The Universe

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by The God, May 1, 2017.

  1. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Thanks to Vera Rubin's observation of 1/r velocity dependence of spiral galaxies, we already know that something is seriously wrong with GR. Fully 1/3 of the stars in the outermost portions of spiral galaxies have already achieved escape velocity under GR, yet they are not escaping. Dark energy was devised to account for this discrepancy.

    Space in the vicinity of a gravitational field can have inertia too, if you consider the mechanism by which the SM proposes it gets it.

    Whatever the boson(s) involved, one cannot give gravitational inertia in linear or spin forces to matter without the bosons creating that force getting gravitational inertia back themselves, by Newton's third law. If the bosons are in free space, then space gets that inertia. Unless you believe that gravity is some form of reactionless thruster or perpetual motion machine, that is. That sort of idea used to be frowned upon, once upon a time. At least, Dark Matter is an improvement over either of those.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    LOL, no. We have no maths, yet, that explains what a "singularity" actually is. Out current theories do not explain them.

    Danshawen: The Higgs is not a gauge boson.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    Dark Matter. We have other evidence of DM.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Division by zero (a/0) is singularity. Singularity is maths, not some physical entity which requires maths for description.
     
  8. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I did nor refer to Vera Rubin or DM, neither did I refer about Galaxy Rotation Curves.

    I just said as per GR equations, mass/energy curves spacetime, there is no spacetime for the "whole universe" which can be curved (r > R), hence GR cannot be applied. So as such GR cannot describe the "whole universe" gravity. Any reference that new spacetime is getting created will not salvage this situation.
     
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Yes, I know (that in the strictest sense, Higgs is not considered to be a gauge boson, because it carries no recognized fundamental force). That was exactly my point. It was sarcasm.

    Some people seem to think that all of the forces in atomic structure were completely worked out before the Higgs was discovered, and that its term can just be ignored as some sort of oddity.

    But the Higgs is supposed to hold many of those particles together. If that isn't considered a "force", then I suppose I really don't understand what a force is.

    I also rejected string theory right after attending one of Witten's kick-off colloquia on M theory, and never regretted my choice.
     
  10. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    OK

    A finite age is just that

    Has a beginning

    a middle

    a ending

    What ever value you asign to that age is IT

    Size

    Atoms used to be the standard as to the smallest something could be broken down to

    Gone way passed that but eventually any object can be broken down into its smallest parts

    and bust the smallest parts apart to release the energy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Yeah, that's what I was taught as well, however;

    Neutrinos have tiny masses, and I asked a simple question about them to possibly the foremost expert in the world, who worked with Nobel Laureate Ray Davis on the world's first neutrino detector, the one that set off the 30 year quest for the missing solar neutrino flux, finally resolved with a more advanced Cherenkov style heavy water detector in Sudbury, Ontario.

    I asked him, Jack; "Would it be possible to construct a neutrino out of photons?"

    His simple one line answer was:

    "That would break about a dozen conservation laws."

    ...Which is a great answer, by the way. Unless you can answer that question, don't bother touting E=mc^2 which everyone already knows, even in grade school these days.

    My friend Jack is a tenured physics professor at CUNY.

    Posts like yours are the reason I keep coming back here. If you didn't ask, no one would ever know, I had already asked this question, and I did it in a way that really frames it as a ringer. The answer was as good as the question. If you can't make a neutrino out of pure energy, then you evidently don't know squat about how E=mc^2 works, or really, much about anything else connected to particle phyics. That's exactly where we are at the beginning of the 21st century.

    Einstein's most famous formula is about the only physics math guaranteed 100% reliable. People in that field go off on Abelian and Lie groups the way mine did on Newton's calculus. It is to obscure their own very poor understanding of physics and impress others by demonstrating they have a better grasp of math that may or may not find application in uncovering new science. If that's the only way you know how to use your math, we'll probably never see a better answer to my question.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  12. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    Gives particles some of their mass.

    The volume which we call the singularity will need maths to describe it. and it will be a "physical entity" of some description because we will use science to describe it.
     
  13. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Singularity has no volume, in one case it is point and in another case ring with zero thickness.
     
  14. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Query: Is there ANY direct observational evidence that a singularity actually exists? Or is singularity existence only an inferred math artifact (point) that corresponds to assumptive criteria of the Standard Model?
     
  15. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Consider an uncharged non spinning object, if it becomes smaller that its schwarzschild radius, then there is no known internal force which could resist the gravitational collapse. So it must travel to r = 0, Secondly once the objects falls beneath it's schwarzschild radius, not even light can escape. Actually we really do not know what happens inside schwarzschild radius which is called as event horizon too.


    There are observational evidence of our milky way central zone (Sgr* A) orbiting stars, maths, newtonian, shows that for those kind of orbits and speeds the central object mass must be within its event horizon. BH and it's singularity.

    Actually singularity is nonsense.
     
  16. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    posting error
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2017
  17. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Thanks! . . . .your brief, to the point, and minimal math explanation is much appreciated and confirms my suspicions!
     
  18. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    I was using 'Volume" as a location. In fact, as we know singularities are a mathematical artefact, there could very well be an actual "volume" at the centre of a BH. Think of singularities as a placeholder. Giving them any physical attributes is fraught.
     
  19. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Even assigning location to singularity is a problem. It will make the spacetime discontinuous.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  20. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    How do we know it isn't? The singularity is usually describe as being at the centre of a BH, that to my way of thinking is a location. That is all.
     
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I will get you some paper on this. But meanwhile please try to plot 1/x on either side of x = 0 and see if you get a continuous or discontinuous curve. Can the fabric of spacetime be discontinuous?
     
  22. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
  23. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    Don't know. Do you? That link seems to say there is a lot of disagreement as to what actually is.

    If it was infinite at the beginning then it has always been infinite. Regardless of age, which only applies to the observable Universe.
     

Share This Page