Kevin's Watch

Skyweir wrote:Yet it is an intriguing possibility V ... is the explanation below flawed? If so, how so?

Any event in the universe occurs as a point in space and time, or spacetime. A massive object such as the Sun distorts or curves spacetime, like a bowling ball sitting on a canvas. The Suns gravitational dent alters the motion of Earth and the other planets orbiting it. The sun's pull of the planets appears to us as the force of gravity.

The second is quantum mechanics, which describes the universe at the smallest scales, such as the level of the atom. However, quantum mechanics and general relativity are currently separate theories; physicists have been striving to combine the two successfully into a single theory of quantum gravity to adequately describe important phenomena, including the behavior of subatomic particles in black holes.

What is the problem with torsion as explained by Poplawski?

Finally, torsion could be the source of dark energy, a mysterious form of energy that permeates all of space and increases the rate of expansion of the universe. Geometry with torsion naturally produces a cosmological constant, a sort of added-on outward force which is the simplest way to explain dark energy. Thus, the observed accelerating expansion of the universe may end up being the strongest evidence for torsion.

Torsion therefore provides a theoretical foundation for a scenario in which the interior of every black hole becomes a new universe.

There's no problem with the first, Sky, since it isn't an explanation---it's just an outlining of one of the biggest issues we have: Quantum and Relativity BOTH are incredibly successful for many, many things. But they cannot both be true at the same time in a single universe as they exist---and no one can make them stop murdering each other. [so far].

The problems with Pop/Torsion [from my recent light introductory reading] is that it only solves problems in classical physics that are small and/or "philosophical" problems...while creating a whole bunch of unnecessary complexity for already-solved problems [or even rejection of the answers]. It also doesn't appear to be testable.
AND: it doesn't solve the war of extinction between quantum and relativity.

But that's surface/first impression/generic paraphrase of OPP [you down with OPP? Other peoples positions]

DailyCakes: that's some reading. Yea, I know about the different sizes of infinity, brought it up myself several times. The open question is, are there only two kinds---countable, uncountable---or are there infinitely many sizes of infinity??

On the CMB images: I gathered a bit of info and did some amatuer math...IF we were in a rotating black cosmoverse, it would EVENTUALLY look like those banded ones. BUT time plus state/phase eras plus ongoing internal quantum fluctuations would seem to indicate it wouldn't look like that YET [and not for a very long time.]

Anyway, I'm sure you know inflation also does away with singularities...at least the INITIAL one...but if it also applies to all singularities, that would eliminate the bounce scenario, but might allow the "all black holes..[or at least the big ones]..generate other universes."

And yet another thing lol...

I believe one of the problems Poplawski ran into was BKL (Belinskii-Khalatnikov-Lifshitz) instability.

There are quite a few models that describe nonsingular bounces but they invariably run into the BKL instability issue.

These guys managed to create a nonsingular bounce and resolved the BKL instability problem.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.2382

Below is a link to the paper by Poplawski that I read some time back. The equations in these papers are horrendous and I'd be lying if I said I went through every equation step by step and made sure I thoroughly understood every aspect of the maths.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.3881

Looking through the abstract of his paper, I notice his model describes a universe that originated inside a black hole in another universe.

Finally, these guys have modelled a scenario in which our 4 dimensional universe could be a black hole formed by the collapse of a 5 dimensional star.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.1487

And yet another yet another thing...

https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.07178

Here's the study that puts the odds of our living in a rotating universe at 121,000:1 against.

Freaking awesome posts dudes Finn and Vbomb

No absolutely genuinely seriously .. fucking awesome jaunt in these posts.

Speaking of unresolvable paradoxes...

The following image shows two irreconcilable things, where cause and effect are indistinguishable from one another.

The first being the enhanced state of consciousness one needs to achieve to even be able to vaguely understand - let alone make an informed post about - this thread's topic.

The second being the imposed state of consciousness experienced by any reader of posts on this thread - whether they understand the slightest part of them or not.



As an afterthought, I'm myself starting to understand what the word "crispy" actually refers to in Findail's chosen bulletin board name. Vraith on the other hand has never shown himself as needing any assistance to be seriously off planet...

Ho ho ho .. very funny

This thread is very interesting.. I dont even have the first clue about the Math or the calculations but you have to admit what is being posited and responded is fascinating.

Embrace it as an immersive experience to the degree that we are each independently capable of being immersed in this intriguing interchange of genius

I tell ya .. it does it for me .. I still dont get much but the little I do I enjoy.

Its all exquisitely intellectual argy bargy to me I just live in hope that some of it rubs off ... such very clever individuals we have here I totally love it.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:I can follow the math--that is trivial for me--but for the rest I am afraid I would need to brush up on my cosmology and astrophysics but these days I don't have as much leisure time as I did in years past.

I'm not too bad on basic FRW cosmology, but I would dearly love the leisure time to spend a few months/years getting my maths up to the point where I'd like it to be. I had a flair for maths at school, but never pursued it as I left school at 16.

It wasn't until my late thirties that I happened to walk into a room where a few friends were trying to watch a Leonard Susskind comsology video that used the simple maths I learned at school. Unlike my friends, I still remembered it and I wound up getting getting hooked.

Over the next two years I spent my free time eating up lectures, downloading papers, reading maths books and driving myself mad with sleep loss as I attempted to make my 39 year old brain learn maths things about 20 years later I should have.

Then reality got in the way and I didn't have that kind of free time on my hands any more.

I still remember the stuff I learned as a teenager, but what I took on board ten years back is fuzzy now. I need a few hours to look things up and practice them before I can try to use them. I was a bit too old at the time for them to stay in permanently!

Skyweir wrote:... This thread is very interesting.. I dont even have the first clue about the Math or the calculations...

As you can see from what I've posted above, I've barely got a second clue lol. If it helps, I found the thing that got me back in the habit of moving things around an equals sign was looking at how to calculate the speed of a journey.

Using S to denote speed, D for distance and T for time



By starting with the old chestnut of 'speed equals distance divided by time' it's pretty straightforward to move the bits and bobs about and work out that time is distance divided by speed and that distance is time multiplied by speed.

That's basically what I did with the equations at the start of this post, I just swapped a few things from one side of the equals sign to another!

LOW QUALITY SCIENCE JOKE ALERT:

The interesting thing that emerged from this work was that by multiplying the entire equation by distance (D), I realised the following:



Biologists among you will be pleased to know that the terrible itches that have blighted so many lives might just turn out to be the inevitable result of long journeys.

Its cute that you think Id get that

Nah lol jk That chestnut is good I would have never thought I could understand any equation

Cheers dude

You should teach

Skyweir wrote:

Its cute that you think Id get that

Nah lol jk That chestnut is good I would have never thought I could understand any equation

Cheers dude

My pleasure. And I KNEW you'd get it lol. It's what made the penny drop for me and I'm no smarter than anyone else.

Skyweir wrote:You should teach

I've got about half a dozen kids through their maths GCSE's, but it's a friends and family thing. I'm completely unqualified beyond GCSE level myself because I rather unwisely left school when I was 16!

That speed, distance and time thing is the first thing I go through with them. Because it describes something we all instinctively understand (travel) from the real world, it just seems to work.

A bit like if their mental arithmetic isn't too good, I get them to treat all the sums as being about money. You normally find kids who tell you their mental arithmetic isn't great somewhow know exactly how much change they should get from a ten pound note when they buy stuff.

I'm genuinely amazed at how bad some of their teachers must be at basic psychology lol.

As soon as they're ok with moving things round an equals sign I run them through Pythagoras theorem. Then I show them a really neat trick with a Pythagoras triangle and a circle that brings them straight into trig (sines, cosines and tangents).

Once we've practiced that lot until it goes in (it can take anything from a few hours to a couple of weeks depending on how much the kid hates maths!), we finally open up their maths textbooks.

At that point they normally don't need me for much any more because those exercises cover pretty much all of the fundamentals they need to get them through most of the trickier bits of the syllabus.

But the idea of teaching a class makes me shudder. I was always that guy who was happier with less people in the room!

Well youre not alone there Finn.

And given the austerity years the UK has faced .. I hear class sizes are quite large and teachers are significantly under resourced. Short sighted ... as cutting back on education is short sighted government policy.

Im very much enjoying your posts. Though I personally have no value to add re your singularity thread .. its fascinating stuff.

FindailsCrispyPancakes wrote:LOW QUALITY SCIENCE JOKE ALERT:

The interesting thing that emerged from this work was that by multiplying the entire equation by distance (D), I realised the following:



Biologists among you will be pleased to know that the terrible itches that have blighted so many lives might just turn out to be the inevitable result of long journeys.

Are yo sure that's not just a secret way of saying the bigger your dick, the more likely you are to have an STD?

[[side fact: that's entirely contradicted by the evidence...umm...cough cough...at hand...

Lol, never mind black holes and singularites. I think we're on to a big universal truth here.

Forget the Da Vinci code...

(adopts a Richard Dreyfuss in 'Close Encounters' style manic stare)

This means something!

Skyweir wrote:

Well youre not alone there Finn.

And given the austerity years the UK has faced .. I hear class sizes are quite large and teachers are significantly under resourced. Short sighted ... as cutting back on education is short sighted government policy.

Ohhhh, can I resist the temptation to go wildly off topic and start another brexit rant?

No chance. (deep breath)

EDIT APPLIED: Redacted by a tired man who's completely bloody sick to death of brexit. A man who should have known better than to type yet another explanation of why it's now turned into a national stupidity contest. A man who after several attempts at providing a reason for this edit can't think of anything nicer to say about it.
EDIT ENDS

Phew, rant over. Bloody brexit!

Skyweir wrote:Im very much enjoying your posts. Though I personally have no value to add re your singularity thread .. its fascinating stuff.

I'm glad you like them. I'm going to add some stuff to the somewhat indecipherable singularities thread later. It would be interesting (to me at least lol) to bang on for a bit about what that density actually means.

I just haven't had time to sit down and write it all because I get far too easily sidetracked by Brexit!

Decided to pm you to retain the integrity of your thread

Probably very wise, that one really should have gone in Hile Troy's Septic Tank... sorry, Hile Troy's Think Tank!

I'll try to remember that just because I'm quite happy if a thread I start goes for a bit of a walk, it may not be the right place for that kind of a walk.

Apologies guys, Mea Culpa!

It wouldnt be the Watch if we didnt occasionally go off on a tangent ... we generally get back on track in short order

It's been edited away into the aether now!