Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

[quantum_wave]

Join the club!
I also enjoy science particularly the cosmological sciences.....
To get myself up to scratch, I have read many books my many reputable authors, such as Thorne, Rees, Begalman, Davies, Hawking, Kaku, and a few others.....That along with learning what I can by checking out SR/GR on the net, and forums such as this.

That is where you and I are the same. It is all interesting to considrer.

But one of the first things I learnt, is that we have many many "would be's if they could be's" that demand that they have over-ridden 20th, 21st century cosmology, with claims of ToE's and such, with 100% certainty....
I then ask myself some logical questions....
why do they come here? why not get there own view of things peer reviewed? Do they also have access to Planck, Spitzer, Kepler, and the giant telescopes we have plus the HST? If not, how can they claim to disregard 100 years of research and giants from the past.

That is were you and I are different. I look at someone else's claims as a learning experience. If they want to make grand claims, I'm sure they don't expect people to buy into them on their word, but usually they have one or two solid pieces behind their work. Probably they just want us to vet their stuff.

I find other people's "theories" very hard to sit down and read in detail though, and mine are exactly as hard for others to read, I've often been told. A layman model first has to satisfy that individual layman, and provide both fun and learning as they go. They have to be satisfied with getting that out of it, unless like you say, they try to go on through peer review, which would generally fail. That doesn't mean we don't want someone to look at our musings, but wanting and expecting are two different things, lol. I sometimes wonder how much I would have to pay to get someone to seriously read 20,000 words of layman hobby-modeling, lol.

I speculate the BB as being a WH from another Universe, although I was once informed by a GR expert that that was Impossible.
I still reason in my own mind, why cannot it be like this? or why cannot it be like that?
Although also loving the cosmological sciences and the awe that discussing such stuff brings, I also realise that I have limitations in both mind, and knowledge, and the access to highly technical probes and Instruments.
But what the heck, I've said all that before.

It looks like Trippy is giving you some encouragement to follow that thinking.

 

[paddoboy]

That is where you and I are the same. It is all interesting to considrer.

I would hazard a guess and say there are many more apparent mainstream adherents, that also have speculative thoughts. The skill is recognising them as speculative.

That is were you and I are different. I look at someone else's claims as a learning experience. If they want to make grand claims, I'm sure they don't expect people to buy into them on their word, but usually they have one or two solid pieces behind their work. Probably they just want us to vet their stuff.

Are you kidding?
We have three on this forum alone that claim to have ToEs...undefined, Farsight and Sylwester.
Not to mention a few more that have made up there own scenarios [under the guise of being able to think for ones self] and claim utmost 100% certainty in there hypothesis...river, Motor Daddy just to name a couple more.

And some of the claims have been nothing short of pure nonsense.
I cannot see how one can learn from any of them.

It looks like Trippy is giving you some encouragement to follow that thinking.

I'm just about to question Trippy on that reply.

 

[paddoboy]

Wouldn't it be funny if Einstein was right all along and the big bang was actually just the manifestation of the white hole that the black hole in some other 'place' is linked to.

???
Are you saying Albert also had similar ideas?
His greatest blunder was adhering to convention, [static Universe] rather then what GR was telling him...

 

[CptBork]

I suppose you have the image of me pouring through comic books and wiki, and pretending to solve the problems of physics and cosmology. Encouraging me to learn something sounds like you have that image, lol. Gosh, the truth hurts.

I don't know what your sources are, but there's simply no substitute for lecture notes, textbooks and original papers.

Not making any claims as to what I know, but if I spend a thousand hours a year on my hobby, just by accident something might start rubbing off, maybe. I keep hoping.

You could learn so much math in 1000 hours, a typical course probably requires 120 hours tops including homework.

If I had your background, I would be working on the inconsistencies and incompatibilities, and continually brainstorming solutions to problems that there are no answer for.

To be honest, I don't even think my own background is good enough for that. I'm not even 100% up to speed on the full inner workings of the Standard Model and general Yang-Mills gauge theories, let alone the concepts theoreticians are introducing beyond them (I'm speaking here of useful, applicable technical details as opposed to simply hearing Brian Greene give a brief plain-English synopsis). I still have certain vital weaknesses in advanced math too, especially topology.

