Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model

Expand Messages
  • Robert G. Seeberger
    ... Heh! I m thinking more along the lines of Pi, C, or Planks Constant having differing values. xponent Columbia Memorial Maru rob
    Message 1 of 30 , Feb 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      On 1/31/2007 9:35:28 PM, Charlie Bell (charlie@...) wrote:
      > On 01/02/2007, at 2:13 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
      >
      >
      > > IOW, will the daughter universes be as favorable for life as ours,
      > > or
      > > will they be random iterations?
      >
      > Very tiny, almost unmeasurably small, bits of our universe are
      > favourable to life. This whole "fine tuning" set of arguments
      > strikes
      > me as looking at the whole thing arse-about-face. Life has done
      > pretty well on one planet in the entire universe. Now, there's a
      > convincing set of arguments that emergent properties might lead to
      > life on many planetary bodies (and the evidence is starting to take
      > shape that life may well have moved between bodies in our Solar
      > System), but for now, we only know for sure that life exists on one
      > planet. Anywhere.
      >
      > Even most of our planet is bloody dangerous for humans... This
      > continent certainly is.
      >

      Heh!
      I'm thinking more along the lines of Pi, C, or Planks Constant having
      differing values.


      xponent
      Columbia Memorial Maru
      rob


      _______________________________________________
      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
    • Charlie Bell
      ... I know that s what you meant, but it still seems to be a wrong-way- round argument. Even if those constants were different, whatever the universe described
      Message 2 of 30 , Feb 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On 01/02/2007, at 10:22 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:

        >
        > Heh!
        > I'm thinking more along the lines of Pi, C, or Planks Constant having
        > differing values.


        I know that's what you meant, but it still seems to be a wrong-way-
        round argument. Even if those constants were different, whatever the
        universe described was like (assuming there was at least some form of
        matter and some form of chemistry) might be able to form life on one
        tiny speck amongst all its vast space, and that life might say "isn't
        it amazing, this universe seems perfect for life". To take Douglas
        Adams' puddle a step further, it's like a shower of rain in the
        middle of the Sahara and a tiny puddle formed in a hollow of rock
        saying that it seems to fit the hole perfectly, even as the rest of
        the desert is parched and the puddle itself is evaporating in the
        sirocco.

        Charlie
        _______________________________________________
        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
      • Robert G. Seeberger
        ... Well....that is pretty much what I was getting at, that chemistry might not be possible in some configurations. Or that even atoms might not be possible.
        Message 3 of 30 , Feb 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          On 2/1/2007 7:33:42 AM, Charlie Bell (charlie@...) wrote:
          > On 01/02/2007, at 10:22 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
          >
          > >
          > > Heh!
          > >
          > I'm thinking more along the lines of Pi, C, or Planks Constant
          > having
          > > differing values.
          >
          >
          > I know that's
          > what you meant, but it still seems to be a wrong-way-
          > round argument. Even if those constants were different, whatever the
          > universe described was like (assuming there was at least some form
          > of
          > matter and some form of chemistry)

          Well....that is pretty much what I was getting at, that chemistry
          might not be possible in some configurations. Or that even atoms might
          not be possible.
          WRT that, I think it is a valid question.



          >might be able to form life on one
          > tiny speck amongst all its vast space, and that life might say
          > "isn't
          > it amazing, this universe seems perfect for life". To take
          > Douglas
          > Adams' puddle a step further, it's like a shower of rain in the
          > middle of the Sahara and a tiny puddle formed in a hollow of rock
          > saying that it seems to fit the hole perfectly, even as the rest of
          > the desert is parched and the puddle itself is evaporating in the
          > sirocco.
          >

          That is certainly true and I agree. If there is chemistry there is
          always some potential for life. But if there is no chemistry in a
          universe it would likely be an uninteresting place. (Though there
          could be room for some sort of sapience quite different from our own.)

          I think I understand your objections. Such discussions tread quite
          close to the playground of the ID crowd and I'm not interested in
          their fanciful ontologies.

          What I'm actually interested in knowing is if the daughter universes
          "inherit" the physical properties of the parent universe or if they
          are a complete reformulation of a timespace from scratch. For me, it
          is the difference between barely relevant and completely
          irrelevant.<G>


          xponent
          Continuui Maru
          rob


          _______________________________________________
          http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
        • Charlie Bell
          ... Sure, but there will also be many many different ways of producing matter and chemistry. There ll be a whole range of values that ll allow complex
          Message 4 of 30 , Feb 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            On 02/02/2007, at 11:02 AM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:

            >
            > Well....that is pretty much what I was getting at, that chemistry
            > might not be possible in some configurations. Or that even atoms might
            > not be possible.
            > WRT that, I think it is a valid question.

            Sure, but there will also be many many different ways of producing
            matter and chemistry. There'll be a whole range of values that'll
            allow complex reactions, and there'll be values that are much more
            favourable to life than ours.

            >
            >
            >
            >> might be able to form life on one
            >> tiny speck amongst all its vast space, and that life might say
            >> "isn't
            >> it amazing, this universe seems perfect for life". To take
            >> Douglas
            >> Adams' puddle a step further, it's like a shower of rain in the
            >> middle of the Sahara and a tiny puddle formed in a hollow of rock
            >> saying that it seems to fit the hole perfectly, even as the rest of
            >> the desert is parched and the puddle itself is evaporating in the
            >> sirocco.
            >>
            >
            > That is certainly true and I agree. If there is chemistry there is
            > always some potential for life. But if there is no chemistry in a
            > universe it would likely be an uninteresting place. (Though there
            > could be room for some sort of sapience quite different from our own.)
            >
            > I think I understand your objections. Such discussions tread quite
            > close to the playground of the ID crowd and I'm not interested in
            > their fanciful ontologies.

            Precisely. It's a bit close to the argument that you can calculate
            the probability that a particular protein forms by chance and use
            that as an indication of how ridiculously improbably evolution is,
            when in reality you can change up to 40% of the amino acids in many
            enzymes and they can still perform a similar function (or a different
            one...). Or a small change might produce a totally novel function (as
            with the sudden appearance of nylonase). The point is, there's
            nothing special about any particular configuration.

            So yes, I do bristle a bit at similar phrasing on the "fine-tuning"
            of the universe.

            >
            > What I'm actually interested in knowing is if the daughter universes
            > "inherit" the physical properties of the parent universe or if they
            > are a complete reformulation of a timespace from scratch.

            That's a far more interesting line of thought and I know you were
            heading that way. It's something the black-hole-to-daughter-universe
            crowd have speculated on, Brin has alluded to it, Baxter has written
            a novel based around it. Yes, if daugter universes have very similar
            but not necessarily identical properties to the parent universe, then
            lineages of universes that produce more universes will produce more
            universes than ones that produce less... (sorry that's sort of
            tautological, but you know what I mean). But unless there's some sort
            of max limit on universe numbers and therefore there are frequencies
            of properties, then it's all a bit meaningless as there's no
            selection, and that's the bit that would allow the relative succuss
            to be manifested.

            Basically, as soon as one property is unbounded (like infinite space
            to expand), then evolution just doesn't work as evolution is a change
            in the relative frequencies of measurable properties of a replicating
            system over time.

            However, that we're in a universe of matter and chemistry might then
            be easier to understand as a lineage of universes producing matter
            and chemistry would lead to daughters of matter and chemistry.

            Charlie
            _______________________________________________
            http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
          • Dan Minette
            ... It doesn t rule it out because nothing is ruled out, but the mechanism for going from a Big Crunch to a Big Bang is so problematic that it might best be
            Message 5 of 30 , Feb 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On
              > Behalf Of Charlie Bell
              > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:55 PM
              > To: Killer Bs Discussion
              > Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
              >
              >
              > On 01/02/2007, at 1:20 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
              >
              > >
              > > "This cycle happens an infinite number of times, thus eliminating any
              > > start or end of time," Frampton said. "There is no Big Bang."
              >
              > Um... I thought Big Bang theory doesn't rule out a prior Big Crunch.

              It doesn't rule it out because nothing is ruled out, but the mechanism for
              going from a Big Crunch to a Big Bang is so problematic that it might best
              be described by waving one's hands and muttering.

              The reason for this is the state of the universe after virtually every Big
              Crunch state that could exist and it's state just before the Big Bang are
              radically different. It's true that both cases could be seen as a
              singularity. But, the Big Bang starts at a unique point, out of 10^x
              possible states, where x is a very very big number. Probably > 1 million,
              but I don't have time to do the estimate this morning. :-)

              So, it is far more likely for every glass that have fallen off shelves to
              spontaneously reverse and reconstruct than for the Big Crunch to end in a
              state that can result in a Big Bang....well at least with known physics.
              And, for those folks tasked with developing new physics, they could pull
              untestable mechanisms out of the air, I suppose, but that kind of latitude
              would allow for almost anything.

              Dan M.


              _______________________________________________
              http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
            • Charlie Bell
              ... But isn t that what these guys are proposing, in effect? The differences are lost on this non-physicist... Of course, given the general state of reportage
              Message 6 of 30 , Feb 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                On 03/02/2007, at 1:44 AM, Dan Minette wrote:

                >
                >
                >> -----Original Message-----
                >> From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-
                >> bounces@...] On
                >> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
                >> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:55 PM
                >> To: Killer Bs Discussion
                >> Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
                >>
                >>
                >> On 01/02/2007, at 1:20 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
                >>
                >>>
                >>> "This cycle happens an infinite number of times, thus eliminating
                >>> any
                >>> start or end of time," Frampton said. "There is no Big Bang."
                >>
                >> Um... I thought Big Bang theory doesn't rule out a prior Big Crunch.
                >
                > It doesn't rule it out because nothing is ruled out, but the
                > mechanism for
                > going from a Big Crunch to a Big Bang is so problematic that it
                > might best
                > be described by waving one's hands and muttering.

                But isn't that what these guys are proposing, in effect? The
                differences are lost on this non-physicist...

                Of course, given the general state of reportage these days, they
                could have said anything.

