Phi for All Posted August 22 Posted August 22 58 minutes ago, John John said: We do know that the universe consists of matter and energy, and we don't know if anything else exists outside of matter and energy. This leaves only one possibility, You may think that, but it's wrong. Energy doesn't exist on its own. Energy is a property of a thing, not a thing itself. Unless you can hand me a couple of pounds of energy? So, maybe there's more than one possibility? Bad foundation, bad structure.
John John Posted August 22 Author Posted August 22 12 minutes ago, Phi for All said: You may think that, but it's wrong. Energy doesn't exist on its own. Energy is a property of a thing, not a thing itself. Unless you can hand me a couple of pounds of energy? So, maybe there's more than one possibility? Bad foundation, bad structure. So you haven't heard of released energy, only stored energy I take it.
Phi for All Posted August 22 Posted August 22 Just now, John John said: So you haven't heard of released energy, only stored energy I take it. Siphon me off a gallon of energy from that storage device, please. Put it in a jug. Next, give me the equations that treat energy as an independent entity. The maths we have that treat energy as a property of things works really well.
John John Posted August 22 Author Posted August 22 1 minute ago, Phi for All said: Siphon me off a gallon of energy from that storage device, please. Put it in a jug. Can you make a poem of it like you did on my Moon post?
Mordred Posted August 22 Posted August 22 1 hour ago, John John said: I think the theory of everything can only be a concept and never realized. Without having full knowledge of the universe we can only guess. Let me put it this way every professional physicist understands that a TOE describes precisely what I stated and any professional peer reviewed article will have the related mathematics involving running of the coupling constants. Nothing is random assertions in physics for the record even something as mass, energy, time has specific mathematical connotations. This goes as well for any privileged location such as a center of the universe. No location mathematically has any advantage
John John Posted August 22 Author Posted August 22 4 minutes ago, Mordred said: Let me put it this way every professional physicist understands that a TOE describes precisely what I stated and any professional peer reviewed article will have the related mathematics involving running of the coupling constants. Nothing is random assertions in physics for the record even something as mass, energy, time has specific mathematical connotations. This goes as well for any privileged location such as a center of the universe. No location mathematically has any advantage In 1965 a small radio telescope called a horn detected what is now known as the universe's background radiation. For some time it was believed that we were in the center of the universe due to the fact that the detected radiation was even in all directions. But it was discovered that we were detecting the limits of time and that fell short of the real scale of the universe, so we now know we are most likely not in the center of the universe. The very center you say has no advantage, without it, we could not ever discover the limits of the universe.
Mordred Posted August 22 Posted August 22 (edited) Your descriptive unfortunately is inaccurate . The static you get on radios is detecting the CMB. It was unwanted static that couldn't be eliminated that led to detection of the CMB. The CMB would not even exist if the universe wasn't expanding. ( I know you agree that it is from our discussions) Our Observable universe we on Earth are the observers and all observations are relative to the observer. So our Observable universe is defined by our observations. Region of shared causality is the literal meaning behind Observable universe. A different observer at another location will have a different region of shared causality. No location can any observer state his observations from any locale is more special or different than any observations made from a different location. (Homogeneous by definition) You apply vectors to all particle motion. There is no inherent direction such as radiating outward from a common point. Isotropy no preferred location. Combined this forms the Cosmological Principle. If you want an analogy picture an observer in the middle of an ocean. His limit of observation being the curvature of the Earth roughly 20 km to the horizon line. This is true no matter where on that ocean that observer is provided they are far enough from land. That's the case with cosmology. We do not know how big the entire universe is. It could be finite or infinite. We only know the Observable portion of our universe (region of shared causality). We know that isn't the entire universe so stating we're at the center of the universe would be inaccurate when we can't even state our entire Observable universe is at the center. We have no means of ever confirming our Observable universe location in the entire universe. Let alone ever getting measurements beyond the particle horizon. Another way to think of it we cannot point in any direction and state the BB happened in that direction we are inside the region described by the BB and with expansion that region is gaining volume. Edited August 22 by Mordred
John John Posted August 23 Author Posted August 23 5 hours ago, Mordred said: Your descriptive unfortunately is inaccurate . The static you get on radios is detecting the CMB. It was unwanted static that couldn't be eliminated that led to detection of the CMB. The CMB would not even exist if the universe wasn't expanding. ( I know you agree that it is from our discussions) Our Observable universe we on Earth are the observers and all observations are relative to the observer. So our Observable universe is defined by our observations. Region of shared causality is the literal meaning behind Observable universe. A different observer at another location will have a different region of shared causality. No location can any observer state his observations from any locale is more special or different than any observations made from a different location. (Homogeneous by definition) You apply vectors to all particle motion. There is no inherent direction such as radiating outward from a common point. Isotropy no preferred location. Combined this forms the Cosmological Principle. If you want an analogy picture an observer in the middle of an ocean. His limit of observation being the curvature of the Earth roughly 20 km to the horizon line. This is true no matter where on that ocean that observer is provided they are far enough from land. That's the case with cosmology. We do not know how big the entire universe is. It could be finite or infinite. We only know the Observable portion of our universe (region of shared causality). We know that isn't the entire universe so stating we're at the center of the universe would be inaccurate when we can't even state our entire Observable universe is at the center. We have no means of ever confirming our Observable universe location in the entire universe. Let alone ever getting measurements beyond the particle horizon. Another way to think of it we cannot point in any direction and state the BB happened in that direction we are inside the region described by the BB and with expansion that region is gaining volume. I had a word with a real scientist once or so he said, the Big Bang never happened.