You have a high math aptitude, I have a high mechanical aptitude, and also can work my way through a lot of equations if I want to take the time;

I was pretty well-drilled on the experimental side too, it's not like I was just sitting in my office all the time as a grad student working through equations. I'm not of the belief that being good at tinkering with locks would be of much use to me when talking about dark energy, if that's what you're trying to imply. It's one of those things you have to see before you can really understand, you can't know what the concept's truly about until you see exactly how it's applied in practice, and I don't just mean glancing at how they stuff it into the Einstein field equations, but also how you then proceed to perform calculations with those modified equations. Basically, without the math, whatever dark energy you might care to speculate on will not be the same dark energy accredited physicists are talking about, and you won't have any way of understanding what it is that has so many physicists convinced against the virtual infinitude of possible alternatives.

I am good with numbers, having been an accountant and financial manager all my life, but my gimmick there is that I want you to tell me which theories correspond to reality, so I only have to struggle through the right math.

Numbers are practically meaningless in theoretical physics, they're simply values you plug in at the very end when you're ready to check your model against real data. A lot of pure mathematicians would insist (from personal experience) that working with sums, multiples, differences and quotients isn't even "math", it's merely "arithmetic". You need to be good at manipulating symbols and performing certain types of abstract calculations, a lot of calculus, probability, geometry and abstract algebra involved- would you say you're at that level to any degree? I don't know exactly what's involved with financial management in general, but I imagine certain types of managers need to have a fairly strong abstract math background and are sometimes even hired directly from the physics community (I think BenTheMan ended up in that line of work).

To be practical, you may as well let me wallow in my ignorance, because you and I see things from two entirely different perspectives. Thanks for taking the time and interest though.

As you wish, I'll leave you to your means, but if I wanted to learn how to run a marathon I wouldn't just watch videos on it and speak to trained athletes until the day of the big race expecting that to suffice, so I hope you're not insisting on making that sort of mistake with your investigations.

 

[quantum_wave]

I don't know what your sources are, but there's simply no substitute for lecture notes, textbooks and original papers.

We went through this as I was discussing Laura Mersini Houghton's papers. I know where you are coming from.

You could learn so much math in 1000 hours, a typical course probably requires 120 hours tops including homework.

That is true. I will say that a lot of my hours are spent in contemplating issues, and you just aren't going to be able to see the value in someone like me doing that.

To be honest, I don't even think my own background is good enough for that. I'm not even 100% up to speed on the full inner workings of the Standard Model and general Yang-Mills gauge theories, let alone the concepts theoreticians are introducing beyond them (I'm speaking here of useful, applicable technical details as opposed to simply hearing Brian Greene give a brief plain-English synopsis). I still have certain vital weaknesses in advanced math too, especially topology.

You can take from what I said that I wonder if you spend enough time questioning the inconsistencies and incompatibilities. Like I mentioned in the OP, they are not hidden from view, they are current issues being worked on by professionals. You give me the impression that there are no issues that you find interesting unless you can master the current theory. I would find that attitude would hold you back. When I say we have completely different perspectives, I think that if there are mainstream theories that don't work together, something important is missing, and though I'm a low skilled thinker in your book, when it comes to looking for things to contemplate, there is no lack of material to start with. Perhaps you feel that I'll never make any difference and so I am wasting my time, but then, you don't understand the hobby. It isn't to make a difference, it is to have thought about an issue, tried to understand it, and have proposed a solution that I personally like, in the absence of a consensus from the scientific community. You would turn that around and say I am criticizing science or professionals, or am being disrespectful.

I was pretty well-drilled on the experimental side too, it's not like I was just sitting in my office all the time as a grad student working through equations. I'm not of the belief that being good at tinkering with locks would be of much use to me when talking about dark energy, if that's what you're trying to imply. It's one of those things you have to see before you can really understand, you can't know what the concept's truly about until you see exactly how it's applied in practice, and I don't just mean glancing at how they stuff it into the Einstein field equations, but also how you then proceed to perform calculations with those modified equations. Basically, without the math, whatever dark energy you might care to speculate on will not be the same dark energy accredited physicists are talking about, and you won't have any way of understanding what it is that has so many physicists convinced against the virtual infinitude of possible alternatives.

You may think that by stating the same point again, that I will snap out of my stooper. Thanks for the confidence, lol.

Numbers are practically meaningless in theoretical physics, they're simply values you plug in at the very end when you're ready to check your model against real data. A lot of pure mathematicians would insist (from personal experience) that working with sums, multiples, differences and quotients isn't even "math", it's merely "arithmetic". You need to be good at manipulating symbols and performing certain types of abstract calculations, a lot of calculus, probability, geometry and abstract algebra involved- would you say you're at that level to any degree? I don't know exactly what's involved with financial management in general, but I imagine certain types of managers need to have a fairly strong abstract math background and are sometimes even hired directly from the physics community (I think BenTheMan ended up in that line of work).

