New Planck Satellite Tests Inflation Theory

[common_sense_seeker]

Two new satelites were launched: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/herschelplanck/SEM9V3ZVNUF_0.html. I predict that inflation will be found to be a real phenomenon. It's cause will be a mystery to the mainstream community though. Not for me.

[fedr808]

Two new satelites were launched: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/herschelplanck/SEM9V3ZVNUF_0.html. I predict that inflation will be found to be a real phenomenon. It's cause will be a mystery to the mainstream community though. Not for me.

Ummm, so what? We already consider inflation theory a theory which is as high as it will go. It cant be proven as a fact because nothing in science is a fact. So eessentially somebody is wasting a lot of money to prove something that has already been proven.

[common_sense_seeker]

Ummm, so what? We already consider inflation theory a theory which is as high as it will go. It cant be proven as a fact because nothing in science is a fact. So eessentially somebody is wasting a lot of money to prove something that has already been proven.It's scientific objectives are much more than just testing inflation theory: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Planck/SEM0P20YUFF_0.html. Then there's the Herschel satellite as well.

[kaneda]

Inflation is an unproven IDEA necessary for the big bang idea. One of it's many fudges.

[AlphaNumeric]

Inflation is an unproven IDEA necessary for the big bang idea. One of it's many fudges.Nice weasel words there K. That no part of science is ever a 'proven fact' means that your criticism of inflation is not a specific problem with inflation, but simply the nature of the scientific method. You can't prove that every time you drop a brick it'll all to the ground, you cannot prove its impossible for some other, previously unseen, effect to occur at some point. You often liken people who support the BB to creationists but your complaint "It's not proven" is precisely the same whining that creationists say about "Evolution isn't proven" or "It's only a theory". Yeah, just like the theory of gravity.

Do we have a lot of evidence for inflation? Yes. Has this evidence been examined by multiple independent groups? Yes. Is it freely available for others to examine? Yes, if you contacted the right people. Does it form part of a coherent model which has other, independent bits of evidence for it? Yes.

You have previously demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding when it comes to general relativity, the theory which allows us a description of inflation, so you're hardly in a position of knowledge to make claims about it, now are you?

[common_sense_seeker]

I've just read in a magazine that the Planck satellite will test Stephen Hawking's theories of multiple histories (or something like that). I can't wait until he is shown to be living in cloud cuckoo land. Then maybe science can progress once again.

[AlphaNumeric]

I've just read in a magazine that the Planck satellite will test Stephen Hawking's theories of multiple histories (or something like that). I can't wait until he is shown to be living in cloud cuckoo land.So you're dismissing him as living in cloud cuckoo land, despite you not having even read the article well enough to get what it claims Hawking has said, never mind you not having any knowledge of the work he's done or much else in science?

Pop science magazines often bend the truth or big up fringe theories because it helps sell magazines, you aren't getting your information 'straight from the horses mouth', you're getting it via a journalist. As such most of the details are missing or distorted so that its more accessible and interesting to the person on the street, such as yourself, who don't have the time, wish or intelligence (or combinations) to learn the details of what Hawking (or anyone else in the science community) works on.

Hawking has contributed a lot to our understanding of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Just because you only hear about bits of his work (again, the 'weird' or 'out-there' ideas get more press because they sell more magazines) doesn't mean that's all the work he's ever done. I'm sure you haven't read much in the way of his work in pseudo-Riemannian manifolds because it's not interesting to you, nor could you understand it anyway.

Then maybe science can progress once again. So we're not progressing at the moment? Do you think everyone is just sitting on their hands saying "We can't do anything without Hawking's permission!" or "He's bound to be write, noone bother to do any more work"? Some people do work which builds on Hawking's work, some do work which doesn't relate to it, some people do work in opposition to it.

