Article: 13 things that do not make sense

Science > Physics > Article: 13 things that do not make sense

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 3

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Robert Karl Stonjek"
Date:	20 Mar 2005 11:01:34 PM
Object:	Article: 13 things that do not make sense

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_008B_01C52E2F.3E12B080
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
13 things that do not make sense
19 March 2005=20
Michael Brooks
2 The horizon problem
OUR universe appears to be unfathomably uniform. Look across space from =
one edge of the visible universe to the other, and you'll see that the =
microwave background radiation filling the cosmos is at the same =
temperature everywhere. That may not seem surprising until you consider =
that the two edges are nearly 28 billion light years apart and our =
universe is only 14 billion years old.
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way =
heat radiation could have travelled between the two horizons to even out =
the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal =
equilibrium we see now.
This "horizon problem" is a big headache for cosmologists, so big that =
they have come up with some pretty wild solutions. "Inflation", for =
example.
You can solve the horizon problem by having the universe expand =
ultra-fast for a time, just after the big bang, blowing up by a factor =
of 1050 in 10-33 seconds. But is that just wishful thinking? "Inflation =
would be an explanation if it occurred," says University of Cambridge =
astronomer Martin Rees. The trouble is that no one knows what could have =
made that happen.
So, in effect, inflation solves one mystery only to invoke another. A =
variation in the speed of light could also solve the horizon problem - =
but this too is impotent in the face of the question "why?" In =
scientific terms, the uniform temperature of the background radiation =
remains an anomaly.
3 Ultra-energetic cosmic rays
FOR more than a decade, physicists in Japan have been seeing cosmic rays =
that should not exist. Cosmic rays are particles - mostly protons but =
sometimes heavy atomic nuclei - that travel through the universe at =
close to the speed of light. Some cosmic rays detected on Earth are =
produced in violent events such as supernovae, but we still don't know =
the origins of the highest-energy particles, which are the most =
energetic particles ever seen in nature. But that's not the real =
mystery.
As cosmic-ray particles travel through space, they lose energy in =
collisions with the low-energy photons that pervade the universe, such =
as those of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Einstein's =
special theory of relativity dictates that any cosmic rays reaching =
Earth from a source outside our galaxy will have suffered so many =
energy-shedding collisions that their maximum possible energy is 5 =D7 =
1019 electronvolts. This is known as the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit.
Over the past decade, however, the University of Tokyo's Akeno Giant Air =
Shower Array - 111 particle detectors spread out over 100 square =
kilometres - has detected several cosmic rays above the GZK limit. In =
theory, they can only have come from within our galaxy, avoiding an =
energy-sapping journey across the cosmos. However, astronomers can find =
no source for these cosmic rays in our galaxy. So what is going on?
One possibility is that there is something wrong with the Akeno results. =
Another is that Einstein was wrong. His special theory of relativity =
says that space is the same in all directions, but what if particles =
found it easier to move in certain directions? Then the cosmic rays =
could retain more of their energy, allowing them to beat the GZK limit.
Physicists at the Pierre Auger experiment in Mendoza, Argentina, are now =
working on this problem. Using 1600 detectors spread over 3000 square =
kilometres, Auger should be able to determine the energies of incoming =
cosmic rays and shed more light on the Akeno results.
Alan Watson, an astronomer at the University of Leeds, UK, and spokesman =
for the Pierre Auger project, is already convinced there is something =
worth following up here. "I have no doubts that events above 1020 =
electronvolts exist. There are sufficient examples to convince me," he =
says. The question now is, what are they? How many of these particles =
are coming in, and what direction are they coming from? Until we get =
that information, there's no telling how exotic the true explanation =
could be.
5 Dark matter
TAKE our best understanding of gravity, apply it to the way galaxies =
spin, and you'll quickly see the problem: the galaxies should be falling =
apart. Galactic matter orbits around a central point because its mutual =
gravitational attraction creates centripetal forces. But there is not =
enough mass in the galaxies to produce the observed spin.
Vera Rubin, an astronomer working at the Carnegie Institution's =
department of terrestrial magnetism in Washington DC, spotted this =
anomaly in the late 1970s. The best response from physicists was to =
suggest there is more stuff out there than we can see. The trouble was, =
nobody could explain what this "dark matter" was.
And they still can't. Although researchers have made many suggestions =
about what kind of particles might make up dark matter, there is no =
consensus. It's an embarrassing hole in our understanding. Astronomical =
observations suggest that dark matter must make up about 90 per cent of =
the mass in the universe, yet we are astonishingly ignorant what that 90 =
per cent is.
Maybe we can't work out what dark matter is because it doesn't actually =
exist. That's certainly the way Rubin would like it to turn out. "If I =
could have my pick, I would like to learn that Newton's laws must be =
modified in order to correctly describe gravitational interactions at =
large distances," she says. "That's more appealing than a universe =
filled with a new kind of sub-nuclear particle."
Read all 13 at NewScientist
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18524911.600
Message me if you can't get a copy and I'll send a copy.
--=20
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek
------=_NextPart_000_008B_01C52E2F.3E12B080
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.3790.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<H2>13 things that do not make sense</H2>
<DIV>19 March 2005 </DIV>
