beecee

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    2765
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by beecee

  1. This was the nonsensical thread in the "book talk" section? It got its just deserts.
  2. My interest in asking the above question was raised after reading the following article from "Quanta Mag" OK as the heading asks, will we ever have a viable alternative to GR? https://www.wired.com/story/troubled-times-for-alternatives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity/ [05/06/2018] TROUBLED TIMES FOR ALTERNATIVES TO EINSTEIN’S THEORY OF GRAVITY: Miguel Zumalacárregui knows what it feels like when theories die. In September 2017, he was at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Saclay, near Paris, to speak at a meeting about dark energy and modified gravity. The official news had not yet broken about an epochal astronomical measurement—the detection, by gravitational wave detectors as well as many other telescopes, of a collision between two neutron stars—but a controversial tweet had lit a firestorm of rumor in the astronomical community, and excited researchers were discussing the discovery in hushed tones. Zumalacárregui, a theoretical physicist at the Berkeley Center for Cosmological Physics, had been studying how the discovery of a neutron-star collision would affect so-called “alternative” theories of gravity. These theories attempt to overcome what many researchers consider to be two enormous problems with our understanding of the universe. Observations going back decades have shown that the universe appears to be filled with unseen particles—dark matter—as well as an anti-gravitational force called dark energy. Alternative theories of gravity attempt to eliminate the need for these phantasms by modifying the force of gravity in such a way that it properly describes all known observations—no dark stuff required. much more at link...... I am interested in more than a yes or a no to my question. I've been reading stuff on MOND and other alternative gravity theories such as TeVeS (tensor-vector-scalar) and others. Here is one such paper...... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.03520.pdf GW170817 event rules out general relativity in favor of vector gravity? (Dated: April 11, 2018) The observation of gravitational waves by the three LIGO-Virgo interferometers allows for the first time the examination of the polarization of gravitational waves. Here we analyze the binary neutron star event GW170817, whose source location and distance are determined precisely by concurrent electromagnetic observations. Applying a correlation averaging algorithm to the LIGOVirgo strain data, we find ratios of the signals detected by the three interferometers. We conclude that signal ratios are inconsistent with general relativity, but consistent with the recently proposed vector theory of gravity [Phys. Scr. 92, 125001 (2017)]. Moreover, we find that vector gravity yields a distance to the source in agreement with the astronomical observations. If our analysis is correct, Einstein’s general theory of relativity is ruled out in favor of vector gravity and future gravitational wave detections by three or more observatories should confirm this conclusion. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My complete understanding is obviously limited in that I am not a professional. So I hope that some of the experts on this forum whose knowledge I have grown to respect will take the time to read the full article and offer comments on that article, my question, and the paper above. My view? Not for a while yet....The paper seems to make plenty of assumptions that will probably never be able to be tested and as such of course its validity must be questioned. What is this inconsistency it mentions in the Abstract?
  3. My apologies if I posted this at an earlier time, when debating the merits or otherwise of alternative hypotheticals to GR. Sometimes, well often actually, we hear criticism of mainstream science being incalcitrant, when it is painfully obvious that this is simply a furphy at best. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.08373.pdf Polarization-based Tests of Gravity with the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background: The direct observation of gravitational waves with Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo offers novel opportunities to test general relativity in strong-field, highly dynamical regimes. One such opportunity is the measurement of gravitational-wave polarizations. While general relativity predicts only two tensor gravitational-wave polarizations, general metric theories of gravity allow for up to four additional vector and scalar modes. The detection of these alternative polarizations would represent a clear violation of general relativity. The LIGOVirgo detection of the binary black hole merger GW170814 has recently offered the first direct constraints on the polarization of gravitational waves. The current generation of ground-based detectors, however, is limited in its ability to sensitively determine the polarization content of transient gravitational-wave signals. Observation of the stochastic gravitational-wave background, in contrast, offers a means of directly measuring generic gravitational-wave polarizations. The stochastic background, arising from the superposition of many individually unresolvable gravitational-wave signals, may be detectable by Advanced LIGO at design-sensitivity. In this paper, we present a Bayesian method with which to detect and characterize the polarization of the stochastic background. We explore prospects for estimating parameters of the background, and quantify the limits that Advanced LIGO can place on vector and scalar polarizations in the absence of a detection. Finally, we investigate how the introduction of new terrestrial detectors like Advanced Virgo aid in our ability to detect or constrain alternative polarizations in the stochastic background. We find that, although the addition of Advanced Virgo does not notably improve detection prospects, it may dramatically improve our ability to estimate the parameters of backgrounds of mixed polarization.
  4. beecee

    A theory of everything. The truth about creation.

