Science > Physics > PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 781 June 19, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe,Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sam Wormley" |
| Date: |
19 Jun 2006 02:43:04 PM |
| Object: |
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 781 June 19, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe,Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi |
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 781 June 19, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein,
and Davide Castelvecchi www.aip.org/pnu
SYNCHRONIZATION OF EXTINCTION. A new study of animal populations
shows that even widely separated populations of a single species
will go extinct together if a common external force is applied.
Take the analogy of two grandfather clocks falling into synchrony
through subtle vibrations in the floorboards linking the two
clocks. In the same way a common stimulant, in the form, say, of
predators or adverse climate conditions, can synchronize the fate of
separate enclaves of an endangered species. R.E. Amritkar of the
Physical Research Laboratory (Ahmedabad) and Govindan Rangarajan of
the Indian Institute of Science (Bangalore) began with actual field
data that had demonstrated the synchronizing influence of predators
on vole populations and then applied principles from nonlinear dynamics to
simulate future behavior. They conclude that provided there is a
common threat, separated communities of the species will synchronize
together before becoming extinct. This is bad news for
conservationists hoping that some decimated species could survive in
isolation. They show that the net resistance to extinction can be
expressed as a parameter which puts the degree of endangeredness
into numerical form. This theory can help explain why species got
decimated on a global scale in previous mass extinction events.
(Physical Review Letters, upcoming article; rangaraj@math.iisc.ernet.in,
91-80-23600373; website at http://math.iisc.ernet.in/~rangaraj )
CAN STRING THEORY EXPLAIN DARK ENERGY? A new paper by Cambridge
physicist Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog of CERN
(hertog@mail.cern.ch) suggests that it can. The leading explanation
for the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe is
that a substance, dark energy, fills the vacuum and produces a
uniform repulsive force between any two points in space---a sort of
anti-gravity. Quantum field theory allows for the existence of such
a universal tendency. Unfortunately, its prediction for the value of
the density of dark energy (a parameter referred to as the
cosmological constant) is some 120 orders of magnitude larger than
the observed value. In 2003, cosmologist Andrei Linde of Stanford
University and his collaborators showed that string theory allows
for the existence of dark energy, but without specifying the value
of the cosmological constant. String theory, they found, produces
a mathematical graph shaped like a mountainous landscape, where
altitude represents the value of the cosmological constant. After
the big bang, the value would settle on a low point somewhere
between the peaks and valleys of the landscape. But there could be
on the order of 10^500 possible low points---with different
corresponding values for the cosmological constant---and no obvious
reason for the universe to pick the one we observe in nature.
Some experts hailed this multiplicity of values as a virtue of the
theory. For example, Stanford University's Leonard Susskind in his
book "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of
Intelligent Design,"argues that different values of the cosmological
constant would be realized in different parallel worlds---the pocket
universes of Linde's "eternal inflation" theory. We would just
happen to live in one where the value is very small. But critics
see the landscape as exemplifying the theory's inability to make
useful predictions.
The Hawking/Hertog paper is meant to address this concern. It looks
at the universe as a quantum system in the framework of string
theory. Quantum theory calculates the odds a system will evolve a
certain way from given initial conditions, say, photons going
through a double slit and hitting a certain spot on the other side.
You repeat your experiment often enough and then you check that the
odds you predicted were the correct ones. In Richard Feynman's
formulation of quantum theory, the probability that a photon ends up
at a particular spot is calculated by summing up over all possible
trajectories for the photon. A photon goes through multiple paths at
once and can even interfere with its other personas in the process.
Hawking and Hertog argue that the universe itself must also follow
different trajectories at once, evolving through many simultaneous,
parallel histories, or "branches." (These parallel universes are not
to be confused with those of eternal inflation, where multiple
universes coexist in a classical rather than in a quantum sense.)
What we see in the present would be a particular, more or less
probable, outcome of the "sum" over these histories. In particular,
the sum should include all possible initial conditions, with all
possible values of the cosmological constant.
