kristalris

A few years back I thought that there was a sighting in the news of an object that we saw, if I remember correctly three weeks or months prior to it passing earth at, what was it 30.000 or so km. I can't remember if this was a size that we would get a new Golf of Mexico. Nice swimming there now BTW. Anyway I guess if one of those hits, the discussion on the amount of hope will certainly abruptly change for the worse. Sobering thought seeing it at such short notice. Sometimes blissful ignorance is nice. Hope you find a way to prevent it.

Oeps, Roosevelt it was of course. Still, correct position whether West African, Swedish or whatever. And I of course fully agree, don't lump them together. Just the point I was trying to make. The only reason I did lump them together is that I guess internet is/ was the catalyst. BTW colonial thinking only in respect to using power when the use thereof is wise. Not to sec try and steal everything they have. That I quoted the way Romans went about it doesn't mean I'm in favor of reintroducing slavery. Quite the contrary.

Well, there's a distinct difference between sitting on the sideline and going in Gong Ho stile like in Iraq. To quote Eisenhower again on foreign policy: speak softly and carry a big stick.That seems to me to be wise. BTW US foreign policy has turned very much to the better IMO since "W" was on he ball so to speak. The situation in the entire middle east is very unstable to say the least, and in part it is completely new. I guess the internet has struck again. Looking at Syria Egypt, Libya et all. Syria indeed is already involving NATO: we Dutch are sending Patriot anti missile missiles to Turkey, on which I agree. Iran and nukes etc. & Israel boy oh boy. Strategy? IMO indeed speak softly and carry a big stick. The trick is to avoid using the stick. That trick is called wisdom and guts. Effective diplomacy getting to know the people, building trust and bridges. The only way that can work is hope that the leaders in charge on which we have any influence are wise and are supported in doing that. Whatever that is. Anyway whatever we do or don't do it is educated guesswork at best. And hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Sometimes doing nothing can be best, some problems need time to resolve the problem without too much interference in situations where we don't know what we are getting into like Iraq (which wasn't true, most people knew before that war that Iraq as a country didn't exist: ).

Indeed: maybe. Then again: maybe not. On mathematics: my mathematics teacher ages ago stated that for proper mathematics all you need is a string a straight stick on a sandy beach. I.e. what a lot of scientists / physicists forget is that it is first the garbage / non garbage question of the assumptions you have before you do the math's. Not the other way round. And like you just postulated: indeed do we assume that or not? Otherwise you end up in the Escher Institute where you accurately measure the length of the towers yet conclude incorrectly that the water streams upwards. GR and QM are contradiction with each other. One or both must thus be - at least partly outside a regime - wrong. Inside there respective assumed regimes they are incontestably correct. You can't get round that by stating it's a paradox because it's a blatant contradiction. (I know of physicists thus even thinking they are synonyms) And yes the Escher Institute will allow you to marry GR and QM probably if you assume you can travel back in time, have something come from nothing and vice versa and what not. Probably however it is then only a whopping confirmation bias. In science you look at all evidence and address all the problems and then try and formulate a falsifiable position, and subsequently don't argue but test it. Trial and error. And mind you on the concept level you aren't even allowed to be too succinct and thus should watch out with your mathematics. Before you know it you very accurately have taken something to be true that isn't. So Premyslaw's idea should have the science be but to it, and if possible be tested. And it should be looked at if it can be adapted i.e. I guess he's put it forward as work in progress. Yet indeed he should answer stated questions. And why one theory you ask? Well because Occam deems that the most probable correct solution then. And current science correctly likes Occam.

