|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 09/13/2006 : 15:28:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
FYI Cune, I would like to point out that I found the second paper you sent me quite interesting compared to anything I've read from Guth.
Question: have you read anything in a peer-reviewed journal from Guth? |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2006 : 15:49:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Show me a 'monopole' particle Cune.
Now, that was funny!
You have a twisted sense of hunour, Michael. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2006 : 16:19:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Show me a 'monopole' particle Cune.
You can read about them here. Your argument, of course, is that since monopoles are hypothetical-- that is, they haven't been demonstrated as fact-- then Guth was making things up. But of course, Guth was really concerned with the fact that since various theories were suggesting that we should have lots of monopoles, we should see them, yet we don't. If not, why? A solution was inflation-- which happened to address other problems.
This brings me to my next point. You wrote: quote:
I'm completely confused by your fascination and his fascination with an "inflating" universe in the first place. I see no "great" advantage to that idea over any other idea, and I see a number of problems with it, starting with a field that never decreases with exponentially increasing volume.
Oh-- that solves it, I guess. Since you personally can't see how the idea of inflation solves things, then it must not solve much. Perhaps you could send an email to the majority of cosmological scientists and astrophysisits and let them know?
(also, since you dodged forgot to answer-- do scalar fields have density?)
Anyhow, I thought I'd address your comment: quote:
I don't find a static universe idea, or an expanding plasma cosmology model that difficult to imagine. You (and other students) should not either. That's my point in a nutshell.
This is too rich. First-- and once I defend my diss in a few days I swear I'll open a new thread so the iron sun debate can wage on-- you Big Slam theory explains nothing. That you can happily brush aside inconvenient evidence for why the Big Bang is compelling isn't my problem. However, your blankey assertaion that I "should" blidly accept whatever half-cocked idea you want to throw at me because you have no trouble imagining it is a bit insulting.
And finally, your new crusade: quote:
If however the *industry* wishes to claim this is the only 'cosmology' we should teach in the classroom, then I start to get "testy".
I am sorry but I simply cannot side with this. As Dave has noted, the amount of time and research that has gone into the BB is been tremendous. And, your objections aside (no, really), it is a pretty robust theory. It would be utterly useless to take precious class time and discuss half-cocked ideas with virtually no following within the field.
As a real-life example for a different field, there are people-- fringe independant scholars-- who will argue that, for instance, the Sumerian language is actually related to some other language, e.g. Basque, Turkish, Hungarian, etc. Mainstream Assyriology, however, holds that Sumerian is a language isolate; it is related to no known langauges.
Now, in your first day of Sumerian class, you'll hear that it is an isolate. And you might discuss that for a bit. But you will not go into how it might be related to, say, Basque. This, despite the fact that some have websites arguing this very thing. Why? There's no point. Right now, the overwhelming evidence suggests that it's not related to any known language. Spending time going over conjecture and speculation does nothing but confuse students. Moreover, anyone who sticks with the field long enough will confront these problems on their own and come to the right conclusion.
My guess is that most grad students in astronomy and physics eventually play with the data themselves and do the math in hopes of finding the Next Great Discovery. That the primary vehicle for discussing hyper-plasma-iron-sun cosmological theories is SFN suggests that it's not all that viable.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2006 : 08:31:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Your questions are irrelevant to my point, Michael, which is that you don't have a clue about the current contents of several mainstream scientific theories. The fact that you needed to ask those questions demonstrates my point (which I've been making all along).
Boloney.
That's your rebuttal? "Baloney?" Ah, it's just more of your "I don't want it to be true, therefore it isn't true" sort of stuff. Unfortunately, my point really has been that you don't understand the theories that you are criticizing, and your recent admissions that you don't know some of the key issues within the theories does, indeed, prove me correct.quote:
The fact you won't answer them says volumes.
The answers are irrelevant to the fact that you don't know what the answers are, yet have come to the conclusion that the theories to be "magical" "poof" theories.quote:
quote:
Your repetition of a falsehood will not make it come true, Michael, no matter how much you want it to be true. You've been given (and even made use of) links to the evidence, and you choose to ignore it.
Nothing in your links suggests the existence of "inflaton" particles outside of you theory Dave.
Actually, quantum theory demands that there were particles to carry the scalar field.quote:
You *had* evidence that neutrinos *might* exist through particle physics.