No, I'm just not interested in getting the same things out of my time spent, and if some piece of it is spent looking at equations, I do it until I get some idea of the relationships involved. I not claiming to be good at it, and you would never be impressed.

As you wish, I'll leave you to your means, but if I wanted to learn how to run a marathon I wouldn't just watch videos on it and speak to trained athletes until the day of the big race expecting that to suffice, so I hope you're not insisting on making that sort of mistake with your investigations.

I'm sure you are good at a lot of things that you find important you, and I doubt that you would think that me being good at the things I am good at, and that are important to me would be any different. It is just different things.

Did I say I keep updating a hobby-model of the universe. It is a hobby, you know? I do it by following forums, reading papers, doing internet research of the popular science media. I do the fun part, and the part you find fun may not be fun to me, and vise versa.

 

[quantum_wave]

IMHO it's too unlike general relativity, quantum_wave.

And that I like most other posters dislike discussing physics in a stigmatised sections of a forum. So that's all from me.

Oh Farsight, you are such a prude, lol. Just kidding, and making light of your ego. I just wonder if you would comment on my bottom line on gravity, that objects move in the direction of the highest net wave energy density, on a time delayed basis, because gravitational waves traverse the medium of space at (presumably) the speed of light. Can you say how that differs from what you have explained?

 

[quantum_wave]

Are you kidding?
We have three on this forum alone that claim to have ToEs...undefined, Farsight and Sylwester.
Not to mention a few more that have made up there own scenarios [under the guise of being able to think for ones self] and claim utmost 100% certainty in there hypothesis...river, Motor Daddy just to name a couple more.

And some of the claims have been nothing short of pure nonsense.
I cannot see how one can learn from any of them.

It is in how you approach learning. I can learn by thinking about what is wrong with something. Maybe it sparks a question in my mind, and leads me to Google something. Maybe while I'm doing that, you are crafting a response that makes you feel good by saying what you think of the persons "theories".

I don't have that personal engagement with them like you do, and so I don't get frustrated by them when they come back with something that confirms that they don't get it. And I don't have a history of calling people out that might keep me busy reiterating the case against them. I choose my battles differently than you do, is all.

 

[Trippy]

???
Are you saying Albert also had similar ideas?
His greatest blunder was adhering to convention, [static Universe] rather then what GR was telling him...

I may be wrong in attributing it to Einstein :shrug: as I understand it, one of the solutions to the Einstein Field Equations that gives rise to blackholes also gives rise to white holes.

 

[CptBork]

I may be wrong in attributing it to Einstein :shrug: as I understand it, one of the solutions to the Einstein Field Equations that gives rise to blackholes also gives rise to white holes.

The maximally-extended Schwarzschild solution features a white hole infinitely far back in the past spitting out matter into two separate universes, and then becoming a black hole going infinitely far into the future, where you can encounter matter from that second universe if you fall in. The problems with this model are that it assumes the universe consists of a single spherically symmetric non-rotating, non-charged black hole that's been sitting there for all of eternity, with nothing else in the entire universe to disturb it. It also assumes that as you fall into the black hole, you have zero energy and thus zero contribution to the event horizon, so that to an outsider observer you take forever to cross that threshold. I don't think white holes are considered part of any physically realistic solutions in General Relativity, unless you start tweaking it in various ways and doing whatever it is Kip Thorne likes to do.

 

[quantum_wave]

The topic of dark energy being caused by low energy density space surrounding our Big Bang event seemed to be too far from General Relativity to suit most members. CptBork said that, Onlyme confirmed that CptBork made the case against it to his satisfaction, and Farsight too feels the GR is the major reason why my speculative scenario shouldn't be talked about in P&M. It is too speculative and it discounts GR.

I support the thread being moved here to AltTheories, and it is quite true that any speculation that would not require GR to be true is not something that anyone wants to contemplate as a serious notion. It is too big a change to be discussed without new evidence, and without the normal consensus building that would take years and years. Being a layman, and not constrained by that consensus building process, I talk freely about such ideas in my threads here in the Fringe, but I assure you I understand where such ideas stand, given the big perspective.

However, I also know that there are many members who privately contemplate alternative ideas, and some have acknowledged that kind of thinking in this thread. I think we all agree that kind of talk should be done here instead of in the hard science forums, and now that the thread is here, would anyone care to add their take on the dark energy scenario that I speculate about in the OP?

