Can you hi-lite the changes if any?
Cosmological Model of The Universe
- Thread starter pywakit
- Start date
OK, I should get a chance tomorrow.
You claimed they'd been ridiculed. Why would they be ridiculed unless it was considered an absurd notion? The fact is, you're wrong.
Why do we need to get rid of them? Hawking-Penrose theorems state they are inevitable and the future is likely to be little more than empty space and black holes, though they do eventually evaporate.
You can't 'tweak' Newton's work to get Einstein's.
Yes. What is the problem with that?
Ah the crank logic. I point out you don't have a 'model' and rather than you demonstrating me wrong you declare I must show my model. Why do I need a model to point out the flaws in your claims? I have original work but not in this area.
So you got more help and positive responses than you expected but you're still here pushing your work on forums rather than getting it into a journal? Could not one of the people who gave a positive response help with journal submission? Or were they just polite "Thanks but no thanks"?
Your replies show you don't have a thick skin. A thick head with an inability to accept basic flaws in your claims, perhaps.
Why would it bother me you make claims you can't back up? Can you predict the CMB power spectrum? If so, show its derivation and compare with experimental data.
That isn't my area of research, I never claimed it was. You seem to be falling back onto flawed logic time and again. I don't have to be a cosmologist to point out you aren't.
Well don't copy and paste articles on topics you don't know about.
I am directly involved in string theory research. I was lectured by Green and Turok as a student. I've been to conferences attended by Greene, Witten etc. I have published papers on the topic of string theory.
And when you say you take their word, do you read their papers or what a newspaper quotes them saying?
Ah so you mention them but you don't actually need to know about them because you're absolutely certain in your divine knowledge you don't need to know about it. So why bring it up?
Cranks always do that. They don't need to know high school physics because they have proven it wrong. Saves a lot on time and effort....
I'm not the one making claims I can't back up and has to spam 1000 physicists and still can't get published.
I love it when abject failures try to come off as the wise ones, passing down their knowledge. The problem is I clearly have more experience and success in physics than you
.
Let’s call these axiomatic from your perspective on the basis that an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.
Is the phrase “visible/local universe” meant to include the entire known finite mass of the universe, or are you using the word “visible” to mean that even if we haven’t yet detected it directly, if we were able to observe it we could detect it in the form of stars, galaxies, observable particles, etc., unlike dark matter which we cannot directly detect even if it is under our noses?
This first step in the process must be deduced from or inferred by the axiomatic statements. That allows you to define the process in a step by step methodology derived from the postulates.
Are you satisfied that the phrase “sub-elemental hydrogen* for uniform 'stacking'” adequately describes the nature of matter/energy that has been converted by entry into a black hole? I take it you base that theory dependent truth on the elemental content of the early universe according to BBT (BBM as you refer to it.)
This doesn’t seem to be derived from the postulates yet. Is it out of place in the process?
Are you referring to the theoretical action of black holes in general or to specific action detected by observation of surrounding objects? Is this list of process elements in order of their relationship to each other and to the postulates?
Are you referring to the process of black holes gathering in their galactic constituents as they proceed on the path to being ready to start drifting and merging with other galactic remnant black holes?
Before I try to address all of the elements in the process why not review my comments so far and let’s just stick with the process portion of the theory for now. Do you have a write up of this whole process or is this your entire theory?
Recap of my comments and questions on this go around:
Do you agree that the first three steps under “Theory” are axioms/postulates?
Do you have the process steps connected to the postulates?
Do you have the process steps in sequence? If so spell out the relationship of subsequent steps to the previous steps and postulates.
Ok. Please show me just three mainstream references to black holes merging outside of local groups from 5 years ago. I looked, and could not find one. Maybe you will have better luck than I.
You state with such 'authority' that black holes 'eventually evaporate'. Is that a fact ....
I don't think so.
According to Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson ( who was kind enough a year ago to spend some time discussing my model ) told me that it would take 1 followed by 140 zeros years to evaporate a 50M sol BH. Assuming it never eats again ... In his words ... " Several quadrillions of times the expected lifespan of the visible universe." And he said there were other problems too, such as what happened at the end.
Wonder how long it will take to evaporate a 100B sol BH ...
He also said that astrophysicists were not seriously considering black holes outside of local groups merging. He also said there was zero proof black holes leaked at all, and that after over 30 years, there was still no way to experimentally test them ... but he also hoped the new collider would remedy that little problem.
And about that famous bet ....
Here is another one of my 'tabloid' references:
You state pure hypothesis as a given. " Extremely speculative "
Are you a cheerleader, or a scientist? Yikes! ( just kidding! )
By the way ... do we have any observational evidence of black holes in the latter stages of evaporation? Must be pretty spectacular!
You do love to put words in my mouth, don't you? I never claimed to be a physicist, or mathemetician. I do manage to grasp the concepts ... in an entirely superficial way, of course.
The 'problem with that' is that ... black holes are mobile and will seek other sources of gravity. ANY sources of gravity. And gravity will ultimately win out. Particles may leak, but eventually the black hole will reclaim them.
Or maybe you think the highly energized particles will just get reabsorbed by space. Do we have any evidence of such a thing occurring? I don't think we do.
Either way, if it is determined ( hopefully within the next 2 years ) that our observations infer infinite and generally isotropic space with no boundries, then your leaking black holes are done. For there would be an infinite number of similar universes operating under the same laws of space. There might be bizarro ones, too ... but certainly if there is even one like ours ... and we are proof there is ... there are an infinite number. And over eternity an infinite number would have died the same way. And we would have evidence of this in CMBR.
Unless you would like to claim the infinite universe began at the same time as our finite universe ... if indeed it turns out to be infinite.
Or that there is a 'magic wall' seperating finite universes.
Really? Well let's see it then! Wow! Original. So you have invented new math, or physics. Way too cool. Nobel?
You said I was ignorant. That means I lack pertinent facts. Ok. I do lack facts. Still, I think I have a reasonable grasp of our universe. And I clearly have an advantage over you since I can tell the difference between fact and fiction.
See? There you go again. Talking as if these were real objects! I repeat. Witten himself said M could stand for magic.
A growing number of respected scientists are getting rather disillusioned with strings. Is Dr. Tyson fairly knowledgable as an astrophysicist? Head of the Hayden Planetarium isn't he? He doesn't like them at all.
On the otherhand, he is on board with leaking black holes.
Actually, Tyson, and several others who liked my model said ( this was a year ago ...) few scientists would be willing to risk their reputations and/or future funding on such a controversial theory no matter HOW promising it looked.
And new ideas take a while to sink in. Science has NEVER changed it's collective mind quickly. My model is a difficult adjustment, and I am very pleased with how far it has come in a year.
I posted here because ... unlike you ... my ego is ok with being wrong. I want feedback. I want people to point out flaws I, or others might have missed. I want to constantly 'refine' and improve it. What better place to go than science forums?
Possible leaking black holes or possible one-dimensional objects are not flaws. You could just as easily use elves, or gods as your argument. Shall I re-post every respected source explaining that strings are 'highly controversial', and have yet to be proved to exist?
Thankfully, I think of science as a collaborative effort. Magic and fantasy are your thing. And clearly you are skilled at it. Kidding aside, I am sure you are a very qualified physicist. My thing is visualizing the universe, and I have done it since I was 6. That's 51 years of observing the evidence. Considering alternatives to the 'working' assumptions of both mainstream science, and the fringe ... which is what strings used to be.
When I was 6, I worked out the transit method for the extra-solar planet search. I was unaware that Struve had written a short paper on this in 1952. I got the courage up to write to NASA when I was 10, describing how to find those planets that they were so certain could never be discovered.
NASA ignored me. Lol. And I don't care if you believe the story or not. But what I suggest you DO get in to that thick head, is that I am serious about the universe.
You certainly speak as if you think you are a cosmologist. But I don't have to be a physicist to point out your errors either.
I tend to trust respected sources.
Very cool. What advances can you attribute to ST/SST/M-theory? Forty years of study? Must be a TON of stuff in all that time. And would you mind explaining Turok's mechanism for time reversal? Or where all that matter/energy comes from in Guth's mystical universe? Doesn't seem to me that space has all that energy necessary for Guth's HYPOTHESIZED universe.
Or maybe you like Frampton's! Now there is a winning model if I ever saw one ...
I don't get my science from newspapers. I don't get it from anywhere. I just think it up independantly. I must be a genius.
Which one of the following statements was inaccurate?
Enough to know that they don't exist. Enough to know that 'strings' are just one possible mathematical outcome out of a ridiculously high number of EQUALLY possible outcomes. Enough to know that after 40 years of research by the brightest minds in the world ... using the most sophisticated tools ever devised ... we are no nearer to proving their existence today than 40 years ago.
Please tell me. I willl apologize for the error. I brought it up, because strings are not real. Maybe someday they will be. But not today. I don't waste time contemplating purely hypothetical possibilities. If you want to study them, that's your business. But they don't belong anywhere near a cosmological model any more than God does. THAT is reality.
There was no other viable manner in which to reach the right scientists ... to plant the seed. Since I was not allowed to publish, as I am neither affiliated with a 'respected' and appropriate university, nor recommended by an astrophysical union member, it seemed the best course to take.
Not the most understanding human, are you?
I love it when abject failures try to come off as the wise ones, passing down their knowledge. The problem is I clearly have more experience and success in physics than you
Whether I am an 'abject failure' or not remains to be seen. I am not interested in making a mark as a physicist. I'm happy you are a bright young man and I hope you end up very successful.
I hope to be successful as a cosmologist. I have at least ( genetically ) 40 more years to accompliish my goal. I'm not in any rush.
Oh. Maybe this will inspire you ... maybe not.
Perhaps you might want to consider solid 3d spheres, instead of one-dimensional strings, or branes. For one thing, 3d objects actually exist.
Have you ever wondered how strings can vibrate if there is nothing pulling them tight? Limp strings are unlikely to produce any frequency at all. But spheres don't need to be 'taut'. They can resonate/vibrate just fine.
And spheres 'clump' very well.
I don't think you will ever find your one-dimensional objects ... because I don't think the universe will allow such things. Any more than it will allow infinitely small, or infintely big.
Nevermind. Lol. I'm sure you have already considered such things as spheres and rejected them.
TC.
Last edited:
What does the local group have to do with it? Are you saying you know of examines within the local group?
Just to clarify, are you claiming no one has seen merging black holes or are you claiming no one has even considered theoretically what such events would involve?
Gravitational wave extraction from an inspiraling configuration of merging black holes,. Phys. Rev. Let. 96, 111102 (2006) [arXiv:gr-qc/0522203]
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~haehnelt/Preprints/magain.pdf
The second reference is about merging galaxies and contains, in the first section, the following : "The black holes in the merging galaxies will sink quickly to the centre of the merger product and will form a hard binary (Begelman, Blandford & Rees 1980)".
1980 early enough for you?
Whereas all your claims are not just speculation? I'm telling you what mainstream models, which have a great deal of experimental justification, say. Yes, they are not 'fact' but then neither is electromagnetism or thermodynamics. No models are ever 'fact'.
I said 'eventually'. I didn't say quickly. The evaporation lifetime of a black hole is proportional to the inverse cube of its mass. Would you like me to derive that or can you figure it out?
If the time is proportional to the inverse cube and you know the lifetime of a black hole 50 times the Sun's mass then can you work out the lifetime of a 100 solar mass black hole?
Black holes have to be close to one another. If they aren't gravitationally bound or heading directly at one another then they will not ever collide. That doesn't mean people denounce the notion of black holes in general merging, only that those which merge are going to have to eventually get close to one another.
Saying "Two black holes which are very far from one another and not gravitationally bound together will not merge" is quite different from "The idea of black holes merging is ridiculous!".
Perhaps you should clarify precisely what you think the mainstream says.
The 'leaking' for a stellar black hole will be tiny. It'd only be equivalent to a temperature in the billionths of a Kelvin. The fact something is beyond our ability to test doesn't mean its wrong.
I'm telling you what the mainstream says. You asked about 'my model' but I don't have one but other people, who have had their work peer reviewed and developed, have. I didn't claim absolute truth, you are constructing strawmen. I did say according to. And there's a ton more justification and evidence for mainstream models than anything you've got so I'd dial down the hypocrisy if I were you.
Even if one were evaporating inside our solar system it would probably go unnoticed. A thermonuclear blast 5 billion miles away would almost certainly not be seen by telescopes unless by pure chance they were looking right at it.
You said "Newton described a 'viable' model of gravity, which was refined through GR." The theory wasn't refined, it was replaced. Refined implies slight alterations to improve it. Relativity did a complete tear down.
And you once again admit you're no mathematician or physicist, which means you have no quantitative predictions. Can you give me the trajectory for a particle spiralling into a black hole, if I give you suitable initial conditions? If not you don't have a working model of black holes. Saying "They merge" is not a theory or model, its obvious.
Have you never heard of 'escape velocity'?
I like how you tell me not to put words in your mouth and then you do precisely that to me.
No, since the dynamics of the quantum field on the boundary of a black hole and the global space-time topology are not synonymous. Further more we can never prove the universe is infinite, since we can only see a finite amount of it.
You complain how I supposedly state hypothesised models as fact but then you go and do that?
More strawmen. I have original work published in journals. That doesn't mean its amazing ground breaking stuff, but its a contribution which no one else has done. Saying 'Nobel' either demonstrates you're making yet more strawmen or you're very very naive about how research is done. New theoretical physics papers are written all the time, very few get Nobel prizes.
Strawman. You really love them! I didn't state them as fact, I was passing onto you the mainstream view. I have repeatedly said on these forums about how no amount of experiments make a theory fact, only demonstrates its a better and better model of Nature.
Where did I say they were real things? I said they happen to be my thing. A mathematician can do work on abstract things and say they are his 'thing'. Is English not your first language?
Keep telling yourself that's why you've accomplished nothing.
I have previously dumped 3 months of work after someone pointed out a mistake I'd made. I have no problem being told I'm wrong. But I'm not the one here promoting my work, I'm not the one here making claims about mainstream physics. You are.
Your flaw is that you don't actually model anything. A model which doesn't model anything is worthless.
Except the prediction of 'leaking black holes' follows in a clear and precise manner from experimentally justified models like quantum field theory and general relativity. One dimensional objects lead to the prediction of gravity. Elves and gods don't provide any such useful results. You're illustrating how you don't understand how science works.
So because something hasn't yet been observed it is wrong? You do realise such logic can be applied to your as yet unproven claims?
Wow 51 years and you haven't learnt enough to pass a 1st year physics or maths exam. Time well spent.
You worked out a way of going between solar systems? Something tells me you provided no practically useful information.
Are you claiming that in the 1950s the physicist at NASA thought it would forever be impossible to detect other planets?
The level of your knowledge means the few cosmology lecture courses I took as an undergrad are more than enough to seem well read to you.
And that's why you don't read journals, textbooks or peer reviewed papers, right?
Advances in what? Or do you mean what advances in string theory I can attribute to myself? You again illustrate you have a naive view of physics. 40 years of string theory doesn't mean I need to learn it all. Also the age of a topic doesn't reflect on the amount you have to learn. Newtonian gravity is 350 years old but its covered in a single lecture course. Learning the core basics of any area of physics doesn't take very long provided you have a decent teacher and the drive to actually bother.
Where did I say I covered any of those? I had Turok as a GR lecturer for a short time and Green lectured me string theory. Both in my 4th year.
I hope you're being sarcastic. Can you tell me why you think being utterly ignorant of any and all previous work in any area of physics is an advantage? How do you plan to describe Nature when you don't know any experimental or observational results?
Statements 1 and 2 are false and statement 4 is not a retort to string theory. You have absolutely zero evidence for statement 1. Statement 2 illustrates you have no clue about the history and development of quantum field theory and string theory. Quantum field theory involves the quantisation of 0 dimensional objects. String theory involves the quantisation of 1 dimensional objects. This then leads to string theory including the quantisation of all n dimensional objects. The variation principle for a point particle moving involves the length of its worldline. You can generalise this to an n dimensional object and its worldvolume. Only for n=1, ie strings, do you get scale invariance. This scale invariance leads to the prediction of general relativity. These then lead through to a single unique construction, M theory. There's no fiddling or choices, its the only possible construct. Statement 4 is ignorant of what string theory is about. It's about finding a description of gravity on short scales. Gravitational quantum effects become important on the scale of the Planck length. This is trillions of times smaller than any distance we can currently probe. Quantum gravity is, by its very nature, beyond our experimental reach so its hardly surprising a description of quantum gravity talks mostly about things out of our experimental reach.
They are either real or they aren't. They don't become real when they are experimentally observed. The electron wasn't imaginary until Thompson observed it at the beginning of the 20th century, it was always there but out of our experimental reach.
No, your plight doesn't move me at all.
Your posts and purpose for being here and emailing one thousand physicists would seem to suggest otherwise.
How do you know 3d things exist? They could be built of 0 or 1 dimensional objects. A table is made of atoms, which are spaced out and thus give the table size, but the atoms could be built of point particles or strings or membranes. And I have considered 3 dimensional objects, particularly their interaction with 7 dimensional objects.
Your grasp of your own version of physics is truly awe inspiring. Shame you have no grasp of even how classical strings behave.
Well if you were God then I might be tempted to stop working in string theory but unfortunately your opinions do not define reality.
Sorry Q. I guess I have to cover A's voluminous assertions first. Then I think ignoring him will be a better expenditure of my time.
Ok, A. Here is a short list of links to refute your 'stringy' claims. I think you will find they have adequate credentials. Please take special note of Nova's interview with Brian Greene. Perhaps they misquoted him?
I would never suggest that this research has been entirely useless. In fact, it has had some success mathematically ... but it has had zero success in it's quest to be a 'theory of everything'. Clearly it is a 'theory of ANYTHING', since the number of 'other' equally plausible outcomes is truly beyond astronomical ... and it remains UN-falsifiable to this day.
NOVA | The Elegant Universe | A Conversation with Brian ...
Physicist Brian Greene, host of the NOVA mini-series The Elegant Universe, talks about everything from why it's an exciting time to be a string theorist to why there ...
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/greene.html
Edge: THE LANDSCAPE
String theory is true, but the string theories Kachru et al find weak evidence for do not in fact exist. ... String theory is false, because no consistent version of the theory ...
www.edge.org/discourse/landscape.html
Physicist Lawrence Krauss turns on his own. - By Paul Boutin ...
Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University, ... String theory, which stretches back to the late 1960s, has become in the last 20 ...
www.slate.com/id/2131014
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/14/MNGRMBOURE1.DTL
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
http://bigthink.com/peterwoit
Each of these links have more imbedded links. However, I seriously doubt A is going to read any of them. But for all you 'potential' stringers, you might want to check them out before you spend the next 20 years working on a series of unfalsifiable hypotheses built upon other unfalsifiable hypotheses.
Brian Greene is a hell of a salesman. Have to give him credit for that ...
Ok, A. Here is a short list of links to refute your 'stringy' claims. I think you will find they have adequate credentials. Please take special note of Nova's interview with Brian Greene. Perhaps they misquoted him?
I would never suggest that this research has been entirely useless. In fact, it has had some success mathematically ... but it has had zero success in it's quest to be a 'theory of everything'. Clearly it is a 'theory of ANYTHING', since the number of 'other' equally plausible outcomes is truly beyond astronomical ... and it remains UN-falsifiable to this day.
NOVA | The Elegant Universe | A Conversation with Brian ...
Physicist Brian Greene, host of the NOVA mini-series The Elegant Universe, talks about everything from why it's an exciting time to be a string theorist to why there ...
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/greene.html
Edge: THE LANDSCAPE
String theory is true, but the string theories Kachru et al find weak evidence for do not in fact exist. ... String theory is false, because no consistent version of the theory ...
www.edge.org/discourse/landscape.html
Physicist Lawrence Krauss turns on his own. - By Paul Boutin ...
Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University, ... String theory, which stretches back to the late 1960s, has become in the last 20 ...
www.slate.com/id/2131014
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/14/MNGRMBOURE1.DTL
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
http://bigthink.com/peterwoit
Each of these links have more imbedded links. However, I seriously doubt A is going to read any of them. But for all you 'potential' stringers, you might want to check them out before you spend the next 20 years working on a series of unfalsifiable hypotheses built upon other unfalsifiable hypotheses.
Brian Greene is a hell of a salesman. Have to give him credit for that ...
That's the spirit. When someone asks you to justify your claims or show you aren't just making stuff up about a subject you seem to know nothing about don't justify yourself or prove them wrong, just stick your head in the sand!
Which claims specifically are you refuting? I have seen the Nova documentary. I have read Greene's book. I have read papers by him. Right now I have a textbook by someone who appears in the documentary open on my desk and I've spent the evening working through some of the problems in it.
Tell me exactly which of my 'string claims' you're refuting because nothing I've said is refuted in that documentary.
I explained to you why a quantum gravity theory will mostly make predictions about high energy scales. Obviously you didn't take any of that on board. It has success in that its a consistent model of quantum gravity, in that its a UV complete quantum field theory with a graviton in it. No other particle model has that. It predicts the existence of the graviton naturally, not requiring it to be put in by hand. It provides a solution to the hierachy problem naturally, as it naturally includes supersymmetry rather then requiring it be put in by hand. It predicts the number of space-time dimensions, rather than being set by hand.
I would hazard a guess you are trying to refer to the notion of the string landscape and many vacua. This doesn't mean it can predict 'anything'. It can't predict different space-time dimensionality. It can't predict Newtonian gravity, it can't predict gravity other than GR.
String vacua are my area of research and I'm well aware there are a lot of them, I have constructed a great deal. But they are not synonymous with 'it can predict anything'. You have not learnt the details and you have already made up your mind so rather than being correct you simply twist the truth to suit your bias. I have no problem with someone saying "It's extremely difficult to construct vacua, never mind find phenomenologically viable ones" but to say "It can predict anything" is wrong.
If you skip valid criticism to go to false hyperbola then you show you are not quite the open minded thinker you might wish to be.
So I should read the pop science layman discussions of physicists rather than either talk to them directly, attend conferences or read their published papers.
People read layman pop science books because they don't have the time or patience or knowledge to study the technical work. I do have the time. I'm a PhD student, its my job to read the technical stuff, to think about it and to hopefully then develop some of it myself. I don't need anyone to give me their views on string theory, I am more than capable of actually learning string theory for myself, thinking about it, understanding it, doing it and then deciding whether or not I think its worthwhile. You say Greene is 'a hell of salesman'. You say that because your main information source for "String theory is great!" are his books, documentaries and occasional press releases. Your only insights into string theory are what other people tell you about it. I don't need that, I can go straight to the horses mouth. I've seen some string theory papers I've thought are terrible. I've seen some I've thought are works of genius. I can say the same on just about any area of physics I've spent time learning. I have even written papers myself in string theory and they have passed peer review.
You talk about how you wrote stuff when you were 6 but I'm certain there's some rose tinted glasses over your vision and it was actually very naive. When I was 16 I'd just started reading about quantum mechanics, in pop science books, and I came up with some arm waving argument about how the universe could create itself via tachyons. About 2 A4 pages of writing. At the time I thought it was amazingly insightful. 10 years later I actually know quantum mechanics, relativity and some cosmology and I see just how laughable my naivety was. Nothing I thought up was based on anything but guesses. No quantitative model, no way to test it, no derivations, no logical methods, no simple founding postulates. Nothing. And your 'model' about black holes, along with people like q_w or Kai or 99.9% of other cranks get any further than that, just plain arm waving. In the 50+ years since you've learnt nothing of any detail, just more pop science. Nothing which could pass review or even catch the attention of any physicists.
You whine about how string theory supposedly hasn't gone anywhere but its able to address every area of physics. It's the only quantum gravity framework we currently have. It naturally predicts gravity and GR. Despite it not currently including the standard model its provided and motivated new approaches and methods in condensed matter, confinement, gluon mediated processes, the Higgs mechanism, superconductivity. All of those are experimentally examined areas, string theory has made physicists think in new directions and those new directions have lead to new methods in preexisting experimentally justified areas of the Standard Model. That alone makes it worthwhile.
And since I have nothing to hide, I am willing to go into detail about any of those areas where string theory has prompted new Standard Model methods. Or I can discuss vacua constructions. Or the derivation of general relativity in string theory. Or its solution to the hierachy problem. Or it being unique via an M theory construction or string dualities. You mentioned those and when I said I know a bit about them you went quiet.
Irrespective of whether you engage me in discussion, the fact remains that string theory has more descriptive power of gravity (including black holes) than your work and has motived more results in experimentally tested theories than all the work done by internet hacks combined.
I'm saying that mainstream science does not speak of BH merges beyond localized galaxies. Ours, or any others.
No to both questions.
Which stance are you taking here? I read the material. Are you saying that this is evidence of mainstream science being on board with mergers outside of localized galaxy groups, or is this supposed evidence that they don't? One would assume from your related post below ( "Black holes have to be close to one another. If they aren't gravitationally bound or heading directly at one another then they will not ever collide. That doesn't mean people denounce the notion of black holes in general merging, only that those which merge are going to have to eventually get close to one another." ) that you claim black holes ... once 'fixed' on a path away from each other will never merge.
Clearly, from the link, the ejection is not likely to be permanent. 'Never' is an awful long time, isn't it? Won't gravity eventually bring them all together again? I mean ... since they CAN move around?
Again ... are we talking 'local' galaxies here? Or galaxy groups that are currently moving away from each other at ever increasing velocities? I don't think there is any mainstrean discussion of THOSE groups ever merging.
I'm sorry. Again we have a small problem. You are the one who stated that they evaporate. I have already posted reference material that calls this 'theory' extremely speculative. This does not jive with your claim 'great deal of experimental justification'. And to compare the solid evidence of EM, or TD with zero experimental evidence of black hole evaporation is ludicrous.
I didn't say quickly either. The 'evaporation lifetime' is based on pretty shaky evidence ... as in NONE. Feel free to derive any nonsensical numbers you wish to. Fact is ... we have no evidence they leak. Just because you can derive a formula doesn't mean it occurs in reality.
I am impressed with your ( presumed ) mathematical ability. However ... in science there is no safety in numbers. There is safety in 'truth'.
See above ...
I assumed incorrectly you knew what I was referring to. My bad for not being clearer.
Mainstream says local ( nearby, gravitationally bound ) galaxies, and their attendant black holes will merge. And even then they have attempted to set arbitrary upper limits to the mass of any black hole. In the last 10 years that number has ranged from 10B solar masses to 50B solar masses. They do not address black holes outside of local groups merging.
Yes. At first. But then that number climbs as the mass decreases. So since we now know black holes existed much sooner than previously thought, we should have some evidence of latter, and much more obvious leaks.
Go back and look at the construction of your sentence. 'According to' is divorced from your assertion that they evaporate.
A ridiculous assertion. You assume all black holes are in the beginning stage of evaporation. I think one in latter stages would be blinding radiologically. (edit) No. I have to give you this one. The 'latter' stage of evaporation is going to be quadrillions of times the life span of our universe. Hmmmm. Another 'unfalsifiable' prediction? Proving they leak now would prove little. A does not imply B. But maybe there are other ways to 'prove' they go through the process as described by Hawking.
Can't argue with that one. As I said before, I was not very precise in that characterization.
No, I can't. And why would my inability to do this have the slightest bearing on my model? When I said 'They merge', **sigh** I was referring to the black holes that science does NOT address. The ones that are currently moving away from each other.
Ever heard of the FUTURE? Lol. Your assumption that they will evaporate before they chase each other down just means you are incapable of winding the clock forward.
No. I did not. Read the sentence again. "Or maybe you think ..."
Prove is a strong word. There are many possible ways to infer, or imply, or suggest strongly that the universe is infinite, or finite. Your use of the word 'never' is at odds with current cosmology. My understanding is that the new telescopes in use today will help answer this question to a reasonable, and rational 'working model' ... which ever way it turns out.
I said 'if'. Hardly stated as a given. But yes ... it would be safe to assume that if the universe is indeed infinite w/o boundries, then if ours exists ... an infinite number just like it would, too. It would be impossible, and totally illogical to assume ours is the only one with the same properties.
I was being facetious. I think any one but you would have seen that.
Actually, I prefer Shakira over strawmen. Lol. I have only read a few of your attacks on others. You are not the nicest person I have met. My remarks were a generalization. Again, I think an objective reader would have seen that.
Que? Lol. If you prefaced your remarks with 'Purely mathematical constructs such as ...' you would not leave the average reader with the not-so-subtle implication that they are real.
Are you calling me a liar? That is what they said. And they had good reason to say it.
I'm sorry you were forced to do that. You'd think with all your mathematical abilities you would have caught the error yourself long before 3 months went by.
I am attempting to replace the current flawed description of the macro universe with a better description. You want some mathematical predictions that are at odds with GR, I guess. But my model fully complies with GR.
Yes, you certainly know science better than me. However, you are incorrect in the above statement. Insert the word 'could' after 'objects'.
Beat your dead horse as long as you like. It has failed to make any substantial progress in 40 years. My model has only been 'public' for ONE year. Have a little patience. I have 39 more years before you can claim parity.
And I never will. And I suspect you will never be a cosmologist.
This is a nonsensical question. I gave NASA an accurate description of the process. I said some of the distant stars would have solar systems 'on edge' to us, and that if they trained their telescopes on many, they would find the amount of light would decrease temporarily, and consistently over time.
Yep. That's what they were telling us. They didn't have computers then, let alone supercomputers to sift through gravitational wobbles, nor very powerful telescopes. I believe it was Lord Kelvin who stated many years ago that we had pretty much made all the important discoveries, and he was sad that the future was going to be devoid of interesting phenomenon.
Lol.
I try to read at just beyond my comprehensive abilities. This challenges me toward greater understanding, and familiarity with cosmological terminology.
You are being purposely obtuse. I clearly was not referring to you.
My apologies. I incorrectly assumed you had some knowledge of their theories.
Ya think?
W/E!
You use them as an argument against my model. Re-examine your statement here. How does this apply to strings?
Never said it was a 'plight'. Just a reality to be dealt with.
Did I say I just emailed physicists? I don't think so, but if that is your impression, it makes little sense. Why would I not send it to a wide range of affiliated scientific disciplines?
Maybe you are correct. Maybe my 3d body is a figment of my imagination. Am I sensing a contradiction here? Are you asserting 3d objects don't exist? If so, I guess it makes sense that you would consider the interaction between 2 mythical objects.
I use the Einstein version. Shame you think you know how purely mathematical constructs behave. Apparently to the exclusion of any other equally plausible mathematical constructs. How 'classic'. Lol.
I try very hard to keep opinions out of the equation. I just do my best to observe reality.
Last edited:
Lol. You are killing me!
Maybe I will get enough energy up to go over this ...
But just one question for now.
Is ST/SST/M-theory STILL unfalsifiable or not?
Seriously, your perseverence is quite admirable ...
PS:
I was 100% correct about the transit method. At age 6. NASA didn't figure it out for another 40 years.
Sorry your tachyon universe failed.
Please explain how the scientists at NASA ... not to mention the rest of the science community around the world ... couldn't grasp such a simple method for exoplanet discovery.
Good grief. Didn't any of them ever play with a flashlight?
(edit)
I must add here that I was highly motivated to get the hell off this planet at age 6. I had a lot of faith then in the inherent intelligence of scientists ... as opposed to those in the religious community. I bought in to the idea that I couldn't POSSIBLY know more than the smartest people in the world. I was SIX.
And you are too young to have lived in a world where religious leaders were firmly in control of our government ... so funding came down to a delicate balancing act for the scientists. In case you are unaware ... the Bible, and corresponding church dogma made it CLEAR that there were no other planets outside our solar system anyway.
Publicly bucking a 95% Christian country's attitude about our 'special' status was a dangerous move for anyone. Privately, Im sure the astrophysicists all thought that planets were everywhere.
For mainstream America? Strictly science fiction.
But after 4 years went by with no sign of progress in extra-solar planets .... and a lot of beatings for my heretical theories .... I got the courage up to write NASA.
The only mistake I made was giving up after one letter. Not an error I will ever repeat again.
I may not have the proper training to express my model in the accepted manner .... but it is a good model. It fits the real universe better than the standard one. It does NOT require anything but GR. And it does NOT conflict with known observations of black hole behaviors, or physics in general.
Does it explain everything? Of course not. But it's significantly better than any 'stringy' theory of how our universe functions on the large scale.
And it's falsifiable.
So nice that all those other mythical 22 dimensions just happen to have infinite energy surpluses ... ready to supply a UNIVERSE worth of energy just for US, and just when we need it.
And they will obediently keep those pesky branes from colliding again ( at least on a universal scale ) as long as we are hanging out.
Or at least they have for the last 13.7B years.
I was 100% correct about the transit method. At age 6. NASA didn't figure it out for another 40 years.
Sorry your tachyon universe failed.
Please explain how the scientists at NASA ... not to mention the rest of the science community around the world ... couldn't grasp such a simple method for exoplanet discovery.
Good grief. Didn't any of them ever play with a flashlight?
(edit)
I must add here that I was highly motivated to get the hell off this planet at age 6. I had a lot of faith then in the inherent intelligence of scientists ... as opposed to those in the religious community. I bought in to the idea that I couldn't POSSIBLY know more than the smartest people in the world. I was SIX.
And you are too young to have lived in a world where religious leaders were firmly in control of our government ... so funding came down to a delicate balancing act for the scientists. In case you are unaware ... the Bible, and corresponding church dogma made it CLEAR that there were no other planets outside our solar system anyway.
Publicly bucking a 95% Christian country's attitude about our 'special' status was a dangerous move for anyone. Privately, Im sure the astrophysicists all thought that planets were everywhere.
For mainstream America? Strictly science fiction.
But after 4 years went by with no sign of progress in extra-solar planets .... and a lot of beatings for my heretical theories .... I got the courage up to write NASA.
The only mistake I made was giving up after one letter. Not an error I will ever repeat again.
I may not have the proper training to express my model in the accepted manner .... but it is a good model. It fits the real universe better than the standard one. It does NOT require anything but GR. And it does NOT conflict with known observations of black hole behaviors, or physics in general.
Does it explain everything? Of course not. But it's significantly better than any 'stringy' theory of how our universe functions on the large scale.
And it's falsifiable.
So nice that all those other mythical 22 dimensions just happen to have infinite energy surpluses ... ready to supply a UNIVERSE worth of energy just for US, and just when we need it.
And they will obediently keep those pesky branes from colliding again ( at least on a universal scale ) as long as we are hanging out.
Or at least they have for the last 13.7B years.
Last edited:
Wow!! Please forgive me. I just now realized I misread your comment about 'going between solar systems'. It never occurred to me you wouldn't know about the transit method of exoplanetary discovery.
You thought I was talking about a way to 'travel to other solar systems' didn't you ....
Oh my. No. I don't think you are going to be a good cosmologist. Well ... all the better you work with stringy stuff .....
Just teasing.
You thought I was talking about a way to 'travel to other solar systems' didn't you ....
Oh my. No. I don't think you are going to be a good cosmologist. Well ... all the better you work with stringy stuff .....
Just teasing.
I'm 'killing you' by pointing out that unlike yourself I'm not intellectually lazy and actually evaluate work myself rather than have other people spoon feed me their opinions of it because I'm unable to understand it myself?
Where did I say I was or plan to be a cosmology. I said the small amount of cosmology I've done is more than enough to appear well read in relation to you. My work has touched on such things as inflation or the cosmological constant but I am not a cosmologist.
And, as I said, the fact remains I'm more successful and competent at physics and mathematics in my 26 short years than you in your 50+.
You really have no clue about research, do you? It isn't "Here is an equation, solve it", it is "Here is a problem, understand it, hypothesis a model, develop them model, work out its implications, compare with the original problem". Its rare you hit on the best hypothesis first time and its only down the line when you work through the details you find a problem. You see, unlike your work, I have to produce mathematically consistent and rigorous work, I can't just wave my arms and say "Black holes merge, I've explained them!".
I asked you to provide me with the method by which I could compute the trajectory of an infalling particle to a black hole. You didn't respond. String theory can do that for me.
And we're back to you making incorrect hyperbolic bias claims in order to justify your dislike of something you don't understand.
Provide me with the derivation of the method by which to compute the trajectory of an object which is falling into a spinning black hole. If you can't do this then how can you model black holes merging? If you can't answer this question your claims are worthless and all your whining about how your model 'complies' with GR is a flat out lie.
Oh stop. Please. Don't you have a sense of humor? I was just playing with you. Don't take things so seriously.
I'm not lazy. I work hard and have worked hard for everything I have. I'm just not a trained mathemetician. I did, however design my house ( from the foundation up ) 14 years ago which sits on a beautiful salt water inlet. I have 100 feet of beach. A hot yellow 2001 Corvette roadster ( 6M, convertible ) I ordered from the factory in 2000. Life could be much worse. Lol. Hard to feel like an abject failure when you live this comfortably.
Yes. You are no doubt good at what you do. I'm very pleased you have such a ( justifiably, I'm sure ) high opinion of yourself. Nothing wrong in being confident.
And you are wrong my friend. I did respond. In fact, I took the time to respond to pretty much everything you said. I said I couldn't do it ... and that it was not relevant to the model. Which is accurate on both counts. Other people can compute trajectories just fine. So it is not necessary for me to waste neurons on this task.
But we already know that 'black holes merge'. So what is the point of computing particle/object trajectories? What we DIDN'T know ... or don't know ... is that ALL black holes will merge to one.
Are you really so incapable of telling when someone is being facetious? Shall I point out the issues YOU didn't respond to? You won't even answer a simple, straightforward question .... like .... are strings still unfalsifiable?
I have already stated several times that the reasearch into strings is far from useless. My only point is ... you can't use them as an argument against my model. And I don't like or dislike strings. I just think they are not the answer. I have read a great deal about them ... on both sides of the argument. 40 years and no proof ( after the billions spent, and the best attempts by thousands of the brightest minds ) weighs very heavily. Einstein did GR in about 5 years ... essentially on a chalkboard by himself.
Anyway ... you miss the point. I'm not out to explain black holes. Other scientists are doing a fine job on this already.
I am stating the theory that black holes are central to the existence of our local universe. That our BB was a black hole that released it's energy. And it has already happened an infinite number of times ... and will go on for eternity.
This is the likeliest scenario. This is where the evidence we have currently points. Your 'statement of fact' that my model is 'worthless' because I can't model black holes merging is silly. It's already been done.
Galileo built upon the knowledge of others. So did Newton, and Einstein. And so am I. And none of the aforementioned people were immune from making serious mistakes. I make mistakes too. It doesn't change the fact that the model fits our information quite well.
You are certainly welcome to show me where my model FAILS to comply with GR. Nobody else has in the last year ... but maybe you know something they don't.
Try not to get so upset. It took me a very long time to arrive at this theory. I understand why you hate it. It doesn't require strings to function. I'm sorry. But you should have listened to Occham. The simplest solution is usually the right one.
You have been convinced that the answer is a tortured and complex one. Maybe on the planck scale it is. I don't think so ... but I could be wrong. Maybe it just took a very simple mind like mine to 'not know any better'. But I like to think the solution to the macro universe is as elegant as it gets.
At some point I will accept one of the offers I have received to mathematically describe my model. But it is not really necessary right now. The process is very easy to understand. Because it is SIMPLE.
I know that there are people who would love to disprove my model, They are welcome to try. If they accomplish it, I will be disappointed. But I will get over it, and I will have learned something valuable in the process.
I think the more likely scenario is that as more scientists begin to consider this model, they will work to prove it wrong ... or right. All good, don't you think?
If you were God ( lol ) and it was your opinion that my model was worthless ... I might consider abandoning it. But as long as people who are apparently equally qualified as you keep telling me it has merit, I will continue to promote it.
Wouldn't you?
I'm not lazy. I work hard and have worked hard for everything I have. I'm just not a trained mathemetician. I did, however design my house ( from the foundation up ) 14 years ago which sits on a beautiful salt water inlet. I have 100 feet of beach. A hot yellow 2001 Corvette roadster ( 6M, convertible ) I ordered from the factory in 2000. Life could be much worse. Lol. Hard to feel like an abject failure when you live this comfortably.
Yes. You are no doubt good at what you do. I'm very pleased you have such a ( justifiably, I'm sure ) high opinion of yourself. Nothing wrong in being confident.
And you are wrong my friend. I did respond. In fact, I took the time to respond to pretty much everything you said. I said I couldn't do it ... and that it was not relevant to the model. Which is accurate on both counts. Other people can compute trajectories just fine. So it is not necessary for me to waste neurons on this task.
But we already know that 'black holes merge'. So what is the point of computing particle/object trajectories? What we DIDN'T know ... or don't know ... is that ALL black holes will merge to one.
Are you really so incapable of telling when someone is being facetious? Shall I point out the issues YOU didn't respond to? You won't even answer a simple, straightforward question .... like .... are strings still unfalsifiable?
I have already stated several times that the reasearch into strings is far from useless. My only point is ... you can't use them as an argument against my model. And I don't like or dislike strings. I just think they are not the answer. I have read a great deal about them ... on both sides of the argument. 40 years and no proof ( after the billions spent, and the best attempts by thousands of the brightest minds ) weighs very heavily. Einstein did GR in about 5 years ... essentially on a chalkboard by himself.
Anyway ... you miss the point. I'm not out to explain black holes. Other scientists are doing a fine job on this already.
I am stating the theory that black holes are central to the existence of our local universe. That our BB was a black hole that released it's energy. And it has already happened an infinite number of times ... and will go on for eternity.
This is the likeliest scenario. This is where the evidence we have currently points. Your 'statement of fact' that my model is 'worthless' because I can't model black holes merging is silly. It's already been done.
Galileo built upon the knowledge of others. So did Newton, and Einstein. And so am I. And none of the aforementioned people were immune from making serious mistakes. I make mistakes too. It doesn't change the fact that the model fits our information quite well.
You are certainly welcome to show me where my model FAILS to comply with GR. Nobody else has in the last year ... but maybe you know something they don't.
Try not to get so upset. It took me a very long time to arrive at this theory. I understand why you hate it. It doesn't require strings to function. I'm sorry. But you should have listened to Occham. The simplest solution is usually the right one.
You have been convinced that the answer is a tortured and complex one. Maybe on the planck scale it is. I don't think so ... but I could be wrong. Maybe it just took a very simple mind like mine to 'not know any better'. But I like to think the solution to the macro universe is as elegant as it gets.
At some point I will accept one of the offers I have received to mathematically describe my model. But it is not really necessary right now. The process is very easy to understand. Because it is SIMPLE.
I know that there are people who would love to disprove my model, They are welcome to try. If they accomplish it, I will be disappointed. But I will get over it, and I will have learned something valuable in the process.
I think the more likely scenario is that as more scientists begin to consider this model, they will work to prove it wrong ... or right. All good, don't you think?
If you were God ( lol ) and it was your opinion that my model was worthless ... I might consider abandoning it. But as long as people who are apparently equally qualified as you keep telling me it has merit, I will continue to promote it.
Wouldn't you?
Last edited:
Ok. Well, it appears Alpha is unwilling to answer my direct question, so I will answer it for him.
But before I do, I want to say that I am envious of Alpha and all mathematicians, and physicists who have such a deep understanding of their respective disciplines. And I want to also acknowledge the many years of hard work they have put into 'perfecting' their craft. On the surface, my work appears stupidly primitive by comparison.
The reason I am so insistent is because I have been correct when the brilliant people were wrong. This is an inescapable reality.
In my view, we have strayed from the most critical aspect to scientific methodology ... the ability to falsify through experiment, or observation. The number of 'solutions' continues to mount, and they become more and more twisted and contorted with each generation.
The 'truly' elegant solution is the most simple one that describes the most observed phenomena correctly. ( to paraphrase Brian Greene )
I knew exactly how everyone would react to my model, since it essentially negates SST/M-theory ... and about 10^500 other dimensions. And yes, it would be easy to feel intimidated by the reams and reams of complex equations, sophisticated graphics, and voluminous written descriptions offered as explanations ( models ) by cosmologists, and physicists.
I think the only reason my model can stand up to the others is because it offers a reasonable solution ( albeit crudely expressed ) within the framework of accepted physics, past experiments, and known observations. The only questionable aspect to the model remains ... what is the mechanism to counter act the 'runaway' universe?
And of course my answer is simple. Gravity. Untethered, unanchored vacuum cleaners called black holes chasing down sufficient matter/energy to cause a triggered and arbitrary collapse of all remaining space containing matter/energy.
The time scales needed to do this are nearly incomprehensible. If my theory that black holes are not subject to the laws of 'normal space' is correct, then this process is much faster. But even if this is not correct, the universe would recycle over much shorter time periods than it would take for ANY BH to evaporate. Too, my universe offers perfect conservation of energy, and reasonable solutions to so many other questions.
And of course ... it is falsifiable.
I have highlighted parts of this Nova interview with Brian Greene, and inserted short commentary.
It is undated, and it is not the full interview. I will assume it is at least 5 years old. I have not found any other interviews that contain any substantial, or material changes to the following ...
Road to acceptance
NOVA: Is it an exciting time to be a string theorist?
Greene: It's an amazing time to be a string theorist. The last few years have witnessed a tremendous amount of progress, so much so that I think no one in their wildest dreams would have imagined that we'd have gotten as far as we have.
NOVA: Do you think string theory will ever be accepted as widely as, say, the theory of general relativity? What would it take for that to happen?
Greene: Well, the real reason why general relativity is widely accepted is because it made predictions that were borne out by experimental observations. The primary one that put general relativity on the map was its prediction of the bending of starlight by the sun, which in 1919 was confirmed by observation during a solar eclipse. That was the moment when general relativity emerged from the realm of theory and entered the realm of being a piece of reality as we know it.
For string theory to have the kind of acceptance of general relativity, it's got to do the same thing. It's got to make a prediction that is borne out by some experiment. And as yet, we haven't quite gotten to the stage where we can make definitive predictions which, if they're found, the theory was right, and if they're not found, the theory was wrong.
But we have gotten to the stage where we can make some rough predictions for things that might happen at the future accelerators that are now being built, in particular one in Geneva, Switzerland, called the Large Hadron Collider, which should be ready about 2007 or 2008. If some of the predictions that string theory says might happen are borne out through experiment at that accelerator, then I think it's quite possible that string theory would be as accepted as general relativity.
(py) I have not heard any news yet if the LHC has verified any of the 'rough' predictions made ...
NOVA: Can you give an example of a prediction that might be experimentally verified in coming years?
Greene: Sure. One of the strangest features of string theory is that it requires more than the three spatial dimensions that we see directly in the world around us. That sounds like science fiction, but it is an indisputable outcome of the mathematics of string theory.
(py) Yes, and that number is 10^500 if I am not incorrect ...
Greene continues: So the question is, where are these extra dimensions? One suggestion is that they're all around us, but they're small relative to the dimensions that we directly see and therefore are more difficult to detect.
What the theory also predicts—not necessarily but possibly—is that energy can escape from our known dimensions and leak into these extra dimensions under appropriate circumstances.
(py) And by the same token, energy could be flooding into our universe from one and all of those 10^500 dimensions. This does not appear to be the case.
Greene continues: Those appropriate circumstances might be generated in high-energy collisions that will take place at the new atom smasher, the Large Hadron Collider.
So it's possible that through these high-energy collisions we will find that there is less energy at the end of the collision than there was at the start. If the energy loss is of just the right sort, it could be very strong evidence that the energy has seeped off into these extra dimensions. If that were true, if that were the best explanation we could find, that would be strong evidence that the extra dimensions are real, and that in turn would be strong evidence that the framework of string theory is correct.
(py) Again this ignores the untenable logic ( unsupported ) that this process is a one-way phenomenon.
NOVA: What sort of experimental results that support string theory do you think would make even die-hard detractors like Sheldon Glashow stand up and take notice?
Greene: Well, one would be the one I just mentioned. The next, in fact, more likely experimental result in many people's minds to be found is something called supersymmetry. The full name of string theory is really superstring theory. The "super" stands for this feature called supersymmetry, which, without getting into any details, predicts that for every known particle in the world, there should be a partner particle, the so-called supersymmetric partner. So for the electron, there should be the supersymmetric partner electron, or the selectron, as people call it. For quarks, there should be supersymmetric quarks, or squarks. For neutrinos, sneutrinos, and so forth.
“I’ve spent something like 17 years working on a theory for which there is essentially no direct experimental support.”
So there's this whole spectrum of sparticles, if you will, that the theory predicts should exist, but as yet nobody has ever seen any one of these partner particles. We believe the reason is because they're much heavier than the known particles, and the heavier something is, the more energy, the more oomph it takes to produce it in a collision. We hope that these new atom smashers, the Large Hadron Collider in particular, will have enough energy to start producing these particles that the theory predicts.
Now, if those particles are found, it will not prove string theory correct. It will prove this supersymmetric aspect of the theory to be correct. And it turns out that string theory is not the only theory that allows for supersymmetry, so this isn't necessarily a smoking gun. But it would be a strong piece of circumstantial evidence that string theory is on the right track. So in many ways, I consider that to be the most likely experiment to have positive outcomes and to at least take us this particular distance down the path toward confirming string theory.
NOVA: Have you ever had doubts about string theory?
Greene: All the time! I mean, it is a very strange research career, in a way. So far I've spent something like 17 years working on a theory for which there is essentially no direct experimental support. It's a very precarious way to live and to work.
The funny thing is, I sometimes get the impression that some people outside of the field think that there's some element of security that we have in working on a theory that hasn't made any predictions that can be proven false. In a sense, we're working on something unfalsifiable. And there sometimes is a sense that we're happy about that. But let me state categorically, if the theory is wrong, I'd like to know it today so I wouldn't waste my time on it any longer.
We will have no certainty that it's right until the experiments show that it's right. However, I should say that in my mind there is a strong circumstantial case already that it's correct, because it puts together general relativity and quantum mechanics, and each of those theories has already received a fantastic amount of experimental support. String theory is the most developed theory with the capacity to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics in a consistent manner. I do believe the universe is consistent, and therefore I do believe that general relativity and quantum mechanics should be put together in a manner that makes sense. That's what string theory does, and to me, that's pretty convincing.
Limits to understanding
NOVA: Is there any way you can make people who know little about mathematics understand the supreme elegance of string theory?
Greene: I think so. You know, when we talk about theories of physics being elegant, what we often mean is that a theory is able to explain a wide range of phenomena using a very small number of powerful ideas. The elegance comes from the tremendous reach of these few simple ideas.
But before I do, I want to say that I am envious of Alpha and all mathematicians, and physicists who have such a deep understanding of their respective disciplines. And I want to also acknowledge the many years of hard work they have put into 'perfecting' their craft. On the surface, my work appears stupidly primitive by comparison.
The reason I am so insistent is because I have been correct when the brilliant people were wrong. This is an inescapable reality.
In my view, we have strayed from the most critical aspect to scientific methodology ... the ability to falsify through experiment, or observation. The number of 'solutions' continues to mount, and they become more and more twisted and contorted with each generation.
The 'truly' elegant solution is the most simple one that describes the most observed phenomena correctly. ( to paraphrase Brian Greene )
I knew exactly how everyone would react to my model, since it essentially negates SST/M-theory ... and about 10^500 other dimensions. And yes, it would be easy to feel intimidated by the reams and reams of complex equations, sophisticated graphics, and voluminous written descriptions offered as explanations ( models ) by cosmologists, and physicists.
I think the only reason my model can stand up to the others is because it offers a reasonable solution ( albeit crudely expressed ) within the framework of accepted physics, past experiments, and known observations. The only questionable aspect to the model remains ... what is the mechanism to counter act the 'runaway' universe?
And of course my answer is simple. Gravity. Untethered, unanchored vacuum cleaners called black holes chasing down sufficient matter/energy to cause a triggered and arbitrary collapse of all remaining space containing matter/energy.
The time scales needed to do this are nearly incomprehensible. If my theory that black holes are not subject to the laws of 'normal space' is correct, then this process is much faster. But even if this is not correct, the universe would recycle over much shorter time periods than it would take for ANY BH to evaporate. Too, my universe offers perfect conservation of energy, and reasonable solutions to so many other questions.
And of course ... it is falsifiable.
I have highlighted parts of this Nova interview with Brian Greene, and inserted short commentary.
It is undated, and it is not the full interview. I will assume it is at least 5 years old. I have not found any other interviews that contain any substantial, or material changes to the following ...
Road to acceptance
NOVA: Is it an exciting time to be a string theorist?
Greene: It's an amazing time to be a string theorist. The last few years have witnessed a tremendous amount of progress, so much so that I think no one in their wildest dreams would have imagined that we'd have gotten as far as we have.
NOVA: Do you think string theory will ever be accepted as widely as, say, the theory of general relativity? What would it take for that to happen?
Greene: Well, the real reason why general relativity is widely accepted is because it made predictions that were borne out by experimental observations. The primary one that put general relativity on the map was its prediction of the bending of starlight by the sun, which in 1919 was confirmed by observation during a solar eclipse. That was the moment when general relativity emerged from the realm of theory and entered the realm of being a piece of reality as we know it.
For string theory to have the kind of acceptance of general relativity, it's got to do the same thing. It's got to make a prediction that is borne out by some experiment. And as yet, we haven't quite gotten to the stage where we can make definitive predictions which, if they're found, the theory was right, and if they're not found, the theory was wrong.
But we have gotten to the stage where we can make some rough predictions for things that might happen at the future accelerators that are now being built, in particular one in Geneva, Switzerland, called the Large Hadron Collider, which should be ready about 2007 or 2008. If some of the predictions that string theory says might happen are borne out through experiment at that accelerator, then I think it's quite possible that string theory would be as accepted as general relativity.
(py) I have not heard any news yet if the LHC has verified any of the 'rough' predictions made ...
NOVA: Can you give an example of a prediction that might be experimentally verified in coming years?
Greene: Sure. One of the strangest features of string theory is that it requires more than the three spatial dimensions that we see directly in the world around us. That sounds like science fiction, but it is an indisputable outcome of the mathematics of string theory.
(py) Yes, and that number is 10^500 if I am not incorrect ...
Greene continues: So the question is, where are these extra dimensions? One suggestion is that they're all around us, but they're small relative to the dimensions that we directly see and therefore are more difficult to detect.
What the theory also predicts—not necessarily but possibly—is that energy can escape from our known dimensions and leak into these extra dimensions under appropriate circumstances.
(py) And by the same token, energy could be flooding into our universe from one and all of those 10^500 dimensions. This does not appear to be the case.
Greene continues: Those appropriate circumstances might be generated in high-energy collisions that will take place at the new atom smasher, the Large Hadron Collider.
So it's possible that through these high-energy collisions we will find that there is less energy at the end of the collision than there was at the start. If the energy loss is of just the right sort, it could be very strong evidence that the energy has seeped off into these extra dimensions. If that were true, if that were the best explanation we could find, that would be strong evidence that the extra dimensions are real, and that in turn would be strong evidence that the framework of string theory is correct.
(py) Again this ignores the untenable logic ( unsupported ) that this process is a one-way phenomenon.
NOVA: What sort of experimental results that support string theory do you think would make even die-hard detractors like Sheldon Glashow stand up and take notice?
Greene: Well, one would be the one I just mentioned. The next, in fact, more likely experimental result in many people's minds to be found is something called supersymmetry. The full name of string theory is really superstring theory. The "super" stands for this feature called supersymmetry, which, without getting into any details, predicts that for every known particle in the world, there should be a partner particle, the so-called supersymmetric partner. So for the electron, there should be the supersymmetric partner electron, or the selectron, as people call it. For quarks, there should be supersymmetric quarks, or squarks. For neutrinos, sneutrinos, and so forth.
“I’ve spent something like 17 years working on a theory for which there is essentially no direct experimental support.”
So there's this whole spectrum of sparticles, if you will, that the theory predicts should exist, but as yet nobody has ever seen any one of these partner particles. We believe the reason is because they're much heavier than the known particles, and the heavier something is, the more energy, the more oomph it takes to produce it in a collision. We hope that these new atom smashers, the Large Hadron Collider in particular, will have enough energy to start producing these particles that the theory predicts.
Now, if those particles are found, it will not prove string theory correct. It will prove this supersymmetric aspect of the theory to be correct. And it turns out that string theory is not the only theory that allows for supersymmetry, so this isn't necessarily a smoking gun. But it would be a strong piece of circumstantial evidence that string theory is on the right track. So in many ways, I consider that to be the most likely experiment to have positive outcomes and to at least take us this particular distance down the path toward confirming string theory.
NOVA: Have you ever had doubts about string theory?
Greene: All the time! I mean, it is a very strange research career, in a way. So far I've spent something like 17 years working on a theory for which there is essentially no direct experimental support. It's a very precarious way to live and to work.
The funny thing is, I sometimes get the impression that some people outside of the field think that there's some element of security that we have in working on a theory that hasn't made any predictions that can be proven false. In a sense, we're working on something unfalsifiable. And there sometimes is a sense that we're happy about that. But let me state categorically, if the theory is wrong, I'd like to know it today so I wouldn't waste my time on it any longer.
We will have no certainty that it's right until the experiments show that it's right. However, I should say that in my mind there is a strong circumstantial case already that it's correct, because it puts together general relativity and quantum mechanics, and each of those theories has already received a fantastic amount of experimental support. String theory is the most developed theory with the capacity to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics in a consistent manner. I do believe the universe is consistent, and therefore I do believe that general relativity and quantum mechanics should be put together in a manner that makes sense. That's what string theory does, and to me, that's pretty convincing.
Limits to understanding
NOVA: Is there any way you can make people who know little about mathematics understand the supreme elegance of string theory?
Greene: I think so. You know, when we talk about theories of physics being elegant, what we often mean is that a theory is able to explain a wide range of phenomena using a very small number of powerful ideas. The elegance comes from the tremendous reach of these few simple ideas.
Last edited:
I noticed on another thread that spidergoat wanted to know why the sky was black at night if the universe is infinite.
I don't know if he thinks the universe is finite, or infinite, but I am going to answer it anyway.
This answer is based on the laws of physics. GR. And everything we know about space to date.
Which means we exclude strings. At least for the moment ... ok? And any other untested, or unproven hypothesis.
Space is uniform. It seems even Einstein could not see the obvious implications. It is the same EVERYWHERE. Infinitely everywhere. Unless it is disturbed by matter/energy.
There is no evidence to contradict this assertion. We have no evidence that space 'ends' with our expanding bubble of matter/energy. We have no evidence that space was 'created' along with, or for our expanding bubble of matter/energy.
Yet we have somehow come to the illogical conclusion ( and held on tight ) that the preceding belief that space does not exist beyond our borders is a good 'working theory'.
Comes from being 'special' I guess. And since we can't actually SEE beyond our borders, we can safely ( we think ) use 'pure' scientific methodology as our 'rationale' for such a stance.
This could not be a more hypocritical position to take, as scientific methodology was abandoned 40 years ago with the advent of ST. It looked sooooo promising that we just went ahead and exempted this 'theory'.
Our universe exists in the medium of space, with all it's inherent laws, and properties. Why would anyone think a finite universe existing somewhere ELSE in space would not be subject to exactly the same laws, and properties? Because it's POSSIBLE? Ok. Under the 'anything is possible in infinity' mindset, our night sky would be about as bright as daytime. Or worse.
Because there is no rational reason why we would not be bombarded constantly by photons from all directions .... unless INFINITE space began right about the same time as our local/finite universe. Or even more absurdly, there ARE NO OTHER finite universes in the infinite universe.
Which means God did it. We must also exclude God though, for there is no evidence of any kind that such an entity exists ... other than totally unsupported hearsay.
So where does this leave us? One reasonable, and rational alternative.
Each local/finite universe that exists through out infinity MUST be a completely closed loop. If a single photon can escape fron just ONE universe, then there will be an infinite number of universes leaking photons. Over eternity, the night sky ... anywhere in infinity, at any location you could choose, would be, at the least, blindingly bright.
This would violate the conservation of energy principle. This would also require that space has an ever increasing resevoir of energy being constantly created.
And to take this logic just one step further ...
If the above WAS possible, the sky would be way more than just 'bright'. We would not exist at all, as the build up of radiation over eternity would mean that ANY location in infinity would be hotter than the core of a star.
Infinitely hotter. This little fact makes the possibility of 'stealing' energy from 10^500 dimensions ZERO.
So again ... it is far past time we just look at what is in front of us, and accept it as a 'working model'.
1. Space is infinite.
2. There are no dimensions beyond what we know.
3. Space is MADE of energy, in very low density per cubic meter, and is generally homogeneous, and isotropic.
4. Our finite universe is simply converted energy from space.
5. It requires a great deal of 'real estate' to create a universe like ours, so there will be enormous 'voids' between universes.
6. Each finite universe operates exactly the same way as ours, with exactly the same physics.
7. Each universe must be a closed loop.
8. Each universe is born, lives, and dies exactly as ours does.
9. Each universe contains exactly the same amount of mass as ours as it would require the exact same mass for a BB to occur.
10. Each universe operates in linear time ... always going forward as any other possibility would require magic, or divine intervention.
11. And lastly, we need to understand once and for all ... the universe ( ours, or any other ) will not conform to our 'infinite possibilities' mathematics.
We are never going to change these laws. Space IS.
Get over it.
I don't know if he thinks the universe is finite, or infinite, but I am going to answer it anyway.
This answer is based on the laws of physics. GR. And everything we know about space to date.
Which means we exclude strings. At least for the moment ... ok? And any other untested, or unproven hypothesis.
Space is uniform. It seems even Einstein could not see the obvious implications. It is the same EVERYWHERE. Infinitely everywhere. Unless it is disturbed by matter/energy.
There is no evidence to contradict this assertion. We have no evidence that space 'ends' with our expanding bubble of matter/energy. We have no evidence that space was 'created' along with, or for our expanding bubble of matter/energy.
Yet we have somehow come to the illogical conclusion ( and held on tight ) that the preceding belief that space does not exist beyond our borders is a good 'working theory'.
Comes from being 'special' I guess. And since we can't actually SEE beyond our borders, we can safely ( we think ) use 'pure' scientific methodology as our 'rationale' for such a stance.
This could not be a more hypocritical position to take, as scientific methodology was abandoned 40 years ago with the advent of ST. It looked sooooo promising that we just went ahead and exempted this 'theory'.
Our universe exists in the medium of space, with all it's inherent laws, and properties. Why would anyone think a finite universe existing somewhere ELSE in space would not be subject to exactly the same laws, and properties? Because it's POSSIBLE? Ok. Under the 'anything is possible in infinity' mindset, our night sky would be about as bright as daytime. Or worse.
Because there is no rational reason why we would not be bombarded constantly by photons from all directions .... unless INFINITE space began right about the same time as our local/finite universe. Or even more absurdly, there ARE NO OTHER finite universes in the infinite universe.
Which means God did it. We must also exclude God though, for there is no evidence of any kind that such an entity exists ... other than totally unsupported hearsay.
So where does this leave us? One reasonable, and rational alternative.
Each local/finite universe that exists through out infinity MUST be a completely closed loop. If a single photon can escape fron just ONE universe, then there will be an infinite number of universes leaking photons. Over eternity, the night sky ... anywhere in infinity, at any location you could choose, would be, at the least, blindingly bright.
This would violate the conservation of energy principle. This would also require that space has an ever increasing resevoir of energy being constantly created.
And to take this logic just one step further ...
If the above WAS possible, the sky would be way more than just 'bright'. We would not exist at all, as the build up of radiation over eternity would mean that ANY location in infinity would be hotter than the core of a star.
Infinitely hotter. This little fact makes the possibility of 'stealing' energy from 10^500 dimensions ZERO.
So again ... it is far past time we just look at what is in front of us, and accept it as a 'working model'.
1. Space is infinite.
2. There are no dimensions beyond what we know.
3. Space is MADE of energy, in very low density per cubic meter, and is generally homogeneous, and isotropic.
4. Our finite universe is simply converted energy from space.
5. It requires a great deal of 'real estate' to create a universe like ours, so there will be enormous 'voids' between universes.
6. Each finite universe operates exactly the same way as ours, with exactly the same physics.
7. Each universe must be a closed loop.
8. Each universe is born, lives, and dies exactly as ours does.
9. Each universe contains exactly the same amount of mass as ours as it would require the exact same mass for a BB to occur.
10. Each universe operates in linear time ... always going forward as any other possibility would require magic, or divine intervention.
11. And lastly, we need to understand once and for all ... the universe ( ours, or any other ) will not conform to our 'infinite possibilities' mathematics.
We are never going to change these laws. Space IS.
Get over it.
Last edited:
To anyone who may think I ignored quantum's earlier comments ... I am currently working on an improved version of the model.
My goal is to restate it in a manner that eliminates confusion, while maintaining it's inherent simplicity.
I greatly appreciate any and all input, and 'q' has already pointed out ( publicly and privately ) several ways in which to improve the manner in which I have presented it.
Fighting popular ideas is a difficult, if not masochistic endeavor. On the other hand, there is a deep satisfaction that comes with swaying minds.
I feel at times as if I am a one-man army taking on the world, and it remains to be seen if I will be successful or not ... but I can not imagine a more potentially rewarding challenge.
My goal is to restate it in a manner that eliminates confusion, while maintaining it's inherent simplicity.
I greatly appreciate any and all input, and 'q' has already pointed out ( publicly and privately ) several ways in which to improve the manner in which I have presented it.
Fighting popular ideas is a difficult, if not masochistic endeavor. On the other hand, there is a deep satisfaction that comes with swaying minds.
I feel at times as if I am a one-man army taking on the world, and it remains to be seen if I will be successful or not ... but I can not imagine a more potentially rewarding challenge.