That would be another horrible misrepresentation of the history of a theory. There was no evidence or even any hint of anything like the neutrino until some energy measurements came up short. The particle was invented to explain the energy difference. It wasn't until decades later that neutrinos were actually detected.quote:
We could "test" these ideas and even discover that they do in fact have mass.
Yeah, and even lab test them and find that they change flavors.quote:
Particle physics predicted their existence.
Again, you display complete ignorance of the history of the particle:The neutrino was first postulated in December, 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli to explain the energy spectrum of beta decays, the decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron. Pauli theorized that an undetected particle was carrying away the observed difference between the energy and angular momentum of the initial and final particles. Because of their "ghostly" properties, the first experimental detection of neutrinos had to wait until about 25 years after they were first discussed.
- Wikipedia So in reality, a problem was discovered, a solution dreamt up which didn't violate other aspects of particle physics, and it took many years to confirm the solution experimentally. The same thing is happening with inflation.quote:
Nothing in particle physics suggests we need "inflaton fields/particles".
What's so special about particle physics that you deem it to be the arbiter of what is needed or not? The inflaton is allowed by particle physics, so it's not like inflation posits anything which is contradictory to the current model. Like the neutrino - or more appropriately the Higgs Boson - a problem exists, a solution has been offered, and we're waiting for experimental confirmation or disconfirmation of the proposed solution. You obviously have some sort of problem with the scientific method, however, since you're unwilling to wait for the testing process before concluding that the hypothesis is a "myth."quote:
Huh? How can any theory have "lesser standards" than one which begins with an unevidence "inflaton" field?
I'd be one of the people arguing against teaching Big Bang theory, Michael, if it only had as much work done on it as Arp's tautology.quote:
quote:
I'm open to any theory which has a decent amount of evidence to support it.
Then why wouldn't you want to see plasma cosmology and EU theory taught along side BB theory?
Because you haven't shown any evidence supporting plasma cosmology or EU theory.quote:
quote:
I don't "believe in" any unevidence fields,
Then what evidence do you have that suggest inflaton particle exist?
Apparently you confuse "there is some evidence that inflationary theory is correct" with "inflaton particles exist," but I have no idea whether inflationary theory will wind up being quantum in nature when it is taught as fact. Gravity exists, but we've got no evidence that gravitons exist. Only in quantum theories do every field require particles, but there are plenty of non-quantum theories in physics (like General Relativity).quote:
quote:
and I'm not "*insisting*" that anyone be taught anything in school.
You're insisting what scientific theory *isn't* taught in school then?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2006 : 09:06:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
That's your rebuttal? "Baloney?" Ah, it's just more of your "I don't want it to be true, therefore it isn't true" sort of stuff. Unfortunately, my point really has been that you don't understand the theories that you are criticizing, and your recent admissions that you don't know some of the key issues within the theories does, indeed, prove me correct.
You twist reality like a pretzel Dave just to suit yourself. I asked *you* two questions. I "admitted" nothing of the sort. You just make this stuff up as you go to avoid asnswering my direct questions. You're like the the Darth Vader of "spin". And to think you accuse *me* of this behavior.
quote:
The answers are irrelevant to the fact that you don't know what the answers are, yet have come to the conclusion that the theories to be "magical" "poof" theories.
And you are yet to demonstrate that I am incorrect in that assessment, particular as it relates to Guth and Guth's early theories. I'm not saying someone won't come up with a plausble idea to explain some kind of "inflation" process, but Guth did not. "Poof", the universe just "inflated" by fields that don't decrease in density as volume increases. It was a "poof" theory Dave, and you've offered me no logical alternatives (yet) to such a poof theory.
quote:
Actually, quantum theory demands that there were particles to carry the scalar field.
Simple EM fields would do the trick Dave. QM does not say one word about "inflaton" particles or "dark energy".
quote:
That would be another horrible misrepresentation of the history of a theory. There was no evidence or even any hint of anything like the neutrino until some energy measurements came up short.
They came up "short" (from an energy perspective) in *particle physics* Dave, not some other exotic theory about the 'beginning of time'. There was evidence within the highly measured world of nuclear particles to suggest that some "momentum" might be being transfered to another kind of *lepton conserved* particle.
quote:
The particle was invented to explain the energy difference. It wasn't until decades later that neutrinos were actually detected.
