An Accidental Universe

Zeeya,

I happened to go back and read your interview with Julian Barbour in Discover. I hope you keep exploring the alternative directions physics might have taken over the last hundred years, because it is becoming increasingly obvious the current model is pushed beyond testability, so future generations of physicists will have to examine every detail of what has been done, to solve the many problems. The anthropic principle is just not an answer.

" ... I will leave you to throw up your hands in incomprehension ..."

I comprehend it, John. It's simply wrong.

Einstein did not leave gravity out of his theory of gravity -- that's probably the most outrageous thing you've said yet.

" ... balance between gravity and expansion that makes the universe appear flat on the local level isn't just due to coincidence or inflation blowing the universe up so much it is just local, but because they are opposite sides of a cycle of contracting mass and expanding energy."

Besides Einstein's field equations of gravity that extend Newton's theory of gravity, Einstein did a little something prior to his generalization -- perhaps you've heard of the special theory of relativity? It concludes the equivalence of mass and energy, in probably the most famous equation in the world.

I'm looking forward to your description of how a quantity expands and contracts at the same time. Doing it without mathematics will be especially interesting.

Tom

Peter,

I enjoyed your comment above at Feb. 12, 2013 @ 10:31 GMT. I received my copy of Physics Today this morning and found the article on Lagrangian Coherent Structures to look quite interesting, though I haven't had a chance to study it yet. I also appreciated the link to the Copi et al. "Large-angle anomalies in the CMB". I've been tracking that since their 2006 article, and the solar system correlation appears to be still unexplained. If you have a convenient link to your DFM predictions of these patterns, please post it.

I'm working on some calculations you might find interesting, but only if they produce the numbers I'm hoping for.

Hang in there.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Tom,

Your reaction to "The End of Science" is typical of all 'true believers' discovering the real truth: The Metaphysics of Physics.

Kostas

Tom,

I do respect your talents and appreciate the fact you are willing to carry on this conversation, when you clearly think I'm clueless, but would it really be asking too much to try to put some thought into your resposes, if not for me, then for respect for your own time spent. Consider the following; "I'm looking forward to your description of how a quantity expands and contracts at the same time."

Obviously I'm referring to gravity contracting and space expanding, so this, if I may put it so bluntly, is an idiot remark.

I try not to make any pretence here. I realize in the social strata of the physics community that I fall well within the crank category, but it doesn't bother me. I follow it because basic physics is very useful in making sense of how the emergent reality of everyday reality functions. It is just that in studying it, I find indications of the same myopic herd behavior prevalent in other social dynamics.

Einstein's equation, E=mc2, symbolizing the energy contained within mass and famous because it defined the nuclear age, was epitomized by the force of the atom bomb. Energy released expands. Can we agree on that one simple observation? If that is so, would it be reasonable to suppose that energy becoming thus contained, would contract? Thus energy released from mass expands, while energy condenced into mass contracts? fission vs. fusion.

I know the fuses have to be popping at the moment, so I'll just leave it at that for now.

If there is Space, and there is Matter, and there is Energy, and if the tendency in physics is to eqaute one entity to another to another, etc., then where is the bridge equivalency in mainstream theories equating mass to space? And how does this transition occur? And, if the Universe is expanding, then, if the vacuum has energy, and the spatial volumes get bigger and bigger(assuming expansion is correct, as is presumed), doesn't this violate conservation of energy?

CIG Theory conserves the conservation laws.

CIG Theory does not masqerade [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwoLNtUuCVk ]

the concept of time dilation. It offers it as the unfolding of Space. But somehow we must preserve time travel, to account for pyramids!

OK - I'm going to check the "Large-angle anomalies in the CMB"

Pssst...CIG Theory grows hair too....

" ... Consider the following; 'I'm looking forward to your description of how a quantity expands and contracts at the same time.'

Obviously I'm referring to gravity contracting and space expanding, so this, if I may put it so bluntly, is an idiot remark."

John, until the chemist Lavoisier discovered that fire is a process of rapid oxidation, scientists believed that combustion is caused by a substance called phlogiston. They continued to believe it, even when it was observed that "negative" phlogiston caused matter to lose substance (burning), and "positive" phlogiston caused matter to gain substance (rust).

That's the position you're in. Gravity is not a force that contracts anything; gravity is the curvature of spacetime. So it is quite impossible that "positive" gravity contracts while "negative" gravity expands.

" ... would it be reasonable to suppose that energy becoming thus contained (by the rest mass equation E = mc^2), would contract?"

No. It's already contracted, as rest mass.

"Thus energy released from mass expands, while energy condenced into mass contracts? fission vs. fusion."

Fusion doesn't "condense energy into mass" any more than fission "expands energy from mass." Binding energy is released in both types of nuclear reaction.

"I know the fuses have to be popping at the moment ..."

I'm way past that point. Now I'm making bets with myself on how long you'll continue to rant that science makes fantastic claims, while adhering to a standard of ... nonsense claims.

Tom

Tom,

I'm presenting an argument. I think spacetime is a mathematical model, not physically real, so I'm offering an alternative reason for gravity.

I know fusion releases energy, but there is some process going on that ultimately binds hydrogen into heavy metals. Volumewise, an equivalent weight of metals takes up less space than hydrogen. How much of this relationship of energy to mass has yet to be fully discovered?

"It's already contracted, as rest mass."

And how did it come to be?

Or I can just give up and accept the whole wormholes/blocktime/multiworlds scenario.

I suspect we will find future generations of physicists are not going to spend their careers studying the untestable. They will study what they can and some of that will be a re-evaluation of prior assumptions.

Tom,

To go back to the original point of contention;

"The shape of spacetime is still mostly flat."

Because the contraction of gravity is matched by expansion.

