Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: thedoc on 20/04/2010 16:51:11
-
Astronomers and Cosmologists seek to understand the origins of the universe – but as this was billions of years ago, we’re left with very few clues as to what actually happened. One of the big clues is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, as Cambridge University’s Professor George Efstathiou explained...
Read a transcript of the interview by clicking here (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/1313/)
or [chapter podcast=2568 track=10.04.18/Naked_Scientists_Show_10.04.18_6091.mp3](https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenakedscientists.com%2FHTML%2Ftypo3conf%2Fext%2Fnaksci_podcast%2Fgnome-settings-sound.gif&hash=f2b0d108dc173aeaa367f8db2e2171bd) Listen to it now[/chapter] or [download as MP3] (http://nakeddiscovery.com/downloads/split_individual/10.04.18/Naked_Scientists_Show_10.04.18_6091.mp3)
-
:George
We know very little about the physics of these very early times. What we would like to know is what actually happened very, very close to the Big Bang, not just in a sort of conceptual way, but actually really probe the structure of the Big Bang. What we think happened is that very close to the Big Bang, the universe underwent a period where it effectively expanded faster than the speed of light. So we called this a period of inflation. It's a very attractive theory. It is not a well-founded theory in terms of physics yet, so we don't understand the mechanism, we don't understand any of the details. What we hope to do with Planck is to get enough information that we can actually get a handle on what actually happened. Did the universe really go through an inflationary phase of expansion? What was the physics responsible for inflation? How were the fluctuations generated? What was the energy scale of inflation? These are the sort of questions that we hope to answer.
@Professor George Efstathiou
Having watched the Horizon episode that you participated in, "The Mystery of Dark Energy", last year...
:Horizon
Horizon looks at dark energy - the mysterious force that is unexpectedly causing the universe's expansion to speed up.
The effects of dark energy were discovered in 1998 but physicists still don't know what it is. Worse, its very existence calls into question Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity - the cornerstone of modern physics.
The hunt for the identity of dark energy is on. Experiments on earth and in space generate data that might provide a clue, but there are also hopes that another Einstein might emerge - someone who can write a new theory explaining the mystery of the dark energy.
I would like to talk to you...
-
Poor Professor George Efstathiou.
-
It truly upsets me that you make such a comment Jeff!
What is wrong with you?
Physicists who are interviewed on Naked Scientist pod casts are quite clear that the field of physics is lacking in knowledge about the universe, and the physicists who were interviewed for the Horizon program were very clear that new ideas are required. I have a new idea and it's a really good idea that can 'fully' describe a cyclic contacting universe without the necessity for dark energy or dark matter, and this model unifies an adapted version of general and special relativity - based around the premise of the theories of MOND and DSR - with quantum mechanics.
You may not be able to comprehend what I have been trying to tell you for the last two years, but I have absolutely no doubt that this is because 'you' are not actually a physicist, let alone a physicist who has been working in the field of physics for 30+ years, as Professor George Efstathiou has.
I want to speak to an actual physicist, and a good one at that, who is 'interested' in a new idea! Clearly no-one at this site is, despite the New Theories board... and as per the Horizon program it would appear that George Efstathiou (and physicists in his league) 'is/are' interested in a new idea that can explain/negate dark energy, and understands that 'current physics' cannot give physical mechanics for Big Bang or Inflation.
As to the response to even known unknowns in physics here at this forum - it is said that Pete is the 'guiding light' of this forum with regards to physics, with his 20+year study and well informed website.
But if this is the best that Pete can come up with in response to "the axis of evil" observations:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70532.msg516048#msg516048
Absolutely shocking that a person who describes himself as an authority of unusually high IQ could be so mall-informed...
...then I'm afraid that what The Naked Scientists Science Forum has to offer here is not actually good enough for a discussion concerning theoretical physics, nor will it lead to any contemplation of my idea.
I came to this forum to get some help with the mathematics to describe my model of a cyclic contracting universe. I am grateful to most of you, not for your help which never materialized, but because the many discussions have made me realize that all the mathematical structure to describe my idea already exists within one or the other, and combinations of, theories contrived by respectable names in physics that are already accepted to the point that they have their own wiki pages.
You, my dear Jeff, were only three, or maybe 4 years ago posting 'at this forum' to lightarrow that you were getting to grips with the double slit light experiment. You are truthfully just not qualified to make proper assessment of a new model. Even Alan with his degree is not qualified to make proper assessment of a new model, although he did at least make it clear from the start that he is not a professional on general relativity. (I have respect for honesty)
In all humility Jeff, I am not qualified to make an assessment of a new model myself. I am just a person with a brain that works probably not much in the same fashion as anybody else, a) because I didn't go to school, and b) because I'm a little bit different anyway, but I have, after many years of study, noticed that the shapes that 'current physics' is constructed of in relation to the observed universe can be fitted together alternatively to describe my model... and I do indeed want to speak to someone who is a professional at thinking of the universe in theoretical terms.
Why would it be:
Poor Professor George Efstathiou.
...?
The dude was on the telly saying that new ideas are needed.
So your opinion is that my model is that unworthy that a person is 'poor' to have to listen to it? There is no-body in the whole world, apart from me, that has a theoretical model of the universe that is 'fully described' to the point that their model can give description of physical mechanics for the Big Bang and Inflation period... You might not recognize the significance of this, but a more qualified person will.
@george Efstathiou - btw, based on a comment in John D Barrow's book "Theories of Everything", I think it pertinent that I let you know that I am not a man and my model contains nothing related to pyramids.
-
I think he might have enough to do already. Professional physicists generally ignore messages about personal theories from laymen. If you were a professional physicist it would be different. My level of knowledge is an irrelevant distraction.
-
To say so, I hadn't been thinking of contacting George Efstathiou directly... but on the basis that John D Barrow has written in his book that he receives 3 - 4 letters a week containing theories almost exclusively from men and mostly pyramid related, in order for John to know this he must actually read them, if only fleetingly.
If I were a professional physicist it is highly unlikely that I would have constructed the model that I have. Hubble's flow is a corner stone of modern physics and red shift analysis is the bread and butter of cosmology. A professional physicist would be psychologically conditioned in their thinking never to question it despite the fact that Einstein's equations of general relativity will describe a contracting universe without alteration, or the current necessity for introducing dark energy or dark matter.
George Efstathiou may well have enough to do already - but that which he is busy with directly concerns questions that my model can potentially provide answers to. On the basis that George is at the Kavli Institute, Cambridge University, and this forum is connected to Cambridge University, and that the world of physics just ain't that big, it is my hope that someone might mention my model to him.
As to your knowledge being an irrelevant distraction, I can tell you that you have indeed distracted me as I do read your posts with interest. With regards to your replies to my posts, every now and then you do 'seem' to understand what I am saying and I find myself hopeful that this is the case...
(This being because you (or Alan, Colin, Mike) are, on the basis that Einstein's equations of GR remain unaltered, qualified enough to describe my model mathematically if only anyone could take instruction. In order to properly publish my model for professional peer review I need a mathematical collaborator who can equate what I describe into mathematical format. Professional physicists are busy, as you say, and maths is the quickest means by which to communicate that which takes a lot of words to get across).
...but then you make extremely derogatory comments, such as post 2 or worse, and I am left feeling like I'm conversing with a Jackal and Hyde type character.
So - whether your knowledge is irrelevant 'to me' or not remains an open question that is sometimes a tad more hopeful than at other times.
-
Scientists ask questions as a matter of course. If they simply accepted current thinking unquestioningly then there would be zero scientific progress.
-
Your point being...?
-
"A professional physicist would be psychologically conditioned in their thinking never to question it ... "
-
I think you miss-understand. The redshift/distance correlation has been severely questioned, historically via the steady stater's, and is still in question to this day. (google "the universe may not be expanding after all"), but no viable alternative model has yet been brought forward.
What I am saying is that Hubble's flow and red shift analysis are the cornerstone of cosmological considerations such as the Big Bang, Inflation, so on, and the interpretation of these observations of red shift are the bread and butter of all cosmological considerations.
All of the physics books that describe the work that is being conducted in theoretical physics to further the physics understanding of the universe is based on expanding models. So you see the proof is in the pudding. The psychological state of physics is heavily leaning towards the expanding interpretation, and therefore it is highly unlikely that it would occur to a professional physicist (especially within the constraints of the profession) to attempt to construct a contracting model, as I have.
-
How do you come up with such outrageous generalisations?
-
Lee Smolin covers the psychological aspects within the profession of physics in his book "The Trouble With Physics", chapter 16: 'How Do You Fight Sociology', and John D Barrow covers psychology in a more loose fashion in his book "New Theories of Everything" with regards to how the human mind thinks about physics.
There is nothing outrageous about my generalisation. As I see it I am speaking the truth.
Can you please quantify your post? Your responses are somewhat lacking in fibre. For instance, can you provide an opinion as to why you think that my comments are an outrageous generalisation?
-
I doubt if you personally know the thousands upon thousands of scientists currently working in physics in one way or another. I doubt if Smolin does either. It is just too many people to know personally. If string theory doesn't deliver don't blame everyone else. That is why by definition you must be generalising and yes it is outrageous.
-
If string theory doesn't deliver don't blame everyone else.
What is this a generalisation of? Is it Smolin's book "The Trouble With Physics'? Have you even read this book Jeff?
Also - as an aside, I seem to remember from sometime last year that you insinuated that the physicists who took part in the Horizon program "The Mystery of Dark Energy" would say anything for the chance to be on the air.
I'm quite sure that George Petros Efstathiou FRS ...
:wiki
a British astrophysicist who is Professor of Astrophysics and Director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology at the University of Cambridge.
...who took part in that program would be delighted at your 'outrageous' generalisation of his character! (chuckle)
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
Here is a research group investigating a universe that might not be expanding...
Name one research group - funded or otherwise - who are investigating a model of a universe that is 'currently' contacting Jeff, and then tell me it is an outrageous generalisation to say that the psychological state of physics leans heavily towards an expanding universe interpretation.
(btw - Smolin simply discusses the financial motivations of physicists in the professional field of physics due to the direction of research funds and the related social and therefore professional/financial ramifications of not following the current trend. This being what I am referring to)
-
The plan was to let you post links and then post the ones you missed, but I'm too impatient (chuckle)
https://phys.org/news/2013-08-cosmologist-universe.html
https://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/online_edition/1919Cosmic/universe.html
http://www.contractinguniverse.co.uk/#2
http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/universe_expanding_or_are_we_shrinking-118673
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.6878v2.pdf
Note:
Although all of the above are 'swimming against the tide' as such in exploring the idea of a contracting universe, none actually provide a fully described model that gives physical mechanics for Big Bang, Inflation, acceleration of gravity, etc, like my model does.
And furthermore, none of the above provide a 'doable' experiment to prove or disprove their ideas, like my model does.
-
Then learn the maths and write a paper. Otherwise it is not your work.
-
Most people who write papers on a physics idea have a collaborator or collaborators, who's work on the paper is publicly noted.
Granted - it is much easier for a professional physicist to attract collaborator interest in their idea.
(I don't actually personally know any professional theoretical physicists)
However, professional theoretical physicists themselves are stating publicly that new ideas are needed. This constitutes an invitation that suggests that physicists would be more than happy to collaborate in a new idea if they deem the new idea worthy. This being because they themselves are at a loss as to constructing new physics to describe observation.
Evan, about a year or so ago, posted about the fact that Einstein himself required mathematical help to describe his ideas.
:wiki
Marcel Grossmann facilitated Einstein's unique synthesis of mathematical and theoretical physics in what is still today considered the most elegant and powerful theory of gravity: the general theory of relativity. The collaboration of Einstein and Grossmann led to a ground-breaking paper: "Outline of a Generalized Theory of Relativity and of a Theory of Gravitation", which was published in 1913 and was one of the two fundamental papers which established Einstein's theory of gravity.
I don't see why I must learn mathematics. It would take a long time for me to become proficient enough to confidently transpose my ideas into mathematical format. There are thousands and thousands of people already qualified who could construct the mathematics to describe my model under my instruction. I have learned enough about the subject already to understand that it is merely a simple juggling with the speed distance time formula in relation to non-Euclidean (or non-commutative) geometry that is required.
*
Also - I expected you to make comment on how 3 of those 5 links I provided on researchers conducting investigation into currently contracting models are the work of the same person - Christof Wetterich. And 1 of the links was related to the early 1900's, which means that since the early 1900's there is only 2 other people apart from myself who have considered a contracting model.
It is entirely unjustified for you to accuse me of an 'outrageous generalistion' for suggesting that the psychological state of physics is heavily leaning towards the expanding interpretation.
*
I repeat:
@Professor George Efstathiou, or any other professional theoretic physicist...
I would like to speak with you
-
In Einstein's time the mathematics were very new. So yes he did need help. There was no textbook to turn to.
You don't want a collaborator. You want a lackey.
-
That's it, I have officially decided. There is actually something wrong with you. (chuckle)
So that is your 'official' advice. To go and search for the mathematics that will describe my 'new idea' in a text book and learn them?
Lol! Can anyone else spot Jeff's deviation from logical process?
Jeff, the 'exact' mathematical format to describe my new idea does not yet exist. It would have to be invented. The correct mathematical format for general relativity did not exist before the collaboration of Einstein and Grossman. Grossman had knowledge of certain 'existing' mathematical structure that could be employed and helped Einstein employ it to create a new mathematical formula.
For your information, I most certainly wouldn't want to be helped by a person who considered themselves as a lackey.
*
I repeat:
@Professor George Efstathiou, or any other professional theoretic physicist...
I would like to speak with you.
-
You do not need new mathematics. You need a miracle.
-
Again - your responses lack fibre...
Can you provide an opinion as to why a 'new idea' would not require new mathematics? The notion is completely without logic.
Can you provide the reason why a miracle would be needed? A miracle for what? That a professional theoretical physicist who has stated that 'new ideas' are needed will deem to actually listen to a 'new idea'? Logically speaking people who state that new ideas are needed will be willing to listen to new ideas.