But applying quantum theory to the entire universe---where the
experimenters are part of the experiment---is tricky. Here you have
no control over the initial conditions, nor can your repeat the
experiment again and again for statistical significance. Instead,
the Hawking-Hertog approach starts with the present and uses what we
know about our branch of the universe to trace its history
backwards. Again, there will be multiple possible branches in our
past, but most can be ignored in the Feynman summation because they
are just too different from the universe we know, so the probability
of going from one to the other is negligible. For example, Hertog
says, knowledge that our universe is very close to being flat could
allow one to concentrate on a very small portion of the string
theory landscape whose values for the cosmological constant are
compatible with that flatness. That could in turn lead to
predictions that are experimentally testable. For example, one could
calculate whether our universe is likely to produce the microwave
background spectrum we actually observe. (Physical Review D,
upcoming article; contact Thomas Hertog, hertog@mail.cern.ch)
***********
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE is a digest of physics news items arising
from physics meetings, physics journals, newspapers and
magazines, and other news sources. It is provided free of charge
as a way of broadly disseminating information about physics and
physicists. For that reason, you are free to post it, if you like,
where others can read it, providing only that you credit AIP.
Physics News Update appears approximately once a week.
.
|
|
| User: "tomgee" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 781 June 19, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi |
19 Jun 2006 08:51:09 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 781 June 19, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein,
and Davide Castelvecchi www.aip.org/pnu
SNIP
Worms, I truly appreciate this information. Thank you. But
since string theory is one of the leading theoretical physics
(TP) explanations for unexplained observed effects, we
should not expect any one explanation for any one mystery
coming from TP to be any more valid than any other. Their
validity survives only so long as they do not conflict with
current natural laws and principles, nor with the observed
effects, nor with the rules of logic.
Since theoretical physics is concerned mainly with math
constructs while it is disdainful of empirical research, it is
foolish of anyone to take it seriously. However, my model
shows that way too many take such work as already a fact
or think that it can possibly become a fact. That is too bad
because the first qualification for a valid theory is that it be
falsifiable, and string theory cannot be falsified.
There is a problem with "Dark Energy", too. It has been
assumed that there is or can be such a thing, without any
reason posited for its existence. Let me address that below,
CAN STRING THEORY EXPLAIN DARK ENERGY? A new paper by Cambridge
physicist Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog of CERN
(hertog@mail.cern.ch) suggests that it can. The leading explanation
for the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe is
that a substance, dark energy, fills the vacuum and produces a
uniform repulsive force between any two points in space---a sort of
anti-gravity.
Translating the above, it says that Dark Energy (DE) fills the
space that purportedly came out of the BB and somehow acts
as a uniform repulsive force between any two points of space.
The translation is necessary because the wording leads the
reader to accept certain assumptions that must be true before
the hypothesis can be valid, but without any discussion as to
the question of whether or not they are true.
First, it asserts that DE is only one of the explanations for the
cause of what seems to be the expansion of the space that
came out of the BB. I have heard of no other explanation,
other than the one of my model, and since mine is the only
other one, and since only you few who read these posts may
know about it, the DE posit is not the leading one, but it is the
only one. Saying that it leads the pack implies that of all the
many valid theories heretofore proposed, DE is the best one
of them all. When you read my proposal, you may feel that of
the two explanations that currently exist, mine is the better one.
Second, it assumes that a mysterious energy (DE) exists in the
universe, but gives no explanation for its existence nor any
basis for its discovery. It is an assumption based on another
assumption: that energy is a force capable of causing all the
"points" of space to move away from each other and to be
replaced by more points of space. How that could happen is
assumed as another mystery, and so is the why of it. Where
the additional "points of space" - which, BTW are not any better
defined than that - would come from is evidently not a concern
for those who are convinced DE has the power or force to do
such things.
The Hawking/Hertog paper is meant to address this concern. It looks
at the universe as a quantum system in the framework of string
theory.