T-O-M (To-Open-Minded best call you Tom then) Well Tom, you being a pacifist I'm puzzled at the killing Nazi zombies bit. Anyway Sweden though being neutral like us Dutch in 1940 have a very large armament industry Saab, Bofors etc. The problem with being a pacifist I.M.O. is exactly what you point out in your killing Nazi zombie game. If Gandhi had been up against Nazi's instead of the Brits and we all had adhered to being a pacifist, we would never of heard of the guy. It only works given you are up against at least some moral standard. I agree with your qualms on the patriotism and the money involved in the States. But he what's new wasn't it president Eisenhower (ex general) who warned about not letting the industrial military complex get the overhand? That was wise, and yes the States hasn't adhered to that wisdom. Fighting a war inherently involves getting more patriotism. That is not wrong per se, because inevitable even necessary given the need to fight a war.(Which you would disagree on even against Nazi's or not?) Having NATO attack Afghanistan was warranted IMO after 911. I've no qualms with the Dutch involvement there. What I don't find very wise is not getting in without an exit strategy. Copying history where it worked like the Romans and the British and Dutch colonial powers and not copying what doesn't work Vietnam and Vietnamisation. I.e. win the conventional battle in max a year as was done and then form a foreign legion whereby Afghans provide the soldiers NATO the leadership and air support. And don't have Afghans work as soldiers in their own region. And mix them up as a band of brothers in other regions. Provide them with weapons training proper NATO leadership and security up to a pension, and health care for their families. And simply perform a stable (police) force for law and order that the Lawa Jirga wants as long as it is within international Law. So not an Afghan army but a NATO army. Remember the Taliban came about due to the disorder caused by what are now are Afghan allies. People - as history shows - will then choose any form of order above disorder. Then you get terrorists flying into the Twin Towers. The Romans showed this works for a thousand years. Tried and tested. You can also do this within the international law system. What we've done now is create more terrorists then we've killed and killing a lot of our soldiers and civilians in the process. More then where killed in 911 in the first place. Stability is still very fragile and if NATO where to leave the Taliban will be back, like in Vietnam. The invasion of Iraq on the other hand was stupid to begin with, and IMO indeed the product of not keeping the industrial military complex at bay. And a contributing reason to the financial chaos we have. Paying an Afghan to fight and die for his own country is far cheaper and BTW Just. So again be wise and organize it. If not we're sunk. So have hope in the States from indeed starting to learn from the past. The States is also the country of the New Deal, and the Tennessee valley authority etc. Again: being wise needs good organisation of just that. And that is copying what worked in the past and not what didn't work.

Sweden, will slowly but gradually with out a doubt have the same problems more or less sooner or later if they don't already have it. All large organisations - like states- tend towards more and more bureaucracy. In a democracy like even in the States it should be possible to get it on the political map by making it a issue that one can vote on irrespective of current political divide. I hope for you that you don't like to drink alcohol because as far as I know it is extremely expensive. Apart from that although Dutch is difficult language for foreigners to learn, I think Swedish is even more difficult. Anyway if you don't already speak the lingo they are as far as I know very good in English in the land of Abba. Scandinavia is on my places to visit list, yet been in the States. I guess everywhere are pro's and con's. I've been to the States ages ago and was and still am impressed by the great pro's and dito con's. Take Wikipedia that is the up side of the States and there is many more that is good about the States. As with the Swedes I'm sure. In short, I guess you haven't really given up hope on the States as a reason to leave? If so, aren't you afraid by placing your expectations so high that Sweden might prove a disappointment?