<DIV>Michael Brooks</DIV>
<DIV>
<H5><FONT size=3D3><FONT size=3D4>2</FONT> The horizon =
problem</FONT></H5>
<P>OUR universe appears to be unfathomably uniform. Look across space =
from one=20
edge of the visible universe to the other, and you'll see that the =
microwave=20
background radiation filling the cosmos is at the same temperature =
everywhere.=20
That may not seem surprising until you consider that the two edges are =
nearly 28=20
billion light years apart and our universe is only 14 billion years =
old.</P>
<P>Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way =
heat=20
radiation could have travelled between the two horizons to even out the =
hot and=20
cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we =
see=20
now.</P>
<P>This "horizon problem" is a big headache for cosmologists, so big =
that they=20
have come up with some pretty wild solutions. "Inflation", for =
example.</P>
<P>You can solve the horizon problem by having the universe expand =
ultra-fast=20
for a time, just after the big bang, blowing up by a factor of =
10<SUP><FONT=20
size=3D1>50</FONT></SUP> in 10<SUP><FONT size=3D1>-33</FONT></SUP> =
seconds. But is=20
that just wishful thinking? "Inflation would be an explanation if it =
occurred,"=20
says University of Cambridge astronomer Martin Rees. The trouble is that =
no one=20
knows what could have made that happen.</P>
<P>So, in effect, inflation solves one mystery only to invoke another. A =
variation in the speed of light could also solve the horizon problem - =
but this=20
too is impotent in the face of the question "why?" In scientific terms, =
the=20
uniform temperature of the background radiation remains an anomaly.</P>
<H5><FONT size=3D3><FONT size=3D4>3</FONT> Ultra-energetic cosmic =
rays</FONT></H5>
<P>FOR more than a decade, physicists in Japan have been seeing cosmic =
rays that=20
should not exist. Cosmic rays are particles - mostly protons but =
sometimes heavy=20
atomic nuclei - that travel through the universe at close to the speed =
of light.=20
Some cosmic rays detected on Earth are produced in violent events such =
as=20
supernovae, but we still don't know the origins of the highest-energy =
particles,=20
which are the most energetic particles ever seen in nature. But that's =
not the=20
real mystery.</P>
<P>As cosmic-ray particles travel through space, they lose energy in =
collisions=20
with the low-energy photons that pervade the universe, such as those of =
the=20
cosmic microwave background radiation. Einstein's special theory of =
relativity=20
dictates that any cosmic rays reaching Earth from a source outside our =
galaxy=20
will have suffered so many energy-shedding collisions that their maximum =
possible energy is 5 =D7 10<SUP><FONT size=3D1>19</FONT></SUP> =
electronvolts. This=20
is known as the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit.</P>
<P>Over the past decade, however, the University of Tokyo's Akeno Giant =
Air=20
Shower Array - 111 particle detectors spread out over 100 square =
kilometres -=20
has detected several cosmic rays above the GZK limit. In theory, they =
can only=20
have come from within our galaxy, avoiding an energy-sapping journey =
across the=20
cosmos. However, astronomers can find no source for these cosmic rays in =
our=20
galaxy. So what is going on?</P>
<P>One possibility is that there is something wrong with the Akeno =
results.=20
Another is that Einstein was wrong. His special theory of relativity =
says that=20
space is the same in all directions, but what if particles found it =
easier to=20
move in certain directions? Then the cosmic rays could retain more of =
their=20
energy, allowing them to beat the GZK limit.</P>
<P>Physicists at the Pierre Auger experiment in Mendoza, Argentina, are =
now=20
working on this problem. Using 1600 detectors spread over 3000 square=20
kilometres, Auger should be able to determine the energies of incoming =
cosmic=20
rays and shed more light on the Akeno results.</P>
<P>Alan Watson, an astronomer at the University of Leeds, UK, and =
spokesman for=20
the Pierre Auger project, is already convinced there is something worth=20
following up here. "I have no doubts that events above 10<SUP><FONT=20
size=3D1>20</FONT></SUP> electronvolts exist. There are sufficient =
examples to=20
convince me," he says. The question now is, what are they? How many of =
these=20
particles are coming in, and what direction are they coming from? Until =
we get=20
that information, there's no telling how exotic the true explanation =
could=20
be.</P>
<H5><FONT size=3D3><FONT size=3D4>5</FONT> Dark matter</FONT></H5>
<P>TAKE our best understanding of gravity, apply it to the way galaxies =
spin,=20
and you'll quickly see the problem: the galaxies should be falling =
apart.=20
Galactic matter orbits around a central point because its mutual =
gravitational=20
attraction creates centripetal forces. But there is not enough mass in =
the=20
galaxies to produce the observed spin.</P>
<P>Vera Rubin, an astronomer working at the Carnegie Institution's =
department of=20
terrestrial magnetism in Washington DC, spotted this anomaly in the late =
1970s.=20
The best response from physicists was to suggest there is more stuff out =
there=20
than we can see. The trouble was, nobody could explain what this "dark =
matter"=20
was.</P>
<P>And they still can't. Although researchers have made many suggestions =
about=20
what kind of particles might make up dark matter, there is no consensus. =
It's an=20
embarrassing hole in our understanding. Astronomical observations =
suggest that=20
dark matter must make up about 90 per cent of the mass in the universe, =
yet we=20
are astonishingly ignorant what that 90 per cent is.</P>
<P>Maybe we can't work out what dark matter is because it doesn't =
actually=20
exist. That's certainly the way Rubin would like it to turn out. "If I =
could=20
have my pick, I would like to learn that Newton's laws must be modified =
in order=20
to correctly describe gravitational interactions at large distances," =
she says.=20
"That's more appealing than a universe filled with a new kind of =
sub-nuclear=20
particle."<BR><BR>Read all 13 at NewScientist<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18524911.600">=
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18524911.600</A><BR><B=
R>Message=20
me if you can't get a copy and I'll send a copy.<BR><BR>-- <BR>Posted=20
by<BR>Robert Karl Stonjek</P></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_008B_01C52E2F.3E12B080--
.

