Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Our Simple Universe


pantheory

Recommended Posts

"Our Universe, it's the Simplest thing we know"

 

I found this article at space.com., October weekly issue.

 

http://www.space.com/30783-our-universe-it-s-the-simplest-thing-we-know.html?cmpid=NL_SP_weekly_2015-10-08

 

Although still a small minority, there are many theorists, cosmologists, physicists, that hold the opinion today that the universe is far less complicated than currently accepted theories assert. According to the article above and its author, a “revolution” in physics will be forthcoming which will overturn today’s theories in physics and cosmology, to be replaced by simpler theories with simpler yet more fundamental understandings of reality and of the universe. Most of my own writings, thoughts, scientific papers, and formal theory in these fields, parallel many of the author’s ideas and contentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well of course as we get better data our understanding of the universe will improve.  That is the nature of science.  We are always challenging the old ideas and discarding them when new data renders them obsolete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well of course as we get better data our understanding of the universe will improve.  That is the nature of science.  We are always challenging the old ideas and discarding them when new data renders them obsolete.

 

Yes, better data can result in better theories. But problems can result from the misinterpretation of data, of course, where data is interpreted according to present theory.  If present theory is wrong, observations, experiments and data can all be misinterpreted.

 

One way that present theory might be overturned and entirely replaced would be to make predictions that are not only contrary to present theory, but predictions that can be confirmed by experiment(s) and/or observation(s), such as Einstein's gravity predictions. Major changes like this may come along maybe only once or twice per century.  My expectation is that revolutionary changes of theory in  physics and cosmology are imminent in the foreseeable future, because of new telescopes and related instrumentation, and I expect, because of new and better experiments in the quantum world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Pantheory.

 

I note that Turok and Paul Steinhardt promote a Cyclic Universe theory that relies upon repeated Big Bangs.  

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404480

 

II. THE BASIC CONCEPT

 

The Cyclic Model was developed based on the three intuitive notions:

• the big bang is not a beginning of time, but rather a transition to an earlier phase of evolution;

• the evolution of the universe is cyclic;

• the key events that shaped the large scale structure of the universe occurred during a phase of slow contraction before the bang, rather than a period of rapid expansion (inflation) after the bang.

The last point means that, unlike previous periodic models, the cycles are tightly interlinked. The events that occurred a cycle ago shape our universe today, and the events occurring today will shape our universe a cycle from now. It is this aspect that transforms the metaphysical notion of cycles into a scientifically testable concept. We can make physical measurements today that determine whether the large scale structure of the universe was set before or after the bang.

.

.

.

Which is interesting, since you're on record as saying that the Big Bang never happened.

 

So, could you please explain this fundamental disagreement between you and Turok..?

 

Seeing as the implication of your OP is that you and Turok are headed in the same direction..?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yes, better data can result in better theories. But problems can result from the misinterpretation of data, of course, where data is interpreted according to present theory.  If present theory is wrong, observations, experiments and data can all be misinterpreted.

 

One way that present theory might be overturned and entirely replaced would be to make predictions that are not only contrary to present theory, but predictions that can be confirmed by experiment(s) and/or observation(s), such as Einstein's gravity predictions. Major changes like this may come along maybe only once or twice per century.  My expectation is that revolutionary changes of theory in  physics and cosmology are imminent in the foreseeable future, because of new telescopes and related instrumentation, and I expect, because of new and better experiments in the quantum world.

 

 

 

Clearly we are missing something fundamental because we cannot unify relativity and quantum mechanics.  Also dark energy and dark matter remain largely mysteries.  So yes a revolution is in our future.  We will get there eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Yes, better data can result in better theories. But problems can result from the misinterpretation of data, of course, where data is interpreted according to present theory.  If present theory is wrong, observations, experiments and data can all be misinterpreted.

 

One way that present theory might be overturned and entirely replaced would be to make predictions that are not only contrary to present theory, but predictions that can be confirmed by experiment(s) and/or observation(s), such as Einstein's gravity predictions. Major changes like this may come along maybe only once or twice per century.  My expectation is that revolutionary changes of theory in  physics and cosmology are imminent in the foreseeable future, because of new telescopes and related instrumentation, and I expect, because of new and better experiments in the quantum world.

 

 

 

Clearly we are missing something fundamental because we cannot unify relativity and quantum mechanics.  Also dark energy and dark matter remain largely mysteries.  So yes a revolution is in our future.  We will get there eventually.

 

 

My life is dedicated to major changes of theory happening sooner rather than later. Not only do I expect that the dark matter and dark energy hypothesis are wrong, I expect The Big Bang model, Quantum Theory, General Relativity, Special Relativity, and major aspects of the standard model of Particle Physics will all be replaced almost in their entirety, with some structure of the same mathematics incorporated by new theories. I think the subject link also professes such major changes.

 

I am an optimist and tend to think of a brighter future coming sooner rather than later. Vastly simpler, more accurate theories is one of my ideas of a brighter future for mankind. As to being overly-optimistic concerning how long things take, I must admit that during the Apollo era I thought men would have already gone to Mars at least once by the turn of the new millennium (the year 2,000). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Pantheory.

 

I note that Turok and Paul Steinhardt promote a Cyclic Universe theory that relies upon repeated Big Bangs.  

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404480

 

II. THE BASIC CONCEPT

 

The Cyclic Model was developed based on the three intuitive notions:

• the big bang is not a beginning of time, but rather a transition to an earlier phase of evolution;

• the evolution of the universe is cyclic;

• the key events that shaped the large scale structure of the universe occurred during a phase of slow contraction before the bang, rather than a period of rapid expansion (inflation) after the bang.

The last point means that, unlike previous periodic models, the cycles are tightly interlinked. The events that occurred a cycle ago shape our universe today, and the events occurring today will shape our universe a cycle from now. It is this aspect that transforms the metaphysical notion of cycles into a scientifically testable concept. We can make physical measurements today that determine whether the large scale structure of the universe was set before or after the bang.

.

.

.

Which is interesting, since you're on record as saying that the Big Bang never happened.

 

So, could you please explain this fundamental disagreement between you and Turok..?

 

Seeing as the implication of your OP is that you and Turok are headed in the same direction..?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Yes, I think there is good agreement between our views concerning problems with mainstream theory, that they are far too complicated, and that it/they will be replaced in the not-too-distant future. There also is agreement between our views that much simpler theories will result from such a theoretical "revolution."  I follow no other theorist and suspect that Turok doesn't either so our theory-replacement ideas are different. Not that simpler is necessarily better, but my models in general seem to be much simpler than his ideas as expressed in the link.

 

For instance, there was no Big Bang in my model as you stated. The beginning accordingly was much simpler but not infinite, therefore there would be no Inflation, cycling of Bangs, or a necessity for other universes to complicate reality.

 

So the kinship relates to our mutual contentions that the universe is a very simple place and that present major theories must and will be replaced by simpler, and expectedly better theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Pantheory to MyMistake... "replaced"

 

Pantheory to BAA... "replaced"

.

.

.

Really?

 

Perhaps you'd care to peruse this Wikipedia listing of the Sciences and strike out the ones you think should be replaced, Pantheory..?

 

(Please note that I've already struck out the ones you think should go.)

 

Chemistry

Physics

Earth sciences

Space science

 

 

Many of these sciences you listed above are science studies not necessarily theories. String Theory, on the other hand, is not even a theory based upon the accepted definition of theory; it is instead an hypothesis. Cosmology nowadays is just one of the theories and hypotheses that I believe is entirely wrong, the Big Bang model and the Inflation hypothesis. The study of Quantum Field Theory, Special and General Relativity, all contain valuable lessons and mathematics for theories of the future, but fail as to their overall validity IMO. Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical system of calculations and predictions concerning the quantum world. The reasons why it has validity, on the other hand, is Quantum Theory of which there are at least a dozen dissimilar competing versions. I believe all of these versions will eventually be replaced by much simpler and more understandable theory. 

 

The other sciences you listed that I am familiar with have a sounder basis than the ones discussed IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belief and opinion.

 

Thank you Pantheory.

 

Your beliefs and opinions are noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.