Mordred Posted August 23 Posted August 23 (edited) The evidence against that view show otherwise but as mentioned it's a rapid expansion not an explosion. I've spent 35 years examining the evidence and understanding the mathematics pertaining to Cosmology including any related SM particle processes in particular the universe evolution from 10^{'43} seconds to CMB. I too have credentials in physics in both Cosmology and particle physics. Higher credentials in Cosmology my study focus has always been early Universe processes. That includes nucleosynthesis which forms the CMB. Wait one of those pieces of evidence counter to your scientists claim ( scientist doesn't necessarily mean physicist ) or physicist directly involved in astrophysics or Cosmology. To electroweak symmetry breaking with regards to TOE. So when it comes to what's required for a theory of everything I can certainly show you the correct direction. Though you would need to understand the Euler Langrangian equations of the Standard model. If your willing to learn I can teach you the basics behind the FLRW metric it's actually quite a simple geometry to work with. One common misconception is LCDM is not just the FLRW metric. It's any mathematical method used to describe a homogeneous and isotropic expansion using the ideal gas laws of thermodynamics for a baryotropic (isentropic and adiabatic) expansion. This is done via the equations of state for matter, radiation and Lambda. LCDM employs a wide range of theories and mathematics. lets start with the geometry I stated above that we need a homogenous and isotropic expansion. The metric that satisfies this is the FLRW metric \[ds^2=-d\tau^2+a(\tau)^2[\frac{d\tau^2}{1-kr^2}+r^2(d\theta^2+si^2+sin^2\theta d\phi^2\] homogeneity and isotropy must satisfy the above equation. Now there is a different format where its easier to see the 3d space components from the proper time components and scale factor. \[ds^2=-d\tau^2+a^2(\tau)\begin{cases} d\psi^2+sin^2\psi(d\theta^2+sin^2\theta d\phi+sin^2\theta d\phi^2)\\ dx^2+dy^2+dz^2\\ d\psi^2+sinh^2\psi(d\theta^2+sin^2\theta (d\phi+sin^2\theta d\phi^2) \end {cases}\] on the far right you can see the 3 dimensional Euclidean geometries for the commoving volume. The top line is positive curvature, the second is flat spacetime, the latter is negative curvature for values k=1,0,-1 of the first equation. \(\tau\) being proper time (cosmological time to a commoving observer with expansion. This ties the observer to the scale factor \(a(\tau)\). however the above is just the geometry the Friedmann also include the acceleration equation determined by the equations of state. \[\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G_N}{3}(\rho+3p)\] Edited August 23 by Mordred
John John Posted August 23 Author Posted August 23 4 hours ago, Mordred said: The evidence against that view show otherwise but as mentioned it's a rapid expansion not an explosion. I've spent 35 years examining the evidence and understanding the mathematics pertaining to Cosmology including any related SM particle processes in particular the universe evolution from 10^{'43} seconds to CMB. I too have credentials in physics in both Cosmology and particle physics. Higher credentials in Cosmology my study focus has always been early Universe processes. That includes nucleosynthesis which forms the CMB. Wait one of those pieces of evidence counter to your scientists claim ( scientist doesn't necessarily mean physicist ) or physicist directly involved in astrophysics or Cosmology. To electroweak symmetry breaking with regards to TOE. So when it comes to what's required for a theory of everything I can certainly show you the correct direction. Though you would need to understand the Euler Langrangian equations of the Standard model. If your willing to learn I can teach you the basics behind the FLRW metric it's actually quite a simple geometry to work with. One common misconception is LCDM is not just the FLRW metric. It's any mathematical method used to describe a homogeneous and isotropic expansion using the ideal gas laws of thermodynamics for a baryotropic (isentropic and adiabatic) expansion. This is done via the equations of state for matter, radiation and Lambda. LCDM employs a wide range of theories and mathematics. lets start with the geometry I stated above that we need a homogenous and isotropic expansion. The metric that satisfies this is the FLRW metric ds2=−dτ2+a(τ)2[dτ21−kr2+r2(dθ2+si2+sin2θdϕ2 homogeneity and isotropy must satisfy the above equation. Now there is a different format where its easier to see the 3d space components from the proper time components and scale factor. ds2=−dτ2+a2(τ)⎧⎩⎨dψ2+sin2ψ(dθ2+sin2θdϕ+sin2θdϕ2)dx2+dy2+dz2dψ2+sinh2ψ(dθ2+sin2θ(dϕ+sin2θdϕ2) on the far right you can see the 3 dimensional Euclidean geometries for the commoving volume. The top line is positive curvature, the second is flat spacetime, the latter is negative curvature for values k=1,0,-1 of the first equation. τ being proper time (cosmological time to a commoving observer with expansion. This ties the observer to the scale factor a(τ) . however the above is just the geometry the Friedmann also include the acceleration equation determined by the equations of state. a¨a=−4πGN3(ρ+3p) Thanks for the information and the offer to teach me, but it is far beyond my ability to learn the equations you show. I have taken notice of Friedmanns work over the years he is very interesting and fun making science enjoyable to learn. I understand the principles regarding the curvature of space and time but I have no understanding of the numbers.
Mordred Posted August 23 Posted August 23 (edited) Well in this instance the cosmocalc in my signature can perform the common calculations of the FLRW metric and allows one to play around with the cosmological parameters. It has a few preset parameters such as the Planck dataset , WMAP etc. It will also allow future predictions up to 80 Billion years into the future assuming nothing changes in terms of the parameters. Though there are a few tricks. One trick is that the blackbody temperature of the CMB is the inverse of the scale factor. So if you know the scale factor at a particular cosmic time then it's trivial to calculate the blackbody temperature at that time. The metric wasn't designed that way it was later discovered that trick works. Referring to the FLRW metric not the calculator. Edited August 23 by Mordred
John John Posted August 23 Author Posted August 23 12 minutes ago, Mordred said: Well in this instance the cosmocalc in my signature can perform the common calculations of the FLRW metric and allows one to play around with the cosmological parameters. It has a few preset parameters such as the Planck dataset , WMAP etc. It will also allow future predictions up to 80 Billion years into the future assuming nothing changes in terms of the parameters. Though there are a few tricks. One trick is that the blackbody temperature of the CMB is the inverse of the scale factor. So if you know the scale factor at a particular cosmic time then it's trivial to calculate the blackbody temperature at that time. The metric wasn't designed that way it was later discovered that trick works. Did the plank probe only focus on the CMB or did it receive other signals as well? I seem to remember a mission that made more discoveries than expected but I can't remember the name. You mentioned before that the horn telescope picked up the CMB by chance I had forgotten about that but you have joged my memory that they thought it was bird droppings in the collector. I guess it was so sensitive it wasn't expected. I have used some simple programs to look at the local stars changing position over time it comes in handy for astronomy and planetary positions.
Mordred Posted August 23 Posted August 23 (edited) The Planck probe is designed specifically for CMB measurements with the filter arrays it's equipped with. For its use with standard candles for example it would need a substantial overhaul. Edited August 23 by Mordred
John John Posted August 23 Author Posted August 23 1 minute ago, Mordred said: The Planck probe is designed specifically for CMB measurements with the filter arrays it's equipped with. Then it isn't the prob I was thinking of. I would think any new science coming from the Plank is limited or is the study completed.
MigL Posted August 23 Posted August 23 3 hours ago, John John said: I have taken notice of Friedmanns work over the years he is very interesting and fun making science enjoyable to learn. A Friedmann died in 1925, at the age of 37.
John John Posted August 23 Author Posted August 23 5 minutes ago, MigL said: A Friedmann died in 1925, at the age of 37. I must say you are a sharp pencil, I was thinking of Richard Feynman he died more recently. Feynman was a tinkerer on the blackboard as well.
MigL Posted August 23 Posted August 23 18 minutes ago, John John said: I must say you are a sharp pencil, I was thinking of Richard Feynman You seem confused about very many things ...
John John Posted August 23 Author Posted August 23 Just now, MigL said: You seem confused about very many things ... Yes, that is why I need someone like you to help me, guide me, and hold my hand.
Bufofrog Posted August 23 Posted August 23 4 minutes ago, John John said: Yes, that is why I need someone like you to help me, guide me, and hold my hand. You can't learn physics on a forum. Take some physics classes on line or at a community college, you might find them enjoyable.
Phi for All Posted August 23 Posted August 23 13 minutes ago, John John said: Yes, that is why I need someone like you to help me, guide me, and hold my hand. ! Moderator Note And since, historically, you bite any hand that tries to help, you're going to need to find a different place to practice your insincerity.
Recommended Posts