User: "Morituri-\|-Max"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	21 Mar 2005 01:12:35 AM

"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:Oys%d.5516$C7.3462@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
13 things that do not make sense
19 March 2005
Michael Brooks
2 The horizon problem
OUR universe appears to be unfathomably uniform. Look across space from one
edge of the visible universe to the other, and you'll see that the microwave
background radiation filling the cosmos is at the same temperature
everywhere. That may not seem surprising until you consider that the two
edges are nearly 28 billion light years apart and our universe is only 14
billion years old.
-- -- -- --
Duh,. wake up... the universe is expanding in ALL directions, not one.
.

User: "Oriel36"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	02 Apr 2005 04:05:01 AM

"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<Oys%d.5516$C7.3462@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

Last but not least and beyond everyone's comprehension is Newton as
the basis of an amazingly simple error that no astronomer would
make.As 99% of participants here are relativistic maggots and 99% of
the remaining 1% are just relativistic stool pidgeons it is up to the
rare elite to figure out what Newton was really up to.
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
While that whole section is a goldmine for an astronomer in pointing
out where Newton goes wildly astray there are no astronomers in
existence to help the theorists out,there are only celestial
cataloguers (basically birdwatchers with no offense to birdwatching).
Just take one passage where he hijacks Kepler -
"PH�NOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun."
You guys are supposed to be mathematicians and you cannot figure out
that while you get the second law by extending the mean Sun/Earth
distances to fit the elliptical orbit,you cannot fit the Newtonian
view into the second law with a .986 degree orbital displacement.In
short,a planet would move faster at the aphelion under the Newtonian
scheme and for those who are intellectually challenged here is the
relevent graphic.
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
I am aware that it is such an intricate process to undo the error and
for once in a century,somebody of distinction with an eye to
responsibility to future generations is needed to work with me on a
task that is enormous by any standards of human endeavor.
Don't worry,you can still keep Newtonian ballistics but you can't
apply in to planetary motion for something greater is at work in
determining the geometry and motion of planets otherwise everyone is
wasting their life by remaining with the quasi-geocentric view of
Newton or the really dumbest concept ever to appear on the planet -
relativistic homocentricity where everyone has a valid opinion or what
amount to the same thing -nobody has an excellent or special viewpoint
which stands above the rest (Copernicus,Kepler,Roemer ect).
.

User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	21 Mar 2005 10:17:14 AM

Dear Robert Karl Stonjek:
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:Oys%d.5516$C7.3462@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

13 things that do not make sense
19 March 2005
Michael Brooks
2 The horizon problem
OUR universe appears to be unfathomably uniform.

The Universe is closed. What appears "28 billion light years
total distance" could easily be only 1 billion light years apart,
or even be "wrapped around", and be the same structures on both
sides of us.
The Universe was some tens of million light years across at the
time of the CMBR. No one currently believes the Universe started
from a point.

3 Ultra-energetic cosmic rays
FOR more than a decade, physicists in Japan...

....

As cosmic-ray particles travel through space,
they lose energy in collisions with the low-energy
photons that pervade the universe, such as those
of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Why? Are all cosmic rays charged? Light only interacts with
charged particles, and then only in certain "energy bands".

Einstein's special theory of relativity dictates that
any cosmic rays reaching Earth from a source
outside our galaxy will have suffered so many
energy-shedding collisions that their maximum
possible energy is 5 � 10^19 electronvolts.

The theory of special relativity says no such thing.
Probability, and "laws of physics" accepted as postulates might.
Note that in your haste to post this, you did not pay any
attention to the fact that your stated energies detected are much
less than the upper threshold you provided. Big Mystery!
....

Read all 13 at NewScientist
URL:http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18524911.600

Based on these samples, if I had a subscription, I'd cancel it.
David A. Smith
.

User: "Robert Karl Stonjek"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	21 Mar 2005 04:10:12 PM

<Snip>

David A. Smith

The theory of special relativity says no such thing.
Probability, and "laws of physics" accepted as postulates might.

Note that in your haste to post this, you did not pay any
attention to the fact that your stated energies detected are much
less than the upper threshold you provided. Big Mystery!

RKS:
Go on, shoot the messenger...
--
Kind Regards
Robert Karl Stonjek
.

User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	21 Mar 2005 04:35:23 PM

Dear Robert Karl Stonjek:
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:8DH%d.6396$C7.3619@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<Snip>

The theory of special relativity says no such thing.
Probability, and "laws of physics" accepted as
postulates might.

Note that in your haste to post this, you did not
pay any attention to the fact that your stated
energies detected are much less than the upper
threshold you provided. Big Mystery!

RKS:
Go on, shoot the messenger...

Didn't you read it, when you selected specific passages to post,
and offer to supply a pdf? Presumably you qualified this as
"newsworthy"...
David A. Smith
.

User: "Robert Karl Stonjek"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	21 Mar 2005 07:48:28 PM

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:k_H%d.39$Mt5.27@fed1read01...

Dear Robert Karl Stonjek:

"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:8DH%d.6396$C7.3619@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<Snip>

The theory of special relativity says no such thing.
Probability, and "laws of physics" accepted as
postulates might.

Note that in your haste to post this, you did not
pay any attention to the fact that your stated
energies detected are much less than the upper
threshold you provided. Big Mystery!

RKS:
Go on, shoot the messenger...

Didn't you read it, when you selected specific passages to post,
and offer to supply a pdf? Presumably you qualified this as
"newsworthy"...

David A. Smith

RKS:
It IS newsworthy - it has attracted more comment then any of my news alerts
have for ages. Being newsworthy or relevant does not mean one has to agree
or disagree with it. Only posting what one agrees with is biased.
Robert
.

User: "Ilja Schmelzer"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	22 Mar 2005 02:05:07 AM

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)"

2 The horizon problem
OUR universe appears to be unfathomably uniform.

The Universe is closed.

Thats not clear, it may be as well flat and infinite. But even if
it is closed, its radius is much greater than you need for this
explanation of the horizon problem:

What appears "28 billion light years
total distance" could easily be only 1 billion light years apart,
or even be "wrapped around", and be the same structures on both
sides of us.

3 Ultra-energetic cosmic rays
FOR more than a decade, physicists in Japan...

...

As cosmic-ray particles travel through space,
they lose energy in collisions with the low-energy
photons that pervade the universe, such as those
of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Why? Are all cosmic rays charged? Light only interacts with
charged particles, and then only in certain "energy bands".

AFAIR (I have heard about this problem from other sources)
those cosmic rays people talk about are charged.

The theory of special relativity says no such thing.

Of course, you have to add something else. In this case, you have
to add theories how these particles in rest (or with speed
reached in particle accelerators) interact with high energy
radiation. Based on this theory you can compute what
happens with high speed travelling particles interacting with
the background radiation.
Moreover, there is a second problem of the same type.
There is also a limit for radiation, but gamma rays that
exceed this limit. In this case we there is a reasonable
hypothesis about the source, which is far away.
Sorry for having lost the source.
Ilja
.

User: "richard miller"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	21 Mar 2005 04:22:32 PM

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:PrC%d.9486$uk7.1371@fed1read01...

Dear Robert Karl Stonjek:

"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:Oys%d.5516$C7.3462@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

13 things that do not make sense
19 March 2005
Michael Brooks

etc snippaggio

...

Read all 13 at NewScientist
URL:http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18524911.600

Based on these samples, if I had a subscription, I'd cancel it.

