The Most Foolish Theory in Physics

Wowbagger said:
Wait a minute... if the CMB is a constant, then why is there so much variation found in it?! :confused:

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/WMAP_2008.png/180px-WMAP_2008.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...


It's variations are of 10,000th degree of error, which is (i can't express anymore) how small this difference is on a comological scale.
 
edd said:
Since you asked (which I previously suggested you didn't), I have a masters and PhD from a rather highly rated university. I've taught quantum mechanics at the university level, and cosmology, and astrophysics.

And even I bow to the superior knowledge in many areas of physics of other posters here such as Sol.
Click to expand...

Then maybe it is true that the academic labels are simply words that represent a wide range of physicists who think they know physics.
 
"Physicists who think they know physics"

You're a quote machine. This thread is my very favorite. Most entertaining.
 
Singularitarian said:
It's variations are of 10,000th degree of error, which is (i can't express anymore) how small this difference is on a comological scale.
Click to expand...
A temperature variaiton of zero would be constant (your assertion).
The measured (not error) temperature variation is 1 part in 10,000. This is not a constant CMB.
On a "cosmological" scale this is enormous.
 
Reality Check said:
A temperature variaiton of zero would be constant (your assertion).
The measured (not error) temperature variation is 1 part in 10,000. This is not a constant CMB.
On a "cosmological" scale this is enormous.
Click to expand...


The mathematical definition is called ''an error of approximation,''and actually the measured CMB density of frequency flow that corresponds to a nearly homogoneous energy displacement, Einstein said the Cosmological Value (which is the same thing as the total energy in the universe) should be close to zero, maybe with a value of 1. Instead we measure a superfluous amount of energy resident in just one single quantum ground state of temperature which says there is [latex]10^{122}[/latex] magntitudes more than the visible energy in the vacuum.

This means the vacuum has an infinite amount of energy, and what renormalizes is still not fully solved, but there is some indication of a mechanism of a quantum cut-off point.
 
and if you didn't get that, it basically yeh, your wrong. The energy is certainly constant. And the CMB is almost just as smooth, a consequence itself of inflationary phase.
 
Singularitarian said:
Instead we measure a superfluous amount of energy resident in just one single quantum ground state of temperature
Click to expand...

There is no "ground state of temperature", quantum or otherwise. Either you are deeply confused, or your grammar problems are obscuring your real meaning. Or both. But whatever the reason, you are not making any sense.
 
Singularitarian said:
and if you didn't get that, it basically yeh, your wrong. The energy is certainly constant. And the CMB is almost just as smooth, a consequence itself of inflationary phase.
Click to expand...

Screw the smoothness: the CMB changes over time. It was around 3000 K when the universe became transparent, it has been dropping ever since, and it will continue to drop unless the universe starts to contract. It is not a cosmological constant.
 
Singularitarian, the CMB photons are just photons emitted by hydrogen atoms 13.7 Gy ago. They are a ~2.73K blackbody today because those hydrogen atoms were a 3000K blackbody, but (now) very far away and redshifted.

Nonetheless you keep saying that the CMB is some sort of manifestation of the zero point. Well, I have a deuterium discharge lamp in my lab. It emits photons. Are those photons also just an error around the zero point? My lamp is 1000 times hotter than the CMB. Why is the zero-point error so large in my lamp and so small in outer space?
 
Well I'm very new here, with a tenuous grasp of such things. But I'll give this a shot...

1. Wouldn't you say this universe is in a ground state?
Maybe the universe was a giant ball of plasma before? A chaotic state?
So maybe the big bang was it moving towards a ground state.

2. Billions of years isn't enough time from an exploding singularity? It looks like it would force speeds unheard of. Blackholes warp space-time, I should think this would too.

3.Google the variable speed of light theory.

4.Not really sure? Isn't that just probability?

5. Yeah someone else can get this one...
 
Last edited:
Singularitarian said:
Bravo.

(snip)

Though, if my edcuation is in question, i am adversed in General and Special Relativity, with an extensive level into classical physics. Since i came here however, i've had a few people arguing over certain words. I already pawned someone yesterday for disagreeing with the spelling of ''complimentarity'' which is a commonly-used word used in Copenhagen, among other theories.
Click to expand...

For those who missed it- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148163
Posts 7-20 I think.

I always wanted to be a Pawnee.
 
Singularitarian said:
The mathematical definition is called ''an error of approximation,''
Click to expand...

The fluctuations in the CMB are neither errors nor due to approximations. They are fundamental to our existence, in fact.

and actually the measured CMB density of frequency flow
Click to expand...

Gibberish. There's no such thing.

that corresponds to a nearly homogoneous energy displacement
Click to expand...

More gibberish. What's an energy displacement?

Einstein said the Cosmological Value (which is the same thing as the total energy in the universe) should be close to zero, maybe with a value of 1.
Click to expand...

He couldn't possibly have said anything of the kind, because that makes no sense at all.

Instead we measure a superfluous amount of energy resident in just one single quantum ground state of temperature which says there is [latex]10^{122}[/latex] magntitudes more than the visible energy in the vacuum.
Click to expand...

More physics term salad.
 
ben m said:
Singularitarian, the CMB photons are just photons emitted by hydrogen atoms 13.7 Gy ago. They are a ~2.73K blackbody today because those hydrogen atoms were a 3000K blackbody, but (now) very far away and redshifted.

Nonetheless you keep saying that the CMB is some sort of manifestation of the zero point. Well, I have a deuterium discharge lamp in my lab. It emits photons. Are those photons also just an error around the zero point? My lamp is 1000 times hotter than the CMB. Why is the zero-point error so large in my lamp and so small in outer space?
Click to expand...



The zero-point field is electromagnetic in nature, and believe it or not, every particle that has arisen from the vacuum i.e. the blackbody emission spectrum of photons all came from the zero-point electromagnetic sea of energy. That's my point, and that the end of that.
 
sol invictus said:
The fluctuations in the CMB are neither errors nor due to approximations. They are fundamental to our existence, in fact.



Gibberish. There's no such thing.



More gibberish. What's an energy displacement?



He couldn't possibly have said anything of the kind, because that makes no sense at all.



More physics term salad.
Click to expand...

energy displacement is simply the same as saying matter displacement... the displacement of matter is entropy duh.

Secondly, its not salad. Obviously i need to do more homework for someone who doesn't know jack about the topics they like to argue:

Read this. You might learn something and contribute hopefully to a geniune and intellectual conversation instead of your insipid and inconsistent ramblings:

[PDF] GENERAL RELATIVITY AND THE ZERO POINT ENERGY File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
“the kinetic energy associated with the ZPF-driven Zitterbewegung is what provides the .... Connecticut (Physics) pointed out that the general relativistic results of .... basic form, 3N, to within the error of observations. ..... generate a nonzero cosmological constant whose value is some 120 orders of magnitude ...
www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/BS-GR.pdf - Similar -
by B Setterfield - 2003 - Cited by 3 - Related articles
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom