Board index › Topical Discussion › Computers, Math, Science, and Technology

Do you believe in Multiverse theory?

Page 9 of 10 [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,798
Location: Somerset UK

26 Nov 2011, 8:00 am

rdos wrote:
lau wrote:
Theories that have testable predictions, which have been tested, and have been found to be reasonably flawlessly accurate, are not "proved". They are just science in action. There is no need to "believe" in the theories.


There are no predictions being proved by multiverse theories, Big Bang or multidimensional theories. What additional data is used to is simply to tweak numerous parameters in the models. It is a lot like autism-research, where data-mining is used to create new causes. When "science" is driven by data-mining alone, or data-mining and theories that are unprovable, it is no longer science.

No.

rdos wrote:
lau wrote:
Fine. You can believe what you like. I don't believe in anything. I do find theories that match physical measurements very useful. If those theories imply that our perception of space and time is rather at odds with reality, then reality wins. It is unproductive to religiously hang onto belief in simplistic Euclidean geometries when they fail hopelessly to predict anything beyond very local, slow experimental results.


There is no need to leave-by observable phenomena in favor of extra dimensions and fairy-tails. Einstein didn't mean that observable things should be abondonded in favor of speculative stuff. In fact, it was very clear that the theory of relativity was just a minor modifcation of Newtons mechanics at high speeds. It didn't suggest that extra dimensions should be involved. In fact, it says nothing about extra dimensions. He regarded time as kind of interleaved with space (at speeds close to speed of light), not an independent dimension.

I gather you are happy with the special theory of relativity, which recently celebrated its 100th birthday, but discard all physics from that point on?


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,798
Location: Somerset UK

26 Nov 2011, 8:09 am

rdos wrote:
... The scientific method finally proved that the earth was not flat, and moved around the sun. But people didn't accept this until generations later, because they believed in the creationist fairy tails (from the Bible in this case, but the Big Bang is no better than a fairy tail).
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... onceptions


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Nov 2011, 9:50 am

rdos wrote:

There is no need to leave-by observable phenomena in favor of extra dimensions and fairy-tails. Einstein didn't mean that observable things should be abondonded in favor of speculative stuff. In fact, it was very clear that the theory of relativity was just a minor modifcation of Newtons mechanics at high speeds. It didn't suggest that extra dimensions should be involved. In fact, it says nothing about extra dimensions. He regarded time as kind of interleaved with space (at speeds close to speed of light), not an independent dimension.


Not so. Newton assumed Euclidean or "flat" three dimensional space. And Newton assumed gravitational force between two masses was instantaneous. For Newton time was also absolute.

The basic logical difference is reflected in the mathematical differences between the two theories.

Einstein's General Relativity was not a "minor" modification of anything Newton did.

ruveyn



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

26 Nov 2011, 6:22 pm

rdos wrote:
Once one have abondonded the creationist Big Bang, it is not to hard to put one and one together. We have red shifts caused by photons travelling long distances in space, and we have the background radiation. You don't need a degree in physics to realize that the loss of energy of photons is the observable background radiation. It is so simple.


Since when is the Big Bang theory creationist?



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

26 Nov 2011, 6:39 pm

rdos wrote:
Jono wrote:
I am not inventing anything. That is just what the Big Bang theory describes, look it up yourself if you don't believe me.


That would be the same thing as looking up what Jesus said about the creation of the universe in the Bible. I don't believe in fairy-tails.


First learn to spell correctly, fairies don't have tails. Secondly, if you don't want to read up about the Big Bang theory then start by reading up about topics like astrophysics and cosmology because you don't seem to know a lot about it.

rdos wrote:
Jono wrote:
Firstly, I did not say anything about extra dimensions. We think about space-time as being imbedded in a higher-dimensional space, such as the universe being the surface of a 4 dimensional manifold, just because that's a way to picture the warping of space-time. It does not mean that the "extra dimensions" are real.


I don't believe in anything that requires extra dimensions to understand / explain. That per definition makes it religion instead of science, as it is impossible to prove with the scientific method.


Good, since the Big Bang theory does not require extra dimensions.

rdos wrote:
Jono wrote:
Secondly, I have a degree in physics, what do you have?


Not in physics specifically, but I have read the required material at the MSc level (with a focus on electronics).


Oh wow! Well come back when you've read the required material on astrophysics and cosmology because you don't have enough knowledge in those areas or in modern physics for that matter.

By the way, as far as electronics are concerned, silicon microchips would not be possible without quantum mechanics, which I take it you don't believe in either.



Last edited by Jono on 26 Nov 2011, 7:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

26 Nov 2011, 6:48 pm

rdos wrote:
There is no need to leave-by observable phenomena in favor of extra dimensions and fairy-tails. Einstein didn't mean that observable things should be abondonded in favor of speculative stuff. In fact, it was very clear that the theory of relativity was just a minor modifcation of Newtons mechanics at high speeds. It didn't suggest that extra dimensions should be involved. In fact, it says nothing about extra dimensions. He regarded time as kind of interleaved with space (at speeds close to speed of light), not an independent dimension.


So says the guy who doesn't believe in special relativity according to his posts in another thread. You have absolutely no idea of what Einstein's theory of relativity is actually claiming nor do you understand it's implications, otherwise we would not of even had that discussion about electromagnetic fields and faster-than-light travel in the other thread.



lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,798
Location: Somerset UK

27 Nov 2011, 8:50 am

Jono wrote:
rdos wrote:
Once one have abondonded the creationist Big Bang, it is not to hard to put one and one together. We have red shifts caused by photons travelling long distances in space, and we have the background radiation. You don't need a degree in physics to realize that the loss of energy of photons is the observable background radiation. It is so simple.


Since when is the Big Bang theory creationist?

I suspect he thinks that the Big Bang accounts for what happened in the Planck epoch.


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

27 Nov 2011, 9:39 am

Jono wrote:
So says the guy who doesn't believe in special relativity according to his posts in another thread. You have absolutely no idea of what Einstein's theory of relativity is actually claiming nor do you understand it's implications, otherwise we would not of even had that discussion about electromagnetic fields and faster-than-light travel in the other thread.


Absolutely wrong. I took the class about the theory of relativity because back then I thought it was interesting, and I passed the exam. :twisted:



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

27 Nov 2011, 9:41 am

Jono wrote:
By the way, as far as electronics are concerned, silicon microchips would not be possible without quantum mechanics, which I take it you don't believe in either.


I've not had any reason to study quantum mechanics, but I suspect one can find creationist thinking there as well.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

27 Nov 2011, 9:49 am

OK, so I read-up on a popular article about cosmology and the Big Bang, and it seems like current thinking is that the "accelerated expansion" would require 75% dark energy in the universe, and the researchers don't even have an idea what dark energy is. If a theory requires a 75% contribution term that nobody even knows what it is, it is so full of holes that it cannot be called anything else than wishful thinking or creationism.

And, aparantly, the only "evidence" for expansion and the Big Bang is the background radiation. :roll:

The hypothesis I presented here before (which is published online by a physicist), has more merit than the Big Bang, yet everybody simply takes for granted that the Big Bang is a fact.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

27 Nov 2011, 10:07 am

ruveyn wrote:
Not so. Newton assumed Euclidean or "flat" three dimensional space. And Newton assumed gravitational force between two masses was instantaneous. For Newton time was also absolute.


For typical applications, Newton's results works perfectly well, and are logical. And time is still largely absolute. The small time-differences that have been measured are of no practical importance (other than correcting terms in GPS systems and alike), if they are real and not artefacts. We will not be able to build time-machines or similar based on those.

ruveyn wrote:
The basic logical difference is reflected in the mathematical differences between the two theories.

Einstein's General Relativity was not a "minor" modification of anything Newton did.


That is of course wrong, and I know because I passed the relativy class. Einstein just assumed that the speed of light was constant, and then the correction terms for length and time followed naturally. He didn't invent his own mechanics, rather provided corrections for high speeds that can be discarded at the typical velocities that Newton studied. And, as I have claimed before, these are exactly the things we expect if photons are waves with a fixed speed.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Nov 2011, 12:31 pm

rdos wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Not so. Newton assumed Euclidean or "flat" three dimensional space. And Newton assumed gravitational force between two masses was instantaneous. For Newton time was also absolute.


For typical applications, Newton's results works perfectly well, and are logical. And time is still largely absolute. The small time-differences that have been measured are of no practical importance (other than correcting terms in GPS systems and alike), if they are real and not artefacts. We will not be able to build time-machines or similar based on those.

ruveyn wrote:
The basic logical difference is reflected in the mathematical differences between the two theories.

Einstein's General Relativity was not a "minor" modification of anything Newton did.


That is of course wrong, and I know because I passed the relativy class. Einstein just assumed that the speed of light was constant, and then the correction terms for length and time followed naturally. He didn't invent his own mechanics, rather provided corrections for high speeds that can be discarded at the typical velocities that Newton studied. And, as I have claimed before, these are exactly the things we expect if photons are waves with a fixed speed.


Newtonian mechanics is formulated in "flat" Euclidean space. General relativity requires curvature tensors and non-zero curvature at that. The methodology of General Relativity is based on Reimannian Geometry. They didn't bother explaining the difference between Special Theory of Relativity which a a hyperbolic geometry and General Theory in which the metric ground tensor determines the character of the spaces. Special Theory of relativity is a theory about electrodynamics and General Theory of Relativity is about gravitation which does not work like electrodynamics at all. Get your money back. Ask for you money back. You were cheated.

ruveyn



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

27 Nov 2011, 4:17 pm

rdos wrote:
Jono wrote:
So says the guy who doesn't believe in special relativity according to his posts in another thread. You have absolutely no idea of what Einstein's theory of relativity is actually claiming nor do you understand it's implications, otherwise we would not of even had that discussion about electromagnetic fields and faster-than-light travel in the other thread.


Absolutely wrong. I took the class about the theory of relativity because back then I thought it was interesting, and I passed the exam. :twisted:


I think you need to ask for your money back.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

27 Nov 2011, 4:37 pm

rdos wrote:
OK, so I read-up on a popular article about cosmology and the Big Bang, and it seems like current thinking is that the "accelerated expansion" would require 75% dark energy in the universe, and the researchers don't even have an idea what dark energy is. If a theory requires a 75% contribution term that nobody even knows what it is, it is so full of holes that it cannot be called anything else than wishful thinking or creationism.


the discovery of accelerated expansion is still pretty new anyway and it doesn't directly contradict the Big Bang theory. Also, not knowing what something is doesn't mean it isn't real and there are alternative hypotheses to explain the accelerated expansion.

rdos wrote:
And, aparantly, the only "evidence" for expansion and the Big Bang is the background radiation. :roll:


Pretty damn good evidence since the hypothesis you mentioned before cannot explain the cosmic microwave background. Source:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stars_vs_cmb.html
rdos wrote:
The hypothesis I presented here before (which is published online by a physicist), has more merit than the Big Bang, yet everybody simply takes for granted that the Big Bang is a fact.


It's an old hypothesis that been largely discredited by observations and currently credible physicist or astrophysics researcher supports it or even takes it seriously anymore. Hardly anyone even questions that the universe is truly expanding anymore and for good reason too. Sources:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~tt/ASTRO2/lecture16.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9806201

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2001/06/28-01.html



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

27 Nov 2011, 5:20 pm

rdos wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Not so. Newton assumed Euclidean or "flat" three dimensional space. And Newton assumed gravitational force between two masses was instantaneous. For Newton time was also absolute.


For typical applications, Newton's results works perfectly well, and are logical. And time is still largely absolute. The small time-differences that have been measured are of no practical importance (other than correcting terms in GPS systems and alike), if they are real and not artefacts. We will not be able to build time-machines or similar based on those.


The effects of special relativity become highly significant at high speeds and the general relativistic effects become significant in strong gravitational fields. The way nature behaves and what is of practical importance to humans are completely different in independent things.

rdos wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The basic logical difference is reflected in the mathematical differences between the two theories.

Einstein's General Relativity was not a "minor" modification of anything Newton did.


That is of course wrong, and I know because I passed the relativy class. Einstein just assumed that the speed of light was constant, and then the correction terms for length and time followed naturally. He didn't invent his own mechanics, rather provided corrections for high speeds that can be discarded at the typical velocities that Newton studied. And, as I have claimed before, these are exactly the things we expect if photons are waves with a fixed speed.


See the bolded statement, that is exactly where you are wrong. Regardless of whether light is a wave or not, it completely contradicts newtonian mechanics to have something that can be measured to travel at the same speed regardless your relative motion with respect to it. Newtonian mechanics requires absolute space and time and in newtonian mechanics, velocities add. Further the laws of nature have to be consistent and apply everywhere. Special relativity was developed to resolve a contradiction between Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and newtonian mechanics, but because it was newtonian mechanics that was modified, and not electromagnetism, the effects have to apply to all moving bodies even when electrodynamic effects are not present (unlike what you seem to think).

General relativity was developed to resolve a contradiction between newtonian gravity (which has absolutely nothing to do with electromagnetism by the way) and special relativity caused by the fact that newtonian gravity effected objects instantaneously across space which was impossible according to special relativity (which claims that nothing can travel faster than light).



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

28 Nov 2011, 6:14 am

Jono wrote:
It's an old hypothesis that been largely discredited by observations and currently credible physicist or astrophysics researcher supports it or even takes it seriously anymore. Hardly anyone even questions that the universe is truly expanding anymore and for good reason too. Sources:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~tt/ASTRO2/lecture16.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9806201

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2001/06/28-01.html


Interesting sources, but they seem to be quite biased. First, they seem to "know" how the "tired light effect" works, but nobody actually knows that. According to my source, the effect is a decrease in frequency of light, not linear loss of energy. Another observation is that the problems with BB are not addressed (like the 75% dark energy).

Revised comparisoon:
The night sky is dark - yes (because photons are not "eternal")
The Universe is filled with a blackbody radiation at ~3K yes, because the effect is a frequency shift
No object older than ~15 Gyrs has ever been found That's just stupid since age is meassured with red shift
Accelerated expansion BB requires 75% unknown "dark energy" to solve this. Frequency shift can solve this by using a non-linear decay

My source where the author combines gravitation and red shift in an elegant way with Newton mechanics:
http://www.newphys.se/teden/Tedenstig/O ... N%20950124

The authors main page:
http://www.newphys.se/teden/Tedenstig/

Note that he also presents a new atomic model that can predict atom configurations without involving in quantum mechanics!