Holes in Big Bang

[DeiRenDopa]

I will give you the same answer i gave someone a couple of weeks back.

I am simply here to inspire this place for all that it was intended. You want skepticism, you can have skepticism. I am simply trying to entice some intelligent conversations.

Thanks.

A conversation requires the active participation of more than one party ... if, as you say, you don't care what anyone thinks, does that mean you do not intend to engage in any conversations (intelligent or otherwise)?

I'm also curious about "skepticism" ... as I said earlier, asking questions seems fine, but making bald assertions and then not engaging with anyone on any responses (or, worse, simply repeating the assertions as if nothing had happened in between) can't really be called scepticism, can it? I mean, it's almost the essence of trolling, isn't it?

 

[Paul]

I am simply here to inspire this place for all that it was intended. You want skepticism, you can have skepticism. I am simply trying to entice some intelligent conversations.

You have a very strange way to inspire people.

You came here proclaiming your superior knowledge while demonstrating a distinct lack thereof. You dismissed others' knowledge and education as inferior, only to confirm that you have yet to study physics at a university level, ignoring the advice and help offered by people who's knowledge goes beyond your own aspirations ("certaified Doctor in astrophysical and exobiological sciences" isn't it?).

In what way do expect such behaviour will inspire people to converse with you?

 

[Singularitarian]

You have a very strange way to inspire people.

You came here proclaiming your superior knowledge while demonstrating a distinct lack thereof. You dismissed others' knowledge and education as inferior, only to confirm that you have yet to study physics at a university level, ignoring the advice and help offered by people who's knowledge goes beyond your own aspirations ("certaified Doctor in astrophysical and exobiological sciences" isn't it?).

In what way do expect such behaviour will inspire people to converse with you?

Excuse me.

Truth be told, i had people flouting their education to me. It was their general attitudes to me originally in which i retaliated. This feeble attempt you make is nothing but dillusional lies.

When people said i was wrong on things i knew i was right about i.e. the square of the wave function (an amplitude process) defines a collapse in the system [latex]\int_{\Omega} |\psi|^2[/latex] and i don't know how many times i had to state this. In fact, there are many instances in which i've had to entertain this behaviour.

Also, i never bring anyone down for their education. If i have ever brought anyone down, they have started on me.

 

[Michael Mozina]

These early papers 1982 had most of it right:

http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhRvL..49.1110G
http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhLB..115..295H

The details were worked out over the following decade. By 1996 just about the whole picture was there:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9510117

WMAP released its first data in 2003.

I still fail to understand how you figure these are true "predictions". Let's look at abstracts first:

Abstract
The consequences of the quantum fluctuations of the scalar Higgs field, phi, that occur during the era of exponential expansion are examined. The evolution of these fluctuations is followed through the time at which galactic scales come within Hubble radius (at approximately 10 to the 8th sec), and the energy density fluctuations delta-rho/rho at that time are estimated. It is noted that according to Harrison (1970) and Zeldovich (1972), this number should be about 0.0001 and should be roughly independent of scale. It is found that the new inflationary universe leads to a delta-rho/rho which is roughly independent of scale, but with a magnitude of approximately 50. It is therefore thought that a further modification of this scenario is necessary in order to make it workable.

Emphasis mine.

The horizon, flatness and monopole problems can be solved if the universe underwent an exponentially expanding stage which ended with a Higgs scalar field running slowly down an effective potential. In the downhill phase irregularities would develop in the scalar field. These would lead to fluctuations in the rate of expansions which would the have right spectrum to account for the existence of galaxies. However the amplitude would be too high to be consistent with observations of the isotropy of the microwave background unless the effective coupling constant of the Higgs scalar was very small.

Emphasis mine.

In both cases the authors seem to be "working backwards" to match a specific set of observations and/or specific concerns that have already been voiced. How exactly do you figure this is a real "prediction" if they start off trying to match something they have already observed?

 

[sol invictus]

Insane, reading what posts remain while mine get edited out.

Agreed. Two of my posts - which contained rather carefully written answers to some issues we were discussing regarding the size of the electron - were moved. I'm creating a thread on the management forum to complain.