But there is no known basis for such a hypothesis other than that
to the human mind, anything is possible. This is the pure fantasy
of TP, a branch of physics that allows free rein to all that Man
can possibly imagine, limited only to the extent of the evolution of
the human brain. The saddest part of all this is that those who
post here seem to consider such fairy tales as viable science
deserving of such undue consideration.
Quantum theory calculates the odds a system will evolve a
certain way from given initial conditions, say, photons going
through a double slit and hitting a certain spot on the other side.
You repeat your experiment often enough and then you check that the
odds you predicted were the correct ones. In Richard Feynman's
formulation of quantum theory, the probability that a photon ends up
at a particular spot is calculated by summing up over all possible
trajectories for the photon. A photon goes through multiple paths at
once and can even interfere with its other personas in the process.
Hawking and Hertog argue that the universe itself must also follow
different trajectories at once, evolving through many simultaneous,
parallel histories, or "branches." (These parallel universes are not
to be confused with those of eternal inflation, where multiple
universes coexist in a classical rather than in a quantum sense.)
What we see in the present would be a particular, more or less
probable, outcome of the "sum" over these histories. In particular,
the sum should include all possible initial conditions, with all
possible values of the cosmological constant.
People have been laughing at probability theories since the first
chick ran off screaming, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
See above where the writers give the impression the existence
of multiple universes has been confirmed, and even that the idea
that one photon goes through multiple paths at once is a fact.
But applying quantum theory to the entire universe---where the
experimenters are part of the experiment---is tricky. Here you have
no control over the initial conditions, nor can your repeat the
experiment again and again for statistical significance. Instead,
the Hawking-Hertog approach starts with the present and uses what we
know about our branch of the universe to trace its history
backwards. Again, there will be multiple possible branches in our
past, but most can be ignored in the Feynman summation because they
are just too different from the universe we know, so the probability
of going from one to the other is negligible.
Above is an example of thinking that the evolution of the universe
can be likened to that of Darwin's evolution of Man.
My model does not attribute any positive or negative energy to
the DM medium it espouses. The DM medium that exists in the
space of our universe mass without any positive energy.
Positive energy is that which we can see by its effects, but it can
only come from matter that has it now or from DM that is
transformed into real matter (RM).
Without positive mass, an object cannot have any positive
energy to it, and without any +energy, an object cannot have
any positive mass to it. I would not claim there is such a
thing as negative energy, as that is inconsistent with the
formula E=mc^2. There is no reason to believe that -energy
exists, as my model shows that it is not necessary to explain
the expansion of the universe with it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 781 June 19, 2006 by Phillip F.Schewe, Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi |
19 Jun 2006 09:07:11 PM |
|
|
tomgee wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 781 June 19, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein,
and Davide Castelvecchi www.aip.org/pnu
SNIP
Worms, I truly appreciate this information. Thank you. But
since string theory is one of the leading theoretical physics
(TP) explanations for unexplained observed effects, we
should not expect any one explanation for any one mystery
coming from TP to be any more valid than any other. Their
validity survives only so long as they do not conflict with
current natural laws and principles, nor with the observed
effects, nor with the rules of logic.
Since theoretical physics is concerned mainly with math
constructs while it is disdainful of empirical research, it is
foolish of anyone to take it seriously. However, my model
shows that way too many take such work as already a fact
or think that it can possibly become a fact.
Actually TomGee, as far as I can tell, you have no model
at all. It's a fiction in your mind.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 781 June 19, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi |
04 Jul 2006 10:58:04 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 781 June 19, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein,
and Davide Castelvecchi www.aip.org/pnu
SYNCHRONIZATION OF EXTINCTION. A new study of animal populations
shows that even widely separated populations of a single species
will go extinct together if a common external force is applied.
Take the analogy of two grandfather clocks falling into synchrony
through subtle vibrations in the floorboards linking the two
clocks. In the same way a common stimulant, in the form, say, of
predators or adverse climate conditions, can synchronize the fate of
separate enclaves of an endangered species. R.E. Amritkar of the
Physical Research Laboratory (Ahmedabad) and Govindan Rangarajan of
the Indian Institute of Science (Bangalore) began with actual field
data that had demonstrated the synchronizing influence of predators
on vole populations and then applied principles from nonlinear dynamics to
simulate future behavior. They conclude that provided there is a
common threat, separated communities of the species will synchronize
together before becoming extinct. This is bad news for
conservationists hoping that some decimated species could survive in
isolation. They show that the net resistance to extinction can be
expressed as a parameter which puts the degree of endangeredness
into numerical form. This theory can help explain why species got
decimated on a global scale in previous mass extinction events.
(Physical Review Letters, upcoming article; rangaraj@math.iisc.ernet.in,
91-80-23600373; website at http://math.iisc.ernet.in/~rangaraj )
CAN STRING THEORY EXPLAIN DARK ENERGY? A new paper by Cambridge
physicist Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog of CERN
(hertog@mail.cern.ch) suggests that it can. The leading explanation
for the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe is
that a substance, dark energy, fills the vacuum and produces a
uniform repulsive force between any two points in space---a sort of
anti-gravity. Quantum field theory allows for the existence of such
a universal tendency. Unfortunately, its prediction for the value of
the density of dark energy (a parameter referred to as the
cosmological constant) is some 120 orders of magnitude larger than
the observed value. In 2003, cosmologist Andrei Linde of Stanford
University and his collaborators showed that string theory allows
for the existence of dark energy, but without specifying the value
of the cosmological constant. String theory, they found, produces
a mathematical graph shaped like a mountainous landscape, where
altitude represents the value of the cosmological constant. After
the big bang, the value would settle on a low point somewhere
between the peaks and valleys of the landscape. But there could be
on the order of 10^500 possible low points---with different
corresponding values for the cosmological constant---and no obvious
reason for the universe to pick the one we observe in nature.
Some experts hailed this multiplicity of values as a virtue of the
theory. For example, Stanford University's Leonard Susskind in his
book "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of
Intelligent Design,"argues that different values of the cosmological
constant would be realized in different parallel worlds---the pocket
universes of Linde's "eternal inflation" theory. We would just
happen to live in one where the value is very small. But critics
see the landscape as exemplifying the theory's inability to make
useful predictions.
The Hawking/Hertog paper is meant to address this concern. It looks
at the universe as a quantum system in the framework of string
theory. Quantum theory calculates the odds a system will evolve a
certain way from given initial conditions, say, photons going
through a double slit and hitting a certain spot on the other side.
You repeat your experiment often enough and then you check that the
odds you predicted were the correct ones. In Richard Feynman's
formulation of quantum theory, the probability that a photon ends up
at a particular spot is calculated by summing up over all possible
trajectories for the photon. A photon goes through multiple paths at
once and can even interfere with its other personas in the process.
Hawking and Hertog argue that the universe itself must also follow
different trajectories at once, evolving through many simultaneous,
parallel histories, or "branches." (These parallel universes are not
to be confused with those of eternal inflation, where multiple
universes coexist in a classical rather than in a quantum sense.)
What we see in the present would be a particular, more or less
probable, outcome of the "sum" over these histories. In particular,
the sum should include all possible initial conditions, with all
possible values of the cosmological constant.
But applying quantum theory to the entire universe---where the
experimenters are part of the experiment---is tricky. Here you have
no control over the initial conditions, nor can your repeat the
experiment again and again for statistical significance. Instead,
the Hawking-Hertog approach starts with the present and uses what we
know about our branch of the universe to trace its history
backwards. Again, there will be multiple possible branches in our
past, but most can be ignored in the Feynman summation because they
are just too different from the universe we know, so the probability
of going from one to the other is negligible. For example, Hertog
says, knowledge that our universe is very close to being flat could
allow one to concentrate on a very small portion of the string
theory landscape whose values for the cosmological constant are
compatible with that flatness. That could in turn lead to
predictions that are experimentally testable. For example, one could
calculate whether our universe is likely to produce the microwave
background spectrum we actually observe. (Physical Review D,
upcoming article; contact Thomas Hertog, hertog@mail.cern.ch)
***********
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE is a digest of physics news items arising
from physics meetings, physics journals, newspapers and
magazines, and other news sources. It is provided free of charge
as a way of broadly disseminating information about physics and
physicists. For that reason, you are free to post it, if you like,
where others can read it, providing only that you credit AIP.
