Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - graham d

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 161
1
Star space / Re: Peter Higgs My Life as a Boson
« on: June 27, 2014, 02:58:54 pm »
Lubos posted on this topic yesterday
 http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/should-bicep2-higgs-have-crushed.html#more
Quote
Should BICEP2, Higgs have crushed the Universe?
Lubos saves a lot of explanation - Yo ho, Yo ho ....it's a farmer's life for me

Of course Lumo tells you what he wants you to know, to believe. Beyond measure, Lubos believes that between the energy scale 102GeV- to that of Grand Unification at 1019GeV some master symmetry will be found beyond the failings of SM that accounts for yet to be discovered SUSY particles et al.  In terms of energies produced in colliders, LHC is at 103GeV. Were we to forget about human visitations to Mars or another regional fiasco in global warfare we could direct funding into the 104 GeV habitat.
 
Recall that there is "overwhelming evidence" for the Big Bang and at least one of the many Inflaton origins, Yo ho, that Andre Linde has referred to in the current issue of New Scientist. The galaxies do recede, space does expand and the H and He abundances and ratio aren't manufactured in any star we know of. The implications are that atoms or the plasma suite of electrons , protons and neutrons, beyond a trace of lithium, 1 part in 1010 no heavier elements were formed. Alpher, Herman, Gamow, Hoyle, and Peebles revealed that the energy scale and temperature scales for formation of proton/neutron ratios was at ca. 1 GeV or ie. 100GeV and 1012GeV. Lubos and Andre are referring to  energy and temperature scales even higher at 1032Kevin and ~1028GeV . An energy scale so enormous that it was commensurate with particles of mass 10-8kg, at Planck length separations 10-35m, crystallising from the stupendous gravitational energy field. Of course one particle isn't enough as we have to account for a whole universe of perhaps 1080 low energy (1GeV) particles we are familar with. This energy density during crystallisation, which is what we call a phase change or a spontaneous symmetry breaking process from a master symmetry weak password of higher symmetry than our rag bag of SM U(1)timesSU(2)timesSU(3) strong password has to be maintained for ~10-35second to account for what we see. Why write the Hamiltonian as ah2+b4 and ch?variants when what we observe now is a dilution of energy according to the inverse cube of size? Swept under the rug is  an initial condition that inflation occurs at constant density. This is the primary first condition of all that Lubos and Andre and proponents gloss over or ignore. Do we need a creator at all rather than be left with Who created the Creator? The pertinent scientific reasoning is where did the initial H and He come from if it didn't form in stars? Why didn't the universe collapse not within the first second but an infinitessimally shorter timeframe? Lubos attempts to answer this by the improbability of tunnelling across what distances- larger finite. Inorder to preserve causality, and by this I mean the attempt to answer the horizon problem peculiar to the Big Bang origin and explanation of a relic or fossil cmb radiation(an extant cmb radiation inherently preserves causality), everything is in causal contact at the Planck length to eventually imprint its thermal signature on the relic cmb radiation, after recombination. The whole story is so contrived about the Big Bang and its cliche "overwhelming evidence". If everything was in causal contact Lubos would expect the instability V potential chasm to be no further than one wavelength away.
Electron Pair instability supernova require stellar masses greater than 100-300 solar. These supermassive stars are rare but how rare? There's a log plot of meteorite mass versus probability of occurrence. The really big ones are astroblemes on a timescale of millions of years. Stellar core temperatures that synthesise hadrons

The real question is where did the H and He come from. The thermal regime had to be hot ~1012K as per Alpher et al, mentioned above. Presumably, H/He ratios have been measured in the gas clouds from local galactic groups and/or their stars? If you know of such data post data here. It would be nice to know of such variations rather than the oft quoted universal average ratio of ~3.0 .  Stellar core temperatures that synthesise hadrons that are unstable with half lives of 10-8 second will combine to form protons and neutrons. Hoyle's triple alpha mechanism from his text "Cosmology and Astronomy" features the unstable Be isotope with a lifetime of 10-16second. From Alpher, extrapolating to a solar mass~3000 a virtual photon vacuum interaction will generate a H/He ratio of 3 in no more than 200 seconds. Of course these authors and Hoyle and Fermi who corroborated the results presumed the ratio was generated from a cooling Big Bang plasma. Such a star would be exceedingly rare since we don't observe them but would be common during early galaxy evolution because the H and He would not have existed. Yet stars are constructed from initial universal abundances of H and He. This rare "star" is something else, something I have alluded to before, a conjectured neutrino star.
Finally,
Quote
Should the Higgs boson have caused our Universe to collapse?

This is a misnomer. The boson itself is inconsequential . The particle is an excitation of the field in the like manner that the photon, a boson carrier particle, is the manifestation of the electromagnetic field. It should read "Should the Higgs Field.......". Well, as Lubos mentions it - I'll paraphrase it as...." the fact is that we are here now and if it did collapse we are still preserved as holographic information on the horizon. You cannot destroy information so  I myself ego sum , as a solipsist ;D , remain as the smile ergo est on the proverbial Cheshire cat"- to the Johny Cash tune Dream on.... -Yo ho.