Aside from the Vogon game as a metaphor let me explain my position at bit clearer within known philosophic points of view: It is a bit the discussion between choosing for the philosopher king of Plato and the democratic open society by Karl Popper in his The open society and its enemies apposing among others Plato's view. I think you can marry the two points of view a bit like the Greeks did. In war or crises choose a dictator and democracy when in piece. Like Churchill I agree that democracy is the least worse way of governance (or words to that effect.). It needs checks and balances. Because otherwise you get a dictatorship of 50% plus one. The problem is that our society is changing faster than our social structures can cope with. A paradigm change takes 10 to 15 years is an accepted rule of thumb. Alas our society changes faster than that. A just law system should counterbalance to a degree too rigid majority rule. It should't be its exponent. Alas this is more and more the case: take in the USA according to Wikipedia a sharp rise in the amount of detained persons has come about the last years. At the moment 1 in a hundred citizens are detained! A gross and widening imbalance between losers and winners in the system has emerged. The same prospect can be seen emerging in the Netherlands. Uninformed majority rule will cause this. Only the voice of wisdom given from a figure of authority - the comunis opninio in psychology shows as (as does history) - can counter balance this. Because the legal system not one judge rules all. Yet the problem of effectively counterbalancing stops when the judges themselves play a rigid system. Especially if the judges who are in the supreme courts are highly conscientiousness. The system gets inherently more and more bureaucratic. Preventing through punishing risk taking and creative not going by the book where the fast changing society needs exactly that. The law system effects the thinking in all walks of life. Only wise counterbalancing can work. Only then when domestically we have a just system can we hope to get a global just system that actually has a chance of working. Although I agree with the pessimists there is extremely probably greater hardship ahead than we already have. I disagree with them that we shouldn't do our damnedest to strive to lessen the problems. Science and technology are our only hope for this, but only within a wise system that can very quickly be changed. This by simply reorganize the existing team of judges in a separate "R&D department" just for giving quick advise. Twenty years ago this already worked implicitly in the Dutch legal system and partly still does. IMO this system failed due to already to high hopes (to good sales = bad sales) that couldn't be met and where seen so due to - recent - internet. A gift and a curse. The wise judges slowly but gradually where replaced by conscientious more bureaucratic judges in key positions of the process. Positions where a temporary advice steered the cases in the correct direction. The score was seen to plummet of confessed serious mistakes. The problem is we don't accept mistakes anymore. Hence a more and more bureaucratic system. If you however organize it like in the aircraft industry after a crash and have a independent research into what went wrong. If it was a honest mistake after a correct proceeding then there is no need to take what ever action, apart from correcting it. The latter is now nigh impossible because perfection has been sold. And is thus demanded however unreasonable. Apart from that it is needed to try and inform the people better (to which internet is again a gift (and a curse)). As long as you accept the democratic justice system this idea is neither left nor right wing or religious. It doesn't touch democratic choices as such. What it primarily does is provide good evidence and proof system. It also works for a jury system. You only have to think out of the box to see this. As such in the Dutch legal system we have had several admitted horrendous mistakes in which a guilty verdict was given after an extremely conscientious proceeding. The convicted had bad luck in the judges, DA's and maybe lawyers in a system that asked too much of these people. If you change your legal system to be just so will your society. Then and only then can the power of science and technology have a hope in hell to do far above average good for society. For instance if science and technology yields greater crops for mankind it doesn't help if it only leads to a population explosion. In a just society where people can be shore that their offspring has a good chance of growing old and that they will have a pension of sorts and will be taken care of is only feasible within belief and trust that that will work. This trust is only possible in a just society. As such nothing to do with politics. Everybody (nearly at least) wants to believe in a just law system. That however is globally in dire need of reorganization. Like in any football match redeploying the same players in the field can work immediate miracles. They start working together. Psychology is the key.

You familiar with the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy and what the Vogons therein depict?

Oh yes there is a connection. Because the successful building of space-time crystal is deemed possible in current science then so the probability that the balls in the box experiment will yield a positive test result is undeniable in current science to be deemed higher then without this possibility to build a space-time crystal. And the connection of course works the other way round as well: if the balls in the box go to order then the probability that the cost and effort to build a space-time crystal are well spent because the probability of success undeniably in current science then has risen considerably. The more so because it will provide then probably essential formulas as well needed for a successful building of a space-time crystal. And, given that the balls in the box go to order it then by current science will be undeniably so that there probably are space-time crystals already in space without the need to build them. That the gyro test is connected to the balls in the box and via that thus to space-time crystals I already pointed out. If the gravity rises then so does the probability that the effort and cost spent on a dynamic crystal computer simulation will come to fruition. And so space-time crystals as well.

Well if the balls in the box go to order instead of disorder you can rewrite the book. Because the book (on science) says at the moment it should only go to disorder (because it hasn't been done accurately enough hence the need to do an accurate test). The reason to suspect that there is order in the system is that we observe more order than we can explain: hence dark matter. Galaxies should disintegrate given the current book on science yet they don't. Because the test has obviously not been done you can only assume something either way if it possible or not. I.e. current theory says it's dark what we observe: ergo in science devise and do tests, that have any possibility of showing an ordering function. Especially if they can relatively be done quickly at low cost and effort. The possibility of forming a space-time crystal warrants the thought of a possible crystal being found as the form of order in the test. The same goes for seeing if a spinning gyro: if it shows a measurable rise in gravity at higher speeds then you can immediately re-wright a significant part of the book of science. Especially if the rise fully explains the dark matter; being in effect unexplained extra gravity. Because then you've found it. The reason we haven't seen it up till now is that either no-one has come up with the idea to look properly (i.e. test properly) or that has been done but not properly published as a negative result or as an as yet insurmountable measurement problem.

So? Point is what is the reason for not doing the proposed tests? I.e. see problem (-s) => see possible answer (-s) => don't assume anything => do test (-s) / investigate possibilities for test (-s).

I indeed misunderstood what science means with the term space-time crystal. Namely a thing that under certain circumstances can be built. However, the premises that underlie the thought that it is possible to build one are the same as is needed to accept the Higgs mechanism. I.e. spontaneous symmetry breaking at the lowest energy state such as with the Higgs boson bearing in mind that the most common way of spontaneous symmetry breaking is the existence of crystals. Taken from: http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/116 On space-time crystals: "Spontaneous symmetry breaking is ubiquitous in nature. It occurs when the ground state (classically, the lowest energy state) of a system is less symmetrical than the equations governing the system. Examples in which the symmetry is broken in excited states are common—one just needs to think of Kepler’s elliptical orbits, which break the spherical symmetry of the gravitational force. But spontaneous symmetry breaking refers instead to a symmetry broken by the lowest energy state of a system. Well-known examples are the Higgs boson (due to the breaking of gauge symmetries), ferromagnets and antiferromagnets, liquid crystals, and superconductors. While most examples come from the quantum world, spontaneous symmetry breaking can also occur in classical systems [1]." "In nature, the most common manifestation of spontaneous symmetry breaking is the existence of crystals." End qoute Then: The Higgs Boson explained By Frank Wilczek on June 28, 2012 9:54 AM | 12 comments http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/06/the-higgs-boson-explained/ "Supersymmetry has many aspects and ramifications, but two are most relevant here. First, supersymmetry (for experts: more specifically, focus point supersymmetry) predicts that the Higgs particle mass should lie in the range 120-130 GeV. Finding Higgs particles with mass in that range would give strong circumstantial evidence both for supersymmetry and for the unification that supersymmetry enables. Second, supersymmetry predicts the existence of many additional new fundamental particles, besides the Higgs particle, that should be accessible to the LHC. So if supersymmetry is right, the LHC will have many more years of brilliant discovery in front of it. And if not? I’ll be heartbroken. Mother Nature will have shown that Her taste is very different from mine. I don’t doubt that it’s superior, but I’ll have to struggle to understand it." End quote In other words the Higgs boson and the idea of being able to build a space-time crystal go hand in hand in having the same basic premises. Premises that are inherently ubiquitous (omnipresent). Whatever: these scientific premises form the basis with the balls in the Box and the Gyro tests in order to show or falsify an idea that super symmetric dynamic crystals are at the heart of it all. I.e. only one step from premises that part of current science holds possible. Put in another way: what if the balls indeed go to order and / or the gravity in the gyro indeed rises conforming to what dark matter entails? Given current science that would prove a dynamic crystal is at the heart of it all. And, in science one shouldn't argue whether or not to do relatively easy to do tests on major issues: one should do the test and let the observed result speak for itself. No one can argue on any scientific basis that if the balls in the box go to order that would prove a concept on a very high standard of proof. Nor could anyone on any scientific basis contest that if the gravity rises in the gyro test as predicted that this would be a major event. To look on the gyro test in another way: see the galaxy as a whopping gyro spinning and causing an observed dark gravitational attraction. Now downsize the thing to a testable size and see if it does the same when spun up to an appropriate measurable speed.

No one has pointed out a single space-time crystal as far as I know (neither do I BTW). You don't have to. No one states that an atom placed anywhere in the visible universe would be outside the space-time crystal or Higgs field for that matter. Or does anyone imply or state that to your knowledge? Please then point out the point where the Higgs field or space-time crystal by its protagonists in science would not exist within the visible universe? Or does it appear out of nothing at a point where an atom goes? Does anyone state that as a scientific fact? Or does the atom then take it's own Higgs field / space-time crystal along with it? Does anyone state that to your knowledge? No one can actually exactly know in science, as far as I know. So no-one will absolutely state or have to state anything as a scientific fact in this respect. That is, however baring the fact that for any atom in any part of our visible universe will be subject to the probable Higgs field, to be seen in this thread as a testable hypothesis to be a space-time crystal. Everybody as far as I know does state that for each of the two separately, implicitly, anyway. This because it is a logical necessity. I.e. the Higgs field hypothesis doesn't have to prove that it will work everywhere where you would put an atom. Even though there are places in the visible universe where we can't be certain that atoms can in fact exist or are not subject to the Higgs field. There is however no reason to assume that it wouldn't work there. The same goes for a space-time crystal. (Visible universe in this stipulative definition excludes invisible places such as black holes etc. In other words of course there are places where atoms can't exist. If they exist however they are presumed - by everybody who takes the Higgs field as a fact, or space-time crystals as such - to be in a Higgs-field and thus in this testable hypothesis in a space-time crystal)

