FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Philosophy > General Philosophy

Greetings!

General Philosophy Thought-provoking, philosophical discussions.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-20-2005, 05:40 PM
burgersoft777's Avatar
burgersoft777 burgersoft777 is offline
Hodie adsit, cras absit.
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Wiltshire England
Posts: 9,401
So What about inflation in the big bang model

If thats not bull-crap then how do you explain it without referance to extra dimensions If we need such a big fudge to explain the apparant age of the universe then it seems to me there is still something incompleate about relativity.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 08-20-2005, 06:12 PM
AngelIncubus's Avatar
AngelIncubus AngelIncubus is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Barstow, California U.S.A
Posts: 657
I prefer Hindu metaphysics (though I am not a Hindu); the universe cycles indefinitely. There is no big bang, and there will be no big crunch.
__________________
Dissect a trillion sighs away, will you get this letter, jagged pulp sliced in my veins, I write to remember, cuz I'm a million miles away, hope you get this letter - At The Drive In
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-20-2005, 06:42 PM
Symptom777's Avatar
Symptom777 Symptom777 is offline
Symptom of the Universe
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 18,001
Blog Entries: 12
I don't think that relativity relies on the big bang theory. But otherway round is true.

Of course doing experiments on the big-bang theory is hard work, we've onlyhad one, and it was billions of years ago.

The exact story will be hard to find, but these are simply working models - big bang and inflation. The only other partially sucessful model was steady-state - and that reuires a really big fudge: continuous creation of matter. The big-bang theory still looks good, but needs some early time other event to explain todaý's observable universe.

The cylic theory (a brane theorY) may resolve this better than inflationary theory.
Extra dimensions mat be helpful to you in your quest for FTL communication, so don't be too hard on it!!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-23-2005, 01:43 PM
burgersoft777's Avatar
burgersoft777 burgersoft777 is offline
Hodie adsit, cras absit.
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Wiltshire England
Posts: 9,401
i just get a bit scepticle when we need to invoke extra dimensions to shure up a therory. I have felt that way since somebody tried to convince me that gravity was really a strong force like the nuclear force but that the reason we percived it as weak was becuse it was infact leaking into our dimension from a nearby other dimension it seems a bit to contrived for me !
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-23-2005, 07:45 PM
Michael. A's Avatar
Michael. A Michael. A is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England, Essex
Posts: 3,062
Send a message via MSN to Michael. A
Quote:
I prefer Hindu metaphysics (though I am not a Hindu); the universe cycles indefinitely. There is no big bang, and there will be no big crunch.
I prefer a spiral spinning outwards. It comes to similar points in the cycle but its a little further from the last cycle as it goes on.

Quote:
a big fudge
um, there is only one person I've heard use that kind of slang. You don't happen to teach maths do you???

I think that a philosophical standpoint on it hasn't been reached appropriately yet. Partly because of the annoying "there are no answers" in philosophy mentality just questions. I think the answer is to do with the relationship between existance and non exsistance which is something I'm working on.
__________________
Evil is the fear of Non-Existance.

"I think the men should bring you a nice white coat and quarantine you, you bloody looney!!!" - Jimbad

Last edited by Michael. A; 08-23-2005 at 07:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-23-2005, 08:01 PM
Michael. A's Avatar
Michael. A Michael. A is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England, Essex
Posts: 3,062
Send a message via MSN to Michael. A
Sorry just read your info forget about the maths teacher question.
__________________
Evil is the fear of Non-Existance.

"I think the men should bring you a nice white coat and quarantine you, you bloody looney!!!" - Jimbad
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-31-2005, 06:36 AM
suzuki suzuki is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 145
Cool physics is limited but still the best we have

Quote:
Originally Posted by burgersoft777
i just get a bit scepticle when we need to invoke extra dimensions to shure up a therory. I have felt that way since somebody tried to convince me that gravity was really a strong force like the nuclear force but that the reason we percived it as weak was becuse it was infact leaking into our dimension from a nearby other dimension it seems a bit to contrived for me !
You are confusing between 3 different things-
General relativity
Big Bang (inflation)
String Theory (extra dimensions)
many physicists are scepticle about String theory, but they can't find any other solution to the contradictions between General relativity to quantum mechanics. We just have to wait for experimental proof, which can take many years.
Physics of course doesn't know everything, and will never do. It just give the current best description of nature. But always when you describe something, it is not the real thing but kind of reflection of the real thing through our limited mind.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-31-2005, 08:37 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by burgersoft777
If thats not bull-crap then how do you explain it without referance to extra dimensions If we need such a big fudge to explain the apparant age of the universe then it seems to me there is still something incompleate about relativity.