I'll leave that as an open offer to have you bring it forward. In the mean time, I feel like I can continue to argue my case without violating the guidelines set up for discussion here. If the problem is me in the eyes of Trippy, let him make that clear.

If I'm allowed though, let me acknowledge, as I did earlier, that I know that the concept of low energy density space surrounding the Big Bang event is taken to be anti-GR, but if there are actual physical gravitational waves predicted by GR that would fill space, and if there is some gradual shift in the consensus about the nature of the universe in the first 10^-43 seconds, as is suggested in the online discussions and research sources, then there are gradual changes working their way into the consensus. Given that, then surrounding space preexisting the big event is not in the zero possibility category at all.

That said, if we were to concede for purposes of a "thought experiment" that low energy density space could preexist the Big Bang, and not try to jump ahead and change the topic to what that would mean to GR, but instead contemplate what that would mean in trying to explain dark energy, then we are back to a point where the discussion of the scenario can be in play.

 

[Russ_Watters]

It is in how you approach learning. I can learn by thinking about what is wrong with something. Maybe it sparks a question in my mind, and leads me to Google something.

That is a good way to learn how to identify and debunk bad ideas, but a very inefficient way to learn the correct ideas.

More important though is the effect of letting the crackpots run roughshod over the forum: they drive away people looking to discuss real science and can cause people who come looking to learn (and don't already know how to recognize crackpottery), to learn wrong things.

One of the things that so angers Farsight is what he doesn't get about science: learning what is known and inventing/discovering new things are completely different pursuits that require different approaches to do well. That's why they need to be discussed in different forums. And, of course, full understanding of the existing knowledge is required before you can attempt to extend it.

 

[quantum_wave]

That is a good way to learn how to identify and debunk bad ideas, but a very inefficient way to learn the correct ideas.

True, if is was a persons main approach to learning it would be inefficient, lol.

More important though is the effect of letting the crackpots run roughshod over the forum: they drive away people looking to discuss real science and can cause people who come looking to learn (and don't already know how to recognize crackpottery), to learn wrong things.

I don't agree with letting crankdom run roughshod, but do you really believe that young fertile minds are going to take a bite out of the apple of crankdom when they are exposed to it? Do you have a limit on what precautions you would take to shelter them? What is the limit, and how to you install the preventatives without stopping meaningful skepticism. How much bile attack incivility are you preferring to expose them to, and do you think they may get any bad impressions of a forum from that? There is a happy medium without the name calling and personal attacks, IMHO.

One of the things that so angers Farsight is what he doesn't get about science: learning what is known and inventing/discovering new things are completely different pursuits that require different approaches to do well. That's why they need to be discussed in different forums. And, of course, full understanding of the existing knowledge is required before you can attempt to extend it.

True, and if the attempt to extend it is presented as "this is fact", that makes it intolerable. But if it is presented as a thought experiment or a topic for discussion, then, in the right forum, it is what forums are about.

Do you care to weigh in on my topic?

 

[Russ_Watters]

I don't agree with letting crankdom run roughshod, but do you really believe that young fertile minds are going to take a bite out of the apple of crankdom when they are exposed to it?

I don't have to believe it, I've seen it. I've been a member/moderator at another forum for 10 years and seen a lot of new members come in, knowing nothing and wanting to learn. They are gullible and will trust anyone who sounds like they know what they are talking about. Guys like Farsight and Undefined tell them wrong things and they run off happy and confidently wrongly informed. Others are teetering on the brink of crackpottery and need only a nudge in either direction to get them going back to reality or off Crackpot Cliff.

Do you have a limit on what precautions you would take to shelter them? What is the limit, and how to you install the preventatives without stopping meaningful skepticism.

It's pretty simple: you draw clear lines between the subjects by putting each in their own forum and making it clear what goes in each:

-A forum for current physics discussion.
-A forum for cutting-edge or alternative physics discussion.
-A forum for crackpot/pseudoscience discussion (if desired).

If open discussion of any idea, no matter how crazy/wrong, is desired (which apparently it is here), there need-not be any content moderation beyond simply ensuring that each discussion is in the appropriate forum.

How much bile attack incivility are you preferring to expose them to, and do you think they may get any bad impressions of a forum from that?

Incivility should not be tolerated from anyone at any time.

There is a happy medium without the name calling and personal attacks, IMHO.

