Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 72

Thread: Cosmological Models with No Big Bang, is this a valid model being considered?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    89

    Cosmological Models with No Big Bang, is this a valid model being considered?

    I was reading an article in Physorg.com regarding a cosmological model without a big bang. Basically, it states that time, space, length, and mass convert between each other and therefore you can have a universe without a big bang or dark energy (http://www.physorg.com/news199591806.html). What is the viability of such a model? Is it something that comes up from time to time and then not accepted eventually?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    7,935
    Quote Originally Posted by mmaayeh View Post
    I was reading an article in Physorg.com regarding a cosmological model without a big bang. Basically, it states that time, space, length, and mass convert between each other and therefore you can have a universe without a big bang or dark energy (http://www.physorg.com/news199591806.html). What is the viability of such a model? Is it something that comes up from time to time and then not accepted eventually?
    It's a variable speed of light/gravitational constant model. Surely this idea is not new. Maybe this author put some new twists on it. I just (attempted to) read Reinventing Gravity by John Moffat, which makes many of the same claims using the same strategy. (It was one of the very few books that I absolutely could not finish. It seemed to me to be one handwave after another.)

    These models may actually do what they claim, but the variability of these physical constants, on which the models are based, appear to be in gross conflict with repeated and various independent observations. Such conflict is not normally a good foundation for a proposed model.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    20,474
    What's more, it was impossible to tell from the flimsy article what the core of the idea really was. What characteristics did the driving equations have? How many free parameters were invoked? It's always easy to get a model that explains why A, B, C and D happened, I can come up with such a model right now: "A happened, and then "exchanging" A and B caused B to happen, and then "exchanging" B and C led to C, and "exchanging" C and D led to D." The trick is to do it in a unifying way, a way that lets you get out much more than you put in. If one is going to relax one of the most important unifying concepts in all of science, the constancy of the constants, then one had better have a huge simplification or unification coming in someplace else, or the net benefit is negative. That may be why the link cites only un-refereed publications.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Maayeh,

    Cosmological Models with No Big Bang, is this a valid model being considered?
    Of course it is wise to have a general knowledge of alternative models. The BB may not be the last word on things. None of these "alternative models" presently could be considered mainstream though. Considering there are almost as many theories as there are theorists, most of these cosmological models are different versions of the BB model. Just because somebody gets more press than someone else and gets their model out there doesn't mean that model is more worthy of consideration than other alternatives "less advertised." All of us have limited time for such readings since most models developed by educated theorists are not simple to read or understand and require in-depth analysis. As perceived problems have arisen in the past with the standard model, more alternative/ competing theories have also risen to the surface to explain these perceived problem(s). Each person can decide for themselves concerning the possibilities of alternative models. Most however don't have the expertise for such evaluations so instead rely on the opinions of others. All must consider to what extent one should consider alternative models based upon what one's opinions are concerning perceived problems with the foundations of the basic BB model. As was indicated, generally no one can consider any theory that one cannot understand, if in fact the theory is generally self consistent, except by somebody else' opinion of it.
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2011-Jan-03 at 10:50 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    89
    Thanks all, seems like for now I can see that this model needs serious peer review before being accepted as a potential alternative in the scientific community.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    246
    Here's the paper, complete with the field equations.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.1750.pdf

    I'd like someone with some knowledge of GR to look this over.

    I've been trying to develop a new kind of model for quantum mechanics of quark interactions and this cosmology suits it well due to it's natural dualities.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    20,474
    I think the paper is actually pretty interesting, the question is does it really deliver on its goals. The main idea of the paper is to let c be inversely proportional to the rate of change of the average density, with the idea that c would be infinite if the density weren't changing because in a universe where nothing changes (cosmologically speaking), there would be no cosmological concept of time. He then argues that if there's no cosmological concept of time, c should be infinite, because there should be no local sense of time either. That's a bit of a stretch, but it's not illogical. The only other thing of consequence he has to assume is that the gravitational constant G must vary in concert with how c varies to keep certain physically important conversion factors constant.