David A. Smith

If I had a subscription to NS, someone else paid for it. Whatever you may,
rightly think or otherwise, I wouldn't quote NS as a source of scientific
wisdom 'A New Theory Every Week', each one as crap as the one the week
before. Its anyway the Ether blows with that comic
.

User: "Morituri-\|-Max"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	21 Mar 2005 12:19:33 PM

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:PrC%d.9486$uk7.1371@fed1read01...

Dear Robert Karl Stonjek:

"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:Oys%d.5516$C7.3462@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

13 things that do not make sense
19 March 2005
Michael Brooks

2 The horizon problem
OUR universe appears to be unfathomably uniform.

The Universe is closed. What appears "28 billion light years total
distance" could easily be only 1 billion light years apart, or even be
"wrapped around", and be the same structures on both sides of us.

The Universe was some tens of million light years across at the time of
the CMBR. No one currently believes the Universe started from a point.

No one? Hmmmmmm... that certainly doesn't seem to jibe considering all the
people in the scientific community who said otherwise..
.

User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	21 Mar 2005 12:46:24 PM

Dear Morituri-|-Max:
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:VeE%d.35718$8D.3981@tornado.texas.rr.com...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in message news:PrC%d.9486$uk7.1371@fed1read01...

Dear Robert Karl Stonjek:

"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
message news:Oys%d.5516$C7.3462@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

13 things that do not make sense
19 March 2005
Michael Brooks

2 The horizon problem
OUR universe appears to be unfathomably uniform.

The Universe is closed. What appears "28 billion light years
total distance" could easily be only 1 billion light years
apart, or even be "wrapped around", and be the same structures
on both sides of us.

The Universe was some tens of million light years across at
the time of the CMBR. No one currently believes the Universe
started from a point.

No one? Hmmmmmm... that certainly doesn't seem to jibe
considering all the people in the scientific community who said
otherwise..

Note the fully formed and *aged* galaxies that are found close to
the age of the CMBR. Certainly NOT a singularity as an origin...
something along the lines of a finite size.
David A. Smith
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	22 Mar 2005 03:57:50 AM

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Morituri-|-Max:

"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:VeE%d.35718$8D.3981@tornado.texas.rr.com...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in message news:PrC%d.9486$uk7.1371@fed1read01...

Dear Robert Karl Stonjek:

"Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
message news:Oys%d.5516$C7.3462@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

13 things that do not make sense
19 March 2005
Michael Brooks

2 The horizon problem
OUR universe appears to be unfathomably uniform.

The Universe is closed. What appears "28 billion light years
total distance" could easily be only 1 billion light years
apart, or even be "wrapped around", and be the same structures
on both sides of us.

The Universe was some tens of million light years across at
the time of the CMBR. No one currently believes the Universe
started from a point.

No one? Hmmmmmm... that certainly doesn't seem to jibe
considering all the people in the scientific community who said
otherwise..

Note the fully formed and *aged* galaxies that are found close to
the age of the CMBR. Certainly NOT a singularity as an origin...
something along the lines of a finite size.

Err, "singularity" does not mean the same as "point". Even in an
infinite universe, there was a singularity at time zero. (using
the improbable assumption that GR is valid back to time zero,
and no quantum effects destroy this conclusion...)
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	22 Mar 2005 11:24:38 AM

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d1oq6u$9ld$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

....

No one? Hmmmmmm... that certainly doesn't seem to jibe
considering all the people in the scientific community who
said otherwise..

Note the fully formed and *aged* galaxies that are found close
to the age of the CMBR. Certainly NOT a singularity as an
origin... something along the lines of a finite size.

Err, "singularity" does not mean the same as "point". Even in
an infinite universe, there was a singularity at time zero.
(using
the improbable assumption that GR is valid back to time zero,
and no quantum effects destroy this conclusion...)

I suggest that those people that point to a singularity also have
to resort to an infinite c (for a short time) to allow the
singularity to "evaporate". I'll stick with a finite size,
finite c, and distributed mass. "Before" that is not part of
*this* Universe, IMHO.
David A. Smith
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	24 Mar 2005 09:41:31 AM

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d1oq6u$9ld$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

...

No one? Hmmmmmm... that certainly doesn't seem to jibe
considering all the people in the scientific community who
said otherwise..

Note the fully formed and *aged* galaxies that are found close
to the age of the CMBR. Certainly NOT a singularity as an
origin... something along the lines of a finite size.

Err, "singularity" does not mean the same as "point". Even in
an infinite universe, there was a singularity at time zero.
(using
the improbable assumption that GR is valid back to time zero,
and no quantum effects destroy this conclusion...)

I suggest that those people that point to a singularity also have
to resort to an infinite c (for a short time) to allow the
singularity to "evaporate".

Err, how does that follow?

I'll stick with a finite size, finite c, and distributed mass.

Due to philosophical reasons? The observations so far support
an infinite universe equally well as a finite universe.

"Before" that is not part of *this* Universe, IMHO.

Well, I did not talk about "before". Only about t=0.
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "tadchem"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	24 Mar 2005 10:02:47 AM

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
<snip>

Due to philosophical reasons? The observations so far support
an infinite universe equally well as a finite universe.

Sometimes what one does NOT observe is even more important than what
one *does* observe.
Google "Olber's Paradox"...
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	24 Mar 2005 10:24:28 AM

tadchem wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

<snip>

Due to philosophical reasons? The observations so far support
an infinite universe equally well as a finite universe.

Sometimes what one does NOT observe is even more important than what
one *does* observe.

Google "Olber's Paradox"...

The BBT has no problem explaining Olber's paradox, even if the
universe is infinitely large.
And even for a universe which existed forever, this is not a problem.
Try this:
<http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/>
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	24 Mar 2005 09:58:26 PM

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d1upjs$hmv$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

tadchem wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

<snip>

Due to philosophical reasons? The observations so
far support an infinite universe equally well as a finite
universe.

Sometimes what one does NOT observe is even
more important than what one *does* observe.

Google "Olber's Paradox"...

The BBT has no problem explaining Olber's paradox,
even if the universe is infinitely large.