2
Quote
Personally I don't see any point in these complaints. It is not your project or your call. Enough others apparently disagree with you, which is what is keeping it going and that's important. It is what it is and you can't change it. Just your own view and actions. Carpe diem. ;)
I see differences of opinion expressed here Hanny. There are no libellous comments just well reasoned views and opinions.You are challenging Freedom of Speech. I suggest you desist.

3
That's valid infact. From the lambda cdm model and relic cmb modelwe know only of that 4% of what we call normal matter, 75% is DE and the rest DM. Of course that 4% which is still largely hydrogen and helium. The remaining trace <0.1% includes ourselves. If that trace didn't exist then we wouldn't be here would we? All those wow expletives; those classifiers gasps of wondrous beauty. Clearly, if you want to win a Milner or Templeton prize then the universe was designed for wannabe observers. We call this the Anthropic principal although any sentient observer who drools about the cosmological principle or its evolved perfect expression of it might so philosophise  "but have I missed something as well". It gets worse with time since DE wins by diluting everything out of existence.
Yet one can't destroy information- the information paradox that Paul majestically steers clear of except to remark that the equations fit so who cares if it stretches ones imagination and beliefs to the extreme. You can't toss a book into a black hole and expect its entropic information to disappear. Better still burn the book first and then toss the ashes and smoke into the black hole. It digests that huge entropy increase. Effectively, one dumps all the high entropy states into the back hole where it is destroyed. Not so according to Birkenstein; otherwise it would contravene the second law. He's right although some inc. Sean Carroll admits that space expansion does indeed violate the second law. I had to earn a living from several disciplines, one of which was as a geologist. The fossil record is fragmentary. If you are a dinosaur enthusiasts, I'm not, there aren't many specimens of individual species. There would have been millions of T Rex but only a handful of complete specimens ie. mineralised bone. Forget fossils and even their imprints, whole rock Systems have been eroded but recycled. Susskind would argue that all that smoky entropy still exists and is coded on the surface of a black hole. I don't disagree and confer with Paul , conceptually it can be recovered from the information bits coded on the surface area that now goes as a factor 4 * Pi times a constant. related o the planck area (a radius squared) down at 10-63m2of spacetime. Birkenstein at that time knew there was some low numerical factor olike a 2 or 3 etc and Pi (the 3.141596428..). Now I'm not being sarcastic here at all. Forget the imperfectly known parameters , the size of the observable universe, some of those galactic or black hole masses. I've posted on my psyche and its comfort of the universe as a black hole. The information paradox was solved. Information is not lost, even in a black hole or rather the surface horizon. The Earth is far better understood, even its density variation with depth, mass and radius. Until it disappears into a black hole, after first disintegrating into a future solar red giant its past information is enscribed in a core radius of 4.5 mm and will eventually disappear into some central galactic black hole when a DE fraction approaches unity. Now the Earth continually accretes spacetime and it's not the true vacuum of nothingness. It's the cmb radiation and cold local neutrino restmasses. All other accreted sources end up in near surface environments. The neutrinos have no where to go but within a virtual black hole, that 4.5mm central horizon. Prior to that they have to traverse a real 4Pi *R2surface radius2 times the counter Hubble flow of local gravitating neutrinos.

Eventually, whether black hole evaporation proceeds via Hawking or neutrino evaporation, which is far far more efficient than cold photons, Susskind would remark and has infact remarked all that information can be conceptually recovered. Hawking to his credit acknowledged he had lost his $1 bet, but joked that his book royalties to paraphrase left him laughing all the way to the bank. Who is correct? Well it's Susskind and the implication is that DE doesn't exist. So it's not 4% of all mass energy as normal matter. That leaves DM and a Milgrom type acceleration is what Paul deduced, while emailing his virtual Czech model, who was not implicated in that mule busting episode. He could still  make a fortune with a follow on "Breaking Bad" series.

 Nor can one baulk at the remarkable effectiveness of maths. Science wouldn't exist if we couldn't express our thoughts in number and amounts and rates of change. If the 0.00117eV (0.001166eV if we reverse engineer ie. back calculate in Newtonian tradition, he knew not an accurate Earth circumference or average density) did not exist we would have to settle for the 0.00038 eV species. Atoms would be bigger, by 9 fold , ionisation potentials much lower (243 fold) stellar masses much greater, evolution at a much slower snail's pace so we wouldn't be here now but in a far distant future before even snails evolved yet we could still remark on the self same anthropicity of our existence in a 0.89 Kelvin squid. "If the 0.00383 eV neutrino didn't exist then everything would have speeded up". Imagine the chaos inherent in a too rapidly expanding universe where DE would consume all, an antimatter universe which to those sentients would be the normal matter we address as of ourselves, in our own substance. Despite the maths we still have much to learn. It would be terrible were future generations, who expressed an interest in science , to be passed off with a book of everything. Read on, there's nothing left to discover afresh.   

4
Star space / Re: Proposals fot Citizen Science projects
« on: June 25, 2014, 08:43:21 pm »
This isn't to denigrate Darwin but..
Quote
Just as Darwin consulted popular natural history magazines and drew on information provided by an army of two thousand correspondents, modern scientists have worked with volunteers

Bates and Huxley were self funded., as was Alfred Russell Wallace. The latter's brother  with him on the Amazon, died. Darwin was a wealthy gentleman scientist. There were no government grants in those days. To be fair Darwin convinced governance to pay a stipend to these working class individuals. There were no free rides on the Discovery  It's not a 19th century quirk.James Lovelock funded his gas chromatography work because he had the sense to patent his tritium flame ionisation detectorand became essentially a gentleman scientist .  To Darwin's credit it was a two way consultation. If successful the budding scientist could earn a living ie. supplement a miserly grant by writing books. Wallace was immensely creative in this respect but when you hear about the theory of evolution whom does one credit with the discovery? It's clearly evident upon reading that Letter from Ternate, a mere ten pages of logic and factual data. By 1910 Wallace who had lived well into his mid 80's collected many honours but to whom do you accredit the theory. Who was that lassie who discovered radio pulsars and who won the Nobel awards. I daren't say. Fred lost a Nobel award himself in part because he was so incensed with the behaviour of the establishment over this lapse.

Nevertheless, the scientists themselves who will act as principal investigators are themselves subsisting on miserly grants without tenure. At some of our local schools we have laboratory technicians employed as laboratory technicians responsible not for teaching but for setting up equipment , maintenance and cleaning while the teachers and indeed in one case departmental head actually teach without a degree qualification in the science subject! It's a while ago but when I did my PhD a unionised lab technician earned more than a research associate. Senior technicians earned more than a lecturer. I helped teach one A level chemistry a few years younger than myself. He was to later leave and set up his own business. He's a millionaire now but in bad health. My health is holding up. As they say "good health can't buy money". It's a worthy cause but don't expect success to earn much credit. If you want financial return then write a rivetting book about the delights of a classifier or perhaps a planet or even a galaxy. There are a huge number of sea mounts along the rises, one of which is named after an old friend. I remember the friend but no longer the whereabouts of the mount. There's no doubt that in a two way process many new friendships may arise, not soley a team leader -classifier association; the web is a vital adjunct over and above a twitter tweet or facebook style communication.


5
Yesterday Tommaso posted on improbable article titles  http://www.science20.com/a_quantum_diaries_survivor/improbable_article_titles-139036
At the bottom of the page there's a link to related topics. http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/dark_energy_puzzle_solved
It's an article by Paul Frampton dated Sept 2010. Dark energy Problem solved http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.1285v3.pdf

Paul is a well known Physics Professor, perhaps infamously so now. He was busted shortly afterwards for mule trafficking in Argentina and since we are into late June he should be homeward bound to the USA after his prison incarceration.

Tommasao was impressed by his paper, promised to get back to it but I've never seen the follow up he refers to as a conditional. Too few folks were interested.

The paper is sensational! I never knew of its existence- not surprising really. You might need a physics degree to understand its implications. Take his word for his own comments. I'm just adding to the implications. despite being short and straightforward and simple according to Tommaso- it's not, so don't make a comeback with white holes, the metaphysics of holography according to Susskind et al.
 
He makes the point on page 8 that it's no use introducing the Hubble constant because it's impreciely known; I pointed out before that the error is ca. 7%-8% although WMAP may infer the accuracy is good to half of that. So he tackles the DE problem in a different manner. This DE or cosmo constant isn't a lot , it's about 10-9Joule/m3space. The cosmic average mass energy density, ie. this is believed to represent ca. 75% the e=mc2 mass energy of all those baryons,photns and neutrinos or equiv to 5-6 H atoms/m3. Well we still have all those particles in the observable universe but he has effectively done away with DE. That additional acceleration due to negative pressure is none other than the Milgrom acceleration or within that order. It's the acceleration that would speed up a particle and in this case the neutrinos I mentioned in earlier posts from a cmb horizon to the velocity of light in ca. 1018second, the lifetime of the universe. The Hubble flow of normal matter and infact for DM if it exists, and according to Hajdukovic DE in addition does not infact exist. There are alternatives to the formulation of Milgrom's acceleration mechanics.

For photons and neutrinos generated during pair production at rest the neutrinos will gravitate. Relic neutrinos with restmass have a problem cooling. A neutrino photon bath representing a phase transition is different. The photons as massless bosons don't gather as space expands. Spatial expansion here refers to a nothingness of GR space not to a quantum condensate description of space. Neutrinos with restmass 0.00117eV gravitate. Hence, there must be a reverse or counter Hubble flow amounting to a mass energy of ca. 500,000 eV/m3 or fold 10-19Joule/m3. All cosmologists must agree that space expands; that the Hubble flow exists even though it's the worst accurate parameter in physics. There's no counter explanation for expansion and the redshifts as caused by spatial expansion rather than a simple Doppler shift. The most famous exception is due to Zwicky but it goes by the tired light explanation which is wrong. Similarly, Hoyle argued for continuous mass change in particles with time; Louise Rio also advocates a rate of change of light speed with time and that even the Earth harbours a central black hole. It isn't as absurd as meets the eye infact.

That galaxies recede is incontrovertible despite Zwicky's assertion . It's space that expands; this nothingness of GR. Atoms don't expand with time, nor does the Earth or solar system, nor the galaxy except by accretions of satellites and mergers. The Hubble flow is at a larger size scale. In previous posts I mentioned that space has substance. Not even the unobserved quantum foam substance that might impart a Planck mass at a Planck length or 10120 fold the cosmological constant value but the humdrom tiny energy of the cmb  and its neutrino complement 10-19J/m3. Space in GR can expand at faster than light speed yet in each local frame of reference nothing can overtake a photon. That I believe is true except that a photon does interact or is scattered or is stopped! In an interaction we don't observe the virtual photon exchange so technically the new photon scattered isn't the one that arrived. A cold neutrino rarely interacts but when it does it gravitates. The H0t is inaccurately known, unfortunately . Galactic and universal masses vary and are hardly any better known. Yet we do know some masses accurately, Earth mass and Solar mass. Eventually everything gravitates and ends life in a black hole and again Solar mass sizes holes are known approximately, eg. a central galaxy mass here locally at perhaps 2.5 million solar mass up to some billion mass solar supermassive agn active central black holes. These are more inaccurately known than the Hubble constant measurement.

Frampton sidesteps these unknowns and write equations pertinent to black hole physics and holography, the latter I have felt somewhat gimmicky and contrived, a consequence of my own ignorance, laziness or whatever. My own calculations of the supposed counterflow of neutrinos is derived from the Hubble parameter and cosmic density and it was very innaccurately known yesterday!.

The solar system and local groups and far out to the Virgo cluster flow with a peculiar velocity of ca. 330km/second through the relic cmb radiation. All else  is part of the Hubble flow, currently ~73 km/second per megaparsec. While Smoot was increeasing detector sensitivities for Cobe and then WMAP, it was already known that there was a major anisotropy in the cmb known from balloon experiments. Whereas temperature variations are miniscule 1 part in 100000 this anisotropy was of a hotspot and colspot that varied by ca. 1 part in 1000 revealing a direction of travel through the cmb , in conflict with the often remarked Copernican principal. According to BB expansion all observers should observe no such anisotropy.
 
This is in conflict with condensed matter physics that  does observe an absolute reference frame within their squids. Space and time are relative, some believe spacetime is absolute although others regard it as relative. I've remarked myself that spacetime is absolute; well I did so until I read Frampton's paper. I have to switch soon to a geometric measure of mass and a tiny contractile measure of bending of space and spacetime that I mentioned in much earlier posts.

The Earth is bombarded by cosmic dust and micro meteorites daily, perhaps I remember a few tonnes of additional mass per day. It is also bombarded by the cmb radiation, inconsequential compared with Solar photon flux. It is continually bombarded by a reverse or ounter Hubble flow. Through its entire history the Earth has accreted 2.86*10-11kg/second of spacetime. Were the Earth to have existed for 1018 second, the same as universal age it would have accreted 2.86 *107kg or ~30 million kg or 30,000tonnes ie. a battleship of mass! That represents 410 million electron neutrinos/second, omitting 1/90 th part of the energy accredited to a yet to be discovered electron neutrino pair. What about the Sun or a whole galaxy of 1011stars? Actually Paul bumps up the number thinking that the sun is an average star- what in mass or numerosity? An average star is perhaps half stellar mass and there are perhaps ten fold more of them. The greatest gravitational influence is a central black hole. Also, he neglects DM halos, a minefield of problems. The Earth or Sol itself is the best option. The Earth's spacetime bending is 1.71 *10-23 curvature per m2spacetime. The Earth hasn't just a gravity well it is infact a gravity drain. The Earth's inertial mass forces space and spacetime to bend or curve. Yet it's the GR geometry that curves or bends. This effect is known to extraordinary accuracy or 1 part in 1010. But it's not the nothingness of space that is being deformed. It's the mass energy density of the cmb that is continously lost by accretion within a gravitating body or whatever possesses restmass. It is not a measurable mass or not yet. Even the sun's destruction of spacetime is minimal. Over the 14 billion year history of the galaxy ; the whole galaxy has accreted only 2.9*1029kg, ca. a tenth of a solar mass.! More simply put in everday language- what keeps a satellite in near Earth orbit is Newton's gravity, Einstein's spacetime gravity and the counter Hubble flow. Whereas the photons are inconsequential and get recycled at the near surface the cold neutrinos end up in a 4.44 millimetre plug at the centre. This is the Earth's mass in light metre measure. The tendency then is for space to expand everywhere and not solely at the scale of inter filament measure. The presence of mass is to destroy spacetime, to convert it into whatever resides at a horizon. I don't advocate holography, I don't know enough to make a sensible remark but Marni hopefully will intervene. Media wise it's a bit like Suarez once again taking a bite out of an opponent, not by bending or scattering but by destruction. Matter informs space and spacetime how much to deform or bend in John Wheeler's description. QFT has a problem with that description. The Earth removes space perhaps rather than destroy, it is transformed ultimately residing within that 4.45 mm globe while a photon  complement to the condensate makes a 1*1012m trip of light time travel. Similarly the Sun would have a "for instance, the sun has a radius of 800,000 kilometers, but its Schwarzschild radius is of just 3 km" from Tommaso; actually1.48 km radius (the 3 is a diameter) and rounding off the diameter to five zeros is iffy The Earth is a more accurate analogy.The two approaches are equivalent in that the error of the counterhubble acceleration is ~1% and not 7%-15% as derived from the Hubble parameter. Also the local group peculiar velocity is infact a real Doppler effect. The neutrino pairs are produced at absolute rest ~+-0.7m/second; that's absolute basically, rather than digress to make A  FINER POINT. The cmb  anisotropoy represents a real velocity through a cmb photon neutrino condensate. It is not an unexplainable in conventional cmb relic cooling. As Marni Sheppeard has mentioned the cmb radiation is a local phenomenum. Orthogonal to the anisotropy or peculiar velocity it is generated at rest and coeval to the observer. It does not therefore represent a fossil last scattering event that happens to retain its Planck equilibrium spectrum.

The condensate gravitates not to some local centre, for all observers can refer as being central. We do know we aren't near an edge, we see only one major anisotropy, there's no observed edge effect as in a squid. The condensate neutrinos gravitate. These aren't high energy more interactive relic neutrinos with restmass. Restmass doesn't stretch. A Zwicky effect is postulated. Namely, although it's not tired light, the stretched photons exhibit a redshift but this is compensated by the distance contraction experienced locally where the gravitating bodies exist, in galaxies. As the elastic is stretched the central part contracts through the loss of space and spacetime. The Solar mass removes about 3.13 *1019m3/second. The mass energy equivalent to 1 electron mass per m cubed is tiny compared with the several tonnes of mass energy lost as energy by H burning. Infact although the solar mass diminishes with time the accretion or destruction of spacetime is continuous. A planet orbits not just an energy well but a well drain where spacetime is destroyed, but not its neutrino mass energy. Space isn't a nothingness; locally its 410 million photons and an equivalent number of neutrinos of the restmass 0.00117eV variety neglecting a correction for the 0.000383 eV variety that contributes a 1/90 mass energy fraction at 0.89 Kelvin.

 It's like my allotment; the pidgeons approach screeching for food at one end and depart the other with a lowered pitch; from where I don't bother to know, nor likewise to where, as they depart the other end. I do feed or provide for them though. Otherwise they would starve in winter. Were I an absentee landord they would never exist in the first instance. Like cosmology we are left with a lot of unanswered questions. Time for a cycle to water the vegetables- it's a long dryish spell.

6
Well spectroscopically we do see the cmb radiation. The perfect Planck distribution peaks at lambda max ~0.1cm in the infrared to microwave region. The spectrum is a continuum of radiation with a thermodynamic temperature of 2.725 Kelvin. Similarly, we hear the cmb radiation-it's not silent and is described as a hiss or noise one hears as the static between radio or TV channels. With regard to its energy density there are ~410 million photons per m3space with an average energy of ~ 0.000634eV at 2.725 Kelvin. That's not a lot of energy per photon. Chemical reactions here on Earth for biological molecules are much less than ~1eV for photosynthesis, equivalent to almost 100 kilojoule/mole substance. Twice that energy can even rupture carbon carbon bonds. Photons with 0.5 eV can boil an egg in 3-4 minutes.

The average energy of a cmb photon and its numerosity(there are many different energies and frequencies rather than an idealistic average one) represents a blinding brilliance from the sky. It's isotropic too with one huge caveat I'll refer to later since this relates to an interpretation of the origin of the cmb radiation. An important point is to note that an interaction between two of these average energy photons is sufficient to satisfy the particle physics condition for the creation of two of the lightest mass neutrinos; the electron neutrino and electron antineutrino. All other restmass particles in the Standard Model obey this condition, even the Higgs boson with restmass and conversely the annihilation of a Higgs pair or electron positron annihilation. There are as many neutrinos as photons in equilibrium in the approach to pair production temperatures. Inflation theory or the Big Bang commences with phenomenal energy densities. It's not that all particles and photons are present initially in some infinitessimally tiny space but that the forces themselves freeze out in a sequence of phase transitions. It's ambiguous to describe everything within the observable universe was once the size of a nucleus, atom, pea or football. It is after the latest transition at ca. >1012Kelvin that things such as gluons,quarks, photons have condensed to represent what we know of as all the particles and force carriers, along with additional? exotics from beyond SM super particles etc. The universe then cools and dilutes in mass energy density AFTER it is pea sized or AFTER football sized or the light year size scale from Alpher, Peebles and then Weinberg. Prior to the formation of those particles and forces that phase transitions froze out, those that we know of and those eg. Dark Matter that we don't know of and that also includes dark energy DE, the observable universe incorporates the theory of DE and its negative pressure, as does the quasi steady state theory , to create mass energy from nothing because the theory creates it at CONSTANT density. After the phase transitions standard cosmology dilutes matter by the cube of the size with time. The Big Bang and Inflaton field are married to a constant density origin, something from nothing or the ultimate free lunch. I'll return after a lunch break with world news .

7
Science journalsim has vastly improved within the last two generations. Lubos' style is to ridicule dissenters.
What have journalists ever done for us? More important than the contents of these threads or that of cosmology to everday's struggle for existence are the defenders of free speech. I spend more time following not just BBC rolling news but Aljazeera and Russia today. Of 20 journalists employed by Al Jazeera, arrested and incarcerated in jail for 6 months, today two were aquitted in Cairo, 7 were given 7 yearsentences, and the rest similarly sentenced in absentia.

Fifty years ago a media interview went like this. A shrewd scientist would ask "Ok-after the interview do I get to read and edit the galley proofs?"
"Absolutely not " was the answer. If it was for the TV "can I see the recording before it's broadcast?". "No or possibly yes but you can't edit out anything".
Some scientists refused these strictures but rarely so. Most scientists would grouse about those who rose to preeminence. Few deny a claim to 15 minutes of world fame. For impact the media will often suggest visual aids. "How about orange socks or no socks at all? How about Albert's gripe about encroaching old age. I'm paraphrasing now "I'm regarded as a curiosity now and occasionally brought out to show I don't wear socks". Remember those old recordings? when you knew the guy was a scientist because he wore a white lab coat. Come to think of it most bioscientists still appear to be wearing them. Relevent to the story here ca. 2 years ago Melvin Bragg, enormously well liked over here by everyone as a writer, dramatist etc put on a programme about the humble neutrino with three science experts in the field. Well they never got past the basics, no where  near so. Melvin couldn't just understand anything remotely technical and kept referring to the neutrino as the neutron. The show was a disaster. Equally or more so gifted would have been Bill Bryson. If any of you run into him ask him for a brief  explanation when he's not busy coralling nervous sheep.

Nevertheless, the standard of journalism today is excellent but be wary they may shoot a lot of footage waiting for one to err, such as Milliband gnawing at a hamburger, oblivious of the camera still running. It was Fred's[Hoyle] faux pas('s) if you don't know it don't use it or the plural, that cost him more than one Nobel prize. As a fellow Yorkshireman, although 50 years ago since I departed the shire, I am still regarded as typically arrogant, increasingly aggressive with age, cynical (a definate no no for youth), outspoken still (hell with age one cannot help soaking up some wisdom) but I'm no longer too intolerant, decisive but now I'm not so sure,....Holland 1 nil up and Brazil vs Cameroon on shortly. Try to remember to get on with life from time to time.

 Time may not exist but nature's all to short a course is transient and ruinous time claims us all.

8
Well the dust hasn't settled. Lubos  trashes the media over Bicep 2, this morning  http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/bicep2-and-prl-journalists-prove-that.html#more

Quote
But the key part of my disgust by the journalists and writers since Wednesday has been caused by the insane wave of negative reporting about the publication of the BICEP2 discovery in Physical Review Letters.

Quote
Instead of the truth, readers get this uniform, insane, upside down reporting of something that hasn't happened, something that is supposed to mean 50 things that it surely doesn't mean. One can't really find a journalist whom we could call "relatively reasonable". The journalists are a whole new class of dishonest demagogues, mindless copy-and-paste clipboards, sloppy non-thinkers, cowards, chimps jumping in between banana trees, and hunters for sensations who never hesitate to sacrifice the truth for a second.

I am disgusted by these people as individuals. I am disgusted and scared of these people as a mindless mob, too. You may point out that these people represent the free press. Unfortunately, as we're being reminded every day, there's no law of physics that would imply that being free guarantees that you're more than a pile of šit.

Times change. The UK Daily Mail tabloid, in truth I'm too much of a snob to refer to it as a newspaper, comes in for rare praise by Lubos. I remember the time when their science correspondent was a sports commentator and the Daily Telegraph science reporter didn't know a germ from a bacterium, but that was almost 50 years ago. The BB theory had many famous detractors and many still rest uneasy about the creation of something at constant density whether it was inflaton field theory or continuous creation field theory. The sought for inhomogeneities in the cmb profile was the search for 1 part in a thousand through 1 part in 3000 to 10000 in COBE through to tiny 1 part in 100000 fluctuations in WMAP. One third part of the global (universal ) plot is swamped by galactic (milky way) noise. George Smoot in 1992, to rapturous applause at the time, was to later defend his retort "the face of God" that this "relic" cmb radiation profile implied. "Well if you're religious it's like seeing the face of God" he added to a group of assembled journalists.  That's history now for many a younger reader.

 Two decades ago the solar neutrino anomaly was a topic of heated debate. Hoyle was puzzled by the solar neutrino problem back in '75. In 1992 opinion was that the SM neutrinos were rest massless. Debate in cosmology centred upon conditionals. Were the neutrino to have restmass.....sufficient to close the universe.....20eV to 30eV? Today, speculation about predicted 1 milli eV neutrino restmasses questions the "relic" cmb radiation origin(s). It is infact not heresy to question the origin of this radiation and the challenge that the Big Bang never actually happened.

Lubos points to a distinction between astronomers and cosmologists. Rather than pidgeon hole the theorists it was Roy Alpher, George Gamow,  Lemaitre , Herman Hoyle, Gold, Bondi, Peebles who proposed a hot beginning for matter in the universe. Apart from the quasai steady state theory all radiation and matter was present as a plasma. As particle physics progressed a cooling of the plasma passes through several phase transitions. The only phase transition that the astronomer observes today is conventional opinion that is accorded to the formation of atoms during the socalled recombination era. An earlier electron-positron annihilation phase was much earlier but is currently predicted to happen in supermassive SN collapse processes, a consequence of electron positron pair production referred to as pair instability. All more massive particles displayed this transition phase behaviour in the first 500 seconds of universal history by Alpher, subsequent timings and refinements are by later authors such as Weinberg. The lightest of all restmass particles are the uncharged lepons, the neutrinos. The restmasses of these species are so low that pair production temperatures equate with a phase transition that is happening in our era, that cmb photons are extant and do not represent relic radiation or the earliest fossil evidence of inferred gravitational radiation. Had a neutrino restmass of 0.001 eV been reported in 1992 all of the above mentioned authors would not have been slow in reporting the implications of such a phase transition to cosmology. These implictions were obvious five years ago to Marni Sheppeard and myself, which I referred to in the Astonomical Implications thread, and were subjected to widespread castigation at the time.

9
Bicep 2's now reported paper and claims have been watered down

Quote
BICEP2′s Cosmic Polarization: Published, Reduced in Strength
Posted on June 20, 2014 |
by Matt Strassler http://profmattstrassler.com/2014/06/20/bicep2s-cosmic-polarization-published-reduced-in-strength/#comments

Quote
Be patient; the process of science, being self-correcting, will eventually get it straight, but not if you rush it

Lubos has reversed course yet again. http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/bicep2-gets-published-in-prl.html#more . Yes he is famous for his libellous comments, mysogeny and outspoken raw prose but yes again, he is a brilliant scientist . Peter Woit aso returns to the subject and contrarily notices significant changes in the released paper.
Quote
Smoking Gun No Longer Smoking

 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6958


Don't blame media hype for this clash of Titans, possible Nobel awards for Linde et als  smoking sheesha pipe. Matt's directive sounds like the clergy at prayer. For the moment, and it could be years, we just have to wait until the dust settles on Bicep too. It's all based on an initial condition that the Big Bang ever happened or ever will happen for that matter. I think that Matt believes that science evolves or progresses according to some innate laws within rather than formulated to conform withinin  minds of infrequent sentient travellers such as mankind.  This is a big story. It's not about the routine and mundane progress of day to day science, whether it's the latest progress in medical, biochemical, climate or whatever but about beginnings of everything, a universe so structured, so finetuned that one day it would have to account for inquisitive folk like ourselves to come into existence. William Fowler noted that peculiar and strange character that was Fred Hoyle, a theorist lecturing a famous nuclear empirical chemist, Fowler himself,  about a non existent carbon resonance that had to exist at ca. 7.6 MeV otherwise we could not exist, nor would the heavier elements. The experiments took about a week to check this whacky theory. The monumental discovery was to win an astounded Fowler a Nobel award but not for Fred who was to make many enemies within the establishment. Fred came up with several crackpot ideas that are still plain wrong but he's justly famous for his successes.

10
Andrei Linde's smoking gun comments return to haunt him, according to Peter Woit  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
Egos may be rekindled after surviving just one Antarctic winter.

With cosmology there's a lot of metaphysics and philosophy about what we don't know. It's a boundary between fiction and fact and inflation theory is extremely good scientific myth struggling to become reality. Science is really about what we know.

11
Star space / Re: Dark matter
« on: June 19, 2014, 05:23:05 pm »
What do you think about the new AMS data leaking out
http://ams.nasa.gov/Documents/AMS_Publications/NASA%20JUNE-2014C.pdf
http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/ams-02-no-cutoff-in-positron-fraction.html#disqus_thread
On the one hand, equating the cmb radiation as an extant field that is generating and annihilating ~0.001eV electron neutrinos with the observed cmb photon bath it does not account for the generation of baryons. On the other hand neither does the Big Bang nor the Inflaton field. The original  total energy is the free lunch in that all observable mass energy in the present universe was there in the beginning from which condensed all matter and antimatter particle along with all those DM candidates. The steady state theory and its quasi offshoot was different and predicted the continous creation of matter, albeit in the gaps between galaxies. An extant cmb photon neutrino superfluid will gravitate essentially running the BB in reverse, tending to form the charged leptons, a consequence of neutino degeneracy pressure.

Topical today
Quote

Nature | Scientific American
Sharing

    Print
    Email
    Share/bookmark

'Superfluid spacetime' points to unification of physics

http://www.nature.com/news/superfluid-spacetime-points-to-unification-of-physics-1.15437


12
Star space / Re: A New Zooniverse project, or was it?
« on: June 13, 2014, 07:34:39 pm »
.....and we're back; appropriately friday 13th
http://blog.sunspotter.org/2014/06/13/and-were-back-sunspotter-round-2/#comments
without ever bothering to answer any of the health issues associated with this project. Newbie's beware; it can damage your health

13
Andrew addresses the matter antimatter imbalance within the observable universe.
http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/thoughts-on-matter-antimatter-imbalance.html
There's a lot of detail here that could be tiring to digest. The particle physicist would expand the list to include unstable baryons to the stable ones ie. the proton and neutrons with which we are familar. The concept of baryon and lepton number, the latter includes charged species the electron and antielectron or positron as well as the flavour generations and the uncharged lepton species or neutrinos and antineutrinos. These numbers represent in simplicity an energy balance sheet or book keeping device that are based upon energy conservation laws. Weinberg similarly notes in the late seventies the matter antimatter asymmetry in the earliest phase of the universe. On the cosmology side, Fred Hoyle raises the problem in his book Astronomy and Cosmology by 1975.

Both address the cosmological principle and the perfect cosmology priciple raised by Bondi and Gold. Few would care to abandon isotropy and within it, homogeneity. Hence, although we don't observe any antimatter locally or elsewhere in our patch of the universe its presence elsewhere is metaphysics to some. To others it is a necessary element of the multiverse, antiblack holes and antiuniverses, temporally and preuniversal times. in 1975 Hoyle did express great discomfort with the concept of a beginning as t0 approaches zero since it becomes rich in metaphysical concepts and anthropic reasoning which Weinberg was to adopt in his anthropic bounds to the cosmological constant.

I have dealt with the still unanswered and paradox or problem associated with the extremely huge photon to baryon number ratio in this thread. For Weinberg the huge energies of the photons in the early universe are a consquence of the high energy beginning in which all baryons and leptons were present along with photons in numerical equality ca. one wavelength apart. The present cmb radiation represents the "cooled" relic high energy photons whose photons have been stretched. Hoyle originally rejected this idea, preferring a frequency reduction caused by the evolution of mass; initially particles were less massive. Finally, he adopts a steady state model inorder to retain the isotropy concept. The SS model of course failed to conform to later observational astronomy. Nevertheless, the baryon asymmetry and photn/baryon ratio has never been resolved.

The implications of neutrinos with restmasses similar to cmb radiation energies are difficult to reject outright. Infact, Marni and myself noted a remarkable coincidence of an antineutrino theoretical mass with the lambda max energy of the cmb radiation. An extant radiation source; ie. happening at all times would imply particle pair creation, in this case associated with the electron antineutrino, namely both helical/chiral species we denote right (which the chiral SM model of pp recognises) and a left (an SM unobservable not recognised and hence metaphysical? for some) inorder that the observed radiation profile is a continuum and Planckian in distribution. In the BB scenario a mechanism must be required to thermalise high energy photons by dust to accord with the almost perfect cmb planckian profile. No such plausible mechanism has been formulated although Narlikar would object here.
Certainly, these uncharged leptons associated with particle pair and low energy microwave photon creations and annihilations are bone fide DM candidates and for lepton number the paradox is explained. There is no lepton number problem. It still leaves the baryon asymmetry unresolved but it explains the photon baryon ratio problem. If there is an anti deSitter component to the universe,  gravity would overcome neutrino degeneracy pressure ultimately to produce charged lepton species that would ultimately condense to baryons and explain the observed 109/1 ratio of photons to baryons. The origin of matter antimatter imbalance still remains elusive but predates the origins of baryons or SU(3) symmetry breaking. Such a low energy beginning would be essentially timeless, a false vacuum with Higgs fields and photon neutrino populations , numerically equal and isotropic but subject to a gravitational field driven by neutrino photon interactions.

15
Inflaton expansion is superluminary and happens before the Higgs field freezes out. All particles and antiparticles are massless with a mass energy density that has been constant during this expansionary phase. All the observable mass energy of the universe in our era was present at this stage in a volume envisaged then as a tennis ball to football size. This doesn't mean there was a boundary but that other universes were budding throughout all space, we just happen to live in this pocket universe. Whenever particles/antiparticles are generated as pairs they are in causal contact ca. one wavelength apart at the appropriate temperature. It is an adhoc assumption that all particles were in causal contact within these macroscopic sizes (football size). Inorder to satisfy flatness, isotropy (satisfying homogeneity also) the expansion was superluminary at constant density. Relativists don't mind superluminary expansion of space but for most particle physicists it is anathema; it blatantly violates Noether's principles or laws and energy conservation. Subsequent to inflation, Weinberg's expansion or BB conventional expansion, mass energy is diluted by the cube of size, as the universe doubles in size the density drops by 23fold. Weinberg's description takes over when all the current mass energy of the universe was several light years in size albeit with flatness and the horizon or causality problems as well as baryon photon number problems. Once the Higgs field freezes out the neutrinos also have restmass but with tremendous kinetic energy. Consequently, these would have to thermalise in the like manner of the Hoyle et al Steady State model to end up with an alleged temperature at ca. 1.9 Kelvin. Now let's jump to our current universe size or any size and ask at what temperature would a neutrino pair with a restmass of 0.001 eV or 1 milli eV  be in equilibrium with a photon bath and lepton photon ratio of unity. The answer is ~2.7 Kelvin and it is not dependent upon size or the position on a cooling curve. For the past two decades neutrino restmass has been sliding down from a scale of 30 eV on and beyond a cosmological upper limit ar ~0.2 eV. Yesterday, Minos dismissed the existence of exotic neutrino masses to leave us with the standard model 3 flavour stuff. Top quark anti top quark asymmetry have also been dismissed this week leaving the field open to developments in new neutrino physics.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 161