Complaint thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151435

moved posts: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151427

 

[sol invictus]

Repost #1:

In case anyone is curious, in reality-based physics electrons are believed to be point particles. What that means is that they don't appear to have any substructure or length scale one can associate with a size (unlike a proton, for example, which has a substructure of definite size which becomes visible when you probe it with something sufficiently small).

But that does not mean that electrons occupy and affect only a single point. The reason is that quantum mechanics smears them over a region of non-zero size. They should be thought of as probability clouds. Anything which passes through that cloud has some probability of interacting with the electron.

But the size of the cloud depends on the state of the electron, on its momentum, on its surroundings - not on some intrinsic property all electrons share. So there is nothing analagous to a radius. And the harder you smack an electron, the smaller it looks - because the size of the cloud decreases with increasing interaction energy.

----------
Repost #2:

So, as for the radius of the electron - see my post just above. Electrons don't have a radius. There's a quantity sometimes called the classical radius of the electron, but that ignores quantum mechanics and doesn't mean much. Something that's more useful is the Compton wavelength - that's more or less the radius of the electron's probability cloud when it's at rest and in vacuum. But that cloud isn't "hard", and its size depends on quantum mechanics and the electron's energy only.

 

[Piggy]

Translation: If you dare to question them, be prepared to be grilled mercilessly till you can't answer a specific question, and then expect to be skewered publicly for your crime.

Translation: If you make assertions to experts in any field which don't match what is known in that field, be prepared to be questioned about those assertions, and if you can't produce justifiable answers, then expect to have this fact pointed out to you.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Repost #1:

In case anyone is curious, in reality-based physics electrons are believed to be point particles. What that means is that they don't appear to have any substructure or length scale one can associate with a size (unlike a proton, for example, which has a substructure of definite size which becomes visible when you probe it with something sufficiently small).

But that does not mean that electrons occupy and affect only a single point. The reason is that quantum mechanics smears them over a region of non-zero size. They should be thought of as probability clouds. Anything which passes through that cloud has some probability of interacting with the electron.

But the size of the cloud depends on the state of the electron, on its momentum, on its surroundings - not on some intrinsic property all electrons share. So there is nothing analagous to a radius. And the harder you smack an electron, the smaller it looks - because the size of the cloud decreases with increasing interaction energy.

----------
Repost #2:

So, as for the radius of the electron - see my post just above. Electrons don't have a radius. There's a quantity sometimes called the classical radius of the electron, but that ignores quantum mechanics and doesn't mean much. Something that's more useful is the Compton wavelength - that's more or less the radius of the electron's probability cloud when it's at rest and in vacuum. But that cloud isn't "hard", and its size depends on quantum mechanics and the electron's energy only.

If we had a cloud of electrons and bombarded it with a beam of very high energy electrons, could any of the electrons in the beam strike and bounce back from any of electrons in the cloud?

 

[Dancing David]

I know its too big. I have consulted with a physicist who was working on it. He assured me big bang did not predict a void of that magnitude.

That is not a citation, nor a source.

 

[Paul]

Without derailing too much I hope -

Truth be told, i had people flouting their education to me. It was their general attitudes to me originally in which i retaliated.

You only joined in july, and by the 15th you'd already been warned about bad language and personal attacks.

The following quotes of yours are from only two threads:

GO LEARN SOME PHYSICS AND STOP DECIEVING PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO TAKE AN INTEREST IN THE WORK.

I implore you not to listen to him.He does not know what he is talking about.

Neveretheless, if some of you actually learned some physics instead of raising voices for a reason which is just as insipid as you would expect from a primary school patter, then until such a conversation evolves, then maybe i will be more complient, and hopefully so will you and others.

Go learn some of the physics first before you want to debate them please.

And there is no-way in hell you are a scientist. I am a Graduate in physics, and i can tell you lack drammatically in physics knowledge.

Sorry guys, but the general attitude here is as degradated as the knowledge of physics being flung about.