    The general relativity in the paper is all completely standard, he's not changing that in any way. He is merely assuming a different parametrization of c and G, rather than letting them stay constant.

    An important issue that I did not read carefully enough to judge, and I don't know if he really addressed it very completely, is whether the new model is consistent with all the other things we observe, like cosmic nucleosynthesis and the CMB-- normally considered pillars of the Big Bang. He is claiming the Big Bang didn't happen, so I think he's got a wee bit of a problem there.

    An even worse problem may exist. He mentions in the paper that some authors have pointed out that monkeying with c and G is not really doing anything physical at all, since those parameters have dimensions. It is the dimensionless combinations that can be made from them that store all the physics, and he may be forcing those combinations to stay the same, that's not completely clear to me on a casual reading. The point about having dimensions is that you can get c to be a function of time by simply changing gradually from meters to feet, or some such thing-- it's not a physical difference. His defense against that is nonexistent-- he claims that his time has no beginning and no end, so is topologically different, but of course one can achieve that by simply converting the units of time in a continuous way that maps our familiar 13.7 billion years into an infinite amount of his coordinate time.

    In short, I'm quite worried that all he has done is remap completely standard Friedmann-Walker cosmology into a new coordinate where the units of time and distance gradually vary. There may not actually be any new physics in the "model" at all-- so the problem isn't that anything is wrong, it's that all it does is put makeup on the standard solution for a compact universe. If so, his "model" would not have any observational consequences, and he would then have to misinterpreting what it predicts for the observations.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    246
    It seems to me that for this paper to be valid, and time to have no beginning and no end, there would have to exist a space-like dimension of time.

    For the universe to be evolving in the manner described in this paper, there would have to be a process of white hole nucleosynthesis occuring at one end of the time-space where inflation and deceleration are occuring to counter balance the acceleration and compression of the black hole at the opposite end of time-space.

    Does that seem like a logical extension?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    An important issue that I did not read carefully enough to judge, and I don't know if he really addressed it very completely, is whether the new model is consistent with all the other things we observe, like cosmic nucleosynthesis and the CMB-- normally considered pillars of the Big Bang. He is claiming the Big Bang didn't happen, so I think he's got a wee bit of a problem there.
    Not so much the nucleosynthesis of light elements that is easier to justify and in fact has been "explained" by many different models, but certainly if the paper lacks something is addressing the CMB observations, and the paper does not even mention it, which is a big flaw if their goal was to present a new model and be taken seriously
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    In short, I'm quite worried that all he has done is remap completely standard Friedmann-Walker cosmology into a new coordinate where the units of time and distance gradually vary. There may not actually be any new physics in the "model" at all-- so the problem isn't that anything is wrong, it's that all it does is put makeup on the standard solution for a compact universe. If so, his "model" would not have any observational consequences, and he would then have to misinterpreting what it predicts for the observations.
    I agree, basically if one plays with constants one can get just about anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Knots A Lot View Post

    For the universe to be evolving in the manner described in this paper, there would have to be a process of white hole nucleosynthesis occuring at one end of the time-space where inflation and deceleration are occuring to counter balance the acceleration and compression of the black hole at the opposite end of time-space.

    Does that seem like a logical extension?
    From what I understood in this model there is no singularities, so probably it doesn't.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Knots A Lot View Post
    It seems to me that for this paper to be valid, and time to have no beginning and no end, there would have to exist a space-like dimension of time.

    For the universe to be evolving in the manner described in this paper, there would have to be a process of white hole nucleosynthesis occuring at one end of the time-space where inflation and deceleration are occuring to counter balance the acceleration and compression of the black hole at the opposite end of time-space.

    Does that seem like a logical extension?
    Not wishing to go down the ATM road... but. I understand things 'differently' As space time increases density so time must slow. As to why ?