                Charlie
                _______________________________________________
                http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
              • Robert Seeberger
                ... From: Charlie Bell To: Killer Bs Discussion Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:29 PM Subject: Re:
                Message 7 of 30 , Feb 3, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Charlie Bell" <charlie@...>
                  To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@...>
                  Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:29 PM
                  Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model


                  >
                  > On 03/02/2007, at 1:44 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
                  >
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>> -----Original Message-----
                  >>> From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-
                  >>> bounces@...] On
                  >>> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
                  >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:55 PM
                  >>> To: Killer Bs Discussion
                  >>> Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>> On 01/02/2007, at 1:20 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
                  >>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>> "This cycle happens an infinite number of times, thus eliminating
                  >>>> any
                  >>>> start or end of time," Frampton said. "There is no Big Bang."
                  >>>
                  >>> Um... I thought Big Bang theory doesn't rule out a prior Big
                  >>> Crunch.
                  >>
                  >> It doesn't rule it out because nothing is ruled out, but the
                  >> mechanism for
                  >> going from a Big Crunch to a Big Bang is so problematic that it
                  >> might best
                  >> be described by waving one's hands and muttering.
                  >
                  > But isn't that what these guys are proposing, in effect? The
                  > differences are lost on this non-physicist...
                  >
                  > Of course, given the general state of reportage these days, they
                  > could have said anything.
                  >


                  I think the key "new" idea is given in this paragraph:

                  "At the turnaround, each fragmented patch collapses and contracts
                  individually instead of pulling back together in a reversal of the Big
                  Bang. The patches become an infinite number of independent universes
                  that contract and then bounce outward again, reinflating in a manner
                  similar to the Big Bang. One patch becomes our universe."

                  In all the Big Bang/Big Crunch concepts that *I* have personally read
                  about, the idea revolved around a single universe expanding,
                  contracting, and reconstituting itself endlessly. Sort of an eternal
                  reciprocating cycle.

                  What makes this idea different is that it posits an eternal branching
                  of new discrete entities. IMO the concept bears only a superficial
                  resemblence to Bang/Crunch theories, but more closely resembles the
                  theories where black holes generate universe entities. Well....not in
                  the maths and physics areas of course, but in the sense of how one
                  tries to visualize the bigger picture of extra-universal relation. The
                  Bang/Crunch can be described as a simple circle, but this new theory
                  (as far as I understand it) would resemble a branching tree or a sort
                  of fractal sargassum.

                  AFAICT it is all meta-physics and only nominally related to reality as
                  we know it.
                  Like Charlie, I am not a physicist. Unlike Charlie, I have even less
                  background to speculate from. So if anyone has even specks that might
                  edify me I would be interested. I find the whole idea of "where
                  spacetime/reality comes from" to be fascinating, and discussions of
                  such to be entertaining.
                  Endlessly useless, but entertaining.<G>


                  xponent
                  Of Eshatological Importance To The Skrulls Maru
                  rob



                  _______________________________________________
                  http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                • Doug
                  ... I probably have less expertise than either of you, but though I probably should just believe the experts, I can t get rid of my skepticism concerning the
                  Message 8 of 30 , Feb 3, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Rob wrote:

                    > AFAICT it is all meta-physics and only nominally related to reality as
                    > we know it.
                    > Like Charlie, I am not a physicist. Unlike Charlie, I have even less
                    > background to speculate from. So if anyone has even specks that might
                    > edify me I would be interested. I find the whole idea of "where
                    > spacetime/reality comes from" to be fascinating, and discussions of
                    > such to be entertaining.
                    > Endlessly useless, but entertaining.<G>

                    I probably have less expertise than either of you, but though I probably should just believe the experts, I can't get rid of my skepticism concerning the Big Bang. Everywhere we look, from the microscopic to the vastness of space, we see constructs that are orbital in nature and that together with other constructs of similar size are the building blocks for the next larger construct. Atoms, solar systems, galaxies. Are we so sure that the galaxies and other constructs we observe in space aren't part of some fantastically, unimaginably large construct that is itself just one of many? Isn't it egotistical to place ourselves at the center of the universe in this respect?

                    --
                    Doug
                    Spellcheck complete maru
                    _______________________________________________
                    http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                  • dsummersminet@houston.rr.com
                    ... From: Charlie Bell charlie@culturelist.org Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 07:29:10 +1100 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New
                    Message 9 of 30 , Feb 3, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Original Message:
                      -----------------
                      From: Charlie Bell charlie@...
                      Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 07:29:10 +1100
                      To: brin-l@...
                      Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model



                      On 03/02/2007, at 1:44 AM, Dan Minette wrote:

                      >
                      >
                      >> -----Original Message-----
                      >> From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-
                      >> bounces@...] On
                      >> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
                      >> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:55 PM
                      >> To: Killer Bs Discussion
                      >> Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> On 01/02/2007, at 1:20 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
                      >>
                      >>>
                      >>> "This cycle happens an infinite number of times, thus eliminating
                      >>> any
                      >>> start or end of time," Frampton said. "There is no Big Bang."
                      >>
                      >> Um... I thought Big Bang theory doesn't rule out a prior Big Crunch.
                      >
                      >> It doesn't rule it out because nothing is ruled out, but the
                      >> mechanism for going from a Big Crunch to a Big Bang is so problematic
                      that it
                      >> might best be described by waving one's hands and muttering.

                      >But isn't that what these guys are proposing, in effect? The
                      >differences are lost on this non-physicist...

                      >Of course, given the general state of reportage these days, they
                      >could have said anything.


                      Well, I think I understand what they are saying...or at least what makes
                      sense out of the report. My references are a bit old....from 25 year old
                      cosmoloy, so Rich might correct me a bit, but since he hasn't answered
                      here, I'll give it a try.

                      The critical thing to point at is the evidence for dark energy. The
                      acceleration of the expansion of the universe requires some force/energy
                      behind it. It's unseen, and thus called dark energy. This allows some
                      freedom in the definition of space after the universe expands for billions
                      and billions of additional years. What I don't understand is how dark
                      energy can cause symmetry to return to space....alowing for small patches
                      of it to freeze and produce new universes.

                      The advantage of these schemes is that there is real evidence for dark
                      energy...so that parameter isn't just a free one. But, the theories like
                      the one proposed are still minimally constrained...so we should expect a
                      lot of different explainations to fit data.

                      Dan M.

                      --------------------------------------------------------------------
                      mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
                      http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint


                      _______________________________________________
                      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                    • dsummersminet@houston.rr.com
                      ... From: Doug brighto@zo.com Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 12:33:41 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model ... should
                      Message 10 of 30 , Feb 3, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Original Message:
                        -----------------
                        From: Doug brighto@...
                        Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 12:33:41 -0800
                        To: brin-l@...
                        Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model


                        Rob wrote:

                        > AFAICT it is all meta-physics and only nominally related to reality as
                        > we know it.
                        > Like Charlie, I am not a physicist. Unlike Charlie, I have even less
                        > background to speculate from. So if anyone has even specks that might
                        > edify me I would be interested. I find the whole idea of "where
                        > spacetime/reality comes from" to be fascinating, and discussions of
                        > such to be entertaining.
                        > Endlessly useless, but entertaining.<G>

                        >I probably have less expertise than either of you, but though I probably
                        should just >believe the experts, I can't get rid of my skepticism
                        concerning the Big Bang. >Everywhere we look, from the microscopic to the
                        vastness of space, we see constructs >that are orbital in nature and that
                        together with other constructs of similar size are >the building blocks for
                        the next larger construct.

                        Actually, atoms, protons, neutrons, pions, etc. are not orbital in nature.

                        >Atoms, solar systems, galaxies. Are we so sure that the galaxies and
                        other constructs >we observe in space aren't part of some fantastically,
                        unimaginably large construct >that is itself just one of many? Isn't it
                        egotistical to place ourselves at the center >of the universe in this
                        respect?

                        Why egotistical? Science is not about uncovering mysteries and truths,
                        it's about modeling observation. The Big Bang does a very good job of
                        that. There are lotsa cross correlations with other observations, there is
                        a tremendous amount of data that are consistant with the Big Bang., etc.

                        Finally, what if Wheeler is right about the universe. :-)

                        Dan M.

                        --
                        Doug
                        Spellcheck complete maru
                        _______________________________________________
                        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

                        --------------------------------------------------------------------
                        mail2web - Check your email from the web at
                        http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web


                        _______________________________________________
                        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                      • Charlie Bell
                        ... Ah, yes. My brain didn t parse that properly the first time. Still, it doesn t seem to change anything we know about the expansion phase of this universe,
                        Message 11 of 30 , Feb 3, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 04/02/2007, at 6:48 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote:

                          >
                          > I think the key "new" idea is given in this paragraph:
                          >
                          > "At the turnaround, each fragmented patch collapses and contracts
                          > individually instead of pulling back together in a reversal of the Big
                          > Bang. The patches become an infinite number of independent universes
                          > that contract and then bounce outward again, reinflating in a manner
                          > similar to the Big Bang. One patch becomes our universe."

                          Ah, yes. My brain didn't parse that properly the first time.

                          Still, it doesn't seem to change anything we know about the expansion
                          phase of this universe, just postulate a different end. I'm in no
                          position to judge the maths though.

                          Charlie.
                          _______________________________________________
                          http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                        • Robert Seeberger
                          ... From: To: Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 5:19 PM Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New
                          Message 12 of 30 , Feb 3, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: <dsummersminet@...>
                            To: <brin-l@...>
                            Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 5:19 PM
                            Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model


                            >
                            > Finally, what if Wheeler is right about the universe. :-)
                            >

                            [Guessing]
                            Delayed Choice?


                            xponent
                            Anthropic Digressions Maru
                            rob


                            _______________________________________________
                            http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                          • Robert Seeberger
                            ... From: Charlie Bell To: Killer Bs Discussion Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 5:36 PM Subject: Re:
                            Message 13 of 30 , Feb 3, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Charlie Bell" <charlie@...>
                              To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@...>
                              Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 5:36 PM
                              Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model


                              >
                              > Still, it doesn't seem to change anything we know about the
                              > expansion
                              > phase of this universe, just postulate a different end.

                              No, I don't believe it addresses expansion but in the most indirect of
                              ways. As much as I am given to understand, there has not been an
                              accounting that allows for enough mass to cause an eventual collapse.

