Cosmological Model of The Universe

[pywakit]

So getting to the heart of one of your objections, do you have evidence that all matter released in the big bang is not in gravitational communication?

In other words, have you finally solved the mysteries of gravitation, and can assure me that if gravity was already propogating at c prior to the big bang (because there was a rather large black hole there) that those gravitational bonds could be broken by expansion, at any velocity?

Further, can you provide any evidence that the interiors of black holes obey any laws we don't already know? Or that even if they did, this would alter their interaction with the universe?

I do not really care what form the matter has taken in the black hole. Whatever form it has taken does not seem to have the slightest bearing on matter outside the event horizon. They have gravity, and they have mass.

Obviously, there is no measurable loss of mass.

There is however, plenty of evidence that they have no apparent limit to the size they can grow. They may kick a small percentage of their mass away from them while feeding, but it is entirely possible that once they reach a certain mass/gravity, even those jets or 'kicked' particles we observe (or theorize) with the billions of solar mass black holes can no longer escape.

Is the gravitational field of a quadrillion sun black hole essentially the same as a billion sun black hole? Are we only changing the radius of the event horizon and ergosphere?

Can we be assured that black holes won't eventually have sufficient gravity to prevent any loss at all? At least (hypothetically) until it reaches the point where surface area, spin and centrifugal force combine to produce a nearly instantaneous and 'catastrophic' loss?

 

[420Joey]

Vote = Pywakit
I enjoyed reading this thread

A) I learned alot annd I clearly see pywakit shitting on others

ALot of respect to alpha onlyme and others though

 

[AlexG]

Vote = Pywakit
I enjoyed reading this thread

A) I learned alot annd I clearly see pywakit shitting on others

ALot of respect to alpha onlyme and others though

Since you have no knowledge of the subject, your 'vote' is meaningless.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

A) I learned alot annd I clearly see pywakit shitting on others

ALot of respect to alpha onlyme and others though

Well done on adding to the stereotype that people with '420' in their name are generally not the most up to speed when it comes to sound rational science.

 

[pywakit]

I was just reviewing the status of strings, supersymmetry, M-theory, etc. on this site.

http://superstringtheory.com/experm/exper4a3.html

Based on this information, I was generally correct in my assessments.

Not that the problems directly support my theory, of course.

Regardless, the site provides a good overview for someone with my limited intelligence.

How to test supersymmetry

One experimental and theoretical result that is very encouraging evidence for supersymmetry is the high energy behavior of three Standard Model coupling constants (two electroweak and one strong). As stated on a previous page, the search for a Grand Unified Theory with all Standard Model fields gathered into representations of one big Lie group was encouraged by projections that the three Standard Model coupling constants meet at a single value at some energy scale M = MGUT.

However, when quantum corrections are included, this agreement does not occur precisely at a single value. The three coupling constants come much closer to a single value when the model in which they are being calculated is the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model.

So supersymmetry suggests unification, and unification suggests supersymmetry.

None of this is proof, but it adds a lot of excitement to the search for proof.

One thing that a supersymmetric theory should NOT do is violate any of the observed conservation laws of particle interactions. One important observed conservation law that is easily violated by unified theories and supersymmetric theories is the conservation of baryon number.

The proton is the lightest baryon and hence, if baryon number is conserved, the proton should be extremely stable. The observed lifetime of the proton is currently measured to be (5.5 X 10^32) years.

I was stunned to find that we had proof of proton decay, which (correct me if I am wrong) I believe is critical to any stringy theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay

In particle physics, proton decay is a hypothetical form of radioactive decay in which the proton decays into lighter subatomic particles, such as a neutral pion and a positron. There is currently no experimental evidence that proton decay occurs.

Experimental evidence

Proton decay is one of the few observable effects of the various proposed GUTs, the other major one being magnetic monopoles. Both became the focus of major experimental physics efforts starting in the early 1980s.

Proton decay was, for a time, an extremely exciting area of experimental physics research. To date, all attempts to observe these events have failed. Recent experiments at the Super-Kamiokande water Cherenkov radiation detector in Japan gave lower limits for proton half-life, at 90% confidence level, of 6.6×10^33 years via antimuon decay and 8.2×10^33 years via positron decay.[2] Newer, preliminary results estimate a half-life of no less than 1.01×10^34 years via positron decay.[3

How odd. Now why would a site dedicated to strings make such an error? Or have we made a new discovery since the Japanese team came up with these numbers?

Of course, there are a plethora of other problems with strings, and the theories derived from strings, many listed on this site, and other increasingly problematic issues which I mentioned a few posts ago.

The section on Supersymmetry goes on to say this:

Grand unified theories (GUT for short) have gauge bosons that can mediate interactions that change quarks into leptons and hence allow the proton to decay by various interactions including where a proton, with baryon number 1, decays into a positron, which is a lepton and has baryon number 0, and a neutral pion, which is made of a quark and an antiquark and has baryon number 0. There are three quarks on the left hand side of the equation and two quarks and a lepton on the right hand side. If baryon number is not conserved, then the stable proton becomes unstable. The estimate for the proton lifetime in a GUT without supersymmetry is 10^28+/-2 years.

So this is bad for unification.

Maybe I just don't understand it well enough.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I was just reviewing the status of strings, supersymmetry, M-theory, etc. on this site.

http://superstringtheory.com/experm/exper4a3.html

Yes, why read papers when you can read pop science!

Of course if papers go over your head then.....

I was stunned to find that we had proof of proton decay, which (correct me if I am wrong) I believe is critical to any stringy theory.

And you say this because?

And I don't for a second think you understand some of the stuff you quote like the bit on Lie groups.

How odd. Now why would a site dedicated to strings make such an error? Or have we made a new discovery since the Japanese team came up with these numbers?

How is anything they said an error? They have a lower bound on proton stability which excluded SU(5) GUT models.

Of course, there are a plethora of other problems with strings, and the theories derived from strings, many listed on this site, and other increasingly problematic issues which I mentioned a few posts ago.

You're simply trying to peddle your preconceptions and presuppositions. The proton decay time excluded particular GUT models, nothing to do with string theory. GUT models aren't necessarily derived from string theory, they predict it. Yes, you can use string theory to construct certain GUTs but killing a particular GUT doesn't kill string theory or GUTs in general.

Rather than starting with your conclusion and desperately trying to find something you can call 'evidence' for said conclusion why not actually learn about the subject?

And besides, knocking over string theory doesn't make your work any more valid. I've been over this, is there something you didn't understand?

So this is bad for unification.[/I]

The lifetime depends upon the particular GUT being considered. SU(5) models were excluded by proton decay, SO(10) ones were not. Some people consider more exotic ones involving discrete groups or exceptional Lie groups.

Rather than getting your information from pop science books try getting it from the literature. When you use pop science only you miss the nuances and specifics because you're relying on someone boiling down thousands of man years of research in material which most people can't even grasp (no matter how much time they are given) into a paragraph or two. Making sweeping generalisations or statements based on that tiny crumb of information is frankly stupid.

Maybe I just don't understand it well enough.

Yes, I consider you to be one of the afore mentioned people, who couldn't grasp this stuff even if you were given the rest of your life. Of course you're welcome to prove me wrong by learning something about the details of string or M theory and demonstrating it. The moderator BenTheMan did his PhD in GUT models within string theory, I'm sure he'd be happy to discuss such things with you. I myself did some work on symmetry breaking in gauge theories within string theory. I can recommend a few papers, though I'm sure you'll not bother to read them.

By the way, when you manage to find the page on that journal website which clearly states they refuse to review anything by anyone who doesn't have an academic position let me know.

 

[pywakit]

Vote = Pywakit
I enjoyed reading this thread

A) I learned alot annd I clearly see pywakit shitting on others

ALot of respect to alpha onlyme and others though

Lol. Not really sure how to respond to your comments.

But thank you for the vote. I am pleased it has been entertaining and at least somewhat informative.

 

[OnlyMe]

Yes, why read papers when you can read pop science!

Of course if papers go over your head then.....

I took a look earlier at the linked site and at first glance had the same reaction. However, the author, Patricia Schwarz does reference a Caltech PhD in physics and her thesis advisor Renata Kallosh is listed On the Stanford site and does appear to be involved in related research. Still the link to Patricia's thesis delivered a page not found and there were no citations of other published papers... No dates were given, but from the picture she appears to have a more recent academic background than mine (late 60's). I did not study the site, but from a glance it appeared to be an attempt to dummy down a more technical explanation.

Schwarz seems to have sufficient background to speak on the issues involved, but probably lacks the research experience to publish. Someone actively engaged would probably be a better source.

the proton decay issue should still be considered a hypotheses, as there has been no supporting observation, so far.

Disclaimers: I am not fond of string theory. Never trained in it.

 

[pywakit]

Yes, why read papers when you can read pop science!

Of course if papers go over your head then.....

I read papers. Much goes over my head. I rely heavily on abstracts, conclusions and summaries.

And you say this because?

Because my limited understanding of strings, supersymmetry and string-based cosmological models led me to believe proton decay is a requirement.

And I don't for a second think you understand some of the stuff you quote like the bit on Lie groups.

I did not claim to understand it. That is your flawed assumption.

How is anything they said an error? They have a lower bound on proton stability which excluded SU(5) GUT models.

The underlying claim is that protons will eventually decay. Has this ever been confirmed?

You're simply trying to peddle your preconceptions and presuppositions. The proton decay time excluded particular GUT models, nothing to do with string theory.

Ok. Thanks for correcting me on that. And for your commentary.

GUT models aren't necessarily derived from string theory, they predict it. Yes, you can use string theory to construct certain GUTs but killing a particular GUT doesn't kill string theory or GUTs in general.

I don't think I have ever suggested or even implied string theory is 'dead'.

Rather than starting with your conclusion and desperately trying to find something you can call 'evidence' for said conclusion why not actually learn about the subject?

We must have differing definitions of desperation. I have derived my hypotheses from observing the universe as it is. I continue to improve my knowledge, albeit slowly.

And besides, knocking over string theory doesn't make your work any more valid. I've been over this, is there something you didn't understand?

"Not that the problems (with strings) directly support my theory, of course."

The lifetime depends upon the particular GUT being considered. SU(5) models were excluded by proton decay, SO(10) ones were not. Some people consider more exotic ones involving discrete groups or exceptional Lie groups.

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Paper/12556957

SO(10) Cosmic Strings and SU(3)color Cheshire Charge (Citations: 1)
Martin Bucher, Alfred S. Goldhaber

Certain cosmic strings that occur in GUT models such as SO(10) can carry a magnetic flux which acts nontrivially on objects carrying SU(3)color quantum numbers. We show that such strings are non-Abelian Alice strings carrying nonlocalizable colored "Cheshire" charge. We examine claims made in the literature that SO(10) strings can have a long-range, topological Aharonov-Bohm interaction that turns quarks into leptons, and observe that such a process is impossible. We also discuss flux-flux scattering using a multi-sheeted formalism.

Not that I have a clue what they mean. Lol. But I do comprehend the word 'impossible'. Perhaps this is not relevant to your statement.

Rather than getting your information from pop science books try getting it from the literature.

I get some of it from literature, but (again) most is over my head, so I must rely on the summaries.

When you use pop science only you miss the nuances and specifics because you're relying on someone boiling down thousands of man years of research in material which most people can't even grasp (no matter how much time they are given) into a paragraph or two.

Of course I rely on expert summaries. That said, I do not merely accept those statements as fact without spending some time looking for contradictions and/or criticisms. Since I do not rely entirely on pop science (I was being facetious, but apparently you missed that nuance) your comments are irrelevant.

Making sweeping generalisations or statements based on that tiny crumb of information is frankly stupid.

Flawed assumption.

Yes, I consider you to be one of the afore mentioned people, who couldn't grasp this stuff even if you were given the rest of your life.

You are probably correct, unless science can extend my life a few hundred years. Lol. However, as I am only attempting to model the universe on the very large scale based on astronomical observations, and relying on the accuracy of physical laws relevant to those processes, and not seeking a GUT, I don't think grasping the nuances of the sub-Planck universe is critical. I could be wrong, of course.

Of course you're welcome to prove me wrong by learning something about the details of string or M theory and demonstrating it.

I have read an awful lot about it. There is clearly much I will never understand. But I do understand that it is still (contrary to your claims) considered unfalsifiable.

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/ex...over-interview-man-who-plucks-all-the-strings

Brian Greene says string theory is still scientific even if it's not falsifiable.

March 9, 2010

What is the current status of string theory research?

We have a range of possibilities for the shape of the extra dimensions. We have, in fact, catalogs of shapes. Literally, I could write out a book and turn page by page and show you different shapes for the extra dimensions that people have mathematically determined as being possible. The problem is we don’t know which page is the right one, and the number of pages has grown fantastically in the last few years. There are on the order of at least 10^500 different pages now [a number that dwarfs the number of particles in the universe], and when you’re faced with a book of that many pages, some people throw up their hands in disgust. Others say that maybe all those shapes are out there in different universes. That’s the most recent and controversial approach that people have been following.

Critics of string theory have called it unscientific because it is not falsifiable. How can we evaluate string theory?

Falsifiability for a theory is great, but a theory can still be respectable even if it is not falsifiable, as long as it is verifiable. There are aspects of a theory that you can go out and look for and confirm, and that’s another way to gain confidence in it. For instance, it’s really hard to falsify the statement that there is life on another planet, but you can verify it by finding one example. We’re hoping that certain features of string theory are confirmable.

What kind of things are you looking for?

At the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, there are features of string theory that may result in data that have no other natural explanation. For instance, string theory suggests that there should be a class of particles called supersymmetric particles [that every particle should have a partner particle], and we’ve never seen them before. If we see them, it won’t prove string theory right, but it would be a strong piece of circumstantial evidence, because their most natural home is in string theory. There’s also a long-shot chance that scientists will find evidence for extra dimensions at the LHC. String theory is not the only theory that can accommodate extra dimensions, but it certainly is the one that really demands and requires it.

How are physicists trying to find extra dimensions?

When two protons collide, as they will be doing quite frequently in the LHC, some of the debris created from the collision might be ejected out of our familiar dimensions and crammed into the others. We could notice that by detecting missing energy in our dimensions. The energy would seemingly disappear, but in reality it would just go to a place that our detectors don’t have direct access to.

Maybe, but even if other dimensions are found (or we detect missing energy) that still doesn't confirm strings, as he just stated above.

Not that it really matters, but any energy gone 'missing' yet?

The moderator BenTheMan did his PhD in GUT models within string theory, I'm sure he'd be happy to discuss such things with you. I myself did some work on symmetry breaking in gauge theories within string theory. I can recommend a few papers, though I'm sure you'll not bother to read them.

As I have stated before, including in my update (post #111), the existence of strings, to my knowledge, does not in itself conflict with my model. Some theories built upon strings do conflict with my model. The Ekpyrotic Model, for instance.

But it should be rather apparent after 13.7 billion years, that no matter what is happening in the quantum universe, the end result is laws generally agreed to be universal throughout the Hubble volume.

My model is just an attempt to extrapolate from the known laws and observations.

You may provide links to the papers if you wish, but if they are as technical as this ... http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.3216v1.pdf ... from Witten, don't bother.

By the way, when you manage to find the page on that journal website which clearly states they refuse to review anything by anyone who doesn't have an academic position let me know.

It was my understanding when I first looked into it. I will accept what you say is true. But it is a non-issue now. I won't be trying to publish in professional academic science journals.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I read papers. Much goes over my head. I rely heavily on abstracts, conclusions and summaries.

Then don't delude yourself you have anything more than a pop science level understanding.

Because my limited understanding of strings, supersymmetry and string-based cosmological models led me to believe proton decay is a requirement.

What did you base this on? What material did you read which lead you to this conclusion?

I did not claim to understand it. That is your flawed assumption.

And yet you have no problems making assertions about it and how string theory is flawed because of it.

If you don't understand something then don't make broad assertions and claims about it.

The underlying claim is that protons will eventually decay. Has this ever been confirmed?

We have lower bounds on it, not a particular value no.

I don't think I have ever suggested or even implied string theory is 'dead'.

Just massively flawed, non-falsifiable and a bit of a waste of time?

Certain cosmic strings that occur in GUT models such as SO(10) can carry a magnetic flux which acts nontrivially on objects carrying SU(3)color quantum numbers. We show that such strings are non-Abelian Alice strings carrying nonlocalizable colored "Cheshire" charge. We examine claims made in the literature that SO(10) strings can have a long-range, topological Aharonov-Bohm interaction that turns quarks into leptons, and observe that such a process is impossible. We also discuss flux-flux scattering using a multi-sheeted formalism.

Not that I have a clue what they mean. Lol. But I do comprehend the word 'impossible'. Perhaps this is not relevant to your statement.

No, it isn't. Firstly the mechanism described is not the only mechanism by which baryon-lepton conversions can occur in GUT models. The conversions in SU(5) are done via gauge bosons and SO(10) models have similar gauge bosons but which interact differently. The mechanism described is a different mechanism. Secondly if zero conversion can occur then it means the proton is stable (if that were the only conversion method). The reason SU(5) was excluded was because it said the conversion happened so 'fast' that our observations contradicted it. Having no conversion is the opposite.

I get some of it from literature, but (again) most is over my head, so I must rely on the summaries.

Rather than hitting Google for buzzwords I suggest you start with a basic 1st year physics textbook and work your way up. Sure, it'll take years to even get anywhere close to stuff like quantum field theory and GUTs but it'll be more fruitful and more intellectually fulfilling than using Google as a crutch and having no actual understanding.

Some cranks here have been passing off Googled work as 'knowledge' for years, because its 'cooler' to talk about strings and branes and topological defects than boring old vectors and calculus. But because they haven't bothered to learn the basics they can't understand the advanced stuff and they just waste their time. If some of them had started with a 1st year book when they joined these forums they might be up to masters level work by now. But instead they still can't do calculus or basic vectors or linear algebra. Compare that to people like myself, BenTheMan, Prometheus and a few others. We've got doctorates in the time we've been members here (and/or other physics forums).

That said, I do not merely accept those statements as fact without spending some time looking for contradictions and/or criticisms

But since you don't understand the work you must take other people's word for it when it comes to contradictions and/or criticisms, as you can't see them yourself. I could post a page of work right now, inserting a deliberate mistake and you wouldn't be able to tell where it is.

ince I do not rely entirely on pop science (I was being facetious, but apparently you missed that nuance) your comments are irrelevant.

Let's be clear here. To what level of physics knowledge/education are you claiming to have a working understanding of? High school? 1st year undergrad? 3rd year? Masters? Doctorate? Beyond?

Flawed assumption.

When you demonstrate a learned point of view I'll admit I was mistaken about my assessment of your understanding. Until then....

I have read an awful lot about it. There is clearly much I will never understand. But I do understand that it is still (contrary to your claims) considered unfalsifiable.

And we're back to the pop science summaries spoon fed to you.#

Maybe, but even if other dimensions are found (or we detect missing energy) that still doesn't confirm strings, as he just stated above.

Where did I say it did?

Not that it really matters, but any energy gone 'missing' yet?

In regards to supersymmetry? No. In regards to neutrinos, which were predicted on the basis of missing energy and momentum? Yes.

My model is just an attempt to extrapolate from the known laws and observations.

And the 'extrapolation' is done by you just making up any conclusion you want. That isn't science.

It was my understanding when I first looked into it. I will accept what you say is true. But it is a non-issue now. I won't be trying to publish in professional academic science journals.

Now that you haven't got that excuse as to the failure of your work to get anywhere you're suddenly deciding not to try. Are you going to stop spamming physicist email addresses too? Or do you still want to get your work to their attention but you don't want to do it through legitimate proper channels?

 

[pywakit]

Replies in blue

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
I read papers. Much goes over my head. I rely heavily on abstracts, conclusions and summaries. ”

Then don't delude yourself you have anything more than a pop science level understanding.

I have stated repeatedly that I am not a mathematician, nor physicist. I understand your position. It is your belief that since I lack those skills, I am precluded from observing the universe and drawing any meaningful conclusions from those observations.

I look at it differently. I am lucky enough to live at a critical moment in time. Technology gives me instant access to the world's accummulated knowledge.

Although I have almost no technical knowledge of physics, I can reliably trust that the established laws are correct and that the observable universe conforms to those laws.

Because of recent advances in detection, we now have an unprecedented view of the cosmos. One that is improving exponentially. Because science has become so compartmentalized, and requires so many years just to study one small aspect of physics, or astronomy, most scientists are somewhat ignorant of the latest relevant developments. It's hard to look at the bigger picture when you are unaware of it.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Because my limited understanding of strings, supersymmetry and string-based cosmological models led me to believe proton decay is a requirement. ”

What did you base this on? What material did you read which lead you to this conclusion?

I based it on numerous 'pop' science articles, scientific papers, and science documentaries describing the various theories pertaining to the ultimate fate of our observable universe.

Per the Standard Model with Inflation, 'the' universe is a one shot deal. One way or another, the universe just fades to nothing and that is the end of it. This requires all matter to decay completely, does it not?

In the Frampton cyclical model (Chapal Hill), for another example, he (and Baum) describes a universe where in the distant future, matter decays to nothing, and at that exact moment, from this 'empty packet' of space, an entire new universe springs forth. In his hypothetical view, every empty packet is the genesis of a new universe. Key to this hypothesis is that the packet must be absolutely empty. This requires all matter to decay completely.

This hypothesized scenario presents some obvious problems which I won't elaborate on here. But at it's foundation, no plausible explanation (other than 'theorized' possible explanations derived from the hypothetical existence of strings) is offered as the source of energy for each new universe. It is just assumed that this process is eternal, a continuation of the (unknown) processes that formed our own universe.

I see this scenario as compounding the problems we already have.

In the Turok/Steinhardt string-based model, once again we have a scenario where the universe must fade to nothing, at which time a trigger point is reached, apparently causing the now empty expanded universe to suddenly contract, or run time 'backwards' to the beginning, at which point hypothetical 'membranes' existing in parallel dimensions are drawn together just long enough to start the process all over again.

I have watched only two of Turok's student lectures and one of Steinhardt's (so far) on this, and although the math is beyond my comprehension, I had no reason to doubt it was probably sound. That said, it was also clear that the foundation of their model was predicated on the existence of strings. Furthermore, the model relied on a host of hypothetical phenomena derived from this rather shaky foundation, most notably the existence of branes.

Again, without going into this in detail, one thing became apparent. The model required all matter to decay to zero.

We have no evidence that strings or branes exist. And we have no evidence that matter decays to zero.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
I did not claim to understand it. That is your flawed assumption. ”

And yet you have no problems making assertions about it and how string theory is flawed because of it.

I don't think 'flawed' is the correct term. Most certainly, the field of study abandoned the universally accepted basic science methodological requirements of falsibility, and making specific predictions of previously unknown astronomical and/or experimental phenomena not already predicted by the Standard Models of cosmology and/or particle physics.

If you don't understand something then don't make broad assertions and claims about it.

They are not my assertions. My statements really just parrot the assertions of other highly qualified scientists.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
The underlying claim is that protons will eventually decay. Has this ever been confirmed? ”

We have lower bounds on it, not a particular value no.

Any upper bounds? I don't think so.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
I don't think I have ever suggested or even implied string theory is 'dead'. ”

Just massively flawed, non-falsifiable and a bit of a waste of time?

Lol. I'm sorry for this misunderstanding. Totally my fault. I can be rather blunt, and somewhat dismissive. Easy to see why you would be left with that impression.

Non-falsifiable, yes. Massively flawed or a waste of time, no. I have never been an advocate for abandoning research on strings. I would be extremely excited if we were successful in unifying the forces of the observable universe however that is achieved. Yet even if this were to happen, there would still be many obvious hurdles to overcome explaining the existence, origins, processes and mechanisms involved relating to alternate dimensions.

In any case, we have already come this far, and even negative results will teach us much.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Certain cosmic strings that occur in GUT models such as SO(10) can carry a magnetic flux which acts nontrivially on objects carrying SU(3)color quantum numbers. We show that such strings are non-Abelian Alice strings carrying nonlocalizable colored "Cheshire" charge. We examine claims made in the literature that SO(10) strings can have a long-range, topological Aharonov-Bohm interaction that turns quarks into leptons, and observe that such a process is impossible. We also discuss flux-flux scattering using a multi-sheeted formalism.

Not that I have a clue what they mean. Lol. But I do comprehend the word 'impossible'. Perhaps this is not relevant to your statement. ”

No, it isn't. Firstly the mechanism described is not the only mechanism by which baryon-lepton conversions can occur in GUT models. The conversions in SU(5) are done via gauge bosons and SO(10) models have similar gauge bosons but which interact differently. The mechanism described is a different mechanism. Secondly if zero conversion can occur then it means the proton is stable (if that were the only conversion method). The reason SU(5) was excluded was because it said the conversion happened so 'fast' that our observations contradicted it. Having no conversion is the opposite.

Ok. So what mechanism exists to cause total decay?

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
I get some of it from literature, but (again) most is over my head, so I must rely on the summaries. ”

Rather than hitting Google for buzzwords I suggest you start with a basic 1st year physics textbook and work your way up. Sure, it'll take years to even get anywhere close to stuff like quantum field theory and GUTs but it'll be more fruitful and more intellectually fulfilling than using Google as a crutch and having no actual understanding.

Hmm. You have already established that I will never understand it even if I studied it for the rest of my life. Regardless of the accuracy of that opinion, who are you to determine what should qualify as intellectually fulfilling? Clearly, I would not have done any of this were it not enjoyable to do so. Would I like to understand the quantum universe better? Of course. But as I have stated already, regardless of what happens on the quantum level, the macro universe exhibits some very clear and consistent patterns relating to observed phenomena.

Some cranks here have been passing off Googled work as 'knowledge' for years, because its 'cooler' to talk about strings and branes and topological defects than boring old vectors and calculus. But because they haven't bothered to learn the basics they can't understand the advanced stuff and they just waste their time. If some of them had started with a 1st year book when they joined these forums they might be up to masters level work by now. But instead they still can't do calculus or basic vectors or linear algebra. Compare that to people like myself, BenTheMan, Prometheus and a few others. We've got doctorates in the time we've been members here (and/or other physics forums).

I am deeply envious (in all seriousness) of your intellectual abilities and skills. Still, I think I have sufficient cognitive abilities to observe. In one way, I see my lack of 'focus' on a specific field of inquiry as an advantage over people like you as it allows me the freedom to focus on the much larger picture. While you are undoubtedly highly proficient in the field of string theory, the years of study required to achieve this have necessarily constrained your ability to consider the universe in it's 'entirety'.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
That said, I do not merely accept those statements as fact without spending some time looking for contradictions and/or criticisms ”

But since you don't understand the work you must take other people's word for it when it comes to contradictions and/or criticisms, as you can't see them yourself. I could post a page of work right now, inserting a deliberate mistake and you wouldn't be able to tell where it is.

Of course. However, I don't think most professional academicians would do that. Perhaps this perception is naive of me. Clearly however, some science is 'established'. Much is not.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
ince I do not rely entirely on pop science (I was being facetious, but apparently you missed that nuance) your comments are irrelevant. ”

Let's be clear here. To what level of physics knowledge/education are you claiming to have a working understanding of? High school? 1st year undergrad? 3rd year? Masters? Doctorate? Beyond?

I never said I had a working understanding of physics. The problem you are having is in assuming that because I lack a working understanding of physics, I can not possibly derive any meaningful hypotheses from the observed state of the macro universe.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Flawed assumption. ”

When you demonstrate a learned point of view I'll admit I was mistaken about my assessment of your understanding. Until then....

I don't require any such reassessment from you.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
I have read an awful lot about it. There is clearly much I will never understand. But I do understand that it is still (contrary to your claims) considered unfalsifiable. ”

And we're back to the pop science summaries spoon fed to you.



“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Maybe, but even if other dimensions are found (or we detect missing energy) that still doesn't confirm strings, as he just stated above. ”

Where did I say it did?

I was merely making an observation. No need to be defensive.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Not that it really matters, but any energy gone 'missing' yet? ”

In regards to supersymmetry? No. In regards to neutrinos, which were predicted on the basis of missing energy and momentum? Yes.

I don't think neutrinos are massless, are they? What's the lifespan of a neutrino?

Here is another paper I don't understand.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0903/0903.4654v1.pdf

Heavy neutrino decay at SHALON

Authors: V.G. Sinitsyna, M. Masip, S.I. Nikolsky, V.Y. Sinitsyna

(Submitted on 26 Mar 2009)

Abstract: The SHALON Cherenkov telescope has recorded over 2x10^6 extensive air showers during the past 17 years. The analysis of the signal at different zenith angles (\theta) has included observations from the sub-horizontal direction \theta=97^o. This inclination defines an Earth skimming trajectory with 7 km of air and around 1000 km of rock in front of the telescope. During a period of 324 hours of observation, after a cut of shower-like events that may be caused by chaotic sky flashes or reflections on the snow of vertical showers, we have detected 5 air showers of TeV energies. We argue that these events may be caused by the decay of a long-lived penetrating particle entering the atmosphere from the ground and decaying in front of the telescope. We show that this particle can not be a muon or a tau lepton. As a possible explanation, we discuss two scenarios with an unstable neutrino of mass m\approx 0.5 GeV and c\tau\approx 30 m. Remarkably, one of these models has been recently proposed to explain an excess of electron-like neutrino events at MiniBooNE.

Again, way over my head. But I think I can grasp an underlying truth from this. Loss of mass to neutrinos is not 'lost mass'. The energy isn't missing. It's just converted.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
My model is just an attempt to extrapolate from the known laws and observations. ”

And the 'extrapolation' is done by you just making up any conclusion you want. That isn't science.

I know this is a hard concept for you. It is inconceivable that my hypotheses are based on observing the macro universe. To you they are just wild guesses, based on essentially nothing. No derivations from observations. No logical thought processes. No reason. Just 'made up' this bizarre and ridiculous 'theory' out of nowhere, and then spent years trying to justify it.

Absurd.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
It was my understanding when I first looked into it. I will accept what you say is true. But it is a non-issue now. I won't be trying to publish in professional academic science journals. ”

Now that you haven't got that excuse as to the failure of your work to get anywhere you're suddenly deciding not to try.

Suddenly? I decided that about 2 years ago. I am content with exposing the science community to this alternate possibility. Once again, I need to remind you that we are at a very crucial time in our understanding of the universe. The ideas I have put forward were simply not on the radar before for lack of data. This is changing rapidly as we speak.

Are you going to stop spamming physicist email addresses too?

No.

Or do you still want to get your work to their attention but you don't want to do it through legitimate proper channels?

I kind of like the 'one on one' approach. The few scientists who respond these days are generally courteous now. Two years ago, this was not the case. Most (but not all) who responded were outraged that I would have the temerity, the disrespect for their lofty position ... the unmitigated gall to contact them at all let alone with such a stupid theory. I think I am making some headway.



I will add that I don't think sending an email containing my model to an individual scientist constitutes spamming. Don't I have a legal right to seek out individuals in the appropriate fields and propose a new concept?

Or is this forbidden?

 

[Ophiolite]

[I will add that I don't think sending an email containing my model to an individual scientist constitutes spamming. Don't I have a legal right to seek out individuals in the appropriate fields and propose a new concept?

Or is this forbidden?

You have a legal right to send such emails. Your moral right to clog up the InBox of fellow humans with crap is what is under question. Being thick is not really a viable excuse.

 

[pywakit]

You have a legal right to send such emails. Your moral right to clog up the InBox of fellow humans with crap is what is under question. Being thick is not really a viable excuse.

Well, as long as it's still 'under question' we should be ok.

 

[pywakit]

More stupid stuff ...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100921144135.htm
(Sep. 22, 2010)

Universal, Primordial Magnetic Fields Discovered in Deep Space

Scientists from the California Institute of Technology and UCLA have discovered evidence of "universal ubiquitous magnetic fields" that have permeated deep space between galaxies since the time of the Big Bang.

From such blurred images, the researchers found that the average magnetic field had a "femto-Gauss" strength, just one-quadrillionth of the Earth's magnetic field. The universal magnetic fields may have formed in the early universe shortly after the Big Bang, long before stars and galaxies formed, Ando and Kusenko said.

I suppose it's an idiotic hypothesis that this could be the remnants of magnetic fields produced by trillions or quadrillions of black holes spawned instantly by the big bang, ranging from tiny to hypermassive, interlaced with the remnant of a magnetic field produced by a preexisting 'gigamassive' black hole.

Yes. Of course it's idiotic. Everyone knows there was no gigamassive black hole at the big bang. In fact, all the recent observational data points to an infinitely small/dense singularity that just started expanding for no apparent reason. :bugeye:

Speaking of idiotic, I just watched a 2010 Science Channel program on black holes with Michio Kaku, and several other highly respected scientists.

Misinformation and unproved theories and hypotheses spoken of as givens on these programs irritates me almost as much as receiving unsolicited emails from cranks.

"... and the supermassives in galaxies such as M87 contain the mass of up to 20 billion suns."

Interesting. I thought the most massive black hole discovered to date is 'estimated' at 18 billion.

Hmmm. Of course, M87's has been fairly accurately measured at 6.6 to 6.7 billion suns. But this brings us to another issue. Just how accurate is this measurement, really?

Perhpas not very accurate at all. Measuring the mass of a black hole depends on many different factors, such as distance, whether they are feeding, and the ability to accurately measure orbital velocities of stars and galaxies. Of course, some of these methods start with basic assumptions that could be very wrong.

We had 'long' assumed that black hole formation was entirely hierarchical. This has led us to make further assumptions about black hole mass. We determined that the central black holes of galaxies could not possibly be massive enough to explain the observed galactic rotations. And since there was no other visible source of mass to pin this rotation on, we assumed it must be dark matter doing it.

"How did black holes get so massive, and what are they doing at the center of galaxies?"

"For answers, we have to go back nearly 14 billion years. To the beginning of the universe. Back then, the universe was filled with clouds of gas from the big bang. In some places, the gas was thick enough for millions of stars to form. Most of these new stars were supermassive. They burned hot and fast ... and then exploded ... creating lots of black holes ..."

Is that a fact? Possibly. I guess it's a fact if you assume the big bang was a generally homogeneous release of matter, starting off as plasma, cooling, forming basic atoms, which in turn became clouds of H and He.

Cut to theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss who postulates ...

"... the early universe might have been full of merging black holes ... everywhere."

Kaku goes on to postulate about the genesis of our universe being a white hole, our universe existing inside an event horizon, and one of his favorite delusions, travelling to other universes through any and all black holes and their whitehole counterparts, which he insists is supported by the mathematics of GR. I won't argue with him on the math.

But I find it stunning that such obvious problems with this theory are ignored. Such as, if the mass of the black hole dictates it's gravity, but the black hole has shunted all it's mass to a white hole in another universe, then why would the black hole continue to exist? Isn't that mass gone from this universe? How could the gravity remain behind?

I guess it's all just over my head.

You know how I love to read those pop science articles ...

I just stumbled across this article from 2007.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12665-did-the-big-bang-spawn-trillions-of-black-holes.html

Did the big bang spawn trillions of black holes?

September 2007 by David Shiga

Were vast numbers of black holes spawned during our universe's earliest moments? It is an intriguing idea, made possible by the extreme densities associated with the big bang.

So far, there is no hard evidence that such primordial black holes (PBHs) ever existed, but new observations just around the corner could change that.

Detecting them would be a tremendous boon, because they could be used to probe the very early universe a mere fraction of a second after it all began, when the conditions were so extreme that our best physics theories have trouble describing them. Primordial black holes might also make up part of the mysterious invisible substance called dark matter that seems to make up most of the matter in the universe.

There are a variety of ways that PBHs might form in the inferno of the early universe. For example, concentrations of energy associated with exotic energy fields could collapse under their own gravity - according to Einstein's relativity, energy exerts gravity just as matter does - to make black holes. One such energy field is thought to be responsible for the rapid expansion of the early universe, a phenomenon called inflation.

A wide variety of masses for PBHs are possible, depending on the formation scenario. The least massive ones, with less than about the mass of a comet, or 1 trillion kilograms, would quickly evaporate through a quantum process known as Hawking radiation.

Detonating black holes

There have been unconfirmed reports of radiation from slightly more massive PBHs, the last traces of which would just be evaporating now.

More massive PBHs, which may be born with up to 100,000 times the mass of the Sun, could survive to put an imprint on the cosmic microwave background (CMB), radiation emitted by warm matter roughly 400,000 years after the big bang.

Well, this is interesting. 4 years later and to my knowledge we still have no evidence that little black holes have evaporated. I'm pretty confident of this, because Hawking would have been nominated for the Nobel by now.

This effect might explain a puzzling discrepancy between results of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which measures the CMB, and studies of how galaxies are clustered.

The two disagree on a parameter called sigma8, which describes how matter clumped together in the early universe. But according to a recent study led by Massimo Ricotti of the University of Maryland in College Park, US, the two measurements agree if PBHs are included in the models.

But Ricotti himself says it is too soon to claim there is evidence for primordial black holes. It is still possible that refining the measurements will bring them into agreement without invoking these exotic objects, he says.

Recent astronomical data would suggest that refining the measurements wasn't the solution, as we continue to detect more and more primordial black holes earlier and earlier in the universe (within the first 500 million years), with masses ranging as high as 10 billion suns. I have included sources for this in the addendum on post #111.

Oh well. At least I am not the only idiot to consider the possibility of supermassives existing immediately after the big bang. Funny they don't consider the possibility that they were spawned by a gigamassive black hole.

Not on their radar, I guess.

When I look at the earliest (400,000 years after the bb) pictures of the universe, I don't see patterns consistent with mainstream theories of homogenity. It looks pretty lumpy to me.

Kind of consistent with a sudden centrifugal release of mass. Lol.

 

[alcohol40rehab]

Alcohol Rehab

Alcohol Rehab

 

[AlexG]

Since you've already said that this is not a subject you have any knowledge of, your speculations and conclusions aren't worthy of note.

 

[pywakit]

Alcohol Rehab

Never liked alcohol. Thankfully.

 

[pywakit]

Since you've already said that this is not a subject you have any knowledge of, your speculations and conclusions aren't worthy of note.

I don't think those are my exact words. But it's true my knowledge of the universe is very limited.

 

[pywakit]

Black Hole Reveals Strong Magnetic Fields

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Black-Hole-Reveals-Strong-Magnetic-Fields-191400.shtml

March 25th, 2011

The European Space Agency's (ESA) instrument provided new data, which hint at the fact that the black hole is surrounded by incredibly strong magnetic fields, Space reports.

“Our results have shown for the first time that this unknown high energy emission is strongly polarized, which implies that it should be produced by synchrotron radiation, a signature of a strong magnetic field at work close to the event horizon of the black hole,” says Philippe Laurent.

He holds an appointment as an astronomer at the French Atomic and Alternative Energies Commission's (FAAEC) Institute of Research into the Fundamental Laws of the Universe, in Paris, France.

“People were thinking that theoretically a magnetic field could be there, but here is the first observational evidence of it,” he concludes, in a paper appearing online in the March 24 issue of the top journal Science.

How fascinating.

 

[lambda orionis]

ok so you said that it takes all the energy/matter from our visible/local universe to create "The Universe" what if and this is theoretical just like your model and i know this is outside your model because your model is based on our Visible/local Universe what if 2 BH 1 from our universe and 1 from an outside parallel universe consumed all the matter/energy of both universes at the same time and so called spit them back out merging both universes into 1 single new universe because the 2 BH merged after consuming both universes so they would be drawn to each other because they would be the only 2 things in existance around each other after consuming both universes.