    The higher or nearer to velocity c. the slower time must be... from your perspective.

    I think there's a general agreement with that. Well I think so., but have noticed a trend to argue whatever the point, to oblivion.

    I am not interested in that attitude. But am thinking that. Time does not go back.
    It might almost stop. but as c. is unobtainable. Its all a bit silly.

    Also noting how easy it is to get so completely misunderstood... and to avoid that suggesting any 'new' idea. I am not.

    Just attempting to relate that as your velocity gets near to c. Time will appear to have slowed.

    and if it were possible to reach c. It would for all intentions have stopped.

    The light does not experiance time. It is where ever it is, and going to in a instant.

    I am interested if I can be understood. ? Mark. Watching the planets.
    Last edited by astromark; 2010-Aug-03 at 01:14 AM. Reason: added explanation

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Staticman View Post
    From what I understood in this model there is no singularities, so probably it doesn't.
    Well, just because there isn't a singularity in the model doesn't eliminate the whole idea of black holes. It's just redefining what possibly occurs behind the event horizon.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    7,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Staticman View Post
    ...the nucleosynthesis of light elements... is easier to justify and in fact has been "explained" by many different models...
    Tony Rothman reports:

    "Actually, it is so difficult for a model to predict both the light isotope abundances and the cosmic microwave background that most alternative models have been of the big bang type."

    "To keep helium below the 25% limit imposed by astronomers [observations] requires that the universe was highly isotropic at the time of element formation."

    I expect the ~25% helium by mass is quite a constraint to any model. And if that doesn't do it, the observed 2 x 10-5 parts deuterium rather seals the deal, it would seem.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Tony Rothman reports:

    "Actually, it is so difficult for a model to predict both the light isotope abundances and the cosmic microwave background that most alternative models have been of the big bang type."

    "To keep helium below the 25% limit imposed by astronomers [observations] requires that the universe was highly isotropic at the time of element formation."

    I expect the ~25% helium by mass is quite a constraint to any model. And if that doesn't do it, the observed 2 x 10-5 parts deuterium rather seals the deal, it would seem.
    One issue that could be addressed by this paper in the notion of a space-like dimension of time is the CMB dipole anisotropy.

    If the formation of galaxys begins with a white hole (non-singularity) that produces elliptical galaxies, and ends with a spiral galaxy being slowly absorbed by a black hole (non-singularity) there is a closed time-like curve being followed in the deceleration and acceleration. The meridians of a 3-sphere (the model that fits the equations of this paper) suggest the shape of this space-like dimension of time.

    If we are indeed travelling along a CTC, could the dipole anisotropy in the CMB be evidence of this preferred galactic motion?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Knots A Lot View Post
    One issue that could be addressed by this paper in the notion of a space-like dimension of time is the CMB dipole anisotropy.

    If the formation of galaxys begins with a white hole (non-singularity) that produces elliptical galaxies, and ends with a spiral galaxy being slowly absorbed by a black hole (non-singularity) there is a closed time-like curve being followed in the deceleration and acceleration. The meridians of a 3-sphere (the model that fits the equations of this paper) suggest the shape of this space-like dimension of time.

    If we are indeed travelling along a CTC, could the dipole anisotropy in the CMB be evidence of this preferred galactic motion?
    Could the dipole anisotropy in the CMB be evidence of this preferred galactic motion?

    Highly unlikely, IMHO, if only because a mass distribution that would give rise to something very close to the observed CMB dipole has already been observed: it's the Great Attractor (to give it a shorthand), a particularly massive rich cluster of galaxies (or set of clusters, a supercluster).

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    Could the dipole anisotropy in the CMB be evidence of this preferred galactic motion?