And even for a universe which existed forever, this
is not a problem. Try this:
<http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/>

What we have seen in this Universe is always something bigger,
and something brighter. In an infinite Universe, with infinite
time, why can we not see beyond the CMBR? It wasn't that
bright... only pervasive.
David A. Smith
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	26 Mar 2005 04:32:10 AM

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d1upjs$hmv$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

tadchem wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

<snip>

Due to philosophical reasons? The observations so
far support an infinite universe equally well as a finite
universe.

Sometimes what one does NOT observe is even
more important than what one *does* observe.

Google "Olber's Paradox"...

The BBT has no problem explaining Olber's paradox,
even if the universe is infinitely large.

And even for a universe which existed forever, this
is not a problem. Try this:
<http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/>

It was optically thick, i.e. opaque. Photons could not travel
freely through it.
Ever heard the term "surface of last scattering"?
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	26 Mar 2005 10:23:26 AM

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d23dn9$gkd$5@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote
in message news:d1upjs$hmv$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

tadchem wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

<snip>

Due to philosophical reasons? The observations so
far support an infinite universe equally well as a finite
universe.

Sometimes what one does NOT observe is even
more important than what one *does* observe.

Google "Olber's Paradox"...

The BBT has no problem explaining Olber's paradox,
even if the universe is infinitely large.

And even for a universe which existed forever, this
is not a problem. Try this:
<http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/>

What we have seen in this Universe is always
something bigger, and something brighter. In
an infinite Universe, with infinite time, why can
we not see beyond the CMBR? It wasn't that bright... only
pervasive.

It was optically thick, i.e. opaque. Photons could not travel
freely through it.

Ever heard the term "surface of last scattering"?

It was thick but not opaque, to provide the spectrum that it has
achieved. In fact, it had to be pretty non-dense, and "just so
thick" in order to achieve a pure black body spectrum (which I
still don't understand). Remember, we can't see granularity with
the methods used, but we can see structure, so variations in
density (if not energy) are present.
David A. Smith
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	29 Mar 2005 03:17:21 AM

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d23dn9$gkd$5@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote
in message news:d1upjs$hmv$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

tadchem wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

<snip>

Due to philosophical reasons? The observations so
far support an infinite universe equally well as a finite
universe.

Sometimes what one does NOT observe is even
more important than what one *does* observe.

Google "Olber's Paradox"...

The BBT has no problem explaining Olber's paradox,
even if the universe is infinitely large.

And even for a universe which existed forever, this
is not a problem. Try this:
<http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/>

What we have seen in this Universe is always
something bigger, and something brighter. In
an infinite Universe, with infinite time, why can
we not see beyond the CMBR? It wasn't that bright... only
pervasive.

It was optically thick, i.e. opaque. Photons could not travel
freely through it.

Ever heard the term "surface of last scattering"?

It was thick but not opaque, to provide the spectrum that it has
achieved.

Err, why do you think so?

In fact, it had to be pretty non-dense, and "just so
thick" in order to achieve a pure black body spectrum

Err, why do you think so?

(which I still don't understand). Remember, we can't see granularity with
the methods used, but we can see structure, so variations in
density (if not energy) are present.

Indeed. Your point?
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	24 Mar 2005 09:48:04 PM

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d1un3a$h9n$4@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote
in message news:d1oq6u$9ld$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

...

No one? Hmmmmmm... that certainly doesn't seem
to jibe considering all the people in the scientific
community who said otherwise..

Note the fully formed and *aged* galaxies that are
found close to the age of the CMBR. Certainly
NOT a singularity as an origin... something along
the lines of a finite size.

Err, "singularity" does not mean the same as
"point". Even in an infinite universe, there was a
singularity at time zero. (using the improbable
assumption that GR is valid back to time zero,
and no quantum effects destroy this conclusion...)

I suggest that those people that point to a
singularity also have to resort to an infinite c
(for a short time) to allow the singularity to
"evaporate".

Err, how does that follow?

This is what I have seen discussed. The term singularity (and
not Black Hole) places limits on what can leave and how. We have
*structures* exceedingly close to the CMBR...

I'll stick with a finite size, finite c, and distributed mass.

Due to philosophical reasons? The observations so far
support an infinite universe equally well as a finite universe.

The anwser Olber's paradox takes care of "infinite universe" to
my satisfaction, but perhaps not yours. As to my conclusion, I
take the position of Heinlein's Fair Witness ("Stranger In a
Strange Land"). "I" can see as far as the CMBR, but no further.
"My" science makes reasonable sense to that point (if you swallow
objections about DM and DE). I stop guessing at that point.

"Before" that is not part of *this* Universe, IMHO.

Well, I did not talk about "before". Only about t=0.

And I stop at t=270,000 years, and toy with solutions to GR that
have this Universe as a black hole in the Universe that contains
us, with our "t" equal to its "r" at what the container Universe
describes as an event horizon. And that "t" is not constrained
to be "0", there.
David A. Smith
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	26 Mar 2005 04:34:17 AM

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d1un3a$h9n$4@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote
in message news:d1oq6u$9ld$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

...

No one? Hmmmmmm... that certainly doesn't seem
to jibe considering all the people in the scientific
community who said otherwise..

Note the fully formed and *aged* galaxies that are
found close to the age of the CMBR. Certainly
NOT a singularity as an origin... something along
the lines of a finite size.

Err, "singularity" does not mean the same as
"point". Even in an infinite universe, there was a
singularity at time zero. (using the improbable
assumption that GR is valid back to time zero,
and no quantum effects destroy this conclusion...)

I suggest that those people that point to a
singularity also have to resort to an infinite c
(for a short time) to allow the singularity to
"evaporate".

Err, how does that follow?

This is what I have seen discussed. The term singularity (and
not Black Hole) places limits on what can leave and how.

Please tell me where you have seen discussed that.

We have *structures* exceedingly close to the CMBR...

For example?

I'll stick with a finite size, finite c, and distributed mass.

Due to philosophical reasons? The observations so far
support an infinite universe equally well as a finite universe.

By looking at elemental abundances, we can "see" much further back.

"My" science makes reasonable sense to that point (if you swallow
objections about DM and DE). I stop guessing at that point.