I'm not sure about a medium, but there is a relatively easy way to draw the line: you can attack an idea, but not a person:

"That idea is nonsense." is fine.
"You are crazy/stupid." is not.

Many people don't tend to differentiate well, but that's just too bad. If someone says "That idea is nonsense." and the crackpot responds "Well you just don't understand it because you're an idiot." then the crackpot gets sanctioned for it. What little moderation is done here is done fairly well when it comes to understanding that difference -- and as we've seen, the crackpots are usually the ones who don't seem to understand the difference (though there are a few non-crackpots who have gotten themselves banned as well over the same issue).

Do you care to weigh in on my topic?

Dark Energy? Well....I'm fine with humoring people if a forum wants that, but don't confuse that with accepting that there is value to it. The current physics forum is where the value is. Nothing of value has ever come from a cutting-edge/alternative forum or crackpot/pseudoscience forum. So no, I'll leave the scientific research to the professional scientists. Perhaps if I see something that's really off in left-field I'll point it out, but that's it.

 

[quantum_wave]

I don't have to believe it, I've seen it. I've been a member/moderator at another forum for 10 years and seen a lot of new members come in, knowing nothing and wanting to learn. They are gullible and will trust anyone who sounds like they know what they are talking about. Guys like Farsight and Undefined tell them wrong things and they run off happy and confidently wrongly informed. Others are teetering on the brink of crackpottery and need only a nudge in either direction to get them going back to reality or off Crackpot Cliff.

It's pretty simple: you draw clear lines between the subjects by putting each in their own forum and making it clear what goes in each:

-A forum for current physics discussion.
-A forum for cutting-edge or alternative physics discussion.
-A forum for crackpot/pseudoscience discussion (if desired).

If open discussion of any idea, no matter how crazy/wrong, is desired (which apparently it is here), there need-not be any content moderation beyond simply ensuring that each discussion is in the appropriate forum.

Incivility should not be tolerated from anyone at any time.

I'm not sure about a medium, but there is a relatively easy way to draw the line: you can attack an idea, but not a person:

"That idea is nonsense." is fine.
"You are crazy/stupid." is not.

Many people don't tend to differentiate well, but that's just too bad. If someone says "That idea is nonsense." and the crackpot responds "Well you just don't understand it because you're an idiot." then the crackpot gets sanctioned for it. What little moderation is done here is done fairly well when it comes to understanding that difference -- and as we've seen, the crackpots are usually the ones who don't seem to understand the difference (though there are a few non-crackpots who have gotten themselves banned as well over the same issue).

Very well said.

Dark Energy? Well....I'm fine with humoring people if a forum wants that, but don't confuse that with accepting that there is value to it. The current physics forum is where the value is. Nothing of value has ever come from a cutting-edge/alternative forum or crackpot/pseudoscience forum. So no, I'll leave the scientific research to the professional scientists. Perhaps if I see something that's really off in left-field I'll point it out, but that's it.

OK then, thanks.

 

[CptBork]

That is true. I will say that a lot of my hours are spent in contemplating issues, and you just aren't going to be able to see the value in someone like me doing that.

It's not about "someone like you" contemplating issues, it's the way you go about contemplating them. IMO even dedicating 10% of that time to learning some higher level math and mainstream physics on the side wouldn't hurt and might open your mind to ideas and arguments you never would have otherwise contemplated. The problem is that without math or some sort of formal logic system, you can't do anything productive. You speak of wanting to do "reasonable and responsible" speculation, but by definition, a reasonable theory has to make a basic set of assumptions, and then everything that follows is deduced purely by reason. Your approach instead appears to be one of tacking on more and more assumptions every time you run into what you perceive to be a dilemma, and you haven't even begun to consider how one could practically apply your ideas to anything in measurable reality. It's not a reasonable theory if I can make changes to your assumptions and you can't show me how that would lead to logical contradictions or disagreements with known experiments.

You can take from what I said that I wonder if you spend enough time questioning the inconsistencies and incompatibilities. Like I mentioned in the OP, they are not hidden from view, they are current issues being worked on by professionals.

Not only have I spent much time contemplating the inconsistencies and incompatibilities between the two major theories of modern physics as has virtually anyone who's ever learned the working details of those theories, but I've gone out of my way to learn some of the precise technical problems that arise. Far more money is spent on physics research aimed at addressing those incompatibilities than is spent on defending or re-testing existing knowledge. The biggest hope for projects like the LHC is not that they confirm what we already believe to be well-established, but that we'll be lucky enough to see them poke a hole somewhere in our existing knowledge and point to where we should look next for answers.

Does a layman physics documentary saying "the smoothness of General Relativity doesn't stitch well into the discreteness of quantum mechanics" really describe the crux of the problems we face? No, it doesn't tell you anything about how you actually can fit the equations of GR into quantum mechanics in such a way as to match all of the confirmed GR predictions and give you a means of calculating the gravitational interactions of probability wave particles, only to have the usual renormalization techniques break down when attempting to apply them to perform calculations. So tell me, how much do you know about quantum field theory renormalization and the issues arising with the non-renormalizable Einstein-Hilbert action term? There are issues within the Standard Model itself about modelling oscillating neutrinos, unresolved issues and assumptions with perturbative calculations, problems in General Relativity with modelling Big Bang inflation and the universe's presently accelerating expansion. Without those issues, there wouldn't be anywhere near so many people going into theoretical physics, there simply wouldn't be much original work available for them to do.

So just as you wonder how much I'm open-minded towards alternatives to existing theories, I have to wonder similarly what you think it is that physicists do. Do you think most physicists are trained and paid to simply sweep the paths walked by other physicists for the last 300 years?

You give me the impression that there are no issues that you find interesting unless you can master the current theory. I would find that attitude would hold you back.

When you have a theory that can accurately predict virtually every single phenomenon ever measured under lab conditions, and the supposed areas where it falls short are for things we don't even have the technological ability to measure yet, why would you want to toss it all out the window and start from scratch instead of looking for ways to tweak it without destroying its ability to predict all the things it already correctly predicts?

For example, do you not think that a working theory of everything would have to yield the equations of the Standard Model as an approximation completely appropriate for the lab conditions physicists are dealing with today? If you agree that the Standard Model or something nearly identical would have to arise on some level as an approximation, would it not make sense to start by looking for alterations to the Standard Model that still yield the original one as approximations, as opposed to starting completely from scratch to describe a single phenomenon out of the countless umptitudes of phenomena we know of, and hoping your new set of assumptions derives the whole Standard Model by complete fluke?

When I say we have completely different perspectives, I think that if there are mainstream theories that don't work together, something important is missing, and though I'm a low skilled thinker in your book, when it comes to looking for things to contemplate, there is no lack of material to start with.

Have you not noticed me confessing over and over that I believe something deeper has to underlie the Standard Model and General Relativity? The main thing is that at least I don't put any restrictions on what that deeper understanding would have to look like, other than yielding the correct predictions for things we've already measured to death. For all I know, the underlying theory could still contain all the basic postulates of quantum mechanics and a spacetime background that curves, whereas you seem to think that these very concepts are in themselves unsatisfactory regardless of how well they work in practice or how self-consistent they might be mathematically. If someone came forth with a model that stitched QM and GR together without making major alterations to the basic postulates of either one, and it explained virtually everything in the known universe to near perfection, would you accept that as a satisfactory theory?

So you say that for those looking for alternatives to the existing understanding, there's no lack of material to start with. I completely agree, so why wouldn't you start with all the material out there which is in active development but also shown to predict existing measurements?

Perhaps you feel that I'll never make any difference and so I am wasting my time, but then, you don't understand the hobby. It isn't to make a difference, it is to have thought about an issue, tried to understand it, and have proposed a solution that I personally like, in the absence of a consensus from the scientific community. You would turn that around and say I am criticizing science or professionals, or am being disrespectful.

I only consider it disrespectful to science if you attempt to blur the lines between an honest scientific discussion and your personal hobby speculation; by your own admission, there's a massive difference in the two philosophical approaches.

I'm sure you are good at a lot of things that you find important you, and I doubt that you would think that me being good at the things I am good at, and that are important to me would be any different. It is just different things.

You can openly choose to operate with different priorities from how scientific inquiries are performed, but then you shouldn't complain about there being a "stigma" associated with posting to a forum section that doesn't falsely call itself science. If your way of doing things is better, then your theory of everything should ultimately triumph over what all the paid physicists are doing, regardless of where moderators and users like myself think you should post your stuff.

 

[quantum_wave]

It's not about "someone like you" contemplating issues, it's the way you go about contemplating them. IMO even dedicating 10% of that time to learning some higher level math and mainstream physics on the side wouldn't hurt and might open your mind to ideas and arguments you never would have otherwise contemplated. The problem is that without math or some sort of formal logic system, you can't do anything productive. You speak of wanting to do "reasonable and responsible" speculation, but by definition, a reasonable theory has to make a basic set of assumptions, and then everything that follows is deduced purely by reason. Your approach instead appears to be one of tacking on more and more assumptions every time you run into what you perceive to be a dilemma, and you haven't even begun to consider how one could practically apply your ideas to anything in measurable reality. It's not a reasonable theory if I can make changes to your assumptions and you can't show me how that would lead to logical contradictions or disagreements with known experiments.



Not only have I spent much time contemplating the inconsistencies and incompatibilities between the two major theories of modern physics as has virtually anyone who's ever learned the working details of those theories, but I've gone out of my way to learn some of the precise technical problems that arise. Far more money is spent on physics research aimed at addressing those incompatibilities than is spent on defending or re-testing existing knowledge. The biggest hope for projects like the LHC is not that they confirm what we already believe to be well-established, but that we'll be lucky enough to see them poke a hole somewhere in our existing knowledge and point to where we should look next for answers.

Does a layman physics documentary saying "the smoothness of General Relativity doesn't stitch well into the discreteness of quantum mechanics" really describe the crux of the problems we face? No, it doesn't tell you anything about how you actually can fit the equations of GR into quantum mechanics in such a way as to match all of the confirmed GR predictions and give you a means of calculating the gravitational interactions of probability wave particles, only to have the usual renormalization techniques break down when attempting to apply them to perform calculations. So tell me, how much do you know about quantum field theory renormalization and the issues arising with the non-renormalizable Einstein-Hilbert action term? There are issues within the Standard Model itself about modelling oscillating neutrinos, unresolved issues and assumptions with perturbative calculations, problems in General Relativity with modelling Big Bang inflation and the universe's presently accelerating expansion. Without those issues, there wouldn't be anywhere near so many people going into theoretical physics, there simply wouldn't be much original work available for them to do.

So just as you wonder how much I'm open-minded towards alternatives to existing theories, I have to wonder similarly what you think it is that physicists do. Do you think most physicists are trained and paid to simply sweep the paths walked by other physicists for the last 300 years?



When you have a theory that can accurately predict virtually every single phenomenon ever measured under lab conditions, and the supposed areas where it falls short are for things we don't even have the technological ability to measure yet, why would you want to toss it all out the window and start from scratch instead of looking for ways to tweak it without destroying its ability to predict all the things it already correctly predicts?

For example, do you not think that a working theory of everything would have to yield the equations of the Standard Model as an approximation completely appropriate for the lab conditions physicists are dealing with today? If you agree that the Standard Model or something nearly identical would have to arise on some level as an approximation, would it not make sense to start by looking for alterations to the Standard Model that still yield the original one as approximations, as opposed to starting completely from scratch to describe a single phenomenon out of the countless umptitudes of phenomena we know of, and hoping your new set of assumptions derives the whole Standard Model by complete fluke?



Have you not noticed me confessing over and over that I believe something deeper has to underlie the Standard Model and General Relativity? The main thing is that at least I don't put any restrictions on what that deeper understanding would have to look like, other than yielding the correct predictions for things we've already measured to death. For all I know, the underlying theory could still contain all the basic postulates of quantum mechanics and a spacetime background that curves, whereas you seem to think that these very concepts are in themselves unsatisfactory regardless of how well they work in practice or how self-consistent they might be mathematically. If someone came forth with a model that stitched QM and GR together without making major alterations to the basic postulates of either one, and it explained virtually everything in the known universe to near perfection, would you accept that as a satisfactory theory?

So you say that for those looking for alternatives to the existing understanding, there's no lack of material to start with. I completely agree, so why wouldn't you start with all the material out there which is in active development but also shown to predict existing measurements?



I only consider it disrespectful to science if you attempt to blur the lines between an honest scientific discussion and your personal hobby speculation; by your own admission, there's a massive difference in the two philosophical approaches.



You can openly choose to operate with different priorities from how scientific inquiries are performed, but then you shouldn't complain about there being a "stigma" associated with posting to a forum section that doesn't falsely call itself science. If your way of doing things is better, then your theory of everything should ultimately triumph over what all the paid physicists are doing, regardless of where moderators and users like myself think you should post your stuff.

We've nicely talked about me and you, and you have started repeating the same things, after I respond, and making the thread about what you want it to be, not what it is intended to be. Perhaps we can get that last post of yours split off into a new thread where it will be on the topics you seem to be pursuing.

Would you be offended if I take the discussion back to the OP topic? In post #70 I did a brief recap, reopened the thread to on-topic comments, and framed the topic as a thought experiment about the scenario of space surrounding the Big Bang event. I asked that we consider that space in regard to what it would mean in explaining dark energy, not change the topic to what that would mean to GR. Do you have any more to say in the spirit of on-topic discussion?

 

[CptBork]

Would you be offended if I take the discussion back to the OP topic? In post #70 I did a brief recap, reopened the thread to on-topic comments, and framed the topic as a thought experiment about the scenario of space surrounding the Big Bang event. I asked that we consider that space in regard to what it would mean in explaining dark energy, not change the topic to what that would mean to GR. Do you have any more to say in the spirit of on-topic discussion?

If you want to get back to the original topic of discussing your ideas, by all means don't let me stop you. Like I've said, I'd be happy to hear you discuss whether you think your ideas, if correct, would ultimately yield GR and the Standard Model as accurate approximations under the types of conditions where they've been successfully confirmed. I'd also like to know, as I asked before, whether your theory requires that nature be localized by some cosmic speed limit, and if so, how you believe it explains quantum nonlocality experiments without violating Bell's Theorem. If you don't want to address those questions, I won't press you on them any further in this thread.

 

[quantum_wave]

If you want to get back to the original topic of discussing your ideas, by all means don't let me stop you. Like I've said, I'd be happy to hear you discuss whether you think your ideas, if correct, would ultimately yield GR and the Standard Model as accurate approximations under the types of conditions where they've been successfully confirmed. I'd also like to know, as I asked before, whether your theory requires that nature be localized by some cosmic speed limit, and if so, how you believe it explains quantum nonlocality experiments without violating Bell's Theorem. If you don't want to address those questions, I won't press you on them any further in this thread.

Please, I didn't say I had a theory. And yes, there is a topic which I would like to get back to. It doesn't include any theory of mine, or the other topics you offered. For the third time, I request that you start a new thread on the topics you want to discuss.

 

[quantum_wave]

Picking up on the topic, it is generally accepted that there was a Big Bang event, and it is unknown if space and time began with that event, or if space and time preexisted. That unknown gives rise to a thought experiment concerning dark energy mentioned in post #70.

We observe expansion and accelerating expansion of the known universe, and to help quantify the expansion is a phenomenon called redshift. The raw redshift data indicate the separation of galaxies, galaxy groups, and large scale galactic structure. Generally, everything on a large scale is considered to be moving away from everything else, and the further away things are from each other, the faster they are determined to be separating.

An acceleration in the rate of separation is also observed, and the cause of the accelerating rate is an unknown called "dark energy". It is described above, in post #37 of this thread. It is one of the problematic issues of science mentioned in the thread title. Physicists and cosmologists are trying to come to a consensus on how to explain it. In the mean time, while we wait, it is a subject of layman level speculation.

In regard to the thought experiment I mentioned in the post #70 recap of the thread, if space and time began with the Big Bang, then there are several popular hypotheses about the mystery of dark energy, but if they preexisted the Big Bang, the speculation would be quite different. This thread is about preexisting space and time, and asks if and how preexisting space could explain the accelerating separation.

Here is one speculative answer. All of the matter and energy that is connected to the Big Bang would be expanding into the preexisting surrounding space. Here is why: the matter/energy within the Big Bang horizon would be high energy density relative to the low energy density of the preexisting space surrounding it. That condition represents a natural energy density differential, and speculation includes that the high energy density space expands into the low density space as the differential equalizes. The action would be attributed to a force called energy density equalization. The force would be associated with the cause of expansion beginning with the Big Bang.

Galactic structure within the expanding Big Bang arena of space would exert gravity, a natural opposite force to the expansive force of energy density equalization. Both forces would be present at the same time, and would oppose each other. The expansive force would cause the distance between galactic structure within the Big Bang to increase, and then, because gravity has an inverse relationship to distance, the gravitational opposition to expansion would decline. The result would be a changing balance between the two forces, and would cause the rate of expansion to accelerate. That is the speculative answer to what we call dark energy.

I'd like to have comments about that speculation, or hear other ideas.

 

[CptBork]

Please, I didn't say I had a theory. And yes, there is a topic which I would like to get back to. It doesn't include any theory of mine, or the other topics you offered. For the third time, I request that you start a new thread on the topics you want to discuss.

So if I start a thread asking you these questions about your hobby model, will you attempt to address them?