    Other then you are entirely wrong and also ignorant of the current overwhelmingly supported model of universal evolution we call the BB.
  5. Yet the opposite is true...we notice and have evidence the universe is expanding over large scales, and have evidence to show that over smaller scales such as our local group of galaxies, that the gravity from the higher energy/density over those regions, see those galaxies gravitationally bound//eg: Milky Way, LMC, SMC, M31[Andromeda] in other words no expansion over those scales.
  6. beecee

    DARK ENERGY IN A NEW LIGHT

    Thanks Mordred.....looking forward to it. https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-O1StochNonGR/index.php#Glossary:vectorscalar LOOKING FOR "FORBIDDEN" POLARIZATIONS IN THE GRAVITATIONAL-WAVE BACKGROUND WITH ADVANCED LIGO :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Is this relevant?
  7. beecee

    DARK ENERGY IN A NEW LIGHT

    Perhaps a Tutorial on the subject would be beneficial and appreciated? Further discoveries and research into gravitational waves from that far back? Perhaps from the BB itself?
  8. beecee

    Split from ‘Errors in Popular Science ?’

    Science neither hides nor denies what is unknown about the universe. But what it does know is extensive and responsible for pushing any need of any type of ID or magical spaghetti monster to explain natural phenomena and the universe around us into near oblivion. I mean we can reasonably ascertain what how the evolution of the universe took place from t+10-43 seconds up to the present day...Not bad hey!
  9. It's fact most biologists worth their salt support evolution, and that is certainly no fallacy. Claiming anyone expert and professional in the field under discussion, is admirable and the way to go...the fallacy would be asking your local pastor or butcher on advice on that subject. Science is about the scientific methodology, and the weight of evidence, and on the subject at hand, that evidence is extraordinarily strong. Science is always open as other scientific theories that are changing all the time...Some though are as close to certain as one could wish for...evolution is at the top rung in that regard. Abiogenesis, simply put, once there was no life, then there was, is pretty damning evidence. As I said, some scientific theories are as close to certain as we could wish. Supporting such, is not arrogance, it is logic.
  10. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0573-2 Published: 24 September 2018 No evidence for modifications of gravity from galaxy motions on cosmological scales: Abstract: Current tests of general relativity (GR) remain confined to the scale of stellar systems or the strong gravity regime. A departure from GR on cosmological scales has been advocated1 as an alternative to the cosmological constant Λ (ref. 2) to account for the observed cosmic expansion history3,4. However, such models yield distinct values for the linear growth rate of density perturbations and consequently for the associated galaxy peculiar velocity field. Measurements of the resulting anisotropy of galaxy clustering5,6 have thus been proposed as a powerful probe of the validity of GR on cosmological scales7, but despite substantial efforts8,9, they suffer from systematic errors comparable to statistical uncertainties10. Here, we present the results of a forward-modelling approach that fully exploits the sensitivity of the galaxy velocity field to modifications of GR. We use state-of-the-art high-resolution N-body simulations of a standard GR (Λ cold dark matter (CDM)) model11 and a compelling f(R) model12—one of GR’s simplest variants, in which the Ricci scalar curvature, R, in the Einstein–Hilbert action is replaced by an arbitrary function of R—to build simulated catalogues of stellar-mass-selected galaxies through a robust match to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey13. We find that f(R) fails to reproduce the observed redshift-space clustering on scales of ~1–10 Mpc h−1, where h is the dimensionless Hubble parameter. Instead, the standard ΛCDM GR model agrees impressively well with the data. This result provides strong confirmation, on cosmological scales, of the robustness of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
  11. So why did you post this nonsense in the Astronomy sciences section instead of the obvious speculation section?
  12. beecee

    DARK ENERGY IN A NEW LIGHT

    You raise a fair point...................... http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jkw/phys3550/Hawking_radiation/How_does_Hawking_radiation_work.pdf Hawking radiation There are a number of ways of describing the mechanism responsible for Hawking radiation. Here's one: The vacuum in quantum field theory is not really empty; it's filled with "virtual pairs" of particles and antiparticles that pop in and out of existence, with lifetimes determined by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. When such pairs forms near the event horizon of a black hole, though, they are pulled apart by the tidal forces of gravity. Sometimes one member of a pair crosses the horizon, and can no longer recombine with its partner. The partner can then escape to infinity, and since it carries off positive energy, the energy (and thus the mass) of the black hole must decrease. There is something a bit mysterious about this explanation: it requires that the particle that falls into the black hole have negative energy. Here's one way to understand what's going on. (This argument is based roughly on section 11.4 of Schutz's book, A first course in general relativity.) To start, since we're talking about quantum field theory, let's understand what "energy" means in this context. The basic answer is that energy is determined by Planck's relation, E=hf, where f is frequency. Of course, a classical configuration of a field typically does not have a single frequency, but it can be Fourier decomposed into modes with fixed frequencies. In quantum field theory, modes with positive frequencies correspond to particles, and those with negative frequencies correspond to antiparticles. Now, here's the key observation: frequency depends on time, and in particular on the choice of a time coordinate. We know this from special relativity, of course -- two observers in relative motion will see different frequencies for the same source. In special relativity, though, while Lorentz transformations can change the magnitude of frequency, they can't change the sign, so observers moving relative to each other with constant velocities will at least agree on the difference between particles and antiparticles. Nice video, but it doesn't say Hawking Radiation is false, or anything like that...around the 8 minute mark it does say..."that it is fair to interpret this mixing as the promotion of virtual particles into real particles" and then follows on in more detail with regards to quantum entanglement.
  13. beecee

    DARK ENERGY IN A NEW LIGHT

    Different universes, would be different spacetimes, or different fluctuations in the quantum foam by definition, I think.....All arising separately from different fluctuations in the nothingness of quantum foam, speaking speculatively of course. Some interesting ideas here..... https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/17/what-is-and-isnt-scientific-about-the-multiverse/#2c4bcec925c4 Here's another, re quantum entanglement and multiverses..... file:///C:/Users/BARRY/Downloads/universe-03-00028.pdf Quantum Entanglement in the Multiverse Abstract: In this report, we consider cosmological implications of quantum entanglement between two causally disconnected universes in the multiverse. Supposing that our universe was initially entangled with a causally separated universe, we compute the spectrum of vacuum fluctuations of our universe. To clearly see the effect of entanglement, we compare it with the spectrum of an initially non-entangled state. It is found that, due to quantum interference, scale-dependent modulations may enter the spectrum for the case of an initially non-entangled state. We discuss that the existence of causally disconnected universes may be experimentally tested by analyzing correlators in detail.
  14. beecee

    Trigger happy mods?

    Sounds like what Albert did when he was a Patent Clerk. More fun navigating across the Pacific using one of these. But I do see your point...
  15. beecee

    Trigger happy mods?

    Agreed on both counts.
  16. beecee

    Trigger happy mods?

    Perhaps this is more about not "being able to please all of the people all of the time"? And of course that old adage of it being a thankless job is certainly true. Do we need Mods? Yes. Are Mods going to make decisions that you are going to agree with 100% of the time? No I participate here because it is a science forum, and as such I would hope that the scientific methodology reigns supreme, particularly when ego driven people continually claim they have "bettered" some incumbent theory or model. More then likely they have not. Afterall if anyone really believes they have "bettered" GR for example, why would they announce it on some remote science forum. They would be taking it out to the world and preparing themselves for Stockholm in November and the Nobel prize! In essence science forums being open to any Tom. Dick or Harry, should only be considered as vehicles for asking science based questions, and giving mainstream explanations and reasons by those that know. Also of course many science forums such as this, also have sub forums such as Speculation, Politics etc, noting of course that the governing premise is the scientific method and whatever critical review of said views is needed. There are forums far more stringent then this forum, and also some far more lax. I can certainly direct people to one in particular that has far more discussions on ghosts, Goblins, Alien origin UFO's and conspiracy nonsense such as faked Moon landings and 9/11 alternative crap. Mods are human and sometimes make decisions that all of us are not going to agree with. I certainly did not agree with my forced 3 day holiday and believed it was wrong obviously. But I also recognise my shortcomings in that I will not tolerate bullies and will always give as good as I get, and see the necessity to refute vigorously those that love to attempt to denigrate some aspect of science, wrongfully and without reasonable cause. In doing that I recognise that on occasions I may go beyond reasonable criticism. I am trying to eliminate that undesirable feature of my otherwise incredible persona. As humans, we all I believe have agendas of some sort...some have religious agendas [closeted and un-closeted] and will inevitably love getting on their white charger and conducting crusades against the evil Atheist and the science he pushes...Others simply have over-inflated egos and believe they are capable of usurping current scientific theories, with tiresome 100% certainty and are incapable of accepting any criticism...My agenda is simply science and the scientific method and despite my "forced holiday" believe that in general, this rightly also appears to be the agenda of the Mods and Admins on this forum. And that's why you still have me!!!
  17. beecee

    Why is war morally wrong?

    The Cuban Missile crisis was at the height of the cold war. I'm just happy that at least one side did back down before anything beyond the general penis waving started. Did the USA have the right to prevent ICBM capable of carrying nuclear bombs on their door step? Was the USSR acting provocatively in attempting to arm Cuba? Were the USA in their rights commencing the naval blockade? Does the current nations with nuclear weapons have the right to prevent other nations from developing them? Is it immoral to keep on developing nuclear weapons? Should a nation's general "anti Western" stance, or pro Muslim stance be considered when nuclear weapon availability is spoken about? Should we consider the general apparent "despot/dictatorial" attitude of any nations leaders, when such confrontations are on the plate? Should Trump going on his actions/talk so far be considered a despot/dictator? I just hope things all pan out peacefully for my continued retirement and the benefit of my kids and their kids etc.
  18. beecee

    DARK ENERGY IN A NEW LIGHT

    Space and time [as we know them] evolved from a hot dense state at t+10-43 seconds.That's what the current expansion and the relic heat at 2.7K tells us. Perhaps nothing is quantum foam, and that is the earliest state of nothing that can exist. Again, speaking of anything before the BB, is effectively outside of our universe and as such we cannot just willy nilly assign properties to it, including space and time. As Hawking said, it is like asking, what is North of the North Pole. All we can do is speculate. Perhaps gravitational radiation and the new Physics it presents maybe able to reveal something. Another rather interesting fact that may help is the following... https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html Q; Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around? A: No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation
  19. beecee

    Why is war morally wrong?

    Just in case anyone misconstrues that, what it was "that cost me dearly" it had nothing to do with this forum. It happened while I was a Union Delegate and after a 5 week strike in the early seventies, that achieved 4 weeks annual leave, and a 35 hr week, along with a $15/weekly increase.
  20. beecee

    DARK ENERGY IN A NEW LIGHT

    Here, get this into you...https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ Perhaps as I have mentioned before, the quantum foam from whence the BB arose [as per my previous link] is as close to nothing as is possible...perhaps that is our best definition of nothing, followed by the "reasonable" speculative scenario of the BB evolving from it. As I said before, nothing wrong in speculation, as long as one accepts it is only at this time speculative. I mean much of science started as speculation.
  21. beecee