    Highly unlikely, IMHO, if only because a mass distribution that would give rise to something very close to the observed CMB dipole has already been observed: it's the Great Attractor (to give it a shorthand), a particularly massive rich cluster of galaxies (or set of clusters, a supercluster).
    That would be fine, except that great attractor-like phenomenom seems to be predicted by Shu as a result of this time-like dimension of space. The 'great attractor' would be one of the end points already discussed where G is dominant over c2, as opposed to the opposite end of this time-like dimension of space where c2 is dominant over G.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Knots A Lot View Post
    That would be fine, except that great attractor-like phenomenom seems to be predicted by Shu as a result of this time-like dimension of space. The 'great attractor' would be one of the end points already discussed where G is dominant over c2, as opposed to the opposite end of this time-like dimension of space where c2 is dominant over G.
    I'm not sure I follow - is Shu saying that there is not a distribution of mass - as determined by astronomical observations quite independent of those of the CMB - in/near a region of space called 'the Great Attractor' as a shorthand?

    ETA: there is nothing in either the link in the OP nor Shu's arXiv preprint on the CMB dipole - is this your own interpretation, or do you have some other Shu paper?
    Last edited by Nereid; 2010-Aug-03 at 03:50 PM. Reason: ETA

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    246
    Just out of curiousity, does the Big Bang provide an explanation for the great void in the CMB map?

    http://www.nova.org/~sol/solcom/x-objects/void2com.jpg
    Last edited by Tinaa; 2010-Aug-08 at 06:00 PM. Reason: remove ing tags.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Knots A Lot View Post
    Just out of curiousity, does the Big Bang provide an explanation for the great void in the CMB map?

    http://www.nova.org/~sol/solcom/x-objects/void2com.jpg
    Sure ... it is entirely consistent with the expected spectrum of fluctuations; one of the Seven-Year WMAP papers deals with this exact question (I forget which paper it is, maybe the 'anomalies' one).

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    246
    I haven't read anything regarding theory that would produce such a void 1 billion light years across.

    It's apparently void of all normal matter and dark matter as well.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Knots A Lot View Post
    I haven't read anything regarding theory that would produce such a void 1 billion light years across.

    It's apparently void of all normal matter and dark matter as well.
    Here is the paper Nereid is talking about. I believe the area you are talking about is their cold spot II, it is in section 3 of the paper. Observations have shown that the void isn't as empty as at first thought. They provide the papers showing that.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post

    "Actually, it is so difficult for a model to predict both the light isotope abundances and the cosmic microwave background that most alternative models have been of the big bang type."


    Right. He is talking here about predicting both, which is quite different than predicting just light elements abundance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    "To keep helium below the 25% limit imposed by astronomers [observations] requires that the universe was highly isotropic at the time of element formation."
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Ok, Big Bang model is not the only isotropic model, is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    I expect the ~25% helium by mass is quite a constraint to any model. And if that doesn't do it, the observed 2 x 10-5 parts deuterium rather seals the deal, it would seem.
    Well, it is a constraint, can't argue with that. There are still models that are compatible with the Helium 25% limit, Hoyle and Burbidge(1998) for instance come to mind right now and others have been able to come up with similar models, models with universes infinite in time also usually justify HE/H ratios of about 0.24,
    Of course I did not say anything about their validity as models, I just tried to say that the light elements abundance seemed to me not so striking for them not to mention in the paper (and after all the problems the BB model had in the 90's with the exact fitting with the observed quantities of light isotopes), as the CMB observations, given the great importance that they have gained since the WMAP data is being released. After all the CMB power spectrum is the "crown jewel" of the BB model.

    But probably they should have mentioned both features.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    246
    If the Big Bang occurred everywhere at the same time (or in dhg64's left knee), why is there a frame of motion for the CMB?

    Also, I think it should be noted if this model is predicting a deceleration associated with a white hole, the edge of the event horizon would likely be the point of recombination, where light becomes transparent in space. In effect, the 'deceleration' model of a white hole sort of mirrors the inflationary modelling of the Big Bang.

