9 ms·

We’re stuck in a paradigm that doesn’t result in any valid fundamental predictions. The idea that running the expanding universe backward makes everything dense

by ackfoo 8y ago

We’re stuck in a paradigm that doesn’t result in any valid fundamental predictions. The idea that running the expanding universe backward makes everything denser and hotter in the past is just dumb. The universe is not like a loaf expanding from dense batter to fluffy bread. Instead, the chaotic vacuum produces, for want of a more accurate concept, particle-antiparticle pairs at random that exert a “pressure” seen as the Casimir Effect and a force that underlies the expansion of space-time. These pairs are mostly ephemeral, but under certain conditions they can randomly transition to a stable state. This eventually results in matter. (It results in a lot of things, but we’re biased toward the minor component, matter, because we’re made of it.) The process happens a lot in very empty space, and almost not at all in space that is constrained by the existence of matter already. This is why “dark matter” exists out there and not down here. The Casimir Effect will give this to you; constrain the available space and some wave equations are excluded, resulting in a measurable inward pressure. Run the expanding universe backwards: space-time contracts and we have exactly what we have right now. Run it forward and space-time expands, again giving us exactly what we have right now. Of course, things are different, but the physics is unchanged. The universe doesn’t get hotter or cooler, there’s no era of total ionization or inflation. The fundamental ground state of the universe is chaos. Anything can arise out of that chaos, but specific events are constrained by probability: some are so unlikely that we never see them; some are so likely that they are certain and they happen all the time. Mathematics, so useful a tool in the past, cannot describe this situation. The only way to describe this system is by using the system itself; there are no shortcuts. Math, philosophy, reason and order are inapplicable because they are only rules-based approximations of a chaotic state.

teilo 8y ago
Here's the ether guy again. It's all he can talk about.
- tree_of_item 8y ago
  Well, that sort of reaction to "out-there" ideas is kind of contributing to stagnation, don't you think?
  - teilo 8y ago
    How do you take someone seriously who says, "Mathematics, so useful a tool in the past, cannot describe this situation. The only way to describe this system is by using the system itself; there are no shortcuts. Math, philosophy, reason and order are inapplicable because they are only rules-based approximations of a chaotic state." That's tantamount to saying that his theory is not based on data, logic, or even sound reasoning, and cannot be proven. Pretty much the definition of a crackpot theory. Of course, what he is actually admitting is that he doesn't understand and can't do the math. Or how can you take someone seriously who says, "We’re stuck in a paradigm that doesn’t result in any valid fundamental predictions." This is so obviously false that the only possible explanation is that he is ignorant about the foundations of modern physics, what they are, how we got here, etc. The field is freaking loaded with predictions that have been proven.
    - tree_of_item 8y ago
      I take it seriously because it echoes a sentiment I've seen expressed previously. If you're interested, I believe this post outlines the idea: https://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2018/11/logic-explainability-and-the-future-of-understanding/ https://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2018/11/logic-explainability... The tl;dr is that physics is not necessarily explainable, however much you want it to be. So it's very possible that the underlying phenomena of reality is simply out of reach of theories (i.e. it's incompressible). > That's tantamount to saying that his theory is not based on data, logic, or even sound reasoning, and cannot be proven. Pretty much the definition of a crackpot theory. You misunderstood the post I think. It's not proposing a theory, or even a crackpot one. It's saying that maybe the underlying phenomena is out of reach of theories.
      - teilo 8y ago
        Nonsense. It’s just a rehash of the old steady state model. Further, any theory which itself claims to be unproveable, is a religious sentiment masquerading as science, and is a waste of mental effort. Wolfram’s article is irrelevant to this discussion. It is a question of empistemology.
a_crc 8y ago
That's an interesting idea. Do you have any thoughts on the fact that the structure of the cosmic microwave background radiation is exactly what we would expect it to be if the universe had expanded from a tiny state to its current state? I'm unwilling to assume it "just randomly looks like that" given that a random distribution on a universal scale seems highly unlikely to show the large scale structures notable in the CMB.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I'm in no way endorsing this individual's proposal, but the argument you're using here is not as strong as you'd expect. A recurring trend in the past several decades has been that a contradiction in prediction is often simply massaged back into that prediction, at times quite arbitrarily. Then that previously contradictory observation can be used as 'evidence' for the newly retrofitted prediction. Of course that's at best circular logic and, at worst, something that can start sending us spiraling down the wrong path, faster than light. So for instance the CMB did not support the big bang, it contradicted it. See: the horizon problem [1]. To reconcile this inflation theory was invented which arbitrarily suggests that the universe hit the accelerator hard, then slowed back down. There's no logic, mechanism, rationale or falsifiability. But it makes what we see fit what we predicted we'd see, so it's a pretty widely accepted part of modern physics. And this retrofitting now has a cascade affect that enables other theories to provide support for yet other theories -- such as what you're proposing here in that the CMB now 'supports' the big bang. It does so only if you add a very big asterisk there. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem
  - a_crc 8y ago
    I'm not a physicist, so maybe I'm misunderstanding the article you linked, but it seems to support my 1st post. If you'll reread it you'll see that I mentioned nothing about a Big Bang, but rather that the CMB provides evidence that the Universe expanded from a smaller state to its current state, which is larger than its starting state. From the linked wiki: "Differences in the temperature of the cosmic background are smoothed by cosmic inflation, but they still exist. The theory [Cosmic Inflation evidenced by the Horizon Problem] predicts a spectrum for the anisotropies in the microwave background which is mostly consistent with observations from WMAP and COBE."
canhascodez 8y ago
> Mathematics, so useful a tool in the past, cannot describe this situation. The only way to describe this system is by using the system itself; there are no shortcuts. > Math, philosophy, reason and order are inapplicable because they are only rules-based approximations of a chaotic state. This is really a superlative cop-out. "My theory is so genius that math, philosophy, reason, and order are insufficient to describe it."
aaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
That would imply that there’s an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the Universe. So, where’s the antimatter?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  The quantum foam is a shared component, an interface, between our universe and another universe that is majority anti-matter. When particles arise from the quantum foam, what we're observing is the half of a virtual particle pair that ended up on this side of the interface, and it is more likely to be the "matter" particle for some reason. Lets get hypothetical. Suppose the quantum foam interface is, in fact, the event horizon of a blackhole as observed from the inside. Since we see a bias towards matter, we could expect that the "outside" universe would see a bias towards what we call anti-matter. Further, since we have blackholes in our universe which we can observe, we should see a bias towards matter in the Hawking radiation. =This post brought to you by a physicist from a not-terribly-accurate sci-fi novella.=
semi-extrinsic 8y ago
> This is why “dark matter” exists out there and not down here. Nope, everyone thinks that dark matter exists everywhere around us. That's why we are funding and running all sorts of dark matter detectors that are looking inwards, not outwards.

by ackfoo 8y ago

teilo 8y ago

Here's the ether guy again. It's all he can talk about.

tree_of_item 8y ago
Well, that sort of reaction to "out-there" ideas is kind of contributing to stagnation, don't you think?
- teilo 8y ago
  How do you take someone seriously who says, "Mathematics, so useful a tool in the past, cannot describe this situation. The only way to describe this system is by using the system itself; there are no shortcuts. Math, philosophy, reason and order are inapplicable because they are only rules-based approximations of a chaotic state." That's tantamount to saying that his theory is not based on data, logic, or even sound reasoning, and cannot be proven. Pretty much the definition of a crackpot theory. Of course, what he is actually admitting is that he doesn't understand and can't do the math. Or how can you take someone seriously who says, "We’re stuck in a paradigm that doesn’t result in any valid fundamental predictions." This is so obviously false that the only possible explanation is that he is ignorant about the foundations of modern physics, what they are, how we got here, etc. The field is freaking loaded with predictions that have been proven.
  - tree_of_item 8y ago
    I take it seriously because it echoes a sentiment I've seen expressed previously. If you're interested, I believe this post outlines the idea: https://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2018/11/logic-explainability-and-the-future-of-understanding/ https://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2018/11/logic-explainability... The tl;dr is that physics is not necessarily explainable, however much you want it to be. So it's very possible that the underlying phenomena of reality is simply out of reach of theories (i.e. it's incompressible). > That's tantamount to saying that his theory is not based on data, logic, or even sound reasoning, and cannot be proven. Pretty much the definition of a crackpot theory. You misunderstood the post I think. It's not proposing a theory, or even a crackpot one. It's saying that maybe the underlying phenomena is out of reach of theories.
    - teilo 8y ago
      Nonsense. It’s just a rehash of the old steady state model. Further, any theory which itself claims to be unproveable, is a religious sentiment masquerading as science, and is a waste of mental effort. Wolfram’s article is irrelevant to this discussion. It is a question of empistemology.

a_crc 8y ago

That's an interesting idea. Do you have any thoughts on the fact that the structure of the cosmic microwave background radiation is exactly what we would expect it to be if the universe had expanded from a tiny state to its current state? I'm unwilling to assume it "just randomly looks like that" given that a random distribution on a universal scale seems highly unlikely to show the large scale structures notable in the CMB.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I'm in no way endorsing this individual's proposal, but the argument you're using here is not as strong as you'd expect. A recurring trend in the past several decades has been that a contradiction in prediction is often simply massaged back into that prediction, at times quite arbitrarily. Then that previously contradictory observation can be used as 'evidence' for the newly retrofitted prediction. Of course that's at best circular logic and, at worst, something that can start sending us spiraling down the wrong path, faster than light. So for instance the CMB did not support the big bang, it contradicted it. See: the horizon problem [1]. To reconcile this inflation theory was invented which arbitrarily suggests that the universe hit the accelerator hard, then slowed back down. There's no logic, mechanism, rationale or falsifiability. But it makes what we see fit what we predicted we'd see, so it's a pretty widely accepted part of modern physics. And this retrofitting now has a cascade affect that enables other theories to provide support for yet other theories -- such as what you're proposing here in that the CMB now 'supports' the big bang. It does so only if you add a very big asterisk there. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem
- a_crc 8y ago
  I'm not a physicist, so maybe I'm misunderstanding the article you linked, but it seems to support my 1st post. If you'll reread it you'll see that I mentioned nothing about a Big Bang, but rather that the CMB provides evidence that the Universe expanded from a smaller state to its current state, which is larger than its starting state. From the linked wiki: "Differences in the temperature of the cosmic background are smoothed by cosmic inflation, but they still exist. The theory [Cosmic Inflation evidenced by the Horizon Problem] predicts a spectrum for the anisotropies in the microwave background which is mostly consistent with observations from WMAP and COBE."

canhascodez 8y ago

> Mathematics, so useful a tool in the past, cannot describe this situation. The only way to describe this system is by using the system itself; there are no shortcuts. > Math, philosophy, reason and order are inapplicable because they are only rules-based approximations of a chaotic state. This is really a superlative cop-out. "My theory is so genius that math, philosophy, reason, and order are insufficient to describe it."

aaaaaaaaaab 8y ago

That would imply that there’s an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the Universe. So, where’s the antimatter?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
The quantum foam is a shared component, an interface, between our universe and another universe that is majority anti-matter. When particles arise from the quantum foam, what we're observing is the half of a virtual particle pair that ended up on this side of the interface, and it is more likely to be the "matter" particle for some reason. Lets get hypothetical. Suppose the quantum foam interface is, in fact, the event horizon of a blackhole as observed from the inside. Since we see a bias towards matter, we could expect that the "outside" universe would see a bias towards what we call anti-matter. Further, since we have blackholes in our universe which we can observe, we should see a bias towards matter in the Hawking radiation. =This post brought to you by a physicist from a not-terribly-accurate sci-fi novella.=

semi-extrinsic 8y ago

> This is why “dark matter” exists out there and not down here. Nope, everyone thinks that dark matter exists everywhere around us. That's why we are funding and running all sorts of dark matter detectors that are looking inwards, not outwards.