    DARK ENERGY IN A NEW LIGHT

    I have a question... We do not know why the BB banged or how, but something Often occurs to me...The DE mystery property of spacetime that is responsible for the acceleration in the expansion, is there any legit scientific reason to exclude that from having being the same impetus behind the BB? Let me reword that.....Could the impetus behind the evolution of spacetime we label the BB, be the same mystery impetus behind what is accelerating the expansion and what we have labeled DE? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy "Alan Guth and Alexei Starobinsky proposed in 1980 that a negative pressure field, similar in concept to dark energy, could drive cosmic inflation in the very early universe. Inflation postulates that some repulsive force, qualitatively similar to dark energy, resulted in an enormous and exponential expansion of the universe slightly after the Big Bang. Such expansion is an essential feature of most current models of the Big Bang. However, inflation must have occurred at a much higher energy density than the dark energy we observe today and is thought to have completely ended when the universe was just a fraction of a second old. It is unclear what relation, if any, exists between dark energy and inflation. Even after inflationary models became accepted, the cosmological constant was thought to be irrelevant to the current universe." <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is sort of what I was envisaging....sort of.....
  22. beecee

    DARK ENERGY IN A NEW LIGHT

    Actually your attitude to your speculative scenarios and the ensuring criticism have been like a breath of fresh air, in that it seems you are recognising some of the short comings in your many hypotheticals, and accept them as speculative, rather then blasting your way onto the forum, demanding with utmost certainty that you have invalidated many decades of cosmology as so many do. While apparently still stubbornly holding onto the basis of your idea, you also do appear to be listening and learning particularly from the many good points put in the last few hours. While many aspects of cosmology appears counter-intuitive on face value, the foundation fact is that the universe is not obliged to align with what we see or don't see as intuitive or otherwise.
  23. beecee

    Why is war morally wrong?

    While you make many good points, any war against injustices and abuse of human rights should always be the last resort. On your second statement, while probably true, there are I believe degrees of bullying, from intolerable, to bearable though less then desirable. All political systems in my opinion have good and bad points. Personally I base my opinions solely on what I believe to be morally wrong or unacceptable, irrespective of accepted political dogma of the time, which in my case has on at least one occasion cost me dearly.
  24. beecee

    DARK ENERGY IN A NEW LIGHT

    There is no center of the universe, as the BB occurred in all of spacetime, as all of spacetime was confined to the size of an atomic nucleus. The BB occurred in all of spacetime and is still happening. The only center to speak of is the center of one's observable universe, a personal center if you will, which any intelligent being in any part of the universe would also deduce. This sounds like the Big Rip scenario and is one possible scenario....After the decay of BH's, it has been speculated that perhaps even proton decay may take place...again speculative though, and so far the only evidence is that expansion is taking place and accelerating over large scales, and gravity still rules over smaller scales such as groups, clusters and walls, at this time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe
  25. beecee

    DARK ENERGY IN A NEW LIGHT

    As I previously mentioned, Hawking Radiation has yet to be validated, but there is no reason why it cannot be so. It is very likely. You also make some doubtful assumptions such as "So the virtual/real particle must accelerate away from the event horizon and the singularity." When virtual particles pop into existence just this side of the EH, both may fall in, both may escape, or one may fall in and the other escape. If the third scenario eventuates then the virtual particles become real, the one escaping is seen as X-Ray's and the one falling in, becomes negative and subtracts from the BH's overall mass. The universe only expands over large scales...local groups of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and galactic walls are decoupled from the expansion by gravity. OK, we are now getting complicated. The law of conservation of energy is probably more correctly applied as the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant....but of course as per E=Mc2, it can be changed from one form to another. The evidence that space is created at the BB, or evolved at the BB, is I would imagine the observational data of the expansion and mentally reversing that. I also believe that the universal maximum speed limit only applies to mass/energy....not spacetime. In my opinion, the biggest thing going for the BB is how it fits beautifully with GR. Finally and with all due respect, you mention "as opposed to your scenario". You and I do not have access to Hubble, the Planck Satellite, Chandra, Compton, WMAP, etc. While there are many aspects of the BB cosmologists are ignorant of, such as how, the why, the questions on the nature of nothing and before, the ideas that you have put forward, and others, have in all liklelyhood been thought about, researched and pidgeon holed before. String theory and its many derivatives are aesthetically and mathematically beautiful they often say, we simply do not have the technological know how to observe at such scales.