How Can real energy 'permeate space-time', when space-time is just maths construct?

There are so many errors in that one sentence.

1) Sean Carroll was describing the work of himself and scads of other people, theorists and observers. 2) We need not simply the CMB work, but also a number of other types of observations to fix flatness. 3) Claims about the universe beyond all possible observations will always be conjecture, perhaps not baseless, but surely conjecture.

It never needed inflation. A series of poor assumptions leads to that conclusion, in my opinion. There is some evidence for inflation regardless.

There will always be physicists who wan that flatness to be explained, regardless of its extent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Undefined and others have complained that physics is just math constructs, and as such do not accurately describe reality. While this is not true, it is true that blind application of mathematics without taking the physical situation into account can result in unrealistic results.

Math is the language of physics and is a way to model or describe reality, but it is only an approximation. However, it can be an awfully damn good approximation as proven by our ability to use these models to make a microprocessor with almost a billion transistors in it or predict the curvature of space due to a mass of the sun.

The problem that can arise is if the physical attributes of processes are not understood and then blindly applying straight mathematics to the processes can result in nonsensical results. This is something that a physicist will strive not to allow to happen. The mistake of incorrectly applying math to a physical situation often happens with laymen or to physics student when exploring physics. An example of this was recently posted:

Mathematically on the face of it this seems perfectly OK. Both of the equations equal energy so in a purely mathematical sense it seems that there is no problem here. But if you look at the physical situation and not just the straight math the issue becomes obvious.

The first equation:
\(E=h\nu\)

This equation describes the energy of black body radiation. Black body radiation describes the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by charged particles due to their temperature. An example of black body radiation can be seen by heating a piece of steel; it will begin to glow dull red and then progress to orange and then white hot. These different colors are the different frequencies of the electromagnetic radiation (photons) that the charged particles (electrons) are emitting proportional to the temperature. The hotter the material gets the higher the frequency of the photons and the higher the energy of the photons, the actual relationship between the frequency of the photons and the energy emitted was discovered by Max Planck and the relationship is given by the constant h.

\(E_{bb}\) Energy of the photons emitted from a black body
\(h\) = Plancks Constant
\(\nu\) = Frequency of the electron magnetic radiation emitted by the charged particles.


Now the second equation:
\(E=mc^2\)

The equation is describing the mass energy equivalency. The equation is essentially saying that the amount of energy in a mass with no momentum is equivalent to that mass multiplied times the speed of light squared. Another way to look at it is that if all of that mass was somehow converted to energy it would equal \(mc^2\).

\(E_{eq}\) Energy equivalency of a mass
\(m\) = mass
\(c\) = speed of light in a vacuum

The problem then is that \(E_{bb}\) is not the same as \(E_{eq}\), they are not describing the same physical quantity. The poster either has a “brain fart” (which has happened to us all) or did not understand the physics. On a purely mathematical basis it appears that the E (Energy) is the same in both equations, but physically they represent very different things, which is why I added the subscript to them. So you cannot set them equal because they are not the same thing and it will result in nonsense.

The result of setting these 2 equations equal gives us this:
\(\nu=m(\frac{c^2}{h}) \)

This is not correct and is simply meaningless. In the equation the terms c and h are constant. The mass is the only variable. The equation gives a result of \(\nu\) which is the frequency of the emitted photons. This means that all mass regardless of its composition spontaneously emits photons and the frequency of the photons is affected only by the amount of mass present. This cannot be shown experimentally and is clearly just nonsense. A liter of distilled water is not radioactive and 2 liters is certainly not twice as radioactive!

What is worse is that if we put some actual numbers to this incorrect application of math to the physics you get this:
\(c^2 = 9\times10^{10}\) constant
\(h = 6.63\times10^{-34}\) constant
\(m=1\) let’s use 1 kg for simplicity

The result:
\(\nu= 1.36 \times10^{44} sec^{-1}\)

So that the result (if it were true) means that a mass of 1 kg spontaneously emits gamma radiation that is 1000000000000000000 times higher in energy than the highest energy gamma rays ever detected (they were detected from the crab nebula pulsar).

So the upshot is while math applied without regard to the physics of the situation can result in meaningless expressions, math rigorously applied to physics will result in effective and useful models of reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not at all. I posted a youtube link directly to a Penrose Lecture which explained this fact about time and matter clocks. I have defined this exactly the way he did. Would you like me to post the link again so you can see... this is no brain fart. I am using real physics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also, we've measured the electron clock using chanelling experiments, meaning we have also experimental confirmation of this internal frequency. It can be remodeled (due to work by Hestene's on zitter motion) as an electron clock.

 

Well looks like I was completely wrong. The brain fart was by me.

 

Are you referring to that BBC doco I gave you the info about? Did you find it and watch it through to where he tells/demonstrates exactly his experiment/methodology of checking the angles of the triangle related to 'features' of the 2003 CMB map? He was showing the work/results (in 2012 doco) of his results from the 2003 CMB data/map. He wasn't speaking about his work with others on other experiments/projects, he just explained his results that his methodology proved the universal extent to be infinite and flat beyond the observable universal volume. That's all I was bringing your attention to, not his other projects/collaborations. That result was the best we have so far, as it is simple and straightforward and not subject to theoretical overlays and interpretations which may differ depending on the hypotheses used/preferred. So unless anyone can come up with some new test/observation which falsifies Sean Carroll's results, then it's the best observation of the extent and flatness of the universal energy-space substrate we have. Cheers.

 

.[/QUOTE]

In the following video, he speaks of the arrow of time and entropy....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/31/what-is-time-sean-carroll_n_2339539.html

 

I don't think Sean Carroll had anything to do with the measurement of the spatial flatness of space from the WMAP data.

From the 9-year study:

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product...year/cosmology/wmap_9yr_cosmology_results.pdf ​

which is picked up on the WMAP "Top Ten" list at http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov

From the 3-year study:

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr2/pub_papers/threeyear/parameters/64897.web.pdf ​

From the first year study, the pre-prints of which correspond with the first chance for the world to see WMAP data:

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr1/pub_papers/firstyear/parameters/57707.web.pdf ​

So I don't see that Sean Carroll was closely related to this measurement in either an experimental or theoretical sense. While his papers are occasionally referenced, they occur in areas far removed from these claims. (BTW, \(1 - \Omega_k = \Omega_{tot} \approx \Omega_m + \Omega_{\Lambda}\) to the best of my understanding -- it wasn't clear from a quick skim if \(\Omega_r\) was included in the definition of \(\Omega_m\) or neglected due to magnitude.)

 

At this point, there is nothing more to say than that you are deluded.

I watched the documentary, and Horizon did a really bad job of explaining the origin of the work Carroll was describing.

However, if one wants to study physics, watching one documentary and substituting that for actually looking at what physicists actually say is not the course of a responsible person.

In this case, you have taken a simplistic description of a very complicated process, mus-remembered the conclusions drawn from these observations, and clung to this misunderstanding as if it could save you from drowning.

 

I have the WMAP papers on my computer so I reviewed them and Carroll is not an author for any paper of any year of results. He is cited for his theoretical work in the cosmological implications papers.

 

There's a huge non-sequitur in cosmology, wherein a flat universe is presumed to be an infinite universe. It just doesn't follow.

 

Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate, mathematically, where all working cosmologists are incorrect?

Otherwise we'll just have to assume that you don't know what you are talking about and that you are trying to insult scientists in order to make yourself seem better.

 

Duplicate post deleted.

 

If the energy-matter debate is merely a Pythagorean theorem, what else is there to discuss? What is real "energy" versus real "matter", then?

It basically means that no matter moves faster than light and that no light can be heavier than "dark matter"

 

Duplicate post deleted.

 

That does not per se mean that light can not be slower than weight. A black hole is the prove of that. One may ask why gamma rays escape them, but light does not...their wavelength....why?

 

Light can only travel at "c". Anything with "weight" can not reach that speed. Ergo, light can NEVER travel "slower than weight".

"Gamma rays" are one and the same as "light". Photons, with the same and equal constraints as far the way they propagate. No gamma rays or any other thing escape from black holes, nothing, nada, nilch, absolutely nothing. That leads me to wonder, where did you get the idea that "gamma rays" escape from black holes?

 

Matter/energy does not escape a BH.
The polar jets we have observed "appearing" to be exiting a BH, are matter/energy that has been caught and swept around by the magnetic field lines of a BH, and literally thrown out at the polar regions.
These spinning, charged BH's are called "Kerr-Newman" BHs.

The other apparent stuff that again appear to be exiting a BH, is Hawking radiation.
This process comes about due the the law of conservation of matter/energy, and virtual particles created near the EH.
Again, nothing from inside the Schwarzchild limit/EH, will ever cross that EH again.

 

Hi rpenner.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Mate, I did not refer to any other work/collaboration by Sean on other WMAP related exercises; I ONLY referred PhysBang et al to a SPECIFIC BBC doco (dated 2012) where Sean Carroll himself confirmed his 'triangulation method' results of the features in the 2003 WMAP map. That's it. Nothing else was involved from my end. Anything else is his and your own distraction from what I was talking about.

Anyhow, the point was that in that BBC doco Sean confirmed that the spatial geometry is flat to infinity beyond observable universe horizon. The production year and screening (in Australia) details of that BBC documentary is as follows:

I also finally found the relevant video recording of that screening here, and I am replaying it RIGHT NOW; so I will be able to provide PhysBang (in my next post below) some of the most directly relevant transcript from the video, just to prove to him that it was no 'delusion'.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hi PhysBang.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why do you say I am "deluded", mate? I found my video recording of that BBC doco, and am replaying it in the background even as we speak!

So it's clear you did NOT find and play that BBC doco (see again details in my above post to rpenner), else you wouldn't be claiming I am the one that is "deluded". Because if you had found it and watched it all the way through, you would have heard Sean and Narrator say the following in the relevant part of that doco:

So, Phys, there you have it. Not delusion, nor lies. Just the facts already as alluded to for your/et al's information, 'straight from the horses mouth'. Have nice day!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!