quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Boltar

quote:

Like I said , for ths steady state theory to work the amount of matter spontanoiusly created would have to EXACTLY balance

So what if it was like a cosmic conservation of energy + matter law where total energy+matter is constant, there is an event horizon and once over the event horizon (energy/matter) is recycled in the observed universe. De Sitter had steady state solutions for Einstein's equations.
Red shift can be obtained by including the cosmological constant in Einstein's equations. So over any length of time the universe would have the same character. Black holes could still exist along with all the quantum physics. And maybe background microwave radiation, instead of being a remnant of the big bang is a product of the recycling process.

Its an idea though it seems rather complicated. Personally the universe being created (or re-created) and then expanding, to me seems a nicer concept. If course what caused it to be created is another matter entirely and probably something we'll never really know the answer to.

Boltar

quote:

Its an idea though it seems rather complicated.

No more complicated than what you suggest with the added simplicity that no creation is required as it represents a steady state always there.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Boltar

quote:

Its an idea though it seems rather complicated.

No more complicated than what you suggest with the added simplicity that no creation is required as it represents a steady state always there.

Well to me something always having existed is even more mind boggling than it being created in the first place.

Boltar

quote:

Well to me something always having existed is even more mind boggling than it being created in the first place.

Sounds like you crave a god.

Son of Mulder.

What about considering the speed of light as a communications maximum instead of an absolute maximum velocity? Wouldn't that solve a lot of anomalies!

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

What about considering the speed of light as a communications maximum instead of an absolute maximum velocity? Wouldn't that solve a lot of anomalies!

Not really, I suggest you google "Quantum Entanglement" and read what Wiki says. Instantaneous comunication at a distance is how I read it.

Son of Mulder.

I've read all I can on this, but I find that quantum theory only causes confusion between 'particle theory' and 'wave theory'. There is no way to include the behaviour of particles (vectored trajectory) with the behaviour of electromagnetic waves (propagated omni-directional oscillations in a homogenous medium). The two are irreconcilable. This is why I don't use 'quantum mechanics' (even if it 'is' fashionable for the time). It's only 'true' if only 'particles' are observed. Any attempt to represent 'particle motion' due to an 'electromagnetic flux' is OK for one effect, but it makes life impossible for more than this.

I see any further discussion on this leading to 'dynamical instability' again! Why don't we just consider classical, and more 'stable', representations?

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

I see any further discussion on this leading to 'dynamical instability' again! Why don't we just consider classical, and more 'stable', representations?

How, like climate, none of it stands alone and aloof from the rest which is why I find it interesting?

As for wave partical duality, why not accept that there is a beastie that behaves like both, it's our macro experience that makes this micro phenomenon uncomfortable to us. Same with our unease with the possibility that the universe has no beginning or no end vs our need for a start and an end.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Boltar

quote:

Well to me something always having existed is even more mind boggling than it being created in the first place.

Sounds like you crave a god.

Not at all, that solves nothing. But the thought of something being around for infinity with nothing ever really changing just seems odd.

quote:

But the thought of something being around for infinity with nothing ever really changing just seems odd.

If you think it analogous to a circle or surface of a sphere, finite but no boundary. So not that odd. Is it not odder to consider something starting without a cause or with an infinite hierarchy of causes?

Son of Mulder.

quote:

As for wave partical duality, why not accept that there is a beastie that behaves like both, it's our macro experience that makes this micro phenomenon uncomfortable to us.

I don't find this "uncomfortable" at all in 'wave theory'. Why do you?

quote:

Same with our unease with the possibility that the universe has no beginning or no end vs our need for a start and an end.

Isn't this a 'human' outlook and unscientific? Shouldn't we just observe what we can, theorise on what can't be observed but makes its presence known and leave the emotive issues to the psychologists and the theologians?

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

quote:

As for wave partical duality, why not accept that there is a beastie that behaves like both, it's our macro experience that makes this micro phenomenon uncomfortable to us.


I don't find this "uncomfortable" at all in 'wave theory'. Why do you?

quote:

Same with our unease with the possibility that the universe has no beginning or no end vs our need for a start and an end.


Isn't this a 'human' outlook and unscientific? Shouldn't we just observe what we can, theorise on what can't be observed but makes its presence known and leave the emotive issues to the psychologists and the theologians?

I agree 100% with you on this but even great scientists eg Einstein with his "God does not play dice" was expressing an emotional response which I'm pretty sure coloured his approach to Quantum Theory. And it may be that without a bit of emotion / blind faith, many scientists wouldn't have the energy to push on to the great breakthroughs.

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:

quote:

Originally posted by poams:
What does it mean, ayway, to talk aut the size of the universe? What can this possibly mean? the ‘universe’ is everything there is. Outside it there is, by definition, nothing – not even empty space. There is no time, no volume, no anything. In that case, what can it mean that the universe is ‘expanding’, ‘contracting’ or whatever? Against what can that ‘expansion’ or ‘contraction’ possibly be measured?

The speed of light.

quote:

Besides, there are explanations of the Hubble redshift which are perfectly adequate, without that extravagant assumption of galactic recession and its associated 'Big Bang'beginning. Why, then don't we see these explanations in the media?

What is this website if not part of the media? You wrote a lot there and you could have given your non-extravagant explanation for the galactic red-shifts but you chose not to.

It's not that I 'chose not to'. I was simply signposting to anyone who might be interested, that my new book is available on Amazon. From your and other questions on this forum I can only say that to anwer them I would have to write that book again on this forum, which seems OTT. Sorry but that's it.