But Dave, here we had an example of an idea having *observational* support *within* the laws and rules of particle phyiscs. There was real life evidence to suggest their existence from the science of particle physics. If you'd kindly show me where particle physics requires inflaton particles, I'd be happy to consider them too. Can you even tell me their size range, or energy state ranges Dave, or which parent particles might be involved in releasing them?
quote:
Yeah, and even lab test them and find that they change flavors.
Or we find they "scatter" and are "absorbed". You've yet to provide a definitve test to rule out the other, more mundain ideas.
quote:
quote:
Particle physics predicted their existence.
Again, you display complete ignorance of the history of the particle:The neutrino was first postulated in December, 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli to explain the energy spectrum of beta decays, the decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron. Pauli theorized that an undetected particle was carrying away the observed difference between the energy and angular momentum of the initial and final particles. Because of their "ghostly" properties, the first experimental detection of neutrinos had to wait until about 25 years after they were first discussed.
Huh? You just agreed with me. How did my single sentence display "complete ignorance" of anything? Spin, spin, spin, spin. You sure depend on a lot of spin Dave. The theory came out of particle physics, not the study of cosmology Dave. Get real.
quote:
So in reality, a problem was discovered, a solution dreamt up which didn't violate other aspects of particle physics, and it took many years to confirm the solution experimentally. The same thing is happening with inflation.
No. Inflaton particles are not the obvious of even possible result of any decay process of any particle we are aware of. Unlike the particle physics decay processes that lead to the theory of neutrinos, you can't even identify the decay processes involved or the parent particles that might be involved in "inflaton" particles. You're winging the spin thing now in irrational ways. Name the parent particles that might release inflaton particles Dave.
I'll stop here for now and try to pick up the rest later.
[Edited to fix quote-hierarchy. //Dr. Mabuse] |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/14/2006 18:15:39 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2006 : 10:37:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Show me a 'monopole' particle Cune.
You can read about them here. Your argument, of course, is that since monopoles are hypothetical-- that is, they haven't been demonstrated as fact-- then Guth was making things up.
Guth made it *all* up Cune. He made up the problem, and he dreamed up more unevidenced fields to "fix" this percieved problem. Nothing like inventing a problem based on "theoretical" particles that have never been seen in a lab, by "dreaming up" even more fields/particles that are also unevidenced and that nobody has even heard of before. Not only that, he assigned his new field rather "mystical" qualities to boot, expecially since they don't decrease as volume increases, but rather they remain constant as volume increases *exponentially*.
quote:
But of course, Guth was really concerned with the fact that since various theories were suggesting that we should have lots of monopoles, we should see them, yet we don't. If not, why? A solution was inflation-- which happened to address other problems.
But of course it may be that monopoles don't exist at all. From your own Wiki reference:
quote:
Attempts to find monopoles
A number of attempts have been made to detect magnetic monopoles. One of the simplest is to use a loop of superconducting wire that can look for even tiny magnetic sources, a so-called "superconducting quantum interference detector", or SQUID. Given the predicted density, loops the size of a soup can would expect to see about one monopole event per year. Although there have been tantalizing events recorded, in particular the event recorded by Blas Cabrera on the night of February 14, 1982, there has never been reproducible evidence for the existence of magnetic monopoles. The lack of such events places a limit on the number of monopoles of about 1 monopole per 1029 nucleons.
Meaning *if* they exist, they wouldn't have been produced in "huge" quantities by any process we are aware of.
quote:
Oh-- that solves it, I guess. Since you personally can't see how the idea of inflation solves things, then it must not solve much. Perhaps you could send an email to the majority of cosmological scientists and astrophysisits and let them know?
The primary basis for Guth's "fix" was based on his "belief" that a large number of monopoles "should" have been created in the bang, but we've never created one here on earth *ever*, and we have no idea if they even actually exist at all. Since I don't have any evidence that monopoles *can* exist or "should" have been created in a BB, I therefore don't see any great "problem" that Guth "solved" with a theory that even he claimed didn't even work right from day one.
quote:
(also, since you dodged forgot to answer-- do scalar fields have density?)
Well, in a round about way at least:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_integral
We should see some change in the field at the surface with an increase in size and volume.
quote:
Anyhow, I thought I'd address your comment: quote:
I don't find a static universe idea, or an expanding plasma cosmology model that difficult to imagine. You (and other students) should not either. That's my point in a nutshell.