Physics News Update appears approximately once a week.
This is an interesting article. In order to try to apply quantum theory
to the entire universe you'd have to gain some kind of control over
the varius initial conditions. I'm not too sure that the Hawking-
Hertog approach is the answer though.
Regards,
Enigma Valdez
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 781 June 19, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi |
19 Jun 2006 05:21:10 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 781 June 19, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein,
and Davide Castelvecchi www.aip.org/pnu
SYNCHRONIZATION OF EXTINCTION. A new study of animal populations
shows that even widely separated populations of a single species
will go extinct together if a common external force is applied.
Take the analogy of two grandfather clocks falling into synchrony
through subtle vibrations in the floorboards linking the two
clocks. In the same way a common stimulant, in the form, say, of
predators or adverse climate conditions, can synchronize the fate of
separate enclaves of an endangered species. R.E. Amritkar of the
Physical Research Laboratory (Ahmedabad) and Govindan Rangarajan of
the Indian Institute of Science (Bangalore) began with actual field
data that had demonstrated the synchronizing influence of predators
on vole populations and then applied principles from nonlinear dynamics to
simulate future behavior. They conclude that provided there is a
common threat, separated communities of the species will synchronize
together before becoming extinct. This is bad news for
conservationists hoping that some decimated species could survive in
isolation. They show that the net resistance to extinction can be
expressed as a parameter which puts the degree of endangeredness
into numerical form. This theory can help explain why species got
decimated on a global scale in previous mass extinction events.
Or the common threat was global.
Such as an axis shift precipitating a sudden increase in gravity.
(Physical Review Letters, upcoming article; rangaraj@math.iisc.ernet.in,
91-80-23600373; website at http://math.iisc.ernet.in/~rangaraj )
CAN STRING THEORY EXPLAIN DARK ENERGY? A new paper by Cambridge
physicist Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog of CERN
(hertog@mail.cern.ch) suggests that it can. The leading explanation
for the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe is
that a substance, dark energy, fills the vacuum and produces a
uniform repulsive force between any two points in space---a sort of
anti-gravity. Quantum field theory allows for the existence of such
a universal tendency.
Hmmm.
That's nice.
So now the only thing missing from a push gravity
scenario is an origin for the repulsive force ( electron radiation ),
and proof that gravity arises by a shielding effect ( Le Sage gravity
).
John
Galaxy Model
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
.
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 779 June 2, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe,Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 780 June 9, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe,Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 783 June 30, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe,Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 782 June 27, 2006 by Phillip F.Schewe, Ben Stein, and Davide Castelvecchi PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 776 May 2, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe,Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 786 July 25, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe,Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE --- Number 806 December 20, 2006 by PhillipF. Schewe, Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 804 December 5, 2006 by Phillip F.Schewe, Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi
| PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 766 February 21, 2006 by Phillip F.Schewe, Ben Stein, and Davide Castelvecchi PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 802 November 22, 2006 by PhillipF. Schewe, Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 787 August 2, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe,Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 805 December 13, 2006 by PhillipF. Schewe, Ben Stein, Turner Brinton, and Davide Castelvecchi PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 773 April 12, 2006 by Phillip F.Schewe, Ben Stein, and Davide Castelvecchi PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 803 29 November, 2006 by Phillip F.Schewe, Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 792 September 13, 2006 by PhillipF. Schewe, Ben Stein and Davide Castelvecchi
|
|
|