    So instead of the Big Bang being a onetime event, the emergence from the primodial atom, its a constantly occuring process somewhere in the Universe and the primodial atom never existed.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Knots A Lot View Post
    If the Big Bang occurred everywhere at the same time (or in dhg64's left knee), why is there a frame of motion for the CMB?

    [...]
    Do you know what 'co-moving time' (or a 'co-moving frame of reference')? If so, then you have your answer; if not, then Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial would be worth some of your time reading ...

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    7,935
    [QUOTE=Sir Knots A Lot;1771718]Just out of curiousity, does the Big Bang provide an explanation for the great void in the CMB map?
    http://www.nova.org/~sol/solcom/x-objects/void2com.jpg[/IMG]

    The eraser tool in photoshop?
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  25. 2010-Aug-04, 06:13 PM
    Reason
    irrelevant content

  26. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Sir Knots A Lot,

    Just out of curiousity, does the Big Bang provide an explanation for the great void in the CMB map?
    BB theory does allow for as much heat variation as has been observed in the MWB. I think the problem is more in the size of this, being the largest of the known voids. If the MWB is a remnant of the era following the BB as theory asserts, such large "holes" in it are difficult to explain. Since this void in Boots is thought to be as big as you quoted, the temperatures within this volume have also been observed to be less than its surroundings. This defines the hole. But the problem seems to be that this volume also contains relatively few observable galaxies. If these observations are valid and hold up in time, further theoretical explanations may be needed. Much Fewer galaxies producing lower temperatures would seem to make sense, but maybe not if the MWB was caused by processes following the BB and not by the heat of galaxies as competing theories have asserted.
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Aug-06 at 10:12 PM.

  27. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Sir Knots A Lot,



    BB theory does allow for as much heat variation as has been observed in the MWB. I think the problem is more in the size of this and a view other voids. If the MWB is a remnant of the era following the BB as theory asserts, such large "holes" in it are difficult to explain. Since this void in Boots is thought to be as big as you quoted, the temperatures within this volume have also been observed to be less than its surroundings. This defines the hole. But the problem seems to be that this volume also contains relatively few observable galaxies. If these observations are valid and hold up in time, further theoretical explanations may be needed. Much Fewer galaxies producing lower temperatures would seem to make sense, but maybe not if the MWB was caused by processes following the BB and not by the heat of galaxies as competing theories have asserted.
    Posts #18 and #20 in this thread already answered SKAL's question; the void isn't inconsistent with standard LCDM models, per the WMAP paper cited in post #20 (did you read that paper, fn?).

  28. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Nereid,

    Thanks for pointing out the link. I have now read the paper/link and think their argument has some validity concerning the possibility that such a void in the CMBR of that size, could exist by chance according to the standard model.

    Regarding the void being coincidentally related to a sparsity of galaxies, which I think is the main point, their statements are hardly conclusive relating to what they consider possible evidence for the standard model. They said this (page 4, quoted snippits)

    In theory, cold spots in the CMB can be produced by the integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect as CMB photons traverse cosmic voids along the line of sight. If Cold Spot II (Boots) is due to a cosmic void, it would have profound implications because CDM does not produce voids of sufficient magnitude to explain it.
    ("Boots" added)
    Mota et al. (2008) examined void formation in models where dark energy was allowed to cluster and concluded that voids of sufficient size to explain Cold Spot II were not readily produced.....
    Cruz et al. (2006) reported that only 0.2% of their simulations had this type of feature.
    These conclusions show that the the Boots void is difficult to explain as being separate from a large galactic void.

    Since the original claims were only significant at the level, they can be plausibly biased by posterior data analysis choices: in this case, the angular scale and shape of the wavelet filter. Marginalizing over such choices will reduce statistical significance, but requires judgment in its execution. Had the anomaly been significant at the part per million level instead of a part per thousand (3 sigma significance), such marginalization would be moot: the feature (cold spot in Boots) would have been considered strong evidence for a possible failure of the model ( ΛCDM ).
    (words in parenthesis and bold added)

    Cruz et al. (2007a) suggested that the cold spot could be the signature of a topological defect in the form of a cosmic texture.
    Here they are speculating concerning this void being a large possible anomaly in the "cosmic texture," which might explain away the problem.

    Although there might be much to argue about in this and other related papers, in my opinion if theorists can generally prove beyond doubt, that this largest void in the microwave background is also not a general void of galaxies from our perspective, then the extent of the problem seems to be eliminated. If evidence in time proves to be to the contrary, however, I believe this will become a serious cosmological problem with the BB model.
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2011-Jan-03 at 10:55 PM.

  29. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    mmaayeh,

    Cosmological Models with No Big Bang
    Could they have validity?

    To me the biggest problem facing the LCDM model and its BB variants, concerns observations of distant galaxies. The percentage of "old galaxies" and very large elliptical galaxies appears to be the same as the percentages of galaxies seen nearby. If these observations persist, at least the age of the universe according to the standard model, may need to be changed. Since such a change would be contrary to the expansion rate as presently indicated by a cosmological constant, further theoretical changes may also be needed.

    If such observations persist over time, it would seemingly be difficult for explanations according to the standard model, to prevail. If, on the other hand, a cosmic dark ages were discovered in the future, then the standard model would gain additional supporting evidence that would be difficult to dispute.

    http://esciencenews.com/articles/201...odern.galaxies

    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=543
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Aug-06 at 10:25 PM.

  30. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    mmaayeh,



    Could they have validity?

    To me the biggest problem facing the LCDM model and its BB variants, concerns observations of distant galaxies. The percentage of "old galaxies" and very large elliptical galaxies appears to be the same as the percentages of galaxies seen nearby. If these observations persist, at least the age of the universe according to the standard model, may need to be changed. Since such a change would be contrary to the expansion rate as presently indicated by a cosmological constant, further theoretical changes may also be needed.

    If such observations persist over time, it would seemingly be difficult for explanations according to the standard model, to prevail. If, on the other hand, a cosmic dark ages were discovered in the future, then the standard model would gain additional supporting evidence that would be difficult to dispute.

    http://esciencenews.com/articles/201...odern.galaxies

    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=543
    Hi Forest Noble,

    I am not sure I understand the concept. Why does the equal distribution of elliptical galaxies put into question the age of the universe and/or changes to the standard model?

  31. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    What's more, it was impossible to tell from the flimsy article what the core of the idea really was. What characteristics did the driving equations have? How many free parameters were invoked? It's always easy to get a model that explains why A, B, C and D happened, I can come up with such a model right now: "A happened, and then "exchanging" A and B caused B to happen, and then "exchanging" B and C led to C, and "exchanging" C and D led to D." The trick is to do it in a unifying way, a way that lets you get out much more than you put in. If one is going to relax one of the most important unifying concepts in all of science, the constancy of the constants, then one had better have a huge simplification or unification coming in someplace else, or the net benefit is negative. That may be why the link cites only un-refereed publications.
    Ok Ken, let me have your thoughts on Petr Horavas new ideas on spacetime, ( causing much of a stir in the scientific community).
    An idea that could come up with a unified theory that reconciles quantum mechanics and gravity.
    And none of your double talk, no offence intended, just tell me you understand the above.
    Nokton

Similar Threads

  1. energy creation and the standard cosmological model
    By stitt29 in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 2010-Nov-03, 05:53 PM
  2. Wun-Yi Shu's Cosmological Models with No Big Bang
    By PDoggett in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2010-Aug-12, 01:53 PM
  3. Robertson-Walker : The problem with our cosmological models.
    By john hunter in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 2006-Feb-24, 10:24 AM
  4. New Cosmological Model by Mayer at Stanford
    By sciencenews in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2006-Feb-08, 11:13 AM
  5. Alternative Cosmological Model
    By heusdens in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 2003-Jan-17, 05:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: