My £14 Sean Carroll Gravity book has arrived, along with my £10 watch repair kit! Not too techie.
Volume 2 is going to be about Quanta and Fields, and 3 about Complexity and Emergence which should be up Bonsai's street.
Sean has an interesting website and youtube channel:
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/
https://www.youtube.com/c/seancarroll
Looking forward to this. Chapter 1: Conservation. How hard can it be? 🙂
Volume 2 is going to be about Quanta and Fields, and 3 about Complexity and Emergence which should be up Bonsai's street.
Sean has an interesting website and youtube channel:
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/
https://www.youtube.com/c/seancarroll
Looking forward to this. Chapter 1: Conservation. How hard can it be? 🙂
Thanks Steve. Lots to watch there. I'll perhaps join you later by viewing the 28 minute long Part 1 Conservation video.
Part 1 starts with a lesson regarding the historical views of motion and ends with the Philosophy of the Spherical Cow.
I was familiar with most of the content, with the notable exception of Aristotle and his teeth!
Fast paced and wordy - I think Carroll's expositions will better suit the print medium where one can follow at one's own pace.
I was familiar with most of the content, with the notable exception of Aristotle and his teeth!
Fast paced and wordy - I think Carroll's expositions will better suit the print medium where one can follow at one's own pace.
If you're not behind in videos from this thread (I am, but there's so much content on Youtube), there's this on "Teh New Accelerator," it's three hours and I'm only 15 minutes into it. But hey, they've got trillions (dollars AND subatomic particles) to spend ...
Or, if you like, you could read the book (this might have an alternative story):
https://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Bridge-John-Cramer/dp/0380788314
Or, if you like, you could read the book (this might have an alternative story):
https://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Bridge-John-Cramer/dp/0380788314
I'm always up for suggestions as to what sci-fi to read!
Attachments
For those who would prefer a shorter acquaintance with the Desertron: https://wonderfulengineering.com/usa-particle-collider-texas/
Related
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle–Narlikar_theory_of_gravity
It also relates to another of Hoyle's ideas. He indicates what can happen to contetious people. When his work on nucleosynthesis gained Nobel prizes he was missed out. Thought to be unfair by a lot of people who work in similar fields,
The shown rubber lacks painted scalings.
Aside:
The blanket is supposed to represent a coordinate system; it is NOT a model but ONLY a symbol for "space-time".
If one wants to demonstrate by means of this symbol the effect of "bent space-time" on e.g. light, light path, one would have to record light, light path BEFORE the "bending". No matter how rubber is stretched, the two-dimensional scaling is reference. Bends into a "third" dimension, downwards, are to be ignored!
Gimmicks with objects "falling" into a "third" dimension on a two-dimensional curvature are illusions. To interpret these as "fall" "into" "space-time" is nonsense, is unscientific!
Aside:
The blanket is supposed to represent a coordinate system; it is NOT a model but ONLY a symbol for "space-time".
If one wants to demonstrate by means of this symbol the effect of "bent space-time" on e.g. light, light path, one would have to record light, light path BEFORE the "bending". No matter how rubber is stretched, the two-dimensional scaling is reference. Bends into a "third" dimension, downwards, are to be ignored!
Gimmicks with objects "falling" into a "third" dimension on a two-dimensional curvature are illusions. To interpret these as "fall" "into" "space-time" is nonsense, is unscientific!
Hoyle should have gotten a Nobel for stellar nucleosynthesis - he was way ahead of everyone on that. I don’t know the chronology of his work, but might his steady state theory have put the selection committee off? It was lambasted from the outset.
The Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity relies on the continual creation of matter from empty space in order to keep the mass density of an expanding Universe constant.
Fred Hoyle and Jayant Vishnu Narlikar published an article on creation fields or C-fields way back in 1964.
An interesting hypothesis and not to be confused with W.C. Fields! 🙂
C-field cosmology has been re-visited in recent years, showing that some of its solutions are free from singularity in contrast to Big Bang cosmology.
I google so you don't have to! 😉
Hoyle first came up with the idea of stellar nucleosynthesis in 1946, starting with a paper on the synthesis of elements from hydrogen.
He followed that up in 1954 with a paper on the synthesis of elements from carbon to nickel.
A review of Hoyle's 1946 paper was published in 1957 and, after that, Hoyle's 1954 paper was largely forgotten by the scientific world which began incorrect citations of the review instead.
The long story is here: https://www.hoyle.org.uk/Scientific-Work/Legacy/Nucleosythesis-in-Stars/
Attachments
The politics of A Hole In Texas (novel by Herman Wouk about the Corsicana Tx project) explains why the Higgs boson was discovered by an institution supported by the government of the area Dr. Peter W. Higgs was a citizen of. CERN was a project, of 12 European countries including UK, Switzerland & others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN USA was not a founding or contributing member.
I find the appelation "desertron" in post 970 a bit odd. Corsicana receives 42", 1073 mm, of rain a year. Lots of cattle ranches around. Light industry. At the speeds Texans drive, it could be considered a suburb of Dallas.
Last edited:
Higgs is British and the UK continues to benefit from CERN through construction contracts and other activities.
Indeed the Higgs is BRITISH! And at 137 GeV, a child of ten knows that the USA 40 TeV Superconducting SuperCollider would have been complete overkill to find it! 🙄
My Sean Carroll Gravity book getting serious now.
Chapter 1: Conservation - was straightforward enough. Noethers Theorem.
Chapter 2: Change - Newtonian Mechanics and the Laplace model.
Chapter 3: Dynamics - Lagrangian and Action.
Can't wait for Chapter 4: Space. 🙂
My Sean Carroll Gravity book getting serious now.
Chapter 1: Conservation - was straightforward enough. Noethers Theorem.
Chapter 2: Change - Newtonian Mechanics and the Laplace model.
Chapter 3: Dynamics - Lagrangian and Action.
Can't wait for Chapter 4: Space. 🙂
The reason it was related is this and the quasar video you posted
Unlike the standard cosmological model, the quasi steady state hypothesis implies the universe is eternal. According to Narlikar, multiple mini bangs would occur at the center of quasars, with various creation fields (or C-field) continuously generating matter out
It's a lot of little bangs. I'd say at that time QSO's was a better term as regraded as high red shift radio sources with enormous power. Quasars now are rather more wide spread. That is an interesting aspect about the video.
The BBC used to get Hoyle on at times. Good communicator, A book for the public might say matter out of nothing - why not. In a sense the big bang idea is saying the same thing. It appears he coined the phrase big bang to explain the idea to the public. It seems he also calculated what rate of hydrogen needed to be created for his view.
He was an atheist so some of his comments that relate to the modern anthropic principle don't make much sense. But people get that wrong anyway - things are as they are because we are here - not that we wouldn't be here if they were not like that. Maybe he was just musing and wondered about a guiding hand but creationists made use of his comments.
I wonder if calling something a creation field was a good idea?