The Big Bang theory is insufficient to explain the expansion of the universe. The curvature of spacetime flatness cannot be accounted for by the standard big bang - space is too flat for that on a whole. You have to read the story by Guth in his The Inflationary Universe to see how what he says makes sense and is basically universally accepted today.

The electroweak theory - the condensing out of the electric force and weak nuclear force figure nicely with Inflation. And the 3 who put it forward got the Nobel Prize for it. Today they further rely on inflation theory for unification of the strong nuclear force at an even still earlier time (GUT's). Still earlier than that was gravity (TOE's). We are talking around 10^28 degrees Kelvin or hotter. It is basically impossible that Inflation Theory is not true based on empirical observations. Even if it is not, something equivalent to it had to have happened.

The Big Bang is not the only theory but it is the most widely accepted theory by far. Recently (1998) Brian Schmidt and his High-Z Redshift team discovered the universe is accelerating in expansion from supernova (standard candle) data. Based on this it appears the universe will not collapse back on itself but will expand forever and the 'Heat Death' will occur as opposed to the Gnab Gib (Big Crunch/collapse/big bang spelled backwards). The COBE and WMAP satellites as well as the proportion of elements in space predicted by the theory as well as expansion are powerful proof of the Big Bang itself.

(Kashmir Shaivism -Shabdabrahman, Tantra Puranic literature on the yugas and yoga say the universe big bangs and collapses. The universe is seen as a vibration/endless cycle of bangs and collapses over trillions of years (311 trillion) due to a disturbance of the gunas.)

As far as extra dimensions goes, when the CERN particle accelerator comes up in 2007, its primary mission is the search for the Higgs boson/field. However, one thing that will be attempted is making this accelerator a quantum black hole factory. The question arises whether it is safe to create any size black hole on Earth as it might feed itself and grow at exponential rate. The answer is apparently no, they evaporate in tiny fractions of a second but also the very ability to create even quantum black holes requires energy beyond anything CERN can do. However, if there are other dimensions gravity might play a greater role---

'String theory, one of the leading contenders for a quantum theory of gravity, predicts that space has dimensions beyond the usual 3. Gravity, unlike other forces, should propagate into these dimensions and, as a result, grow unexpectedly stronger at short distances. In 3 dimensions, the force of gravity quadruples as you halve the distance between 2 objects. But in 9 dimensions, gravity would get 256 times as strong.' Scientific American May 2005 Quantum Black Holes p53-54

From Scientific American May 2005 Quantum Black Holes a few paragraphs from the article are below. Basically if gravity is operating in other dimensions, they may be able to create black holes. Doing so is evidence of other dimensions. The last paragraph (below) has the argument that it is safe to create black holes on Earth ---

'If you compressed the Sun to a radius of 3 kilometers, about 4 millionths of its present size, it would become a black hole. For Earth to meet the same fate, you would need to squeeze it into a radius of 9 millimeters, about a billionth of its present size.’ p50 6-10-5

‘Thus, the smaller the hole, the higher the degree of compression that is required to create it. The density to which matter must be squeezed scales as the inverse square of the mass. For a hole with the mass of the Sun, the density is about 10^19 kilograms per cubic meter, higher than that of an atomic nucleus. Such a density is about the highest that can be created through gravitational collapse because it gets stabilized by repulsive quantum forces between subatomic particles. Observationally, the lightest black hole candidates are about 6 solar masses.’ p50 6-10-5

Stellar collapse is not the only way that holes might form however. In the early 1970s Stephen W. Hawking of the University of Cambridge and one of us (Carr) investigated a mechanism for generating holes in the early Universe. Theses are termed “primordial” black holes. As space expands, the average density of matter decreases; therefore, the density was much higher in the past, in particular exceeding nuclear levels within the first microsecond of the Big Bang. The known laws of physics allow for a matter density up to the so-called Planck value of 10^97 kilograms per cubic meter—the density at which the strength of gravity becomes so strong that quantum-mechanical fluctuations should break down the fabric of spacetime. Such a density would have been enough to create black holes a mere 10^-35 meters across (a dimension known as the Planck length) with a mass of 10^-8 kilograms (the Planck mass).’