So in your opinion, we shouldn't try to find out what happened
before the CMBR was generated?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	26 Mar 2005 10:49:51 AM

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d23dr9$gkd$6@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote
in message news:d1un3a$h9n$4@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de>
wrote in message
news:d1oq6u$9ld$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

...

No one? Hmmmmmm... that certainly doesn't seem
to jibe considering all the people in the scientific
community who said otherwise..

Note the fully formed and *aged* galaxies that are
found close to the age of the CMBR. Certainly
NOT a singularity as an origin... something along
the lines of a finite size.

Err, "singularity" does not mean the same as
"point". Even in an infinite universe, there was a
singularity at time zero. (using the improbable
assumption that GR is valid back to time zero,
and no quantum effects destroy this conclusion...)

I suggest that those people that point to a
singularity also have to resort to an infinite c
(for a short time) to allow the singularity to
"evaporate".

Err, how does that follow?

This is what I have seen discussed. The term
singularity (and not Black Hole) places limits
on what can leave and how.

Please tell me where you have seen discussed that.

I don't recall, however...
URL:http://origins.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html#hawking
If all the mass of a black hole is in a "finite-sized"
singularity << than the event horizon, how can it evaporate with
Hawking radiation? It can't get TO the horizon, since it is in
the anti-gravity (anti-time) direction.

We have *structures* exceedingly close to the CMBR...

For example?

z = 5.8 I think I have seen as "recent". I can't seem to find a
"z" value for the CMBR...

I'll stick with a finite size, finite c, and distributed
mass.

Due to philosophical reasons? The observations so far
support an infinite universe equally well as a finite
universe.

By looking at elemental abundances, we can "see"
much further back.

Looking at our own Milky Way galaxy (and its "products"), we have
globular clusters that show essentially pure hydrogen lines
still, yet are as aged as our own Sun. I don't think we know
enough to "see much further back".

"My" science makes reasonable sense to that point (if
you swallow objections about DM and DE). I stop
guessing at that point.

So in your opinion, we shouldn't try to find out what
happened before the CMBR was generated?

"Finding out" is exactly what I'd like to do. Currently we are
"guessing", which is what you have to do without achievable space
travel. This is pretty far removed from "finding out".
David A. Smith
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	29 Mar 2005 03:23:24 AM

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d23dr9$gkd$6@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

[snip]

I suggest that those people that point to a
singularity also have to resort to an infinite c
(for a short time) to allow the singularity to
"evaporate".

Err, how does that follow?

This is what I have seen discussed. The term
singularity (and not Black Hole) places limits
on what can leave and how.

Please tell me where you have seen discussed that.

I don't recall,

I suspect you simply misremember or misunderstood.

however...
URL:http://origins.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html#hawking
If all the mass of a black hole is in a "finite-sized"
singularity << than the event horizon, how can it evaporate with
Hawking radiation? It can't get TO the horizon, since it is in
the anti-gravity (anti-time) direction.

You have no clue how Hawking radiation actually works, right? Hint:
it does not require anything from the BH singularity getting to the
horizon.
Try this:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation>

We have *structures* exceedingly close to the CMBR...

For example?

z = 5.8 I think I have seen as "recent".

That is not "exceedingly close" to the CMBR". That's actually a
good time after the CMBR was emitted (I think about 2 billion years, I
don't have the exact numbers right now).

I can't seem to find a "z" value for the CMBR.

z = 1089, according to WMAP.

I'll stick with a finite size, finite c, and distributed
mass.

Due to philosophical reasons? The observations so far
support an infinite universe equally well as a finite
universe.

By looking at elemental abundances, we can "see"
much further back.

Looking at our own Milky Way galaxy (and its "products"), we have
globular clusters that show essentially pure hydrogen lines
still, yet are as aged as our own Sun.

Reference, please.
AFAIK, globular clusters are in general much older than our own Sun!

I don't think we know enough to "see much further back".

Then why does the BBT predict so nicely that there should be about
75% hydrogen and 25% helium in the universe?

"My" science makes reasonable sense to that point (if
you swallow objections about DM and DE). I stop
guessing at that point.

So in your opinion, we shouldn't try to find out what
happened before the CMBR was generated?

"Finding out" is exactly what I'd like to do. Currently we are
"guessing",

Making predictions and testing them is not guessing.
I see that you also conveniently ignore that inflation predicts
certain structures in the CMBR, which have been observed.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	29 Mar 2005 08:02:32 AM

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d2b6qc$h0o$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote
in message news:d23dr9$gkd$6@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

[snip]

I suggest that those people that point to a
singularity also have to resort to an infinite c
(for a short time) to allow the singularity to
"evaporate".

Err, how does that follow?

This is what I have seen discussed. The term
singularity (and not Black Hole) places limits
on what can leave and how.

Please tell me where you have seen discussed that.

I don't recall,

I suspect you simply misremember or misunderstood.

I suspect you don't realize (yet) that Hawking radiation is the
mass of the BH leaving the hole. And not half of all nearby
*new* particles leaving the hole.

however...
URL:http://origins.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html#hawking
If all the mass of a black hole is in a "finite-sized"
singularity << than the event horizon, how can it
evaporate with Hawking radiation? It can't get TO
the horizon, since it is in the anti-gravity (anti-time)
direction.

You have no clue how Hawking radiation actually
works, right? Hint: it does not require anything from
the BH singularity getting to the horizon.

Try this:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation>

<QUOTE>
One can gain physical insight on the process by imagining that
(particle-antiparticle) radiation is emitted from just beyond the
event horizon
<END QUOTE>
The mass of the black hole evaporates, as described. If you can
be sure the mass has formed a singularity, the characteristic
radiation would be hotter. As it is the characterisitc radiation
is constrained to be some function of the event horizon geometry.
We cannot say that mass/energy inside the hole forms a
singularity. At the horizon, we would agree the mass/energy is
relatively diffuse. If our Universe is the inside of a BH, then
the mass/energy inside the black hole creates its own space, and
expands until cool. Until no particle has any other particle in
its future.

We have *structures* exceedingly close to the CMBR...

For example?

z = 5.8 I think I have seen as "recent".

That is not "exceedingly close" to the CMBR". That's
actually a good time after the CMBR was emitted
(I think about 2 billion years, I don't have the exact
numbers right now).

Close enough. And as our observational tools get sharper, do you
think we might find some closer? With some older stars? Perhaps
they will reach some asymptote. The question remains as to
whether the "origin" of structure lay earlier than the formation
of the CMBR. I think it does. You appear to be satisfied that
it doesn't. I don't have a good argument either way.

I can't seem to find a "z" value for the CMBR.

z = 1089, according to WMAP.

I keep forgetting that isn't a really good indicator of distance.
Thanks!

I'll stick with a finite size, finite c, and distributed
mass.

Due to philosophical reasons? The observations so far
support an infinite universe equally well as a finite
universe.

By looking at elemental abundances, we can "see"
much further back.

Looking at our own Milky Way galaxy (and its
"products"), we have globular clusters that show
essentially pure hydrogen lines still, yet are as
aged as our own Sun.

Reference, please.

AFAIK, globular clusters are in general much older
than our own Sun!

Older in some cases, yes. With the heavier elements like our
Sun, not always.
All I am saying is that "elemental abundances" isn't the clear
indicator you think it is, IMHO. Our perspective is skewed,
because we are still strapped to the surface of this rock.
URL:http://verdi.as.utexas.edu/globulars.html
URL:http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v36n5/aas205/1197.htm
URL:http://www.kernchemie.uni-mainz.de/~pfeiffer/ages.html
.... but we do have eyes to see.

I don't think we know enough to "see much
further back".

Then why does the BBT predict so nicely that
there should be about 75% hydrogen and 25%
helium in the universe?

"My" science makes reasonable sense to that point (if
you swallow objections about DM and DE). I stop
guessing at that point.

So in your opinion, we shouldn't try to find out what
happened before the CMBR was generated?

"Finding out" is exactly what I'd like to do. Currently
we are "guessing",

Making predictions and testing them is not guessing.

I see that you also conveniently ignore that inflation
predicts certain structures in the CMBR, which have
been observed.

Reference for "inflation predicts"? Yes, I know the CMBR is
"lumpy". That was my point, that there was structure, even at
the "poor" resolution we have available. Even though the CMBR is
at the "center of the lens", we don't/can't resolve it well.
{adding back in the other branch of this thread... didn't mean to
start two]
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d2b6f0$gsm$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

....

The BBT has no problem explaining Olber's paradox,
even if the universe is infinitely large.

And even for a universe which existed forever, this
is not a problem. Try this:
<http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/>

What we have seen in this Universe is always
something bigger, and something brighter. In
an infinite Universe, with infinite time, why can
we not see beyond the CMBR? It wasn't that
bright... only pervasive.

It was optically thick, i.e. opaque. Photons
could not travel freely through it.

Ever heard the term "surface of last
scattering"?

It was thick but not opaque, to provide the
spectrum that it has achieved.

Err, why do you think so?

That is a nasty little mannerism... "Err". Just say "no". ;>)
A half-remembered discussion George Dishman had on this topic.
I'll try and search back about two years ago, he was responding
to someone (not me). I'll see if I can locate the reference.

In fact, it had to be pretty non-dense, and "just so thick" in
order to achieve a pure black body spectrum

Err, why do you think so?

I'll look it up. Maybe tonight I can find it.

(which I still don't understand). Remember, we
can't see granularity with the methods used,
but we can see structure, so variations in density (if not
energy) are present.

Indeed. Your point?

The "Home Alone Two" model of creation of a Universe. In one
scene, one of the bad guys opens a door, which through clever
rigging unzips a toolbag (the CMBR or its mental equivalent) and
all the tools spill out (expansion, Big Rip).
If a BH is large enough, structures are not damaged in crossing
the horizon...
David A. Smith
.

User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	29 Mar 2005 08:44:41 PM

Adding a bit near the end, relating to the reference to "George
Dishman"
Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote
in
message news:d2b6qc$h0o$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote
in message news:d23dr9$gkd$6@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

[snip]

I suggest that those people that point to a
singularity also have to resort to an infinite c
(for a short time) to allow the singularity to
"evaporate".

Err, how does that follow?

This is what I have seen discussed. The term
singularity (and not Black Hole) places limits
on what can leave and how.

Please tell me where you have seen discussed that.

I don't recall,

I suspect you simply misremember or misunderstood.

I suspect you don't realize (yet) that Hawking radiation is the
mass of the BH leaving the hole. And not half of all nearby
*new* particles leaving the hole.

however...
URL:http://origins.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html#hawking
If all the mass of a black hole is in a "finite-sized"
singularity << than the event horizon, how can it
evaporate with Hawking radiation? It can't get TO
the horizon, since it is in the anti-gravity (anti-time)
direction.

You have no clue how Hawking radiation actually
works, right? Hint: it does not require anything from
the BH singularity getting to the horizon.

Try this:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation>

<QUOTE>
One can gain physical insight on the process by imagining that
(particle-antiparticle) radiation is emitted from just beyond
the
event horizon
<END QUOTE>
The mass of the black hole evaporates, as described. If you can
be sure the mass has formed a singularity, the characteristic
radiation would be hotter. As it is the characterisitc
radiation
is constrained to be some function of the event horizon
geometry.
We cannot say that mass/energy inside the hole forms a
singularity. At the horizon, we would agree the mass/energy is
relatively diffuse. If our Universe is the inside of a BH, then
the mass/energy inside the black hole creates its own space, and
expands until cool. Until no particle has any other particle in
its future.

We have *structures* exceedingly close to the CMBR...

For example?

z = 5.8 I think I have seen as "recent".

That is not "exceedingly close" to the CMBR". That's
actually a good time after the CMBR was emitted
(I think about 2 billion years, I don't have the exact
numbers right now).

Close enough. And as our observational tools get sharper, do
you
think we might find some closer? With some older stars?
Perhaps
they will reach some asymptote. The question remains as to
whether the "origin" of structure lay earlier than the formation
of the CMBR. I think it does. You appear to be satisfied that
it doesn't. I don't have a good argument either way.

I can't seem to find a "z" value for the CMBR.

z = 1089, according to WMAP.

I keep forgetting that isn't a really good indicator of
distance.
Thanks!

I'll stick with a finite size, finite c, and distributed
mass.

Due to philosophical reasons? The observations so far
support an infinite universe equally well as a finite
universe.

By looking at elemental abundances, we can "see"
much further back.

Looking at our own Milky Way galaxy (and its
"products"), we have globular clusters that show
essentially pure hydrogen lines still, yet are as
aged as our own Sun.

Reference, please.

AFAIK, globular clusters are in general much older
than our own Sun!

I don't think we know enough to "see much
further back".

Then why does the BBT predict so nicely that
there should be about 75% hydrogen and 25%
helium in the universe?

What that a *derivation*, or simply
not-in-disagreement-with-observation? I haven't seen
fundamental
"engineering like" formulae come out of BBT. Do you have a
reference?
This one looks pretty juicy...
URL:http://www.library.uu.nl/digiarchief/dip/diss/2002-1004-084000/c1.pdf>>>>"My" science makes reasonable sense to that point (if>>>>you swallow objections about DM and DE). I stop>>>>guessing at that point.>>>>>>So in your opinion, we shouldn't try to find out what>>>happened before the CMBR was generated?>>>> "Finding out" is exactly what I'd like to do. Currently>> we are "guessing",>> Making predictions and testing them is not guessing.>> I see that you also conveniently ignore that inflation> predicts certain structures in the CMBR, which have> been observed. Reference for "inflation predicts"? Yes, I know the CMBR is "lumpy". That was my point, that there was structure, even at the "poor" resolution we have available. Even though the CMBRis at the "center of the lens", we don't/can't resolve it well. {adding back in the other branch of this thread... didn't meanto start two] "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrotein message news:d2b6f0$gsm$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:>> Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher: ...>>>>>The BBT has no problem explaining Olber's paradox,>>>>>even if the universe is infinitely large.>>>>>>>>>>And even for a universe which existed forever, this>>>>>is not a problem. Try this:>>>>><http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/>>>>>>>>>>>>>What we have seen in this Universe is always>>>>something bigger, and something brighter. In>>>>an infinite Universe, with infinite time, why can>>>>we not see beyond the CMBR? It wasn't that>>>>bright... only pervasive.>>>>>>It was optically thick, i.e. opaque. Photons>>>could not travel freely through it.>>>>>>Ever heard the term "surface of last>>>scattering"?>>>> It was thick but not opaque, to provide the>> spectrum that it has achieved.>> Err, why do you think so? That is a nasty little mannerism... "Err". Just say "no". ;>) A half-remembered discussion George Dishman had on this topic. I'll try and search back about two years ago, he was responding to someone (not me). I'll see if I can locate the reference.[[[ADDED IN]]]Just so you don't have to respond to two threads:George Dishman; 2003jan05; "Olber's Paradox"; responding to PaulStowe...<QUOTE>The CMB spectrum follows the blackbody curve to withinabout 1 part in 10^5 which means the source must be athin shell.<END QUOTE>(PS: It was a fluke that it was exactly two years ago, by theway! ;>) )[[[END ADDED IN]]]>> In fact, it had to be pretty non-dense, and "just so thick" inorder to achieve a pure black body spectrum>> Err, why do you think so? I'll look it up. Maybe tonight I can find it.>> (which I still don't understand). Remember, we>> can't see granularity with the methods used,>> but we can see structure, so variations in density (if notenergy) are present.>> Indeed. Your point? The "Home Alone Two" model of creation of a Universe. In one scene, one of the bad guys opens a door, which through clever rigging unzips a toolbag (the CMBR or its mental equivalent) and all the tools spill out (expansion, Big Rip). If a BH is large enough, structures are not damaged in crossing the horizon... David A. Smith
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	30 Mar 2005 03:37:37 AM

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Adding a bit near the end, relating to the reference to "George
Dishman"

[snip a lot]

It was thick but not opaque, to provide the
spectrum that it has achieved.

Err, why do you think so?

A half-remembered discussion George Dishman had on this topic. I'll try and search back
about two years ago, he was responding to someone (not me). I'll see if I can locate
the reference.[[[ADDED IN]]]Just so you don't have to respond to two threads:
George Dishman; 2003jan05; "Olber's Paradox"; responding to PaulStowe...
<QUOTE>The CMB spectrum follows the blackbody curve to withinabout 1 part in 10^5 which
means the source must be a thin shell.<END QUOTE>
(PS: It was a fluke that it was exactly two years ago, by theway! ;>) )[[[END ADDED IN]]]

That the source of the CMBR we can see right at the moment here on
earth was a "thin shell" does not in the least disprove that the
universe was optically thick before the CMBR was emitted.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: Article: 13 things that do not make sense	30 Mar 2005 03:30:48 AM

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d2b6qc$h0o$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

[snip]

This is what I have seen discussed. The term
singularity (and not Black Hole) places limits
on what can leave and how.

Please tell me where you have seen discussed that.

I don't recall,

I suspect you simply misremember or misunderstood.

I suspect you don't realize (yet) that Hawking radiation is the
mass of the BH leaving the hole.

I realize that. But I also realize that that does not require
that anything from the BH singularity gets to the horizon.

And not half of all nearby *new* particles leaving the hole.

That's clear.

however...
URL:http://origins.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html#hawking
If all the mass of a black hole is in a "finite-sized"
singularity << than the event horizon, how can it
evaporate with Hawking radiation? It can't get TO
the horizon, since it is in the anti-gravity (anti-time)
direction.

You have no clue how Hawking radiation actually
works, right? Hint: it does not require anything from
the BH singularity getting to the horizon.

Try this:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation>

Yes. And the quote you just gave shows that that does not require
anything from the BH singularity getting to the horizon.

If you can
be sure the mass has formed a singularity, the characteristic
radiation would be hotter.

Huh? How does that follow?

As it is the characterisitc radiation
is constrained to be some function of the event horizon geometry.

We cannot say that mass/energy inside the hole forms a
singularity.

Why not?

At the horizon, we would agree the mass/energy is
relatively diffuse.

Huh?

If our Universe is the inside of a BH, then
the mass/energy inside the black hole creates its own space, and
expands until cool. Until no particle has any other particle in
its future.

But our universe isn't the inside of a BH. Read up on the difference
between a Schwarzschild and a Robertson-Walker metric.

We have *structures* exceedingly close to the CMBR...

For example?

z = 5.8 I think I have seen as