You lot must be sitting in a room together eating a magic-mushroom stew, because, i can assure you, my contrbutions have been 100% scientifically-accurate within these discussions in this thread, i have had enough for now.

This feeble attempt you make is nothing but dillusional lies.

What were you saying?

Also, i never bring anyone down for their education. If i have ever brought anyone down, they have started on me.

We know that's a lie, and this whole victim thing is going to cause problems when you go to university.

 

[Singularitarian]

That is not a citation, nor a source.

The obvious must have escaped me

 

[Reality Check]

I still fail to understand how you figure these are true "predictions". Let's look at abstracts first:

In both cases the authors seem to be "working backwards" to match a specific set of observations and/or specific concerns that have already been voiced. How exactly do you figure this is a real "prediction" if they start off trying to match something they have already observed?

The basic fact is that scientific papers often mention earlier results and the need to reconcile any differences between these results and their results.
For example a guy called Einstein did a lot of "working backwards" to match a specific set of observations.

IMHO first 2 papers are not about the predictions. As sol stated "These early papers 1982 had most of it right:", i.e. the it he is talkig about is inflation.

The third paper was published at a pont where the predictions are fully worked out and not yet observed
Small Scale Cosmological Perturbations: An Analytic Approach

Through analytic techniques verified by numerical calculations, we establish general relations between the matter and cosmic microwave background (CMB) power spectra and their dependence on cosmological parameters on small scales. Fluctuations in the CMB, baryons, cold dark matter (CDM), and neutrinos receive a boost at horizon crossing. Baryon drag on the photons causes alternating acoustic peak heights in the CMB and is uncovered in its bare form under the photon diffusion scale. Decoupling of the photons at last scattering and of the baryons at the end of the Compton drag epoch, freezes the diffusion-damped acoustic oscillations into the CMB and matter power spectra at different scales. We determine the dependence of the respective acoustic amplitudes and damping lengths on fundamental cosmological parameters. The baryonic oscillations, enhanced by the velocity overshoot effect, compete with CDM fluctuations in the present matter power spectrum. We present new exact analytic solutions for the cold dark matter fluctuations in the presence of a growth- inhibiting radiation {\it and} baryon background. Combined with the acoustic contributions and baryonic infall into CDM potential wells, this provides a highly accurate analytic form of the small-scale transfer function in the general case

 

[Michael Mozina]

The basic fact is that scientific papers often mention earlier results and the need to reconcile any differences between these results and their results.

Sure, but let's be clear about the difference between a real "prediction" of something unexpected you might learn from a controlled experiment and a "postdiction" that is based upon the idea of attempting to match a *KNOWN* and *MEASURED* quantity.

Birkeland's empirical experiments led to true "predictions" because he actually 'learned' something from his experiments that his did not expect to discover, whereas these papers seem to be attempting to 'fit' something that has already been measured and doesn't seem to jive with previous incarnations of "inflation".

 

[tsig]

Translation: If you dare to question them, be prepared to be grilled mercilessly till you can't answer a specific question, and then expect to be skewered publicly for your crime.

That's the way it works. Not just here at Jref but in real life also.

 

[tsig]

Sure, but let's be clear about the difference between a real "prediction" of something unexpected you might learn from a controlled experiment and a "postdiction" that is based upon the idea of attempting to match a *KNOWN* and *MEASURED* quantity.

Birkeland's empirical experiments led to true "predictions" because he actually 'learned' something from his experiments that his did not expect to discover, whereas these papers seem to be attempting to 'fit' something that has already been measured and doesn't seem to jive with previous incarnations of "inflation".

What "is" this: An argument from parentheses?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What "is" this: An argument from parentheses?

 

[ben m]

When people said i was wrong on things i knew i was right about i.e. the square of the wave function (an amplitude process) defines a collapse in the system [latex]\int_{\Omega} |\psi|^2[/latex] and i don't know how many times i had to state this. In fact, there are many instances in which i've had to entertain this behaviour.

... about which you are still either (a) wrong, (b) typo-ridden, or (c) stating things so unclearly that it can't be interpreted as correct.