                              >I'm in no
                              > position to judge the maths though.
                              >
                              Yoiu're in better position than me.<G>



                              xponent
                              Ilmathematic Maru
                              rob


                              _______________________________________________
                              http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                            • Doug
                              ... Are there similarities in structure? ... As long as the universe is 74% mysterious dark energy, for which there is no direct evidence. ... It s
                              Message 14 of 30 , Feb 6, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dan wrote:

                                > Actually, atoms, protons, neutrons, pions, etc. are not orbital in nature.

                                Are there similarities in structure?

                                > Why egotistical? Science is not about uncovering mysteries and truths,
                                > it's about modeling observation. The Big Bang does a very good job of
                                > that.

                                As long as the universe is 74% "mysterious" dark energy, for which there is no direct evidence.

                                > There are lotsa cross correlations with other observations, there is
                                > a tremendous amount of data that are consistent with the Big Bang., etc.

                                It's consistant with "let there be light" and the scientist's desire to _know_ the answer as well.

                                > Finally, what if Wheeler is right about the universe. :-)

                                Eh?

                                --
                                Doug
                                _______________________________________________
                                http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                              • Dan Minette
                                ... Some, but the differences are more staggering. In all cases, we are dealing with angular momentum and an attractive force. This leads to certain patterns
                                Message 15 of 30 , Feb 7, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                  > From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On
                                  > Behalf Of Doug
                                  > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:31 PM
                                  > To: Killer Bs Discussion
                                  > Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
                                  >
                                  > Dan wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Actually, atoms, protons, neutrons, pions, etc. are not orbital in
                                  > nature.
                                  >
                                  > Are there similarities in structure?

                                  Some, but the differences are more staggering. In all cases, we are dealing
                                  with angular momentum and an attractive force. This leads to certain
                                  patterns in systems with any complexity at all. Almost all of the time, the
                                  angular momentum is such that a singularity will not form. The well known
                                  exception is, of course, a black hole....where a singularity still forms.
                                  Now, other factors are involved, and there can be more than one force
                                  involved, but that does not undermine the utility of looking at the
                                  similarity in atoms and galaxies in terms of attractive force and angular
                                  momentum.

                                  It should be noted that there are extremely important differences that are
                                  not seen in the classical models we use to describe the atom. For example,
                                  the highest values for the function that determines the probability of
                                  measuring an electron's position is within the nucleus. If that happened on
                                  a classical level, the most likely position to find the earth would be
                                  within the sun.

                                  > > Why egotistical? Science is not about uncovering mysteries and truths,
                                  > > it's about modeling observation. The Big Bang does a very good job of
                                  > > that.
                                  >
                                  > As long as the universe is 74% "mysterious" dark energy, for which there
                                  > is no direct evidence.


                                  Huh? The Big Bang theory is over 50 years old. It, and the steady state
                                  universe theory were evenly competing theories until 1964, when the cosmic
                                  background radiation was discovered....supporting the Big Bang.

                                  Numerous observations were made since then, allowing for/requiring
                                  refinement of the Big Bang theory. One thing worth noting on this is the
                                  tie in with particle physics. The energy densities of the early universe and
                                  the energy densities available at particle accelerators were similar,
                                  allowing for cross correlations of the physics of the universe and the
                                  physics seen in the lab. There were a large number of strong cross
                                  correlations observed.

                                  There are, of course, still problems modeling some of the structure. One
                                  problem is the grainy nature of the universe. The universe is structured in
                                  such a way that it was difficult to reconcile the size of the structures
                                  with both the speed of light and the energy densities at which these
                                  structures could form. In other words, in a classical big bang theory, when
                                  the universe was small enough for these structures to form in a manner
                                  consistent with the speed of light, it was too hot for these structures to
                                  form.

                                  Thus, the expansion phase was introduced. It postulates somewhat different
                                  physics during the first few milliseconds than is seen now. It is not
                                  unreasonable to consider this as somewhat of an ad hoc theory, somewhat like
                                  the Bohr atom.

                                  Now, on to dark energy.... Recent observations have indicated that the
                                  expansion of the universe is accelerating. Some unknown force is causing
                                  the galaxies to fly apart at an increasing rate. Force is correlated with
                                  energy, of course, and the rate of expansion can be used to calculate how
                                  much energy is required....thus the estimate of the amounts that are given.
                                  Another way of expressing this is the cosmological constant.

                                  Both dark energy and the cosmological constant are ways of modeling what we
                                  see. They are different ways of saying the same thing. Neither are
                                  required for the Big Bang theory, per se, but both are means of modeling the
                                  fact that the universe is observed to be expanding at an accelerating rate.

                                  Now, it is possible to come up with other theories that have other
                                  explanations for the acceleration. But, in order for these theories to
                                  supplant the Big Bang, they will also have to model all that the Big Bang
                                  has successfully modeled. And, that's a large amount of data. The interest
                                  is focused on the difficulties of the Big Bang....and how it needs to be
                                  modified to fit new observations.

                                  That's where the interest should be, and where the fun is. If you were to
                                  tell me that you think that the present theories will be replaced with a
                                  better theory in a few years, a few decades, etc., I wouldn't argue. What I
                                  would argue is that the present theories will be seen as a subset of that
                                  theory....just as classical electromagnetism is a subset of QED.




                                  > > There are lotsa cross correlations with other observations, there is
                                  > > a tremendous amount of data that are consistent with the Big Bang., etc.

                                  > It's consistant with "let there be light" and the scientist's desire to
                                  > _know_ the answer as well.

                                  Virtually every (if not actually every) physicist/astrophysicist I've talked
                                  with about this are happy coming up with the best models of observations
                                  they can...period. Usually, it's the non-professionals that insist that
                                  science is a means of knowing "the truth." Carl Sagan is a noticeable
                                  exception to this....and I find much of what he says to be problematic. As
                                  an aside, I'd argue that this is correlated to his letting his politics
                                  trump his professionalism later in his career.



                                  > > Finally, what if Wheeler is right about the universe. :-)
                                  >
                                  > Eh?

                                  A paraphrase of his statement is:

                                  "It's true that the universe is vast, and we are a small part of it. But,
                                  it's also true that the universe would not exist without a primitive act of
                                  registration."

                                  This metaphysics is more consistent with observations than realism. This
                                  doesn't make it right, and it certainly isn't proven by physics....but it is
                                  very consistent with observations.

                                  Dan M.


                                  _______________________________________________
                                  http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                                • Klaus Stock
                                  ... is no ... Yup, but we ve got indirect evidence already. As for direct evidence, we don t have any at all. Not even for gravity. All we notice is that
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Feb 8, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > > Why egotistical? Science is not about uncovering mysteries and truths,
                                    > > it's about modeling observation. The Big Bang does a very good job of
                                    > > that.
                                    >
                                    > As long as the universe is 74% "mysterious" dark energy, for which there
                                    is no
                                    > direct evidence.

                                    Yup, but we've got indirect "evidence" already.

                                    As for direct evidence, we don't have any at all. Not even for gravity. All
                                    we notice is that things keep falling to the ground, and some people came up
                                    with a fishy theory about "gravity". D'oh! Yup, this model helps us to
                                    explain why things fall to the ground, but there is no way to find out the
                                    real truth. And there will never be.

                                    Meanwhile, cosmology and particle physics make darn intersting subjects to
                                    discuss! ;-)

                                    - Klaus

                                    If the universe was created by the Big Bang, was the intrenet created by the
                                    Big Flame?
                                    _________________________________________________________
                                    This mail sent using V-webmail - http://www.v-webmail.orgg

                                    _______________________________________________
                                    http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                                  • Doug
                                    ... Not really. All we ve got is that some of our pet theories don t work without it. That type 1A su ... We didn t invent gravity as a fudge factor to prove
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Feb 9, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Klaus wrote:

                                      > Yup, but we've got indirect "evidence" already.

                                      Not really. All we've got is that some of our pet theories don't work without it. That type 1A su
                                      >
                                      > As for direct evidence, we don't have any at all. Not even for gravity. All
                                      > we notice is that things keep falling to the ground, and some people came up
                                      > with a fishy theory about "gravity".


                                      We didn't invent gravity as a fudge factor to prove our theory that things fall to the ground.

                                      D'oh! Yup, this model helps us to
                                      > explain why things fall to the ground, but there is no way to find out the
                                      > real truth. And there will never be.

                                      Why not? Never is way to absolute for me. Especially on an SF list!

                                      > Meanwhile, cosmology and particle physics make darn intersting subjects to
                                      > discuss! ;-)

                                      Now _that_ we can agree on.

                                      --
                                      Doug
                                      _______________________________________________
                                      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                                    • dsummersminet@houston.rr.com
                                      ... From: Doug brighto@zo.com Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:36:35 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model ...
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Feb 10, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Original Message:
                                        -----------------
                                        From: Doug brighto@...
                                        Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:36:35 -0800
                                        To: brin-l@...
                                        Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model


                                        Klaus wrote:

                                        > Yup, but we've got indirect "evidence" already.

                                        >Not really. All we've got is that some of our pet theories don't work
                                        without it.

                                        You mean like F=ma? The use of dark energy as an explaination for
                                        accleration in the opposite direction of all known forces is fundamentally
                                        based on that. That's pretty well what it says.

                                        >
                                        > As for direct evidence, we don't have any at all. Not even for gravity.
                                        All
                                        > we notice is that things keep falling to the ground, and some people came
                                        up
                                        > with a fishy theory about "gravity".


                                        >We didn't invent gravity as a fudge factor to prove our theory that things
                                        fall to the >ground.

                                        But, it did have something that was considered in that light: spooky
                                        instantaneous action at a distance with no known mechanism. Further, the
                                        fudge factor of dark energy is more akin to the charge of the electron in
                                        QED or maybe the fudge factor used to explain the orbit of the moon for
                                        about 100 years before Laplace, I think, did the calculations that showed
                                        the consistancy of the moon's orbit with the predictions afforded by
                                        Newtonian gravitation.

                                        The expansion of the universe is accelerating. Dark energy is a means of
                                        expressing this in terms of force. I'm not sure what your difficulty is.
                                        Are you arguing that the expansion of the universe is not really
                                        accelerating, and that there were some unwarrented assumptions that went
                                        into these conclusions? Or, do you see a problem with describing this
                                        acceleration in terms of F=ma?

                                        Dan M.

                                        D'oh! Yup, this model helps us to
                                        > explain why things fall to the ground, but there is no way to find out the
                                        > real truth. And there will never be.

                                        Why not? Never is way to absolute for me. Especially on an SF list!

                                        > Meanwhile, cosmology and particle physics make darn intersting subjects to
                                        > discuss! ;-)

                                        Now _that_ we can agree on.

                                        --
                                        Doug
                                        _______________________________________________
                                        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        mail2web - Check your email from the web at
                                        http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web


                                        _______________________________________________
                                        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                                      • Robert Seeberger
                                        ... From: To: Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:56 PM Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Feb 10, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: <dsummersminet@...>
                                          To: <brin-l@...>
                                          Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:56 PM
                                          Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model


                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Original Message:
                                          > -----------------
                                          > From: Doug brighto@...
                                          > Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:36:35 -0800
                                          > To: brin-l@...
                                          > Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Klaus wrote:
                                          >
                                          >> Yup, but we've got indirect "evidence" already.
                                          >
                                          >>Not really. All we've got is that some of our pet theories don't
                                          >>work
                                          > without it.
                                          >
                                          > You mean like F=ma? The use of dark energy as an explaination for
                                          > accleration in the opposite direction of all known forces is
                                          > fundamentally
                                          > based on that. That's pretty well what it says.
                                          >
                                          >>
                                          >> As for direct evidence, we don't have any at all. Not even for
                                          >> gravity.
                                          > All
                                          >> we notice is that things keep falling to the ground, and some
                                          >> people came
                                          > up
                                          >> with a fishy theory about "gravity".
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >>We didn't invent gravity as a fudge factor to prove our theory that
                                          >>things
                                          > fall to the >ground.
                                          >
                                          > But, it did have something that was considered in that light: spooky
                                          > instantaneous action at a distance with no known mechanism.
                                          > Further, the
                                          > fudge factor of dark energy is more akin to the charge of the
                                          > electron in
                                          > QED or maybe the fudge factor used to explain the orbit of the moon
                                          > for
                                          > about 100 years before Laplace, I think, did the calculations that
                                          > showed
                                          > the consistancy of the moon's orbit with the predictions afforded by
                                          > Newtonian gravitation.
                                          >
                                          > The expansion of the universe is accelerating. Dark energy is a
                                          > means of
                                          > expressing this in terms of force. I'm not sure what your
                                          > difficulty is.
                                          > Are you arguing that the expansion of the universe is not really
                                          > accelerating, and that there were some unwarrented assumptions that
                                          > went
                                          > into these conclusions? Or, do you see a problem with describing
                                          > this
                                          > acceleration in terms of F=ma?
                                          >

                                          Going back to basics, it seems to me that our experience with orbital
                                          mechanics for spacecraft and satelites and our use of the "slingshot
                                          effect" to propel interplanetary missions to the outer solar system
                                          are pretty good evidence that we have a good theory and a good grasp
                                          of it.
                                          We have had discussions here of the Pioneer Anamoly in the past, and
                                          IIRC the question is still open so it isn't like we need to abandon
                                          current theory as unrealistic.


                                          xponent
                                          Evidential Maru
                                          rob


                                          _______________________________________________
                                          http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                                        • Dan Minette
                                          ... Well, the fact that we can use it is always a good confirmation. Very precise measurements of this effect, more precise than needed to use the effect,
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Feb 12, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            >
                                            > Going back to basics, it seems to me that our experience with orbital
                                            > mechanics for spacecraft and satelites and our use of the "slingshot
                                            > effect" to propel interplanetary missions to the outer solar system
                                            > are pretty good evidence that we have a good theory and a good grasp
                                            > of it.

                                            Well, the fact that we can use it is always a good confirmation. Very
                                            precise measurements of this effect, more precise than needed to use the
                                            effect, will allow us to test the predictions of GR. So that's a good
                                            thing.


                                            > We have had discussions here of the Pioneer Anamoly in the past, and
                                            > IIRC the question is still open so it isn't like we need to abandon
                                            > current theory as unrealistic.

                                            The last thing that I read was that the anomalies were consistent with at
                                            least one possible mundane cause. This is, almost universally, considered a
                                            lack of evidence supporting an unknown force in science. Even, as with the
                                            orbit of the moon, there appears to be no mundane explanation for observed
                                            phenomena, the explanation almost always ends up being mundane. So, the
                                            Pioneer Anamoly, while probably worth continued investigation, does not
                                            offer any evidence for new physics.

                                            Dark matter is only quazi-new physics....its existence can be explained
                                            within the standard model. For the lurkers, I might mention that dark
                                            matter is needed to explain gravitational attraction in galaxies...which is
                                            higher than one would expect from the gravitational attraction of the
                                            observed matter.

                                            Dark energy, on the other hand, is not explicable in terms of the standard
                                            model. It postulates a new force...an anti-gravity force. This force is
                                            sufficient to overcome gravity and accelerate the expansion of the universe.

                                            As an aside, the first results of GP-B will be given at the APS meeting in
                                            April. My guess is that they are not earth shattering....or they'd be
                                            pre-announced in the press.

                                            Dan M.


                                            _______________________________________________
                                            http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                                          • Doug
                                            ... I just spoke with someone who spent a good deal of time on that project and he seems to agree with you. He prefaced his conclusion with Einstein was a
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Feb 12, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Dan wrote:


                                              > As an aside, the first results of GP-B will be given at the APS meeting in
                                              > April. My guess is that they are not earth shattering....or they'd be
                                              > pre-announced in the press.

                                              I just spoke with someone who spent a good deal of time on that project and he seems to agree with you. He prefaced his conclusion with "Einstein was a pretty bright guy..." One of his current projects is a satellite that will map type 1A supernovas.

                                              Sorry I haven’t responded to previous posts; I just had minor surgery (doing fine) and being high on vicodin isn't much of an advantage in an this kind of discussion.

                                              --
                                              Doug
                                              _______________________________________________
                                              http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                                            • Charlie Bell
                                              ... Yep. There were a few of them at that time. Pretty much the Golden Age of modern physics (and biology, for that matter... while the current era is
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Feb 12, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                On 13/02/2007, at 3:07 PM, Doug wrote:

                                                > Dan wrote:
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >> As an aside, the first results of GP-B will be given at the APS
                                                >> meeting in
                                                >> April. My guess is that they are not earth shattering....or
                                                >> they'd be
                                                >> pre-announced in the press.
                                                >
                                                > I just spoke with someone who spent a good deal of time on that
                                                > project and he seems to agree with you. He prefaced his conclusion
                                                > with "Einstein was a pretty bright guy..."

                                                Yep. There were a few of them at that time. Pretty much the Golden
                                                Age of modern physics (and biology, for that matter... while the
                                                current era is tremendously exciting, that time between the Modern
                                                Synthesis and the discovery of the structure of DNA was when modern
                                                biology really came of age after 70 years of painful birth). So many
                                                larger than life characters.

                                                > One of his current projects is a satellite that will map type 1A
                                                > supernovas.

                                                Nifty!
                                                >
                                                > Sorry I haven’t responded to previous posts; I just had minor
                                                > surgery (doing fine)

                                                No such thing as minor surgery, in my opinion, just degrees of
                                                major... Get well soon.

                                                > and being high on vicodin isn't much of an advantage in an this
                                                > kind of discussion.

                                                On the contrary, I'd say it's a positive boon!

                                                Charlie
                                                _______________________________________________
                                                http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                                              • Doug
                                                ... I imagine it affects different people different ways. It makes me feel groggy and slightly nauseous. -- Doug
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Feb 12, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Charlie wrote:

                                                  > On the contrary, I'd say it's a positive boon!

                                                  I imagine it affects different people different ways. It makes me feel groggy and slightly nauseous.

                                                  --
                                                  Doug
                                                  _______________________________________________
                                                  http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                                                • Charlie Bell
                                                  ... Coincidentally, that s precisely how physics makes me feel... Charlie _______________________________________________
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Feb 12, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    On 13/02/2007, at 5:43 PM, Doug wrote:

                                                    > Charlie wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    >> On the contrary, I'd say it's a positive boon!
                                                    >
                                                    > I imagine it affects different people different ways. It makes me
                                                    > feel groggy and slightly nauseous.

                                                    Coincidentally, that's precisely how physics makes me feel...

                                                    Charlie
                                                    _______________________________________________
                                                    http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                                                  • Julia Thompson
                                                    ... No, but it makes it a lot of fun to watch Yellow Submarine.... :) Julia Been There, Done That _______________________________________________
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Feb 13, 2007
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Doug wrote:

                                                      > Sorry I haven’t responded to previous posts; I just had minor surgery
                                                      > (doing fine) and being high on vicodin isn't much of an advantage in
                                                      > an this kind of discussion.

                                                      No, but it makes it a lot of fun to watch Yellow Submarine.... :)

                                                      Julia

                                                      Been There, Done That


                                                      _______________________________________________
                                                      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                                                    • Julia Thompson
                                                      ... I m sorry! One of the scripts I got after my surgery last fall (I had 2 different painkillers) included a bit of promethazine in each pill, so that cut
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Feb 13, 2007
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Doug wrote:
                                                        > Charlie wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        >> On the contrary, I'd say it's a positive boon!
                                                        >
                                                        > I imagine it affects different people different ways. It makes me
                                                        > feel groggy and slightly nauseous.

                                                        I'm sorry!

                                                        One of the scripts I got after my surgery last fall (I had 2 different
                                                        painkillers) included a bit of promethazine in each pill, so that cut
                                                        down on the nausea. I think that was the Demerol stuff.

                                                        I did end up getting a prescription for promethazine by itself, but I'm
                                                        thinking it was the antibiotics prescribed to prevent postoperative
                                                        infection as much as anything else that was messing me up. (And it was
                                                        stronger than amoxicillin, which is about the only thing that doesn't
                                                        start doing nasty things to me.)

                                                        Julia

                                                        _______________________________________________
                                                        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.