Have finished "Not Even Wrong" by Peter Woit. Written in 2005, before confirmation of the Higgs, so some time-wasting on alternative theories like "Technicolour" as an alternative for mass.
But a generally enjoyable review of the whole current, slightly depressing field.
I thought Doctor Sabine was squinnying unnecessarily about the rambling nature of the book.
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2006/07/peter-woits-not-even-wrong.html
He certainly makes the point that String Theory has become the politically correct view in US Physics. It's where the funding is. 20 out of 22 Tenured Professors in Particle Theory at the Top 5 American Universities are String Theorists.
Inevitably they recruit only postgraduates in String Theory. Standard Model types can look forward to unemployment in Academia. So the whole unknown, untestable M-Theory bandwagon rumbles on! 🙄
Particle accelerators are running out of puff to explore regions above the HIggs mass, so experimentalists have no useful results to eliminate broken theories and keep Physics honest.
The hot topic is electro-weak symettry breaking. This is CP violation, first noticed in the neutral Kaon which includes a second-generation Charmed Quark. Which is what that right-handed Neutrino paper is really about.
A current weakness in Physics and Mathematics in general is that 4D transformations and geometry and topology are so little understood. Especially with complex variables. So room for growth there.
Maybe James Webb will uncover interesting experimental things.
To keep my mind working, I was watching a few Feynman lectures. The ones from NZ are good if you can handle the sound. I keep coming to some problems. Now, I accept that there are a great many things we just don't know, like the basis for some constants like C.
Speed is distance per time, but space is expanding, so both distance and time are changing. Time is relevant. So how can this be a constant as both factors are variable?
If everything is quantum including space-time, then this violated the speed of light being a limit as it requires every step, Plank level, to be instantons.
Is that related to quantum entanglement?
If a particle is a region of disturbance in a field, then by definition every particle must have a related field.
If you have a force, do you not need a particle to carry it?
I kind of like the string theories. One of them may be on the right tract. It is the only set I know of that supports the notion of fields and energy as the most elementary features of the universe.
Some historical irony I guess. Newton was correct light was a particle, but his reasoning was wrong.
The concept of "ether" is not far from the concept of a field.
Speed is distance per time, but space is expanding, so both distance and time are changing. Time is relevant. So how can this be a constant as both factors are variable?
If everything is quantum including space-time, then this violated the speed of light being a limit as it requires every step, Plank level, to be instantons.
Is that related to quantum entanglement?
If a particle is a region of disturbance in a field, then by definition every particle must have a related field.
If you have a force, do you not need a particle to carry it?
I kind of like the string theories. One of them may be on the right tract. It is the only set I know of that supports the notion of fields and energy as the most elementary features of the universe.
Some historical irony I guess. Newton was correct light was a particle, but his reasoning was wrong.
The concept of "ether" is not far from the concept of a field.
I like to think of time as being generated by entropy, rather than a canvas upon which everything plays out. And then if you think about Einstein’s space time, if time and space (distance) are intimately intertwined, if time is being created, we see that as distance being created between objects. Since you cannot move anything away from anything else without involving energy to move the objects frame of reference (we perceive this as acceleration through the application of force) the net result at a cosmological scale is we see the universe expanding, no matter where we are in the cosmos (obviously local gravitational effects notwithstanding). I also wonder if there was not a state during the early universe (inflationary epoch) where because of energy levels were so high, time as we understand it did not exist, and this allowed inflation to take place. Once, energy density dropped, time emerged and the cosmos entered its expansionary epoch, which we still see today.
All interesting stuff to ponder 🙂
All interesting stuff to ponder 🙂
I've pondered till I'm blue in the face, but I am still struggling to understand the mathematics of spacetime - whether spacetime be regarded as fixed, curved or expanding!
And, when it comes to defining distance in an expanding universe, my mathematical abilities are stretched beyond the limit: https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm#MD
Measuring the distance is fun!
By the distance light travels in an expanding space, we could mean (a) the distance between start and finish points at the moment the light started its journey, or, (b) the larger distance between the start and finish points by the time the light finished its journey or, (c) the actual distance the light has travelled, which is more than (a) since space stretches while the light travels though it, but less than (b) since some of the stretching happens on the parts of space the light has already passed through.
Yea. Can't get my head around it.
Yes, current inflation theory suggests space-time did not exist until inflation.
Always wondered if entropy was a driving force. Did some searching and it seems to not be a plausible idea. I think it would require space-time to be beyound the universe horizon, as in something out there. Can fields exist without space?
The "measuring distance in expanding space" section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe is useful.
Yes, that's an excellent reference source and, keep it under your hat, one from which I have often quoted.
There's one discrepancy though - the inflationary period is now postulated to have occurred before the big bang rather than after it.
There's one discrepancy though - the inflationary period is now postulated to have occurred before the big bang rather than after it.
I have many demands on my Time. What with the World falling apart, my neighbours falling ill, and weeds and snails taking over my Garden.
I try and stay up to date with the latest Physics Theories:
But I stay true to the PUREST form of mathematics called NUMBER THEORY. I love this stuff. I say this as the forum's "Prime" Mathematician. Never mind GUT. Grand Unified Theories in Physics. 😕
No reason to think such a thing even exists! Despite the bamboozling efforts of the unknown M-Theory...
Amazing discoveries today in the Number Field.
John Baez has been yakking about a simple proof or disproof of the Notorious Riemann Hypothesis:
https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2019/07/the_riemann_hypothesis_says_50.html
It's all Leonard Euler, of course. Master of us all. Part 1:
TBH, I think John Baez copped out a bit there on 1 and 2. Anyway here's Part 2:
5040 is 70 x 72. It is also, and a Child of Ten knows this, 7!.
My Money is on the Riemann Hypothesis being TRUE. From which many interesting results will follow. 🙂
The Interested Student will know that the Factorials from 0! to 7! are 1, 1, 2, 6, 24, 120, 720, 5040. You follow?
I try and stay up to date with the latest Physics Theories:
But I stay true to the PUREST form of mathematics called NUMBER THEORY. I love this stuff. I say this as the forum's "Prime" Mathematician. Never mind GUT. Grand Unified Theories in Physics. 😕
No reason to think such a thing even exists! Despite the bamboozling efforts of the unknown M-Theory...
Amazing discoveries today in the Number Field.
John Baez has been yakking about a simple proof or disproof of the Notorious Riemann Hypothesis:
https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2019/07/the_riemann_hypothesis_says_50.html
It's all Leonard Euler, of course. Master of us all. Part 1:
TBH, I think John Baez copped out a bit there on 1 and 2. Anyway here's Part 2:
5040 is 70 x 72. It is also, and a Child of Ten knows this, 7!.
My Money is on the Riemann Hypothesis being TRUE. From which many interesting results will follow. 🙂
The Interested Student will know that the Factorials from 0! to 7! are 1, 1, 2, 6, 24, 120, 720, 5040. You follow?
Last edited:
Alan Guth postulated that an 'inflation field' caused the early cosmic inflation.
The inflation field is quantised and the field quanta are known as 'inflatons'.
In quantum field theory, a vacuum is a quantum state which is at minimal potential energy. Inflatons are excitations of the field that deviate from this minimal potential energy state. Therefore, a vacuum, despite being empty (containing no particles) will have 'vacuum energy'.
Inflationary theory says that if there is a vacuum state with very large vacuum energy, any region of space in this state will rapidly expand.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...down-a-hill-During-inflation-the_fig3_1739820
Attachments
Just what is it with you and prime numbers, Steve?
Perhaps you are a spy?
https://www.britannica.com/topic/cryptography
I'm not sure I do! 🤔
I've just been on a webinar about gravitational lensing, dark matter etc... The one thing that shines through is the number of holes in the current hypotheses... The truth is out there, but we don't have it in a grip yet.... There's a lot of disagreement, discussion - all of which is bleeding edge science at work and is great!
Without puffing myself up, I am indubiatably in the top 1%. My Mathematics Master, Quint, used to say " I am frequently impressed with the conciseness that Steve solves Definite Integrals involving the substitution of a complex variable."
My Chemistry Master, Mike, took an altogether dimmer view. He would dock me Marks on my Precise Calculations on Gas Variables like Pressure, Temperature and Heat.
"How come you docked me Marks when I got the Right Answer?" I said.
Because (Mike Said) you did not mention Avogadro's Hypothesis.
"Why should I care about Avogadro?" I replied. "You either understand Entropy, or you don't!"
Anyway, I went on to get Merit in the Special Chemistry Paper. But, TBH, not my favourite subject.
MY FAVOURITE SUBJECT is the Geometry of Space-Time!
Just as a teaser, here are the Borromean Rings:
No ring is actually looped to any other, but the whole thing hangs together. Weird, huh.
My Chemistry Master, Mike, took an altogether dimmer view. He would dock me Marks on my Precise Calculations on Gas Variables like Pressure, Temperature and Heat.
"How come you docked me Marks when I got the Right Answer?" I said.
Because (Mike Said) you did not mention Avogadro's Hypothesis.
"Why should I care about Avogadro?" I replied. "You either understand Entropy, or you don't!"
Anyway, I went on to get Merit in the Special Chemistry Paper. But, TBH, not my favourite subject.
MY FAVOURITE SUBJECT is the Geometry of Space-Time!
Just as a teaser, here are the Borromean Rings:
No ring is actually looped to any other, but the whole thing hangs together. Weird, huh.
These calculations are using:
P . V = n . R . T
From Emile Clapeyron.
The mathematics involved is basic arithmetic.
- la pression (Pa) ;
- le volume du gaz (m3) ;
- la quantité de matière (mol) ;
- la constante universelle des gaz parfaits (≈ 8,314 J K−1, mol−1)
- la température absolue (K).
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.