The quantity [latex]\int_{\Omega} \mid \psi \mid^2[/latex], presuming you mean an integral over space at any fixed time, is equal to 1 by definition or normalization. This is true whether or not you make an observation of any quantity; I know of no one who would call this "collapse", but you called it "the definition of collapse". The various other integrals you seemed to be suggesting---including some time term or something---were unintelligible.

There is a sense in which a quantity like [latex] \mid \psi(\vec{r})\mid^2[/latex], perhaps integrated over a finite region of space, has something to do with collapse---that quantity (limited space integral, no time integral) is the probability of finding a particle at position r. That is a quantity sort of related to collapse---pedagogically speaking, you might say " you have to collapse an unknown wavefunction onto position eigenvalues in order to find these probabilities", but even this isn't really true. (Example: to I prepare a ground-state H atom, I measure E, not position---but having measured E, and solved the Schrodinger equation, I know phi(r) everywhere, and thus |phi(r)|^2, but that doesn't mean I "know where the electron is" or that I have "measured r".

But that's not what you had said at all. You had said something very specifically wrong using vaguely quantum-looking notation. IIRC you'd had unit trouble as well (as usual?) and called a quantity with time units a probability, or something.

 

[Singularitarian]

... about which you are still either (a) wrong, (b) typo-ridden, or (c) stating things so unclearly that it can't be interpreted as correct.

The quantity

, presuming you mean an integral over space at any fixed time, is equal to 1 by definition or normalization. This is true whether or not you make an observation of any quantity; I know of no one who would call this "collapse", but you called it "the definition of collapse". The various other integrals you seemed to be suggesting---including some time term or something---were unintelligible.

There is a sense in which a quantity like

, perhaps integrated over a finite region of space, has something to do with collapse---that quantity (limited space integral, no time integral) is the probability of finding a particle at position r. That is a quantity sort of related to collapse---pedagogically speaking, you might say " you have to collapse an unknown wavefunction onto position eigenvalues in order to find these probabilities", but even this isn't really true. (Example: to I prepare a ground-state H atom, I measure E, not position---but having measured E, and solved the Schrodinger equation, I know phi(r) everywhere, and thus |phi(r)|^2, but that doesn't mean I "know where the electron is" or that I have "measured r".

But that's not what you had said at all. You had said something very specifically wrong using vaguely quantum-looking notation. IIRC you'd had unit trouble as well (as usual?) and called a quantity with time units a probability, or something.

When i said the collapse is defined by the square of the absolute wave function i am;

100% correct.
Completely right in saying so, since statistically it is how it is defined.
Written in the way given, is not decieving at all. You can try and wriggle out this again, but... sigh, i implore you realize that this is an amplitude process finding the most ''likely'' event, hence, you will find this likely event upon such a collapse.

I do remember you where somewhat clueless as well. You didn't seem to recognize amplitude equations. At least you can now.

As per rule 12, attack the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[Molinaro]

When i said the collapse is defined by the square of the absolute wave function i am;

100% correct.
Completely right in saying so, since statistically it is how it is defined.
Written in the way given, is not decieving at all. You can try and wriggle out this again, but... sigh, i implore you realize that this is an amplitude process finding the most ''likely'' event, hence, you will find this likely event upon such a collapse.

I do remember you where somewhat clueless as well. You didn't seem to recognize amplitude equations. At least you can now.

It is getting realy sad to watch you fail so badly so continuously. You can't even understand what's been said to you. Hence you blissfully delude yourself into believe you are still right.

You can't even recognize what's right when it's spelled out for you! And then you will no doubt continue to post after this about how you proved us wrong!

 

[Singularitarian]

It is getting realy sad to watch you fail so badly so continuously. You can't even understand what's been said to you. Hence you blissfully delude yourself into believe you are still right.

You can't even recognize what's right when it's spelled out for you! And then you will no doubt continue to post after this about how you proved us wrong!

Ben is intentionally bringing things in that are not needed in a mathematical shorthand, such as operators describing observation.

And to prove you can do what i did, i will find yet more evidence.