The majority of the work done in general relativity, quantum gravity and other related things are not done by Hawking and doesn't have much, if anything, to do with his work. Take his 'Information Paradox' work. It didn't (and still doesn't) matter to most people what the final fate of the information is or how the black hole might evaporate completely, so it's not 'stopping science from progressing' because he's still not worked out a few particulars in something related to his work.

Next time, why don't you at least read the article before making a thread about how it's obviously wrong. You've demonstrated many many times you don't even grasp high school level physics so dismissing out of hand something related to cutting edge quantum gravity is pretty stupid of you.

[BenTheMan]

Two new satelites were launched: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/herschelplanck/SEM9V3ZVNUF_0.html. I predict that inflation will be found to be a real phenomenon. It's cause will be a mystery to the mainstream community though. Not for me.

Well, inflation is an idea that is pretty difficult to test, as I understand it. The predictions of inflation are pretty general (universe is nearly flat, no monopoles, etc.). Also, there's really only a few numbers that you can get from experiments. There's one number that tells you how flat the universe is (which is consistent with inflation), there's a number that tells you how big temperature fluctuations are in empty space (another number, consistent with inflation), and there's a few other details about exactly HOW the temperature fluctuations are correlated. This last bit is going to be what Planck REALLY does, much better than the previous WMAP satellites.

Anyway, there are very few actual scientists (read: people who get paid to do physics) who think that inflation is wrong. The problem is that picking a specific model (i.e. saying ``This is what actually happened in nature'') is pretty difficult, if not impossible.

[common_sense_seeker]

So you're dismissing him as living in cloud cuckoo land,..I'm not a big Hawking fan. Let's wait and see then..btw the magazine was Discovery (Jul/Aug).

Well, inflation is an idea that is pretty difficult to test, as I understand it. The predictions of inflation are pretty general (universe is nearly flat, no monopoles, etc.). Also, there's really only a few numbers that you can get from experiments. There's one number that tells you how flat the universe is (which is consistent with inflation), there's a number that tells you how big temperature fluctuations are in empty space (another number, consistent with inflation), and there's a few other details about exactly HOW the temperature fluctuations are correlated. This last bit is going to be what Planck REALLY does, much better than the previous WMAP satellites.

Anyway, there are very few actual scientists (read: people who get paid to do physics) who think that inflation is wrong. The problem is that picking a specific model (i.e. saying ``This is what actually happened in nature'') is pretty difficult, if not impossible.That's a useful reply BenTheMan, thanks for that. What's your view on the possibility of a fractal build-up of matter before the big bang (if you don't mind me asking)?

[BenTheMan]

IThat's a useful reply BenTheMan, thanks for that. What's your view on the possibility of a fractal build-up of matter before the big bang (if you don't mind me asking)?

Probably nonsense?

It's pretty difficult to test anything before the big bang, because you can only really have gravity waves propagating across the singularity. We haven't figured out how to detect those pre Big Bang gravity waves, and it's not clear that we ever will.

[AlphaNumeric]

I'm not a big Hawking fan. Let's wait and see then..btw the magazine was Discovery (Jul/Aug).You say you're not 'a big Hawking fan' but I'm certain you don't know of 98% of his work. Even Hawking turned out to be wrong on multiple histories (I'm not even sure that's actualy his work) he'd still have made huge contributions to physics, just it's not in material the guy on the street understands.

[common_sense_seeker]

You say you're not 'a big Hawking fan' but I'm certain you don't know of 98% of his work. Even Hawking turned out to be wrong on multiple histories (I'm not even sure that's actualy his work) he'd still have made huge contributions to physics, just it's not in material the guy on the street understands.I appreciate that, of course my remarks are rather off hand. The reason I'm so flippant is because it's all based on Newton's gravity law which was created without a proposed mechanism - this is unscientific in my mind. There are other possibilities which could solve the planetary motion conundrums of the 17th centuary, it's just that they are more complicated and would have required further work to achieve a gravity law.

The prophet Mohammed reportedly states in the Qu'ran that the ocean tides are formed from waves upon waves upon waves..This is close to another logical possibility of a super-attracting inner core, creating a bulge of the lithosphere. The standard explanation of the tides (the gravity gradient) was tacked on at the end of Newton's revelations and completely ignored the possibility of a combined effect with the above.

[D H]

More nonsense from common_sense_seeker.

[AlphaNumeric]

The reason I'm so flippant is because it's all based on Newton's gravity law which was created without a proposed mechanism - this is unscientific in my mind. There are other possibilities which could solve the planetary motion conundrums of the 17th centuary, it's just that they are more complicated and would have required further work to achieve a gravity law.Hawking's work isn't based on Newtonian gravity, he's one of the foremost experts on general relativity. His work in black holes involves using general relativity to relate statistical mechanics properties like entropy and temperature to black hole properties. Then he did semi-classical melding of GR and quantum field theory to provide a mechanism by which black holes can radiate (which they must do if they hare non-zero temperature). He's also done considerable amounts on the differential geometry of pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, which are the building blocks of general relativity.

Newtonian gravity hasn't been a serious research topic in physics for almost 100 years now.

The prophet Mohammed reportedly states in the Qu'ran that the ocean tides are formed from waves upon waves upon waves..This is close to another logical possibility of a super-attracting inner core, creating a bulge of the lithosphere. The standard explanation of the tides (the gravity gradient) was tacked on at the end of Newton's revelations and completely ignored the possibility of a combined effect with the above. Waves are produced by the wind acting on the surface of water. If tides were simply the massive superposition of waves they would follow weather patterns, not the position of the Sun, Earth and Moon. Neap tides occur during particular solar system configurations due to gravitational effects, they are not dependent on the weather.

Further more, the explaination for tides isn't 'tacked on' to Newtonian gravity. If you have F = \frac{GMm}{r^{2}} as how point particles interact when you find that when you consider a large object, one which is spacially extended, different parts of it feel different forces. For instance, your head feels less gravitational force from the Earth than your feet, it's just the difference is so tiny you don't notice it. The oceans are thousands of miles across, curving around the Earth and so water in the Mediterranean is going to feel a different force due to the Moon when compared to water in the Sea of Japan and you get different sea levels, which vary as the Earth rotates and the Sun and Moon move relative to it. You don't have to add anything to Newtonian gravity to describe the tides, the power of Newtonian gravity is that it explains tides without needing anything tacked on. Same goes for general relativity, there's the 'tidal tensor' which allows you to describe how objects not in the same space will feel different gravitational effects.

This takes me back to my first post, you dismiss work you haven't even bothered to find out about. I thought you said you have a degree in astrophysics? How can you possibly think that Newtonian gravity has to 'tack on' an explaination for tides if you have studied this stuff? How can you possibly be unaware general relativity is the main area of research for those doing gravity theories?

Did you lie about your degree or did you just do exceptionally poor in it?

[common_sense_seeker]

Hawking's work isn't based on Newtonian gravity, he's one of the foremost experts on general relativity. His work in black holes involves using general relativity to relate statistical mechanics properties like entropy and temperature to black hole properties. Then he did semi-classical melding of GR and quantum field theory to provide a mechanism by which black holes can radiate (which they must do if they hare non-zero temperature). He's also done considerable amounts on the differential geometry of pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, which are the building blocks of general relativity.

Newtonian gravity hasn't been a serious research topic in physics for almost 100 years now.

Waves are produced by the wind acting on the surface of water. If tides were simply the massive superposition of waves they would follow weather patterns, not the position of the Sun, Earth and Moon. Neap tides occur during particular solar system configurations due to gravitational effects, they are not dependent on the weather.

Further more, the explaination for tides isn't 'tacked on' to Newtonian gravity. If you have F = \frac{GMm}{r^{2}} as how point particles interact when you find that when you consider a large object, one which is spacially extended, different parts of it feel different forces. For instance, your head feels less gravitational force from the Earth than your feet, it's just the difference is so tiny you don't notice it. The oceans are thousands of miles across, curving around the Earth and so water in the Mediterranean is going to feel a different force due to the Moon when compared to water in the Sea of Japan and you get different sea levels, which vary as the Earth rotates and the Sun and Moon move relative to it. You don't have to add anything to Newtonian gravity to describe the tides, the power of Newtonian gravity is that it explains tides without needing anything tacked on. Same goes for general relativity, there's the 'tidal tensor' which allows you to describe how objects not in the same space will feel different gravitational effects.

This takes me back to my first post, you dismiss work you haven't even bothered to find out about. I thought you said you have a degree in astrophysics? How can you possibly think that Newtonian gravity has to 'tack on' an explaination for tides if you have studied this stuff? How can you possibly be unaware general relativity is the main area of research for those doing gravity theories?

Did you lie about your degree or did you just do exceptionally poor in it?You are currently unable to think in abstract thought and you're unbalanced and too logically minded to understand the subtlety of what I'm saying. btw I won a joint prize for best student at university whilst studying Astronomy with Computing.

(The equivalence principle is simply unfounded if one assumes that the gravity force is carried by particles)

[AlphaNumeric]

You are currently unable to think in abstract thoughtI spend my days thinking about 6 dimensional field theory defined in a space with twisted generalised geometry. Out of all the people I share an office with (and all the people I share an office with a theoretical physics PhDs) I'm the one who does the most abstract work. The space-time of general relativity is less abstract than the geometry of the spaces I work on.

You're unbalanced and too logically minded to understand the subtlety of what I'm saying.No, what you're saying are flat out incorrect. Tidal forces are not 'tacked on' to Newtonian gravity, you were wrong about that. Hawking doesn't do research into Newtonian gravity, you were wrong about that. Tides are not determined purely by weather, you were wrong about that. Hawking's work isn't hindering people researching other things, you were wrong about that.

None of those things require subtly or any understanding, they are simply facts. And I do understand Newtonian gravity and general relativity, I've both studied them and as I just mentioned, my research is in the area of extremely complicated abstract geometry.

btw I won a joint prize for best student at university whilst studying Astronomy with Computing.Then I reach one of three conclusions.

1. You went to a truly horrifically terrible university.
2. You have since developed amnesia and forgotten everything you learnt.
3. You're a big fat liar.

If you did astronomy then you'd be familiar with Newtonian gravity and you'd know that tidal effects arise in the model naturally, nothing has to be 'tacked on'. But you don't know so I'm left wondering why you don't know. :shrug:

[Pete]

Old joke:

Engineer: "How on Earth do you visualise fifteen dimensional space?"
Mathemetician (or abstract physicist ): "Well, first I picture an n-dimensional space. Then I just set n=15!"

[common_sense_seeker]

Old joke:

Engineer: "How on Earth do you visualise fifteen dimensional space?"
Mathemetician (or abstract physicist ): "Well, first I picture an n-dimensional space. Then I just set n=15!"Nothing to do with me or how I think..

[D H]

common_sense_seeker:
Keep your nonsense to pseudoscience, please.

Infractions are next if you keep it up.

[common_sense_seeker]

Ok, that's fine with me. Anyone know when to expect any published results from the Planck mission?

[D H]

From http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?project=PLANCK&page=exec_summ
The primary output of the mission will be 9 calibrated all-sky maps ranging in frequency from 30 GHz to 900 GHz and in angular resolution from 30 to 4.5 arcminutes. These maps will be made available to the astronomical community within one year after the end of the nominal 18-month mission.
Results are more than a couple years away.

[common_sense_seeker]

From http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?project=PLANCK&page=exec_summ
The primary output of the mission will be 9 calibrated all-sky maps ranging in frequency from 30 GHz to 900 GHz and in angular resolution from 30 to 4.5 arcminutes. These maps will be made available to the astronomical community within one year after the end of the nominal 18-month mission.
Results are more than a couple years away.Thanks for that D H. :)