Okay near omnipresent then. If the Higgs field is assumed to add mass to all atoms anywhere in the visible universe, that is close enough. And as space-time crystals are linked to the waving function observed in atoms the same applies. Because it should also apply to smaller particles then atoms, I made thus the slightest of errors - in definition - inherent to the use of word salad for want of a better definition. An error by the way so small to be insignificant, and most certainly so in comparison to the definition error of calling something dark matter and dark energy. As is current science to do BTW. That is not insignificant having the presumed answer as part of the definition for the stated problem. (And I might even reason that I didn't make an error at all because I defined it omnipresent in the visible universe. The parts where current science on the Higgs field / space-time crystals deems it not present are not as yet observable. But I don't find this mincing of words very useful seeing the context. )

Given that current science deems the Higgs field probable, one can in current science take it as a hypothetical fact that the Higgs field exists. In the current idea on the Higgs field, if I understand it correctly, it adds / gives mass to particles like atoms. And slows them down. Current science should allow the combination of the Higgs field with the hypothesis in this thread of the space-time crystal as being - most probably then even - the same thing (Occams razor). This because both are assumed then to be by current science as omni-present in the observable universe as the first hypothesis to be investigated. This can also be done in a relative easy test: take a as large as possible gyro with a as massive as possible outer ring and spin it as fast as possible. If there is a rise in gravitational pull of the gyro then it is immediately apparent that the Higgs field is a space-time crystal that can account for dark matter and dark energy (that should better be defined as dark attraction and dark repulsion BTW) (Dark energy as well because it then also immediately provides a probable explanation for the observed law of Hubble: adding mass = gaining momentum in the space-time crystal = acceleration.) The mathematics involved to ascertain how small, light and slow the gyro should be spun in order to get a measurable result in change of gravitational pull shouldn't be that difficult. The curve - given a galaxy spinning at as I understand at 30 km/h in the outer "ring" - of the expected drop in gravitational pull versus the observed dark matter pull is a known. So the hypothesis is that it is this speed that adds the extra dark gravitational pull. Though I expect a measurement problem I don't think we'll need a gyro the size of the moon spun at 10000 rpm to get a measurable result. Some quick and dirty mathematics should suffice to show how much effort will be required. Risk is chance times consequence. I.e. it requires a limited effort for a possible great gain. Ergo in research: do the tests.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/jul/03/space-time-crystals-on-the-horizon Here is some more on the subject. David Bohm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order_according_to_David_Bohm I hope this answers your question. As I understand it the crystal is the carrier of all waving particles IMO as in the opinion of Bohm and Wilczek as well. I'm not a scientist or physicist BTW.

Seeing that Nobel prize laureate Frank Wilczek has published on space -time crystals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_crystal%C2%A0 As did David Bohm prior to him as I've just learnt. I wonder why it hasn't already been attempted to do a computer simulation whereby you try to get as many as possible as highly as possible conductive identical spheres go to order in a dynamic crystal given that they all have the same speed in random straight trajectories in a as large as possible as highly as possible conductive cube? The walls will act as a disturbance hence the need of a very large simulated box. If a space-time crystal is a reality it should be possible to make a simulation. There is as I understand mounting evidence of several Astronomer scientist groups making mention or predicting of observing large crystal like structures. Further more there are also the same observations as I understand it at a extremely small scale. I know of someone who has tried to do a simulation of spheres ending up by all the spheres having somehow shrunk. I.e. there are problems. It seems to me that what is needed is an as large as possible computer working as accurately as possible in having the 3 D game of billiards work. This must have been attempted before, seeing the idea of a space-time crystal isn't as new as I was led to believe. So what is then the problem?

According to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_crystal Nobel prize laureate Frank Wiczek published in effect something like my idea that I've put in the speculation thread. Maybe my idea isn't that speculative after all. At least I've come up with a simple way to test it.

I choose 1 as a testable option BTW. You only need an infinite amount of two different particles to produce a Yin and Yang of order and disorder that indeed will result in a stable multiverse being per given volume of space much more nothing than something. This as a speculative yet testable idea.

Well yes, we should strive to live as long as possible as a rule of thumb. Agree. Yet, if you are trying to convince me that it is a good idea to try and overpopulate other planets as a course to solve the problems on this one I disagree. It would only help if we could find a habitable alternative for say half our current population, and then we would still have to try and reach a balance in population growth and mortality rate on this one and that one too. Alas it'll be a hell of a problem to get at 1/10th of c and the traveling times are literately killing. Further more we have already left the planet, albeit not to colonize other planets (yet) but only the moon for a short period and ISS. Now some scientists are seriously looking towards a one way trip to Mars. (Even Gerard 't Hooft is among them.) Well if the idea is to colonize it then that is a bad idea IMO. If a few adventurers are willing to go there in order to further science in a way that is quicker then any alternative I won't oppose, but won't support it either. I don't want to have on my conscience the possible horrors that might befall these people in a quest for a sooner knowledge that could also be acquired later, if that is indeed the case. (I'm not convinced that robots can't do all the required jobs yet or very soon anyway.) Well, I've declared war on the Vogons, but that is a different story and a game you can play in real life. to which I hope many will join in.

Rereading the thread, the answer "Big Bang" is also misleading. The scientific held position is an expanding universe, which I agree on in the sense that it could be / doesn't rule out a seemingly expanding universe. I.e agree on the observations but disagree / have doubts on the interpretation. Apart from that a Big Bang as an answer dodges the question, namely where did it start? Most physicists have been thought not to address such problems, because they don't provide direct falsifiable predictions. A more philosophical approach in which all the questions are addressed and logically consistently answered is however practical in that it then provides aeries were you could and thus should start to look in order to more quickly solve the problems that are indeed falsifiable. So in choosing Big Bang as a beginning without asking the question what came before even though that in itself isn't falsifiable is a valid way of looking at the problem given a production department problem. The problem then is however that it in fact is a research department issue and thus it fails the mark. To prove this point: we observe pressure in the system. (If you like I can provide you with proof of this.) Where does this come from? The Big Bang? How can that be? Why doesn't it all disintegrate much faster then? And where does the observed order come from? A Big Bang? We observe a mounting entropy. Can it be that what went prior to the Big Bang is irrelevant? Isn't it common sense / correct scientific research to make that question part of the questions to be addressed? And subsequently go through the standard operation procedure of checking all possible positions as long as these are consistent with all known observations? I.e. I accept that the answer "Big Bang" has been given the qualification "scientific" in the sense that most scientists hold this position, I however dispute that to being the correct scientific answer given the correct scientific procedure. Because like I said it dodges the issue which is a no no in the research department where the question belongs.

I voted other. I could just as well have given a don't know, or time is in a loop, depending on the way of interpreting the question. I.e. we know one thing for certain we don't know, and we'll never have absolute proof of any given position. So my answer provides an educated guess that is testable BTW. Logic dictates that time and space are either infinite or not. To answer the question thus requires an inherent assumption either way. Going through both assumptions and seeing which fits all known observations best I have concluded that the assumption of an infinite space and time is by far most probable.This BTW doesn't a priori require mathematics. Assuming a beginning or an end leaves believing in absolutely nothing followed by something i.e. say nothing followed by a big bang followed by nothing. That is less probable than believing in a God. Believing in a God BTW isn't in contradiction with anything that we observe. There is no need to assume a God so I'd give it an estimated less than a one in a trillion of being correct. On a reasonable standard of proof I don't feel that God exists on basis of evidence so I'm convinced God doesn't exist. When I die and if I stand before Peters gate I will reconsider my position on the new evidence then presented. Religion being however about absolute belief / conviction. Ergo being religious is not irrational. Believing in contradictions euphemistically stated to be paradoxes such as something coming from nothing like Krauss is believing in magic and is thus even less probable say an estimated less than one in a trillion to the trillionth. That is irrational. Showing off mathematical dexterity that we can mathematically travel back in time, as Steven Hawking does only shows lack of understanding the basics of mathematics. You have probably got a garbage in problem annex a confirmation bias concerning that a priori garbage. This due to taking up a position without a priori looking at all evidence and addressing all problems. I call that the Escher Institute of mathematics. It works looking at the length of the towers but fails when concluding that water streams upwards. So I'd say the scientifically most probably best held position is assuming a cyclic event in which all scenario's are being played out all the time. Ergo no beginning no end, the poll is in part asking the wrong question. And indeed if done that way as a speculation I can reach proof of concept; granted on a low standard of proof for not having the mathematics (yet). Yet I do have relatively easily testable position in principle. In science that dictates: do the test.

I found a nice link on crystals and the similarity to the distribution of galaxies to that at all very small scales based on crystals. http://gavrog.org/leipzig.pdf

Well, if I understand the last post of Swansont correctly he states that the radiometer turns in the opposite direction in a "complete" vacuum. (In which case the English Wikipedia link is incorrect / not complete because it states / implies that the radiometer doesn't work in a vacuum if I read that correctly.

Indeed. And my answer is: for as long as we can oversee.