This is too rich. First-- and once I defend my diss in a few days I swear I'll open a new thread so the iron sun debate can wage on-- you Big Slam theory explains nothing. That you can happily brush aside inconvenient evidence for why the Big Bang is compelling isn't my problem. However, your blankey assertaion that I "should" blidly accept whatever half-cocked idea you want to throw at me because you have no trouble imagining it is a bit insulting.
First of all, I'm not asking you to "blindly accept" my slam theory. In fact even I'm not "sold" on that idea in the first place, I simply used it as *an* (as in one) example of an option to conventional BB theory without discussing Arp's work. I'm not sure why you would get "insulted" at the idea of being presented with new ideas and the fact that I think everyone (not just you) *should* be exposed to other ideas besides a single "creation myth".
quote:
And finally, your new crusade: quote:
If however the *industry* wishes to claim this is the only 'cosmology' we should teach in the classroom, then I start to get "testy".
I am sorry but I simply cannot side with this. As Dave has noted, the amount of time and research that has gone into the BB is been tremendous. And, your objections aside (no, really), it is a pretty robust theory. It would be utterly useless to take precious class time and discuss half-cocked ideas with virtually no following within the field.
The inflation aspect of BB theory is *at least* as "half-cocked" as anything I've presented at SFN. In fact my cosmology ideas required absolutely nothing new or unevidenced as it relates to particles and fields, and it certainly didn't include a field that doesn't decrease as volume increases. To then claim *my* ideas are "half cocked", sounds more than a tad hypocritical, at least from my perspective. I'm not proposing any new laws of physics in my theories, or any new fields in my theories.
quote:
As a real-life example for a different field, there are people-- fringe independant scholars-- who will argue that, for instance, the Sumerian language is actually related to some other language, e.g. Basque, Turkish, Hungarian, etc. Mainstream Assyriology, however, holds that Sumerian is a language isolate; it is related to no known langauges.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2006 : 11:33:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Show me a 'monopole' particle Cune.
Now, that was funny!
You have a twisted sense of hunour, Michael.
I'm glad someone appreciates my twisted sense of humor. :) |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2006 : 11:35:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
FYI Cune, I would like to point out that I found the second paper you sent me quite interesting compared to anything I've read from Guth.
Question: have you read anything in a peer-reviewed journal from Guth?
I did back in the 90's, but unless that last paper you sent me was peer reviewed, no. I can't say that article was particularly motivating, particularly once it got into the realm of string theory. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2006 : 13:12:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
There was no evidence or even any hint of anything like the neutrino until some energy measurements came up short. The particle was invented to explain the energy difference. It wasn't until decades later that neutrinos were actually detected.
Exactly. There was *evidence* however from "measurements" of particles that other particles were "missing". Nothing about particle physics today suggests anything is "missing" as it relates to particle fields.
quote:
What's so special about particle physics that you deem it to be the arbiter of what is needed or not?
Well Dave, as it relates to "particles" and fields in "reality", that particular field of science allows us the potential to actually "observe" what we believe exists in nature.
quote:
The inflaton is allowed by particle physics, so it's not like inflation posits anything which is contradictory to the current model.
Well, except that little trick Guth did with his inflation field, making it not decrease in intensity with an increase in volume. That was quite a slight of hand compared to other kinds of fields Dave.
quote:
Like the neutrino - or more appropriately the Higgs Boson - a problem exists, a solution has been offered, and we're waiting for experimental confirmation or disconfirmation of the proposed solution.
The comparison to a Higgs Boson is a more appropriate analogy. Since this particle lies at the heart of all aspects of particle physics, it has *lots* of other kinds of evidenciary support. In fact without some explanation for "mass", the whole concept of GR won't be complete, and QM as we understand it has a gaping hole in it. That isn't to say that QM and GR might not survive, but GR is pretty incomplete without some explanation for mass. All three of these aspects of science are dependent upon paricles of "mass".
On the other hand, you can easoly remove "inflaton" fields from particle physics, QM or GR and no one would bat an eye. In fact they aren't even there now. You would have to *demonstrate* that they actually do exist if you expect them to be included in textbooks that are related to particle physics, QM or GR.
