Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

[quantum_wave]

It doesn't take a mathematician to know when theories are incomplete, inconsistent, incompatible, or even wrong. Other mathematicians and theoretical physicists quickly let the cat out of the bag.

There are many current issues in physics and cosmology that are based on known inconsistencies and incompatibilities. Listen to those professionals who are already well established and who are talking about the issues. They write books, give talks, and write papers, and give us some insight as to where the future of science, physics and cosmology may be going.

Do you want that talk to take place in the Fringe forums, then go there to discuss the ideas you insist be started out there. That isn't the norm, except for a few who have taken up an issue before it got moved out there. Then they will linger for awhile in AltTheory, on that thread, until they don't get a response from the OP.

But back to the issues. When issues in physics and cosmology are evident, then it is back to the drawing board, where ideas lead to hypotheses. If an hypothesis seems to have merit, the mathematicians will be able to quantify it in the language of physics so the professionals are talking about the same specifics, and the idea can be vetted, tests can be modeled and carried out, and results can be analyzed and debated. All of that process is worthy of discussion. Too bad some good ideas cannot be tested, and so the impact they would have if they were correct does not enter into the discussion.

Science forums can bring together interested science enthusiasts from all ranks, professionals and laymen, to discuss the part that is about brainstorming ideas and hypotheses. Both smart professionals and smart laymen who frequent forums can put forward ideas. The "experts" are all over "dumb" ideas, but does a good idea, and there have to be some because ideas are driven by current problems, get acknowledged and worked on?

The mystery of Dark Energy is an example. It might be able to be explained if a higher density portion of the universe is surrounded by lower energy density space. Then the expansion is explained by energy density equalization, and the acceleration of expansion might be explained by the growing imbalance between the force of energy density equalization and the force of gravity, since equalization might lead to objects moving away from each other, and gravity has an inverse relationship to distance.

The problem: low energy density space outside the high energy density ball known as our universe is not allowed because the existing consensus requires that everything must be causally connected to the implied initial event, the beginning of the universe, and any good solution to the mysteries of the universe must be found from within the expanding universe. Vacuum energy density, the cosmological constant, expansion and accelerating expansion, all must be driven from within?

We don't seem to ever have any professionals here that are talking about the current problematic issues, or about those books and papers, offering their own opinions on the issues. How many of you that complain about the type of threads in P&M have started a discussion about a current controversial topic? You want to improve things, come away from the attacks and incivility, and bring up something worth reading and talking about. Start a thread on brainstorming a problem like dark energy or any other current issue; there are professionals working on them and they must be considering all solutions; what are they saying? Why aren't many issues like that of any interest here?

 

[origin]

You have to understand that brainstorming solutions to a something like dark energy on an internet forum is not going to result in any thing other than conjectures. That is fine but it is by defintion somehting that should be in the alternative theory section.

On the other hand if you find some peer reviewed paper about dark energy that you find interesting by all means bring it up and see where the discussion leads.

You seem to just be complaing again that it should be ok to throw out conjectures in the science sections and then have a free for all of arm waving guesses.

 

[Farsight]

There's plenty you can say about dark energy without a thread being all conjecture. You can refer to general relativity and gravitational field energy, and to the bag model and the balloon analogy. But doubtless if one does, the usual suspects will crawl out of the wallpaper to trash the discussion with abuse. Whilst our local friendly "moderator" sits on his hands.

 

[quantum_wave]

There's plenty you can say about dark energy without a thread being all conjecture. You can refer to general relativity and gravitational field energy, and to the bag model and the balloon analogy. But doubtless if one does, the usual suspects will crawl out of the wallpaper to trash the discussion with abuse. Whilst our local friendly "moderator" sits on his hands.

What someone intends to be a valid topic for discussion can quickly and easily be turned around, and be cast from the perspective that "it seems that you are complaining". The intention is not to complain. The post speaks the full content of what the intention is.

 

[CptBork]

It doesn't take a mathematician to know when theories are incomplete, inconsistent, incompatible, or even wrong. Other mathematicians and theoretical physicists quickly let the cat out of the bag.