This is the lightest possible black hole according to conventional descriptions of gravity. It is much more massive but much smaller in size than an elementary particle. Progressively heavier primordial black holes could have formed as the cosmic density fell. Any lighter than 10^12 kilograms would still be smaller than a proton, but beyond this mass the holes would be as large as more familiar physical objects.

‘Hawking predicted that a hole radiates thermally like a hot coal, with a temperature inversely proportional to its mass. For a solar-mass hole, the temperature is around a millionth of a Kelvin, which is completely negligible in today’s Universe. But for a black hole of 10^12 kilograms, which is about the mass of a mountain, it is 10^12 Kelvins—hot enough to emit both massless particles, such as photons, and massive ones, such as electrons and positrons.’ p51

‘Because the emission carries off energy, the mass of the hole tends to decrease. So a black hole is highly unstable. As it shrinks, it gets steadily hotter, emitting increasingly energetic particles and shrinking faster and faster. When the hole shrivels to a mass of about 10^6 kilograms, the game is up: within a second, it explodes with the energy of a million-megaton nuclear bomb. The total time for a black hole to evaporate away is proportional to the cube of its initial mass. For a solar mass hole, the lifetime is an unobservably long 10^64 years. For a 10^12-kilogram one, it is 10^10 years—about the present age of the Universe. Hence, any primordial black holes of this mass would be completing their evaporation and exploding right now. Any smaller ones would have evaporated at an earlier cosmological epoch.’ 51

‘The production of black holes by particle accelerators is an even more exciting possibility. When it comes to producing high densities, no device outdoes accelerators such as the LHC and the Tevatron at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago. These machines accelerated subatomic particles, such as protons, to velocities exceedingly close to the speed of light. The particles then have enormous kinetic energies. At the LHC, a proton will reach an energy of roughly 7 tera-electron volts (TeV). In accord with Einstein’s famous relation E =mc2, this energy is equivalent to a mass of 10^-23 kilogram, or 7,000 times the proton’s rest mass. When 2 such particles collide at close range, their energy is concentrated into a tiny region of space. So one might guess that, once in a while, the colliding particles get close enough to form a black hole.’ p53

‘As it stands, this argument has a problem: a mass of 10^-23 kilogram is far shy of the Planck value of 10^-8 kilogram, which conventional gravity theory implies is the lightest possible hole. This lower limit arises from the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. Because particles also behave like waves, they are smeared out over a distance that decreases with increasing energy – at LHC energies, about 10^-19 meter. So this is the smallest region into which a particle’s energy can be packed. It allows for a density of 10^34 kilograms per cubic meter, which is high but not high enough to create a hole. For a particle to be both energetic enough and compact enough to form a black hole, it must have the Planck energy, a factor of 10^15 beyond the energy of the LHC. Although accelerators might create objects mathematically related to black holes (and according to some theorists have already done so), the holes themselves appear to lie out of reach.’ p53 6-10-5

Reaching into Other Dimensions

Making Holes is Hard to Do [Box]
‘How much do you need to squeeze a piece of matter to turn it into a black hole? The lighter a body is, the more you must compress it before its gravity becomes strong enough to make a hole. Planets and people are farther from the brink than stars are (graph). The wave nature of matter resists compression; particles cannot be squeezed into a region smaller than their characteristic wavelength (diagram), suggesting that no hole could be smaller than 10^-8 kilogram. But if space has extra dimensions, gravity would be inherently stronger over short distances and an object would not need to be squeezed as much, giving would-be hole makers hope that they might succeed in the near future.’ 54

‘Black holes of different sizes could probe extra dimensions that are otherwise inaccessible to us. Because gravity, unlike other forces, extends into those other dimensions, so do black holes, Physicists would vary their size by tuning the particle accelerator to different energies. If a hole intersects a parallel Universe, it will decay faster and appear to give off less energy (because some of the energy is absorbed by that other Universe).’ p55

Reaching into Other Dimensions

‘Over the past decade, however, physicists have realized that the standard estimate of the necessary Planckian density could be too high. String theory, one of the leading contenders for a quantum theory of gravity, predicts that space has dimensions beyond the usual 3. Gravity, unlike other forces, should propagate into these dimensions and, as a result, grow unexpectedly stronger at short distances. In 3 dimensions, the force of gravity quadruples as you halve the distance between 2 objects. But in 9 dimensions, gravity would get 256 times as strong. This effect can be quite important if the extra dimensions of space are sufficiently large, and it has been widely investigated in the past few years {see “The Universe’s Unseen Dimensions,” by Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos and Georgi Dvali; Scientific American, August 2000}. There are also other configurations of extra dimensions, known as warped compactifications, that have the same gravity-magnifying effect and may be even more likely to occur if string theory is correct.’

Safe to create black holes of any kind on Earth?? ---

‘The prospect of producing black holes on Earth may strike some as folly. How do we know that they would safely decay, as Hawking predicted, instead of continuing to grow, eventually consuming the entire planet? At first glance, this seems like a serious concern, especially given that some details of Hawking’s original argument may be incorrect—specifically the claim that information is destroyed in black holes. But it turns out that general quantum reasoning implies that microscopic black holes cannot be stable and therefore are safe. Concentrations of mass energy, such as elementary particles, are stable only if a conservation law forbids their decay; examples include the conservation of electric charge and of baryon number (which, unless it is somehow violated, assures the stability of protons). There is no such conservation law to stabilize a small black hole. In quantum theory, anything not expressly forbidden is compulsory, so small black holes will rapidly decay, in accord with the second law of thermodynamics.’ p55 6-10-5

Mike Dubbeld
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-31-2005, 04:37 PM
galatomic's Avatar
galatomic galatomic is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzuki
Physics of course doesn't know everything, and will never do. It just give the current best description of nature. But always when you describe something, it is not the real thing but kind of reflection of the real thing through our limited mind.
Good point Suzuki. Of course this is the classic “Nominalist” position about the possibilities of human abstraction. In modern times it has come into some disfavor in analytic philosophy because they have deconstructed or would wish they have deconstructed all the Kantian “neumonal” question marks about our “phenomenal” knowledge. First Heidegger suggested that the “text” speaks the man then Wittgenstein said that we best not speak about those things of which we cannot know.

Analytic Philosophy (as opposed to Continental), Modern Science and Religion have come to be, in my mind, an unholy Triumvirate which falsely lays claim to all the answers. Analytic Philosophy argues for nothing itself of substance. It merely reflects on its own epistemological wisdom and lets Science and Religion have their say about all truth that matters (metaphysical truth) from each of their insanely different perspectives. Science protects itself from any criticism about its own metaphysical assumptions by forcing competing theorists to run all their ideas through the sieve of their own making which I brand “Naïve Empiricism”. And Religion is protected by political correctness and the right we have to believe anything we want.

Check out the New Scientist July 2- 8, 2005 The End of the Beginning.

Riccardo Scarpa of the European Southern Observatory in Santiago Chile says “Look at the facts, The basic BB model fails to predict what we observe in the universe in three major ways. The temperature of today’s universe, the expansion of the cosmos, and even the presence of galaxies, have all had cosmologists scrambling for fixes. Every time the basic BB model has failed to predict what we see, the solution has been to bolt on something new – inflation, dark matter and dark energy.” He continues “Big Bang predictions are consistently wrong and are being fixed after the event.” So much so, that today’s “standard model” of cosmology has become an ugly mishmash. It is pointed out that one major problem is that cosmology research is bankrolled by just a few sources dominated by supporters of the BB.

Don’t get me wrong though, I’m not really taking a position for or against the BB. I actually think something quit different happened but one could describe it much the way it is described by the BB theory. I am however agreeing with suzuki that physicists should keep in mind that their theories are just the best descriptions of things and shouldn’t lose sight of that fact whether it’s the macro BB or whether it’s the micro Standard Theory of quarks and leptons.

galatomic
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
JEWISH RACISM EXPOSED foolosophy Religion 336 04-06-2008 02:43 AM
Confused? TruthInArt Religion 27 07-07-2007 02:45 AM
With Respect To Light, Is The Big Bang In Conflict With Genesis? Ontologuy Space and Time 30 12-07-2006 01:44 AM
Pre Universe gagsrcool Space and Time 130 11-23-2006 02:32 AM
CERN to Recreate the Big Bang on a Smaller Scale? Zinkovich General Science and Nature 3 09-21-2006 06:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:20 PM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network