Tom,

You: "We can observe galaxies moving apart, and we can measure the rate at which the universe expands as changing the scale of the universe -- the whole scale, not just the observer's frame. You're assuming an absolute reference frame that exists only at relative rest."

Me:"I keep pointing out the same scales expanding between galaxies are collapsing into them."

You: "Exactly what do you mean by "scales" in this context?"

That the "changing scale of the universe" is balanced by gravitational contraction, so that "The shape of spacetime is still mostly flat."

You: "Gravity is not a force that contracts anything; gravity is the curvature of spacetime."

The cosmological constant was inserted to balance gravity and keep it from causing the universe to contract. Being a balance to gravity, then presumably it would be an opposite "curvature of spacetime," than gravity. The expansion appears to correlate with a cosmological constant and this term has been used to explain expansion.

" ... I can just give up and accept the whole wormholes/blocktime/multiworlds scenario."

You don't have to accept anything, other than that relativity, the special and the general theory, is successfully tested science -- to deny it is not getting you anywhere. The many worlds hypothesis, BTW, is not related to relativity; it is an interpretation of quantum theory. Conjectures of wormholes and blocktime are conclusions *consistent with* relativity, not necessarily true yet not falsified.

If you are going to attack a proposition, John, you should see what you are aiming at. Though shots in the dark may hit something -- they probably won't.

"The cosmological constant was inserted to balance gravity and keep it from causing the universe to contract."

Not exactly. Classical gravity is already "balanced" by G, Newton's gravitational constant. The cosmological constant prescribes a limit that preserves a static, i.e., eternally existing universe, which was the prevailing scientific view before Hubble discovered expansion. The Lambda term was more philosophical (like phlogiston) than theoretical. There in fact, may be a place for such a constant in the classical theory, though we know that its value is very near zero.

"Being a balance to gravity, then presumably it would be an opposite 'curvature of spacetime,' than gravity."

Here's where it is essential to know the mathematics. Your presumption makes no sense -- spacetime can have positive, negative or zero curvature; however, it is nonsensical to suggest an "opposite of curvature." That means absolutely nothing. In fact, consider that special relativity is called "special" because it applies to the special case of uniform (straight line) motion; accelerated (curved) motion is what leads Einstein to the equivalence of gravity and acceleration in curved spacetime.

"The expansion appears to correlate with a cosmological constant and this term has been used to explain expansion."

Not unless it's negative.

John, do you not yet understand how you have been continually "patching up" your ideas to preserve your belief against the weight of facts? You accuse theorists of "patching" when they hypothesize ideas consistent with tested theory. Yet your own patches can't seal gaping holes in your knowledge.

We've wandered far from the topic. Let's try to get back to Andreas Albrecht's startling (to many, not to me) revelation that free choice of random Hamiltonians leads to different cosmological initial conditions. Here's a nonrelativistic hypothesis that if you understand it, might well overthrow those "fantastic" theoretical notions that you believe cannot possibly be right.

What do you think? -- Is Albrecht's model compatible with the conventional big bang cosmology of general relativity? We already know that's compatible with the many worlds hypothesis.

Tom

Hi Kostas,

I'm not sure we mean the thing when we use the term "metaphysics." To find out, and to try and lead the discussion back to the topic, allow me to ask you:

Is Andreas Albrecht's hypothesis metaphysical? Why or why not?

Tom

Tom,

The issue isn't whether Relativity is mathematically accurate, but whether spacetime is a valid physical reason. Spacetime is to Relativity what giant cosmic gear wheels were to epicycles; A physical explanation drawn out of mathematical patterns. Is there something we are missing. I'll post a further response on the cosmology thread Zeeya started recently, later in the day.

As for Albrecht's discovery and any other equations leading to multiworld scenarios, in most other disciplines, there would be a strong tendency to go back and pull apart the math, when the answers start going haywire.

"Spacetime is to Relativity what giant cosmic gear wheels were to epicycles; A physical explanation drawn out of mathematical patterns."

Huh? It's actually a mathematical pattern drawn from physical explanations. Your conclusion (and confusion) comes from not understanding the mathematical structure or its origin.

Tom

I should proofread better. When I said "Is Albrecht's model compatible with the conventional big bang cosmology of general relativity? We already know that's compatible with the many worlds hypothesis ..." I meant to say:

"We already know that it (Albrecht's hypothesis) is compatible with the many worlds hypothesis."

Tom

Tom,

It's not as though I'm the only one questioning spacetime.

While other scientists tread softly around the edges of Einstein's theory, hoping to tweak it into compliance, Barbour and a growing cadre of collaborators see a need for a bold march forward. They aim to demolish the space-time fabric that stands as Einstein's legacy and remap the universe without it.

John,

So to what extent does Julian Barbour agree with your notions?

Tom

Tom,

I can't comment on Albrecht's hypothesis since I don't know it. But I can comment on what I mean by 'metaphysical': "beyond the physical". Thus, 'metaphysics' is knowledge of "what is" beyond our senses.

Why is this relevant to your love/hate relation with "The End of Science"? Because such behavior by physicists and intolerance to diverse views (Joy Christian's for example) is very characteristic of "religious wars". And all religions are metaphysical as they all seek to know "what is" the Universe.

Because such knowledge is fundamentally based on "belief", the truth of such knowledge can only be 'true' if everyone believes in that truth. Thus we get personal attacks, intimidation and persecution of those that think differently. We've seen this movie before!

Read my essay, The Metaphysics of Physics., for more of my thinking on this.

Constantinos

Tom,

The point is that spacetime is conjecture..

I doubt Barbour has any opinions on my views. Any communications I've had with him have concerned his views, of which I see as making the same basic mistake as most other models: By treating time as a measure of sequence, it only emphasizes the static sequence over the underlying dynamic process.

Que horror, disbelief, etc.