Well apparently it does take a mathematician to understand why if you're trying to propose a local hidden variable alternative to quantum mechanics, it's already been definitively ruled out by statistical experimentation, regardless of the particular details or interpretations in such a theory. I was happy to discuss it with you last time you wanted to talk about some of your ideas here, and you ducked out. Any time you want to talk about it, I'd be very interested in how your assumptions differ from the basic assumptions made in Bell's theorem, so that your results would somehow differ from what the theorem gives for any localized hidden variable model.

 

[quantum_wave]

Well apparently it does take a mathematician to understand why if you're trying to propose a local hidden variable alternative to quantum mechanics, it's already been definitively ruled out by statistical experimentation, regardless of the particular details or interpretations in such a theory. I was happy to discuss it with you last time you wanted to talk about some of your ideas here, and you ducked out. Any time you want to talk about it, I'd be very interested in how your assumptions differ from the basic assumptions made in Bell's theorem, so that your results would somehow differ from what the theorem gives for any localized hidden variable model.

I request that you give us a link to the thread where that was discussed. On that thread, the point was made that some of the hidden variables interpretations were based on the position that the tools of QM are incomplete.

I'd be glad to reenter that discussion on the thread where presumably it was on topic. It seems like a straw-man on this thread. Would I be allowed to ask a moderator to move your post to that thread or to request that you start a new thread where it is the topic?

 

[CptBork]

I request that you give us a link to the thread where that was discussed. On that thread, the point was made that some of the hidden variables interpretations were based on the position that the tools of QM are incomplete.

Here's the last comment you wrote on the subject when we were last discussing it:

What ever you say. Your decision to believe that is fine with me. But my take on it is that there is an explanation for the latest experiments based on local reality, and somehow I doubt that you have read as much on that topic as I have.

Its time for me to fade out into the Fringe again for awhile, while I get my 2014 hobby-model update started. Thanks for all the comments, and Cav755, good luck, and keep up the attempts to educate us. I'm glad that the moderation of this forum hasn't forbidden this type of thread here, for the present. Those two or three vocal members who say you/we should do this out in the Fringe are the same people who would never contribute anything on-topic, either here or there, without shrouding it in disparagement and aloofness.

And here's a direct link: www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=141214&p=3180210

You didn't make or defend any points in that post, you just said "there's another explanation, derp" and took off. Firstly, by definition any hidden variable theory is going to assume that QM is incomplete, otherwise there'd be no point to calling the variables "hidden". With that said, please explain how your local hidden variable theory differs from the basic, general conditions assumed in Bell's theorem, because if it does indeed satisfy the theorem's simple mathematical postulates, then it can't possibly account for experimental results that have already been established since the early 80's. You keep saying the theorem and its implications depend on one's interpretation of QM, so you need to elaborate on how your personal theory supposedly escapes it.

I'd be glad to reenter that discussion on the thread where presumably it was on topic. It seems like a straw-man on this thread. Would I be allowed to ask a moderator to move your post to that thread or to request that you start a new thread where it is the topic?

No, you brought up your own personal ideas right here in the physics section and complained that there's not enough scientific discussion occurring here, so let's have a scientific discussion right here where you asked for it. I don't believe the subject is deserving of its own separate topic in the physics section unless you're prepared to get into the mathematical and technical details, but I'm happy to take it to alternative theories if you're also happy with that and it helps to resolve your complaints. The topic of discussion I'm proposing isn't a straw-man; you wanted your ideas to be seriously considered, and I'm not an asshole for seriously considering them and pointing out apparently basic fallacies.

 

[quantum_wave]

Here's the last comment you wrote on the subject when we were last discussing it:



And here's a direct link: www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=141214&p=3180210

You didn't make or defend any points in that post, you just said "there's another explanation, derp" and took off. Firstly, by definition any hidden variable theory is going to assume that QM is incomplete, otherwise there'd be no point to calling the variables "hidden". With that said, please explain how your local hidden variable theory differs from the basic, general conditions assumed in Bell's theorem, because if it does indeed satisfy the theorem's simple mathematical postulates, then it can't possibly account for experimental results that have already been established since the early 80's. You keep saying the theorem and its implications depend on one's interpretation of QM, so you need to elaborate on how your personal theory supposedly escapes it.



No, you brought up your own personal ideas right here in the physics section and complained that there's not enough scientific discussion occurring here, so let's have a scientific discussion right here where you asked for it. I don't believe the subject is deserving of its own separate topic in the physics section unless you're prepared to get into the mathematical and technical details, but I'm happy to take it to alternative theories if you're also happy with that and it helps to resolve your complaints. The topic of discussion I'm proposing isn't a straw-man; you wanted your ideas to be seriously considered, and I'm not an asshole for seriously considering them and pointing out apparently basic fallacies.

You can do as I requested and post further discussion on that topic on the other thread or start a new thread. I think I know what the topic here is and isn't, since I wrote the OP. That makes twice in two posts that you have posted a straw-man and have insisted on setting the agenda. Why do you continue to refuse to post on the thread where your discussion is in on topic, and insist on taking this thread where you personally want it to go? I've asked nicely.

 

[CptBork]

You can do as I requested and post further discussion on that topic on the other thread or start a new thread. I think I know what the topic here is and isn't, since I wrote the OP. That makes twice in two posts that you have posted a straw-man and have insisted on setting the agenda. Why do you continue to refuse to post on the thread where your discussion is in on topic, and insist on taking this thread where you personally want it to go? I've asked nicely.

I've replied nicely. I'm assuming that when you speak about vacuum energy density and such, you're speaking about it with your own personal ideas at least partially in mind. If I'm completely wrong and you're just looking for someone to answer questions about the current state of theoretical physics as studied by accredited, knowledgeable professionals, then I apologize. On the other hand, if you're looking to brainstorm and speculate without any technical know-how, this isn't the appropriate forum in which to do it.

I've made posts asking for or providing math help on some fairly obscure topics in the past, but the subjects have typically been too obscure and those in the know too few to make much of it other than solving my own problems and demonstrating my solutions once I figure them out. I was making a post deriving all of the results of Special Relativity directly from the fundamental laws of electromagnetism and basic assumptions about inertial coordinate systems, without any references to photons or other more modern notions, but there were some with highly detailed mathematical know-how suggesting I dig even deeper into even simpler symmetry assumptions before working through the whole process, so I ended up letting it tail off before I got to posting all the exciting results I was able to derive (with no pretense whatsoever that any of it hadn't already been done by others before me, even if their work might be difficult to track down). I try to contribute original content whenever I feel I have something of notable value to share with the community here, but I don't try to spam the place up just for the hell of it.

The fact is, there are some current/ex/partial members here like Alphanumeric and BenTheMan who know vastly more about the cutting edge of theoretical physics than I do, and I defer to folks like them on most topics of that nature. Unfortunately, whacko pseudoscience posters cluttering up the physics/math forum chased many of those with the knowledge you seek off to other lands and greener pastures, so you can thank the whackos for their valuable contributions to your search. I keep up with recent trends in physics and general ideas in development, but if I were to pretend to have a detailed technical knowledge of the higher-level material and topologies, I'd be bullshitting everyone, as would you.

So it's up to you. If you're just looking to ask some questions about what's trending in mainstream theoretical or experimental physics, you have my sincere apologies for posting off-topic. If you're looking to add your personal speculation in, then let's make sure it's adequately equipped to deal with the implications of Bell's Theorem and other scientific challenges before we bother going any further.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

They are in the textbooks and journals, in the symposia and R&D reviews, and the labs, hospitals and field sites where science is actually happening.

If an hypothesis seems to have merit, the mathematicians will be able to quantify it in the language of physics so the professionals are talking about the same specifics, and the idea can be vetted, tests can be modeled and carried out, and results can be analyzed and debated.

That assumes a model for scientific discovery which is probably not relevant to most of the actual work. If I were you I would use the model of a classroom since that's as deep as any discussion here will get.

The "experts" are all over "dumb" ideas, but does a good idea, and there have to be some because ideas are driven by current problems, get acknowledged and worked on?

These forums are full of dumb ideas because cranks abound. If you're asking how armchair physicists get the experts to listen to them, then I can assure you that's a pipe dream.

All of the rest of what you wrote looks like speculation. Speak to the evidence and maybe someone will join in. The onus is on you to propose something, but based on evidence, not speculation.

 

[CptBork]

What would be the point in spending billions of dollars on experiments and hiring theoreticians to spend decades of their lives just learning and developing new techniques, if an armchair physicist could do it all with some thought experiments for a few thousand bucks in coffee? That's some pretty major hubris for anyone to think they're that good, even if they'd read and memorized every single book at their local college library.

Edit: That sort of hubris conjures up the horrendous popular distortion depicting young Einstein as a homeless part-time janitor at the patent office, sort of like Goodwill Hunting without the math.

 

[quantum_wave]

I was wordy in the OP, and I could have been more concise about the topic. If I eliminate the wordiness, the topic I want is:

...

The mystery of Dark Energy is an example. It might be able to be explained if a higher density portion of the universe is surrounded by lower energy density space. Then the expansion is explained by energy density equalization, and the acceleration of expansion might be explained by the growing imbalance between the force of energy density equalization and the force of gravity, since equalization might lead to objects moving away from each other, and gravity has an inverse relationship to distance.

The problem: low energy density space outside the high energy density ball known as our universe is not allowed because the existing consensus requires that everything must be causally connected to the implied initial event, the beginning of the universe, and any good solution to the mysteries of the universe must be found from within the expanding universe. Vacuum energy density, the cosmological constant, expansion and accelerating expansion, all must be driven from within?

To recap, Origin felt that such a discussion would be filled with conjecture, Farsight though that there we valid avenues to discuss it without it having to be all conjecture, CaptBork seems willing to discuss it under certain conditions and with the reservations he stated, and AqueousID had some suggestions and reservations about the content in the OP being speculation as well. CptBork added his consternation with the hubris of some armchair physicist claiming to be doing science.

I'm sorry to be trying to do a little part to make SciForums survive by being civil, and by introducing topics that interest me. I don't claim to be "doing" science in this thread or out in the Fringe where I have been presenting my views with almost no "on topic" feedback, and I understand some of the reasons for that. I don't claim to be giving clues to the scientific community when I speculate, I don't claim anything that would translate to the hubris that some people bring to the hard science forums, and I only claim to be making a hobby of learning about cosmology and evolving my personal views. It is all stated in my threads out there. I'm a member who has a six year history here. I know the ropes, I know the uncivil members, I know the tactics that can be employed that are meant to convey member's disdain for people who "know it all". I'm not one of them who claims that.

If the "topic" that I have stated above is too vague, speculative, meaningless, or full of hubris, then report the thread. I noticed that there has been a little responsiveness from the moderators lately and I consider that a good sign. I'll be happy to conduct this thread here or in the Fringe. So let's start in, and see where the thread ends up and how it evolves.

I'd like to start by asking specifically for your responses to my speculation that dark energy might be able to be explained if a higher density portion of the universe, the expanding high energy density from the hot dense initial event described as the Big Bang, is surrounded by lower energy density pre-existing space?

 

[CptBork]

I'd like to start by asking specifically for your responses to my speculation that dark energy might be able to be explained if a higher density portion of the universe, the expanding high energy density from the hot dense initial event described as the Big Bang, is surrounded by lower energy density pre-existing space?

The answer is that it depends on what you mean by "energy" and "space", so you need to give concrete definitions of those terms before we could logically deduce what they imply. If the speculation involves a strictly localized theory, then the answer is almost certainly "no", since it would already fail to reproduce established experimental results as I've been saying above.

 

[paddoboy]

The mystery of Dark Energy is an example. It might be able to be explained if a higher density portion of the universe is surrounded by lower energy density space. Then the expansion is explained by energy density equalization, and the acceleration of expansion might be explained by the growing imbalance between the force of energy density equalization and the force of gravity, since equalization might lead to objects moving away from each other, and gravity has an inverse relationship to distance.

The mystery of DE, concerns itself with what it actually is. The acceleration in the expansion is real enough.
The best explanation I have is that the DE/CC component is a constant force property of space/time....
As gravitational effects gradually lessen with the decrease of mass/energy density, the DE/CC component of space/time exerts its presence more and more.

 

[CptBork]

I do have to admit that I've wondered for a while about the validity of Big Bang models in a realistic universe, when all the versions I've personally seen involve assuming an infinitely large universe with a uniform matter and energy distribution (homogeneous and isotropic). I've wondered whether there would still be a t=0 singularity in a nonuniform universe, and from the source I'm about to link to, it doesn't seem like that's necessarily the case, although the Big Bang theory would still accurately model things in the presently observable universe going back roughly 13.7 billion years.

Here's the source, a good technical exposition of the Big Bang theory's essential details and the mainstream understanding/modeling of dark energy and such:
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~cosmology/cosmo2013_03.pdf

In the concluding paragraph it does make a mention about how varying energy densities (with energy being defined by the usual GR stress-energy tensor) could potentially help account for the history of our observed universe's accelerating expansion, but the lack of detail suggests that such a concept hasn't shown any meaningful promise so far, and there could be more technical reasons to rule it out or disfavour it as a significant contributor. It basically states that assuming a uniform density infinite universe with negative vacuum pressure has served our purposes as well as any other theory to date, but leaves the door open to other possibilities and notes the limitations of our existing physical understanding.

It is worth emphasising that all the supernova observations (and observations of the angular diameter distance to the CMB) show is that the distances are longer than in the Einstein-de Sitter model. If the distance observations are interpreted assuming that the FRW approximation is valid (i.e. that the FRW relation (3.25) between the distance and the expansion rate holds), it follows that the expansion rate has accelerated. Assuming that the Friedmann equations hold (i.e. that general relativity is valid), (3.49) shows that the total pressure then has to negative. While the acceleration has not been established independently of the assumption that the FRW approximation holds, observations of t[sub]0[/sub] and H[sub]0[/sub] (and other observables, such as the growth rate of cosmic structures) are consistent with this interpretation. Note that the only cosmological effect of vacuum energy is to increase the expansion rate and correspondingly increase the distances. Its success in fitting various cosmological observations in detail thus is thus strong evidence for faster expansion, but it may be that the explanation for the faster expansion is not vacuum energy but something else, be it a more complicated form of dark energy or modified gravity, or breakdown of the FRW approximation due to cosmological structure formation. In this course, we will not discuss these possibilities, and will stick with vacuum energy.​

 

[quantum_wave]

The mystery of DE, concerns itself with what it actually is. The acceleration in the expansion is real enough.
The best explanation I have is that the DE/CC component is a constant force property of space/time....
As gravitational effects gradually lessen with the decrease of mass/energy density, the DE/CC component of space/time exerts its presence more and more.

To a large extent, I agree with your explanation, and I was asking for views on the speculation I mentioned about the high energy density Big Bang energy, if it was surrounded by pre-existing low energy density space, might lead to an explanation for dark energy. An explanation based on the energy density differential driving the expansion via energy density equalization, and the decline in gravity as expansion occurs giving the boost to cause the acceleration, as you explain.

 

[quantum_wave]

I do have to admit that I've wondered for a while about the validity of Big Bang models in a realistic universe, when all the versions I've personally seen involve assuming an infinitely large universe with a uniform matter and energy distribution (homogeneous and isotropic). I've wondered whether there would still be a t=0 singularity in a nonuniform universe, and from the source I'm about to link to, it doesn't seem like that's necessarily the case, although the Big Bang theory would still accurately model things in the presently observable universe going back roughly 13.7 billion years.

Here's the source, a good technical exposition of the Big Bang theory's essential details and the mainstream understanding/modeling of dark energy and such:
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~cosmology/cosmo2013_03.pdf

In the concluding paragraph it does make a mention about how varying energy densities (with energy being defined by the usual GR stress-energy tensor) could potentially help account for the history of our observed universe's accelerating expansion, but the lack of detail suggests that such a concept hasn't shown any meaningful promise so far, and there could be more technical reasons to rule it out or disfavour it as a significant contributor. It basically states that assuming a uniform density infinite universe with negative vacuum pressure has served our purposes as well as any other theory to date, but leaves the door open to other possibilities and notes the limitations of our existing physical understanding.

It is worth emphasising that all the supernova observations (and observations of the angular diameter distance to the CMB) show is that the distances are longer than in the Einstein-de Sitter model. If the distance observations are interpreted assuming that the FRW approximation is valid (i.e. that the FRW relation (3.25) between the distance and the expansion rate holds), it follows that the expansion rate has accelerated. Assuming that the Friedmann equations hold (i.e. that general relativity is valid), (3.49) shows that the total pressure then has to negative. While the acceleration has not been established independently of the assumption that the FRW approximation holds, observations of t[sub]0[/sub] and H[sub]0[/sub] (and other observables, such as the growth rate of cosmic structures) are consistent with this interpretation. Note that the only cosmological effect of vacuum energy is to increase the expansion rate and correspondingly increase the distances. Its success in fitting various cosmological observations in detail thus is thus strong evidence for faster expansion, but it may be that the explanation for the faster expansion is not vacuum energy but something else, be it a more complicated form of dark energy or modified gravity, or breakdown of the FRW approximation due to cosmological structure formation. In this course, we will not discuss these possibilities, and will stick with vacuum energy.​

Yes, there seems to be more to the observations than can be explained using vacuum energy density, but I don't agree just to sound like I know something or anything that isn't in the popular science media.

Will you address the idea of pre-existing space surrounding the hot dense beginning of expansion, the Big Bang as we know it, expanding into low energy density space via energy density equalization?

 

[CptBork]

An explanation based on the energy density differential driving the expansion via energy density equalization, and the decline in gravity as expansion occurs giving the boost to cause the acceleration, as you explain.

General Relativity doesn't have any mechanism which leads towards "energy density equalization", so there's nothing definitive that can be said about such a concept until you or someone else manages to construct a concrete model of it making quantitative predictions. Does the formation of isolated galaxy clusters seem like equalization to you? As it stands, present science would say your idea is wrong on those grounds, but if we take your idea at face value, using Newtonian gravity as a first approximation would suggest that you need to have it the other way around and imagine that our observable universe is surrounded by an even higher density spherical shell of energy, ripping our observable universe apart with tidal forces from the outside; I'll bet that any existing attempts to do so have failed to reproduce the specific characteristics of our universe's expansion so as to match with cosmological measurements at various distances, and that's why we don't see any mention of such proposals in the mainstream.

 

[OnlyMe]

Post deleted by OnlyMe... Not on topic.

 

[quantum_wave]

General Relativity doesn't have any mechanism which leads towards "energy density equalization", so there's nothing definitive that can be said about such a concept until you or someone else manages to construct a concrete model of it making quantitative predictions.

Two things about that statement, 1) If you presuppose GR, then the speculation seems to be such a violation of it that it wouldn't be consistent, and 2) "energy density equalization" in that specific speculation is based on a natural averaging out of the differential between two energy density levels as the to density regions are left alone to equalize over their combined space.

[/I] Does the formation of isolated galaxy clusters seem like equalization to you?

No, it seems like the close proximity of the galaxies forming clusters has allowed gravity to overcome equalization-caused separation in those close quarters, but in general the observed separation of the galaxies and galactic structure would indicate that expansion is stronger than gravity except in those close quarters.

As it stands, present science would say your idea is wrong on those grounds, but if we take your idea at face value, using Newtonian gravity as a first approximation would suggest that you need to have it the other way around and imagine that our observable universe is surrounded by an even higher density spherical shell of energy, ripping our observable universe apart with tidal forces from the outside; I'll bet that any existing attempts to do so have failed to reproduce the specific characteristics of our universe's expansion so as to match with cosmological measurements at various distances, and that's why we don't see any mention of such proposals in the mainstream.

I don't understand your explanation that it would have to be the other way around, if the given is that the Big Bang "arena" is surrounded by low energy density pre-existing space. If there are current scientific observations and data that would apply to the given scenario that make it unrealistic, and require it to be the opposite, i.e. a surrounding higher energy density would be necessary to cause expansion, then I am at a loss as to what those observations or data might be. Can you elaborate on what makes it seem like that should be the case?