, you're misusing the term "logic". What you mean is "stuff I made up that only makes sense to me". That's worse than just being wrong or not reading your own links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 What sort of logic required do you think on grasping what the OP is about? Well, it isn't about saying the big bang theory is wrong, as you seem to think. (It is hard to know what you think as you answer every question with meaningless statements about the piano between your ears.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I had a quick look at the actual paper. It is short, but interesting and gives a nice perspective on how quantum gravity could help us understand the early universe. The disclaimer is that it is outside of my area of expertise. The basic idea is that the authors add quantum corrections to the Friedmann equations, not by 'hand' but rather they follow Bohmian mechanics and replace geodesics with 'quantum trajectories'. In doing so they get terms in their equations that replace dark matter and so on. This paper is speculative for several reasons. The first is the non-locality of Bohmian mechanics, maybe this is a problem maybe not. The second thing is that no-one is sure if these corrections are the right corrections. Specifically, it is not know if the conclusions of the paper will survive in the full quantum theory. Without a quantum theory of gravity it is impossible to say. The thing to remember is that such theories are not really competing with the standard model of cosmology, rather that are an attempt to better understand it and resolve the issue of the initial singularity. Any such model will quickly evolve into the Lambda CDM model + maybe small corrections. If not, then the 'late time phase' of this model will be inconsistent with observational cosmology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. ! Moderator Note I think I do. It looks like an attempt by kristalris to bring up subject of conversation from locked threads, or ones that belong in existing threads in speculations. Seeing as we already have a discussion on the actual science of this topic. This is closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts