At Rest with our Hubble view

Farsight

You are aware that arXiv is a PREPUBLISHED archive, are you not? Getting on the arXiv database is as easy as submitting your paper through a registered terminal(usually at Universities or labs). You do know that MOST prepublished papers are rejected outright or go nowhere, right?(those that make it through the whole peer review process are in the single digits). So, you must be aware that MOST of the papers that appear on arXiv are speculative at best(RUBBISH at worst, waiting for someone to put them in file 13, the round one beside your desk), right? You seem to think that everyone who passes through a certain subway turnstile is a genius just because Einstein once used that very turnstile. arXiv is a subway car, it hauls the brilliant the same as the lame, without judgement or discernment beyond certain minimums(you must find your way to the subway), they are not a peer reviewed source for anything.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't think he knows that? Are you going for the straw man crown?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

quantum_wave

He did just use it to support his distortions(IE "others publish papers that say the same thing"), so how did I create the argument in ANY sense? Sort of like saying "Look, there's lots of stupid people who say the same thing as I am saying." in my view not a winning argument. I was simply pointing out that the papers he cited are not peer reviewed and are invalid as a source until they are, so they support nothing. Like buttholes, everyone has an opinion, but not all opinions are valid.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Understood. But would you like to rephrase that last sentence?

 

Space is not a medium. By definition, it's the absence of all media.

"The" one and only property of free space is its intrinsic impedance of 377Ω, which is the same as saying ϵ[sub]0[/sub] = 8.854 E-12 F/m and μ[sub]0[/sub] = 4π E-7 V·s/(A·m), which is the same as saying c = E8 m/s. In other words, the only property of space is the one that restricts its definition to the definition of time, which really just says the only property of space is that it's relative, and (in summary) it preserves Maxwell's equations.

For purposes of this discussion, space is empty.

If it isn't luminiferous it isn't aether, much less space.

 

Understood. But would you like to rephrase that last sentence?

And can we get back on topic and address this: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3093182&viewfull=1#post3093182

The Penrose Article:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...ims-to-have-glimpsed-universe-before-big-bang
Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang

WMAP's view of the past: can it see beyond the Big Bang?
Circular patterns within the cosmic microwave background suggest that space and time did not come into being at the Big Bang but that our universe in fact continually cycles through a series of "aeons". That is the sensational claim being made by University of Oxford theoretical physicist Roger Penrose, who says that data collected by NASA's WMAP satellite support his idea of "conformal cyclic cosmology". This claim is bound to prove controversial, however, because it opposes the widely accepted inflationary model of cosmology.

According to inflationary theory, the universe started from a point of infinite density known as the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago, expanded extremely rapidly for a fraction of a second and has continued to expand much more slowly ever since, during which time stars, planets and ultimately humans have emerged. That expansion is now believed to be accelerating and is expected to result in a cold, uniform, featureless universe.

Penrose, however, takes issue with the inflationary picture and in particular believes it cannot account for the very low entropy state in which the universe was believed to have been born – an extremely high degree of order that made complex matter possible. He does not believe that space and time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang but that the Big Bang was in fact just one in a series of many, with each big bang marking the start of a new "aeon" in the history of the universe.

Big Bang all over again

Central to Penrose's theory is the idea that in the very distant future the universe will in one sense become very similar to how it was at the Big Bang. He says that at these points the shape, or geometry, of the universe was and will be very smooth, in contrast to its current very jagged form. This continuity of shape, he maintains, will allow a transition from the end of the current aeon, when the universe will have expanded to become infinitely large, to the start of the next, when it once again becomes infinitesimally small and explodes outwards from the next big bang. Crucially, he says, the entropy at this transition stage will be extremely low, because black holes, which destroy all information that they suck in, evaporate as the universe expands and in so doing remove entropy from the universe.

Penrose now claims to have found evidence for this theory in the cosmic microwave background, the all-pervasive microwave radiation that was believed to have been created when the universe was just 300,000 years old and which tells us what conditions were like at that time. The evidence was obtained by Vahe Gurzadyan of the Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia, who analysed seven years' worth of microwave data from WMAP, as well as data from the BOOMERanG balloon experiment in Antarctica. Penrose and Gurzadyan say they have clearly identified concentric circles within the data – regions in the microwave sky in which the range of the radiation's temperature is markedly smaller than elsewhere.

Seeing through the Big Bang

According to Penrose and Gurzadyan, these circles allow us to "see through" the Big Bang into the aeon that would have existed beforehand. The circles, they say, are the marks left in our aeon by the spherical ripples of gravitational waves that were generated when black holes collided in the previous aeon. And they say that these circles pose a problem for inflationary theory because this theory says that the distribution of temperature variations across the sky should be Gaussian, or random, rather than having discernable structures within it.

Julian Barbour, a visiting professor of physics at the University of Oxford, says that these circles would be "remarkable if real and sensational if they confirm Penrose's theory". They would, he says, "overthrow the standard inflationary picture", which, he adds, has become widely accepted as scientific fact by many cosmologists. But he believes that the result will be "very controversial" and that other researchers will look at the data very critically. He says there are many disputable aspects to the theory, including the abrupt shift of scale between aeons and the assumption, central to the theory, that all particles will become massless in the very distant future. He points out, for example, that there is no evidence that electrons decay.

End of article

Penrose's paper is on arXiv, which Grumpy has already discussed, pointing out the lack of peer review, but you can read it here:*http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706

Penrose went out on a limb, wouldn't you say, lol.

(23598)

 

Penrose's crazy idea (his words) does put him out on a limb. But he as several theories that put him out on several limbs. He is not not afraid of putting out unpopular and somewhat blue sky type theories. He has many interesting but far out ideas.

Wikipedia, (I know, not the best source but you can do your own search) says this about the circles.

Empirical tests[edit]

In 2010, Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan published a preprint of a paper claiming that observations of the cosmic microwave background made by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the BOOMERanG experiment showed concentric anomalies which were consistent with the CCC hypothesis, with a low probability of the null hypothesis that the observations in question were caused by chance.[5] However, the statistical significance of the claimed detection has since been questioned. Three groups have independently attempted to reproduce these results, but found that the detection of the concentric anomalies was not statistically significant, in the sense that such circles would appear in a proper Gaussian simulation of the anisotropy in the CMB data.[6][7][8]

The reason for the disagreement was tracked down to an issue of how to construct the simulations that are used to determine the significance: The three independent attempts to repeat the analysis all used simulations based on the standard Lambda-CDM model, while Penrose and Gurzadyan used an undocumented non-standard approach.[9]​

So it is not really a win situation for Penrose. At least not yet. The main problem (there are several problems) with his theory is the huge leap of faith that the distant future universe will somehow transform into a pre-bigbang like situation. What he says is that after all the matter in the universe has decayed and only photons are left, and that they are stretched to such low energies by Hubble expansion, they can't create new particles of matter, that the universe will loose all notion of distance and time. There will be no clocks and no rulers anywhere to define the terms. And the universe will somehow become that very small what ever it was that will become another big bang and expanding universe. It is a very interesting theory but not without some major obstacles to overcome.

One other point I would like to make is that if Penrose was to be presented with evidence, either experimental or theoretical, that showed his idea was wrong. He would pause think about it, and say something like, "oh well, it was a fun idea" and just go about what ever it was he was doing. Sure he might come back and look at it again just to make sure. That is what differentiates a man of science from a crank. Cranks are like gila monsters, once they latch onto an idea, there is nothing that can make them let go.

 

If it was anyone else, Farsight, then this would be a fairy innocuous statement. But given that you're forever bleating on about not confusing physical objects with their mathematical description, I find this a little rich. It's made far worse by the following...

Do you understand what a spinor is? I highly doubt it. It's fairly well understood [and I don't think you'd be daft enough to contest the point] that you're mathematically illiterate. For this reason, I find it highly unlikely that you understand the notion of a spinor.

Just like your previous mentioning of thinks like topological quantum field theory, Weyl tensors and so on, I think this is an example of you making noises for effect. And just as with my request regarding your knowledge of topological quantum field theory, I expect you to scuttle off and hope that no one noticed you were caught with your trousers down.

 

Fairy innocuous; OMG the "fairy dust" man is back.

 

True, aside from the baggage you carry toward discussion of alternative ideas. But you are at least now aware that there are anomalies in the CMB data, and that there is no consensus on what causes the wide angle anomaly. And you are the first to mention the links. Good of you to read the article.

Penrose's "theory" fails pretty badly, even in my layman view. His description of how the low entropy state is restored is ... well missing.

 

Actually I didn't bother to read the article. I have read Penrose's book and watched his lecture on CCC on youtube. I assumed that you didn't know what his theory was because it does nothing to support your ideas. Penrose was just trying to find a way to join a ever expanding universe and a big bang event into a circle. I am sure his reason is like yours, that he does not like the idea something from nothing. But his idea is about geometry and we know your opinions of that.

As far as my baggage toward alternative ideas goes, I like Penrose and find his ideas interesting. I don't necessarily agree with them but the are food for thought. My problem with some of the alternative ideas on these forums is that they are absolute in their stance. If presented with incontrovertible evidence against their theory, there can be no backing down. Your theory for instance. You will never abandon it and yes before you say it, we all know it is your so called model and a hobby. Penrose on the other hand would recant any of his theories if presented with a good enough argument. That is how science works.

 

Understood.

 

A photon is absorbed by an electron. Is the photon in a lower or higher energy state? I am aware the electron is in a higher state.

 

And the reason you ask is ....?

 

:wallbang: uh . . . because he wants to know the answer? :bugeye:

 

You don't think he knows the answer? You read his mind. Care to say how? Or how the question was related to the quote he used? Or are you just bored silly?

 

Well it seems a photon stuck in a black hole or an electron or a vat of nothingness is lower entropy than it speeding around the galaxy, despite any of those examples ability to still resonate. Eg, if it takes in and simplifies/compounds more energy than it gives out somehow it might be a lower entropy state. But that does not mean lower energy always means lower entropy, thus examined in the case of the electron unless we observe the photon by itself. Speaking theoretically here along his original terms.

 

I'll have Ranch with the above salad.

 

PartyBoy,

Before the interaction, the photon is in a higher energy state than the electron that absorbs it.

Afterward, the photon either ceases to exist (gave up all its energy), or it exists at some fraction of its initial energy level.

EDIT:

After reading what you had to say next, I think I'll take a bottle of Merlot with that salad.

 

If you think about what Penrose said, once all the useful energy was out of the system, and if you call that complete entropy, he implied that a new system with low enrtopy (high useful energy) emerged in the wake of the former system, or so I surmise. He didn't connect the dots though as to how entropy was defeated in his "theory".