Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Aug. 4, 2011 @ 14:27 GMT
Very positive to find an algorithm in order to change our point of view on the results of CMB, but isn't it a little too early to explain that these "spots" emergingd from the algorithm are results of colliding universes ?
The "signatures" as simulated originate from 380.000 years after an origin of our Universe, an origin that untill now is not yet sure (rebound, big bang, or...), so to interprete these results direcly to a complex model could be true... or not. These temperature modulations for example could also mean that our universe is not so regular at all (inflation ws invented to explain the regularity of our universe).
I do believe (it is a belief, I am not sure) that there is a multiverse around us , this multiverse in the future perhaps can be "touched" from our position in the French cheese bubble, if we construct an algorithm inside a for example 500 qubit quantum computer that creates a consciousness able to pass the limits that we are submitted to in our 4D causal universe.
Very interesting article , hope to see the follow up from the new Planck data.
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 4, 2011 @ 15:15 GMT
I don't think such developments of the standard model are useful if the following suspicion exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1pgz8QIiso&feature=re
lated
"Is Everything We Know Wrong? (...) So for now the standard model remains unchanged... (...) It's the best we have. And it's so nearly a perfect fit. It's just that it could be totally wrong."
By developing something that is "totally wrong" you create Augean stables that no scientific Hercules will be able to clean up.
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 05:14 GMT
The standard model of cosmology is (implicitly) based on the following premises:
Premise 1: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
Premise 2: As photons travel, their wavelength varies with their frequency.
The second premise, which is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, should be abandoned. Cosmologists will have to try to deduce their science from the following couple of premises:
Premise 1: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
Premise 2: As photons travel, their wavelength remains constant.
Examples giving some support to the new Premise 2 (varying frequency and speed of light, constant wavelength):
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%2
0son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c plus v)/(lambda)."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 14:52 GMT
http://www.sciscoop.com/2008-10-30-41323-484.html
"Shine a light through a piece of glass, a swimming pool or any other medium and it slows down ever so slightly, it's why a plunged part way into the surface of a pool appears to be bent. So, what about the space in between those distant astronomical objects and our earthly telescopes? COULDN'T IT BE THAT THE SUPPOSED VACUUM OF SPACE IS ACTING AS AN INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT like some cosmic swimming pool?
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fp
df&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3A0706.2885
David Schuster: "Current models of the intergalactic medium contend that it has mass density on the order of 10^(-27) kg/m^3. While it is true that this equates to approximately one atom of neutral Hydrogen per cubic meter, averaging over cosmological distances, it is reasonable to consider the IGM a super-low density fluid. (...) Obviously, as the density of the intervening medium increases, so does the number of interactions and, consequently, so does the travel time of the light. This is the effect seen in a dense material like calcite where there are so many interactions that THE LIGHT SLOWS DOWN appreciably in a short distance. (...) Assuming the interaction cross-section to correspond to the Bohr radius. This means that a photon will, on average, have an interaction and, accordingly, a characteristic delay every 37600 light years. This is using the minimum particle density in intergalactic space, which can vary widely up to approximately 1000 particles/m^3 in areas of particularly high density."
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
David A. Plaisted: "This suggests that the red shift may be caused by something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part. This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or A DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT..."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 7, 2011 @ 04:55 GMT
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/07/light-traveled-
faster-in-the-early-universe-todays-most-popular.html
"A brilliant physicist Joao Magueijo asks the heretical question: What if the speed of light - now accepted as one of the unchanging foundations of modern physics - were not constant? "A number of surprising observations made at the threshold of the 21st century have left cosmologists confused and other physicists in doubt over the reliability of cosmology," Magueijo says. "For instance it has been found that the cosmological expansion appears to be accelerating. This is contrary to common sense, as it implies that on large scales gravity is repulsive."
Then try to explain the cosmological redshift in terms of variable speed of light and static universe, Joao Magueijo. What prevents you from trying? Crimestop?
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#
seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 8, 2011 @ 12:24 GMT
Both Newton's emission theory of light and Einstein's general relativity predict that extremely massive celestial objects exhibit substantial INTRINSIC redshift. Halton Arp is right:
http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_uploads/static_res
ources/0534493394/4891/Ch01-Essay.pdf
Clifford Will: "The first glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th century, in the writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John Michell. Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light would be attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light emitted from the surface of a massive body would be reduced [that is, light would be redshifted] by the time the light was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not know special relativity.)"
http://msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/paradigm/hawkins-time-dilation
.pdf
Intrinsic redshift in quasars, COLIN ROURKE
"A recent paper by MRS Hawkins "On time dilation in quasar light curves" conclusively proves that quasars have instrinsic redshift. (...) ...redshift and time dilation are effectively identical in general relativity. (...) ...it follows that if a radiation source exhibits redshift then it also exhibits the correctly correlated time dilation. It is important to stress that this fact is an elementary consequence of the spacetime geometry underlying General Relativity and has no dependence whatsoever on cosmological assumptions. It is equally true in an expanding universe and in a static or contracting or chaotic universe and it is true whatever the cause of the redshift whether Doppler or gravitational or due to changes in the geometry of spacetime or any other relativistic effect. It is also true in any conceivable variant of general relativity. Any theory based on spacetime with well defined light paths will have this property."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 8, 2011 @ 13:43 GMT
Gravitational time dilation: effect without cause:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html Chapter 14:
http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehan
ika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than...
view entire post
Gravitational time dilation: effect without cause:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html Chapter 14:
http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehan
ika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed."
Einstein said in 1911 that the effect would take place even in a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field. This means that the two clocks are in EXACTLY THE SAME immediate environment (experience EXACTLY THE SAME gravitational field) and yet one of them runs faster than the other. Clearly such an effect without any cause is absurd so Einsteinians sometimes hint at the REAL effect: As light travels upward in the earth's gravitational field, it loses SPEED:
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/
0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Another prediction of general relativity is that time should appear to slower near a massive body like the earth. This is because there is a relation between the energy of light and its frequency (that is, the number of waves of light per second): the greater the energy, the higher frequency. As light travels upward in the earth's gravitational field, it loses energy, and so its frequency goes down. (This means that the length of time between one wave crest and the next goes up.) To someone high up, it would appear that everything down below was making longer to happen. This prediction was tested in 1962, using a pair of very accurate clocks mounted at the top and bottom of a water tower. The clock at the bottom, which was nearer the earth, was found to run slower, in exact agreement with general relativity."
The cleverest Einsteinians, "the subtlest practitioners of doublethink", can be quite straightforward: no "CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS"; rather, one should pay attention to "WHAT BEFALLS LIGHT SIGNALS AS THEY TRAVERSE SPACE AND TIME IN THE PRESENCE OF GRAVITATION":
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/d
p/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. It arises from WHAT BEFALLS LIGHT SIGNALS AS THEY TRAVERSE SPACE AND TIME IN THE PRESENCE OF GRAVITATION."
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Roy Johnstone wrote on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 04:41 GMT
I wonder how well this algorithm might also determine fits for other possible sources of these kinds of CMB features, such as primordial inhomogeneities? For example, signatures of cyclic model features such as the low temperature variance "circles" in Penrose's CCC model surviving through the conformal 4 manifold from black hole collisions in the previous epoch.
These model dependant CMB features could be very similar, but with the improved resolution of Planck's data combined with such an algorithm, it would be good to also test theories that are *not* from inflationary cosmology!
Bring on the Planck data!!
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 12:04 GMT
• This is not the same as the theory of Gurzadyan and Penrose. That involved an extension of the conformal past "to infinity," where the big bang is a past Cauchy surface where the minimal information content of the universe is globally available. Some type of transition occurs with the occurrence of an event horizon. The cosmology tested here involves nucleation bubbles. It is analogous in some...
view entire post
• This is not the same as the theory of Gurzadyan and Penrose. That involved an extension of the conformal past "to infinity," where the big bang is a past Cauchy surface where the minimal information content of the universe is globally available. Some type of transition occurs with the occurrence of an event horizon. The cosmology tested here involves nucleation bubbles. It is analogous in some ways to ferromagnetism. Above the Curie temperature Iron atoms, which are little magnets, are oriented arbitrarily. If one applies a magnetic field to the hot iron these atoms orient accordingly. Once the temperature is lowered below the Curie point there is a scale at which this freedom of orientation of these atomic magnets is removed and they all sit in a domain with the same magnetic orientation. The cooler iron then has these many domains of magnetization. If one cools the iron below the Curie point while applying a magnetic field statistically these magnetic domains will be oriented along this magnetic field. This is BTW how the past history of the Earth's magnetic field is inferred, where the basaltic material near the Atlantic spreading center holds this history of magnetic orientation in its magnetization. Something similar happens to the vacuum energy of the universe, where there are domains which break the symmetry of this high energy vacuum and the vacuum energy plummets to a much smaller value. These are then the “bubble universes,” of which in standard inflationary theory there are only so many of them. Eternal inflation posits an inflation which occurs at below the Planck scale, and so the inflaton field is not causally related to the expansion of the space and it acts “eternally.”
There are caveats I will have to make with this, before returning to the main issue here. Currently a Europhysics conference on data from the Large Hadron Collider has given a 2σ exclusion for the Higgs particle this means the probability for the Higgs being absent is p = 1 - e^{-4σ} = .98. In other words the darn things are pretty much excluded from the data. In the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) there are 8 degrees of freedom for the Higgs, where three of them at low energy are destroyed (Goldstone mechanism) and absorbed into the Z and W^{+/-} and the other five become a light neutral Higgs, a heavy neutral Higgs, a pseudoscalar and two charged Higgs fields. The game here ultimately involves putting enough degrees of freedom into the vacuum. Yet the predicted Higgs field are so far absent. The FERMI and INTEGRAL data on predicted dispersion of radiation across cosmic distances also illustrates how the vacuum is really free of all these vacuum modes our theories have been packing into them. This includes eternal inflationary cosmology. So all of this needs to be taken with caveats, and some sense that the foundations of physics involved here may simply be wrong.
The data analysis here involves detecting non-Gaussian structure in the CMB that may be a signature of some interaction between our inflationary cosmic bubble and some other. The pictures of the ovals with repeated wavy colored patterns in the
paper are Legendre polynomial functions and the great summation over these results in the fine grained structure of the CMB we observe. Such an interaction would produce some breaking of the symmetry (anisotropy) in the distribution of the Gaussian signature.
LC
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 17:24 GMT
"You’ve got to wait around for the people who actually know what they’re doing,"
Well, scientific research and forensic technology have meanwhile a lot in common. From my own work, I may recommend to look at as many independent from each other data that belong to the same place and time. Ask those who measure, simulate, and try to interpret ground penetrating radar pictures. Some artifacts are rather similar.
Good luck,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Roy Johnstone wrote on Aug. 7, 2011 @ 05:19 GMT
Lawrence,
"This is not the same as the theory of Gurzadyan and Penrose". Yes, their "CCC" is cyclic, does not include inflation and the CMB signatures are the result of gravitational "shock waves" rather than bubble wall collisions.
But are you saying that CCC concentric low temperature variance circles cannot be confirmed and analysed using the same sort of analysis as the one in this paper, both using WMAP 7 year data or future Planck data?
Penrose was motivated by the conundrum of the "ridiculously" low entropy initial cosmic state and his "Weyl curvature hypothesis". What attracted me to this model initially was more to do with what it might have to say about how we define and measure entropy. This model addresses the low entropy condition essentially by saying that all gravitational degrees of freedom are not yet "activated" at the big bang. This results from the final state of the previous epoch having no matter content (conformal geometry) and Weyl k = 0. So zero gravitational degrees of freedom are carried through under the conformal geometry transition, which I think Penrose takes from the ideas of Tod some 20 years ago?
So gravitational degrees of freedom are converted into radiation only d.o.g. when all matter has "evapourated". The question is, what should we consider the "minimal information content" of the universe to be at the BB? If the past conformal infinity contained information about prior matter content in the form of radiation, can the BB initial state be considered to contain globally *all* the information content, including de-activated gravitational information which should not be lost! Could it be that entropy is in some sense conserved maximally in time and the BB was in fact high entropy when viewed perhaps in terms of complimentarity, ie internally high entropy, externally low entropy?
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 8, 2011 @ 00:36 GMT
Everybody is looking for kurtosis and other non-Gaussian signals in the CMB. The idea is that it can’t be completely random; there must be some information imprinted on it. After all the post radiation dominated world has information, so some of the information about the world today must have some fingerprint on the early universe, in particular the CMB.
It has been a while since I looked at the Gurzadyan-Penrose theory. The theory involves an extension of conformal structure to beyond the big bang, or the singular condition of the universe. This replaces the singular condition with some conformal structure that is geodesic complete to t = -∞. The singularity is then a sort of phase change which occurs once the universe in every local region no longer has information about “time.” It is an interesting idea, and similar to one I conjured up over 20 years ago. However, the claim of the Gurzadyan-Penrose theory has not been substantiated. The pocket universe problem here does not involve a concentric circle in the CMB, but rather an anisotropy. This has a circular geometry, but is different from the GP theory of concentric circles.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Ranganath wrote on Aug. 8, 2011 @ 10:04 GMT
New Cosmology [viXra:1107.0058]
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Aug. 9, 2011 @ 03:34 GMT
Other universes are there and are based on different Planck values. Anywhere as h+n or h-n universes. They don't interact with us, unless in between, like neutrinos.
MM
report post as inappropriate
Michael Popov, Oxford wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 13:55 GMT
Direct / inderect test for multiverse is very attactive problem for some futuristic experimental quantum anthropology as well.
Indeed a neighboring universe can co - exist in some unknown form where normal assumptions of today's normal physics ( for exam[ple Minkowsky's Weltpostulate ) cannot be valid.
Let us imagine some sort of impossible quantum test where for some two located precisely events - simultaneous spaces - there may exist reducible to zero time difference ,where one event of a fixed dimensionality 3+1 may co-exist with another event of the 3 -1 dimensionality (so-called "the end of time " in the terms of recent article by Alan Guth $ Vitaly Vanchurin ( arXiv :1108.0665 hep-th )), hence, test could be understood as a kind of quantum game with time.
( some approximation can be found in my paper entitled "Testing Two-Dimensional Time" Nature of Time Contest FQXi 2008 ). Something similar Vitaly Ginzburg in his brilliant Editor's letter tried to say me when I published my article in Uspechi Physics ,2003. Very interesting findings on multiverse and consciousness in experimental aspect also were made by Michael B. Mensky ( please, see arXiv 060 8309 )
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 15:12 GMT
Lee Smolin and Giovanni Amelio-Camelia (with a grant (RFP2-08-02) from FQXi)are introducing "PHASE SPACE". Phase Space is quite different from Space-Time.
"Description of particles propagating and interacting in space-time are constructed by observers, but different observers , separated from each other by translations, construct different space-time projectionsfrom the invariant phase-space"
from " The principle of relative locality" arXiv : 1101 0931v2 [hep-th] 31 jan 2011.
Our 4D world is called "Momentum Space" and merged in this view from an eight dimensinal world, this momentum space is amere mathematical tool.
In my point of view the most interesting of this phase-space is that Smolin mentions : "it represents ALL POSSIBLE VALUES of POSITION, TIME, ENERGY an MOMENTUM, (here Smolin touches my own non causal Total Simultaneity, only it does not need eight dimensions.
I touched this item because it can mean that the algorithm as used here to indicate a multiverse, can also mean that this algorithm shows us that the higher dimensional phase-space from Smolin (or perhaps also my own Total Simultaneity) is absolute and invariant to ALL obsevers.
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 15:11 GMT
Your lines of reasoning are totally irrationals, not deterministics, not universals. How could you superimpose correctly? if you do not insert the correct domains, the real series, the foundamental limits. Then your convergences and conclusions are totally falses. I am sorry but I speak simply with freedom and sincerity. It is that the free thinking also.
I do not see real convergences with our pure realism and its pure objectives observations. Multiverses are falses like the extradimensions. These maths are falses.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Jeff King wrote on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 12:04 GMT
That's a good one, seems you have done a great research.
software patents
report post as inappropriate
Udaybhanu Chitrakar wrote on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 02:04 GMT
If total energy of the universe is zero, then it can be shown that multiverse theory cannot be true. This is because total energy being zero, total mass will also be zero due to mass-energy equivalence. Scientists have shown that anything having mass will always occupy some space. So anything that fails to occupy any space cannot have any mass. Our universe perhaps fails to occupy any space, and that is why its mass is zero. But if multiverse theory is true, then our universe will definitely occupy some space within the multiverse, and thus in that case its mass cannot be zero. But as this mass is zero, therefore multiverse theory cannot be true.
Here it may be argued that radiation occupies space but its mass is zero. So here is an example that something occupying space can still be without mass. So our universe can also be without mass even if it occupies some space within the multiverse. In reply we will say that the example cited here is a bad example, because our universe is not any kind of radiation. So if it is without mass, then that can only be due to its not occupying any space, and not due to its being some sort of radiation.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 12:01 GMT
If they find what they're looking for, it could be anything. A disk shaped "imprint"? Could be caused by any one of thirty thousand things we don't know about. Testing for universes outside this one goes like this - you will say, ah! another universe is evident, we can see it is affecting our data. But it could always be something else, out of a very wide range of things. This is well-known, but the underlying reason they still search for it, and get funding to search for it, is they need it to try to avoid some philosophical conclusions that are in fact unavoidable.
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.