The only place they are really "necessary" is *if* you believe in a creation event involving "inflation". I do not believe our universe came to exist from any such process. If you wish to demonstrate this is the case, it is up to you to name the parent particle as was done in the case of neutrinos, describe the decay process involved as was also done with neutrinos, and explain how this "field" stayed constant as volume increased exponentially. So far, it's a lot of talk, and damn little in the way of observational support in any *other* areas of science.
quote:
You obviously have some sort of problem with the scientific method, however, since you're unwilling to wait for the testing process before concluding that the hypothesis is a "myth."
I've waited around now since 1981, and in almost 25 years, I've not seen much in the way of progress. I still see zip in the way of evidence of the existence of monopoles, and no evidence to suggest they *should* be created in a BB event. I therefore see no real *problem* to *solve* by inserting an unevidenced particle field into the discussion.
quote:
quote:
Huh? How can any theory have "lesser standards" than one which begins with an unevidence "inflaton" field?
I'd be one of the people arguing against teaching Big Bang theory, Michael, if it only had as much work done on it as Arp's tautology.
But I'm not even asking you to argue against teaching BB theory Dave, I'm asking you to include some *other* materials into the cirruculum, that's all.
Why do you get to decided what is a "lesser" standard as it relates to cosmology? All the work in the world (so far) hasn't demonstrated that a monopole can actually even exist, let alone demonstrate that it's actually a "problem" for BB theory. Nobody has yet to "discover" any evidence from any *other* area of science to support an inflaton particle/field even exists, let alone that it remains constant while volume increases. The only your personal belief then can BB theory be considered "superior" to any other cosmology theory. It may have more math, but math alone does not mean that such math even applies to real world scenarios. It may have more "work" in it, but work alone does not define truth. How you can call any theory "lesser" than a theory that begins with an unevidenced and rather 'mystical' field is beyond me.
quote:
Because you haven't shown any evidence supporting plasma cosmology or EU theory.
Except for all those "frozen fields" in light plasma that astronomers keep talking about. Alfven demonstrated mathmatically that kinetic energy and current flow was also involved in "frozen fields" in light plasma, but astronomers simply ignored his later work.
quote:
Apparently you confuse "there is some evidence that inflationary theory is correct" with "inflaton particles exist," but I have no idea whether inflationary theory will wind up being quantum in nature when it is taught as fact. Gravity exists, but we've got no evidence that gravitons exist. Only in quantum theories do every field require particles, but there are plenty of non-quantum theories in physics (like General Relativity).
But Dave, the bringing of QM and GR together is the holy grail of physical science these days, at least from the perspective of the QM crowd. They proposed "particle exchange" to explain gravity. It's up to them to demonstrate it, just like it's up to astronomers to demonstrate inflaton fields. Both will have to get confirmation through particle physics to do that.
quote:
I'm not insisting that anything not be taught, either, Michael. You are confusing "it doesn't make sense to teach alternative cosmologies in Astronomy |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/14/2006 13:51:32 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2006 : 14:22:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
And finally, your new crusade: quote:
If however the *industry* wishes to claim this is the only 'cosmology' we should teach in the classroom, then I start to get "testy".
I am sorry but I simply cannot side with this. As Dave has noted, the amount of time and research that has gone into the BB is been tremendous.
There were a couple of points I wanted to make about this post that I skimmed over earlier in the day:
So what if the effort and time expended has been tremendous? That also means that a lot of careers and egos and cash flow channels are invested in the idea of being 'right' rather than being wrong. No amount of "effort' into a bad idea is going to make it a good idea just by virtue of the effort and money and time invested into the idea.
In 25 years of effort, not one *inch* of progress has been made toward resolving the big problems with inflation theory, not the field density problems, not the lack of evidence for monopoles or the lack of evidence of inflaton fields, nothing. How long should I wait around before I outright reject an idea that lack any evidenciary support outside of the theory itself? Do I have to be dead for an "adequate" time to have passed before rejecting the idea?
I might claim to have a theory about invisible unicorns too, but no amount of effort on my part is likely to produce evidence to support the idea that they exist in the real world.
quote:
And, your objections aside (no, really), it is a pretty robust theory.
"Robust" in terms of having an elegant looking mathematical presentation to go with the idea? Sure. Robust in terms of evidenciary evidence to support the idea? Hell no!
Astronomy is full of what I would call "bubble gum concepts" wrapped up in bailing wire math formulas. This is just one more example of that. The "bubble gum idea" is the belief that inflaton fields exist(ed) and their density didn't decrease while the volume increased exponentially. Now I'm sure there are many mathematical presentations of these ideas that are possible, but the existence of such mathematical presentations alone won't make it come true, or be true, regardless of how elegant and attractive the math might be. We also need some observational support in the real world.
quote:
It would be utterly useless to take precious class time and discuss half-cocked ideas with virtually no following within the field.
I don't think so. Opening up the discussion to less popular ideas would give students some exposure to being "open minded" about things that are still in debate and about things we aren't really sure about. It would set a good example of how astronomy *should* work in the professional world as well. Funding should *not* be limited to only the most "popular" theories.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2006 : 08:30:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But we are not discussing such things here, and I don't profess to anything about languages. I'm sure there are many such examples, but there are also examples where opposing ideas have turned out to be accurate and are validated by later research.
No shit, Michael. So when some viable theory arises that is as compelling as the Big Bang, and when it has been tested to an extent that there is some significant following in the mainstream community such that it cannot be ignored, then we'll teach 18 year olds who will almost certainly never follow a career in astrophysics or cosmology about it. Until then, though, it makes sense to, in an introductory class, teach kids the prevailaing theory and leave it at that.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2006 : 08:37:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
In 25 years of effort, not one *inch* of progress has been made toward resolving the big problems with inflation theory, not the field density problems, not the lack of evidence for monopoles or the lack of evidence of inflaton fields, nothing. How long should I wait around before I outright reject an idea that lack any evidenciary support outside of the theory itself? Do I have to be dead for an "adequate" time to have passed before rejecting the idea?
Really? No progress at all?!? Have you read every major journal on cosmology and astrophyiscs? Have you attended every major academic conference? Have you? Can you name 10 professors/researchers working on inflation? How much time-- honestly-- per week do you spend keeping up to date on cosmology?
Given that you own a business that has nothing to do with cosmology, and given than you have a family, and given that you no doubt have hobbies, interests, and community obligations that have nothing to do with cosmology, I'll make a not-so-bold prediction: you spend virtually no time keeping up with the latest in cosmology. So you actually have no idea what sort of developments have been made in the theory of inflation. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2006 : 09:46:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
FYI Cune, I would like to point out that I found the second paper you sent me quite interesting compared to anything I've read from Guth.
Question: have you read anything in a peer-reviewed journal from Guth?
I did back in the 90's, but unless that last paper you sent me was peer reviewed, no. I can't say that article was particularly motivating, particularly once it got into the realm of string theory.
The article I sent wasn't by Guth, and was from, I think, Sky and Telescope, not an academic journal. It was for the interested lay reader. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2006 : 09:56:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Really? No progress at all?!? Have you read every major journal on cosmology and astrophyiscs? Have you attended every major academic conference? Have you?
No Cune, no significant progress on the key issues. I've not attended every cosmology conference, nor do I ever intend to do such a thing.
Let's put the cards on the table Cune. If you believe that the core issues and problems of the inflation theory have been addressed recently, give me some simple answers, and show me the evidence. Give me me some papers to read, but give me an overview in a general sense. What is the parent particle that spawns an "inflaton" field? Why does the density remain constant as volume increases exponentially? How does the inflaton field overcome the forces of gravity? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/15/2006 10:00:20 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2006 : 10:51:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
So when some viable theory arises that is as compelling as the Big Bang,
But who gets to decide when something is "compelling", and by whos standards? What process shall we use to compare the viability of various theories? How many points does one lose for introducing unevidenced fields and particles when creating a "theory" about the universe?
quote:
and when it has been tested to an extent that there is some significant following in the mainstream community such that it cannot be ignored,
This is sort of a round about appeal to popularity/authority arguement. The "mainstream community" isn't always right.
quote:
then we'll teach 18 year olds who will almost certainly never follow a career in astrophysics or cosmology about it. Until then, though, it makes sense to, in an introductory class, teach kids the prevailaing theory and leave it at that.
I respectfully disagree Cune. If someone steps into a classroom about astronomy, I think it might pique their interest to learn that we do *not* yet have all the answers. It might interest them to know that we are learning new things almost daily and that we live in very 'exciting' times. We live in an era that has included great discoveries, and these discoveries will continue to accelerate over the next few decades. By suggesting that we already have everything "figured out", you risk alienating some people who might otherwise be inspired to "help find answers" and choose a career in astronomy. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