POAMS.

quote:

Originally posted by poams:

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:

quote:

Originally posted by poams:

there are explanations of the Hubble redshift which are perfectly adequate, without that extravagant assumption of galactic recession and its associated 'Big Bang'beginning. Why, then don't we see these explanations in the media?

What is this website if not part of the media? You wrote a lot there and you could have given your non-extravagant explanation for the galactic red-shifts but you chose not to.

It's not that I 'chose not to'. I was simply signposting to anyone who might be interested, that my new book is available on Amazon. From your and other questions on this forum I can only say that to anwer them I would have to write that book again on this forum, which seems OTT. Sorry but that's it.

If you're not able to summarize something to less than book length then you've answered your own question as to why your ideas are not in the media. If your explanations are too complex and convoluted to summarize on a forum then perhaps they need to be subjected to Occam's razor. And if you're just here to plug your book perhaps you'd be better off paying for a banner ad.

Son of Mulder.

quote:

I agree 100% with you on this but even great scientists eg Einstein with his "God does not play dice" was expressing an emotional response which I'm pretty sure coloured his approach to Quantum Theory. And it may be that without a bit of emotion / blind faith, many scientists wouldn't have the energy to push on to the great breakthroughs.

Well I'm told Einstein had some Catholic Schooling, but I think he was less interested in what God does with his spare time than the 'unnatural' representation of the 'math process' he was asked to accept when he made that remark.

Emotion tends to improve communications if it isn't overdone, but 'blind faith' needs to have been born from an earlier 'conviction' if it is to 'carry you through' to that final achievement.

I'm not conversant with the 'Copenhagen interpretation' in its entirety, but what I have read gives me the impression that Einstein wanted to 'hold on' to more 'classical' physics or at least span the gulf between classical and quantum physics. Intriguing!

Best regards, suricat.

I finally managed to get to watch this programme this evening and found it most inspirational, Mr Hawking's passion about his work really shows, but I do believe that his theories would benefit if they adhered to the first law of time - "An individual particle is not influenced by it's own time".

Vivant.

Your post inspired me to download 4od to watch this series online, but as usual (and I hope the moderators read this), the service doesn't recognise my C4 identity, I don't want to change it and I don't have the time to enter into dialogue for any corrections to be made!!!

I've not seen the programme that is the subject of your post, but from what you describe it sounds more like a science fiction subject than science. I am 'gob smacked' by the phrase "An individual particle is not influenced by it's own time".

All particles are influenced by interactions along a common 'timeline' dependant on their spatial location by my understanding. This 'common' timeline is shared by all particles, so how can a particle 'not' be influenced "by it's own time" that is shared with everything else?

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

I am 'gob smacked' by the phrase "An individual particle is not influenced by it's own time"

suricat!This is why I love this end of Physics. Its so open-ended!
The individual elemental particle cannot be influenced by its own time because it created its own time, simply by existing in the first place! So [the particles]time cannot affect the said particle because it is always one step behind(being created)!
Its pure mathematics!!

mufcdiver.

That doesn't make sense because if it is one step behind its own creation, it doesn't exist yet!

This has a hint of improper relativity.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

mufcdiver.

That doesn't make sense because if it is one step behind its own creation, it doesn't exist yet!

This has a hint of improper relativity.

Best regards, suricat.

I don't understand this suricat, you seem to be implying that time exists before matter but I ask you how this can be true?

Quote:

All particles are influenced by interactions along a common 'timeline' dependant on their spatial location by my understanding. This 'common' timeline is shared by all particles, so how can a particle 'not' be influenced "by it's own time" that is shared with everything else?

Best regards, suricat.[/QUOTE]

Suricat - do not be confused - think of quantum relativity as each individual particle bending space time depending on its mass - and each individual particle bending space time irrespective to how much space time is already bent around it! So a singularity does not actually have any gravity and as Hawking's calculations about the early universe were having a few problems with gravity in the early universe - so not only was there no gravity in the singularity but more importantly at the critical moment of expansion gravity works as an expansive force. Oh and quantum relativity works on spacetime being warped as as result of the exclusion principle (where no two like pieces of energy can exist in the same place at the same time - so more time is bent into that place). Time is not seen as static historical time lines but as relative.

Hope this helps.

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:

quote:

mufcdiver.

That doesn't make sense because if it is one step behind its own creation, it doesn't exist yet!

This has a hint of improper relativity.

Best regards, suricat.

I don't understand this suricat, you seem to be implying that time exists before matter but I ask you how this can be true?

Does time exist before matter...? it is all a question of probability - you have to remember that spacetime is what we measure matter in - no matter = no spacetime, time is not measured in seconds, hours, years but in the curvature of spacetime (which i find odd for something which is one dimentional) - the relationship between matter and this curvature on a quantum level gets a bit messy for systems with more than two particles I just can't do the maths.....

quote:

I don't understand this suricat, you seem to be implying that time exists before matter but I ask you how this can be true?



Does time exist before matter...? it is all a question of probability - you have to remember that spacetime is what we measure matter in - no matter = no spacetime, time is not measured in seconds, hours, years but in the curvature of spacetime (which i find odd for something which is one dimentional) - the relationship between matter and this curvature on a quantum level gets a bit messy for systems with more than two particles I just can't do the maths.....

Sorry Vivant, my question was purely rhetorical to suricat(unless of course he was sitting on the theory of everything, in which case he'd be off to Sweden and I'd be feeling smug for teasing it out of him )but thanks anyhow!!