At Least They Didn't Call It A Hairball

One of the great scientific mysteries that fascinated me throughout childhood and early adulthood was the endless attempts to determine what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. It was utterly fascinating and I followed the efforts and the new theories eagerly. Today I find the problem with black holes almost as fascinating. If you press an astrophysicist on the subject, he will admit that any time we start talking about infinities such as infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitely small it's an admission we don't know what we're talking about and that physics has broken down. (Note: this also applies to the big bang theory.)

Here's the new theory (new to me anyway) which solves a great many of the black hole problems, and it's based on string theory! Which in my book, makes it a double winner.
W
I am really stuck, though, on this issue of; if Alice reaches the black hole her strings are reproduced. I don't get it.

https://www.wired.com/2015/06/fuzzball-fix-black-hole-paradox/

Big Bang Or Big Bust?

Very interesting new proposal. As many of you know, I really hate the Big Bang  theory, much preferring ekpirosis. We are supposed to believe that just because the universe run backwards shrinks, it therefore must continue to shrink forever until it becomes a dimensionless point? What's a dimensionless point? I have hated the concept since I first had to deal with it in a junior high geometry class.  Imagine a species similar to Ben Franklin's ephemera. Noting that humans get bigger over time, they would assume that our children must begin as dimensionless points. I don't about your kids, but mine did not begin as dimensionless points.

Also, the theory has the universe beginning with a Bose Einstein condensate. I like Bose Einstein condensates. (It's even got gravitons!)

-- Das and Ali propose that the universe is filled with a quantum fluid made up of gravitons, particles that probably have no mass themselves but transmit gravity the way photons carry electromagnetism. The follow-up paper suggests that in the early universe these gravitons would have formed a Bose-Einstein condensate, a collection of particles that display quantum phenomena at the macroscopic scale. Moreover, the paper argues that this condensate could cause the universe's expansion to accelerate, and so explain dark energy, and might one day be the only surviving component of the universe. --

https://m.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iflscience.com%2Fphysics%2Fquantum-equations-dispute-big-bang&p%5Btitle%5D=Quantum%20Equations%20Suggest%20Big%20Bang%20Never%20Happened%20%7C%20IFLScience&display=popup

Sent from my iPad

Big Bang Theory Meets String Theory

I just finished watching the most recent Big Bang theory episode. The central theme is that Sheldon decides to give up his search for proof of the superstring Theory of Everything because it is unprovable. While this criticism has been steadily leveled against the theory, I have always noted that just because a theory cannot be tested now does not mean that it cannot be tested sometime in the future as technology develops. For example, there was a time when atomic theory could not be proven. That time passed.

Naturally, this does not mean that if a theory cannot be tested now it will inevitably be proven in the future. The theory of the luminiferous ether, when it finally could be tested, was proven to be false.

In fact, Sheldon surely would have been aware that there have been recent developments in a number of areas which offer hope that string theory can in fact be tested. This would end the primary objection which has been raised by conservative physicists.

I did note with some amusement that loop quantum gravity came up again. Naturally, as a former string theorist, Sheldon could not possibly accept that as an alternative. See my earlier post: http://el-naranjal-del-desierto.blogspot.com/2012/04/big-bang-theory.html.

Back to possible proofs. A very quick look at the Internet revealed the following:

Yet inspired by Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, Towson University scientists say that precise measurements of the positions of solar-system bodies could reveal very slight discrepancies in what is predicted by the theory of general relativity and the equivalence principle, or establish new upper limits for measuring the effects of string theory.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-theory.html#jCp

“If experiments prove that our predictions about quantum entanglement are correct, this will demonstrate that string theory ‘works’ to predict the behavior of entangled quantum systems,” said Professor Mike Duff, lead author of the study.

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/72531/scientists-say-they-can-now-test-string-theory/#ixzz2yhjy4Ubq

Actually, we may already have our first evidence that can lead us toward confirming supersymmetry, with the potential discovery of the Higgs boson.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/09/can-string-theory-be-tested/

(Supersymmetry is an essential part of string theory. It is possible to conceive of supersymmetry without string theory being confirmed. However, it is not possible to conceive of string theory without supersymmetry being confirmed.)

Something From Nothing?

Discover magazine September 2013, "Starting point" by Steve Nadis

This article was quite interesting. Unfortunately, it was also extremely irritating. Consider the following quote:  Just how did the universe begin? Maybe our fantastic, glorious universe spontaneously arose from nothing at all.

I recently heard this concept articulated in a book review in which Stephen Hawking proclaimed that the universe could have begun from nothing at all.  To anyone who has been reading popularizations of quantum physics, the idea is not a new one.  Nevertheless, I have experienced a great deal of frustration resulting from the fact that I can't recall anyone making the simple and obvious point which contradicts the statement. This glaring fault is obvious. Of course I did check to see what Dr. Hawking was referring to, and of course, it turned out to be that he was repeating the assertion that the universe could have spontaneously sprung into existence in a  creatio ex nihilo, based on the laws of quantum physics.  Sadly, that was just what I had expected.

Later, I saw this point repeated by Dr. Dawkins, the brilliant biologist and borderline hysterical fundamentalist evangelical atheist.  Hawking, being at least somewhat more cautious, had stated that this did not prove that God did not make the universe, only that this indicated that God was not needed to explain the creation of the universe.  The statement is very reminiscent of the purported statement of Laplace who, upon being asked by Napoleon if it was true that his theories made no reference to God's place in creating the universe replied, "I have had no need for that hypothesis."

The error which I'm referring?  The definition of nothing. You see, the statement has been made quite clearly. The universe could come from nothing, but then the person making that statement goes on to add, "except the laws of quantum physics."

It should be clear to anyone that the laws of quantum physics are most certainly something. Their existence clearly contra indicates the declaration that there was nothing, then there was the big bang. At the risk of sounding like a Neoplatonist, or perhaps we should say a Neopythagorian, I must ask, is there anything more real than the laws of physics? I certainly should not need to ask that question of any scientist, although a biologist might be excused.

Consider the following: if our planet were to disappear, the laws of physics would still be in place. However, if the laws of physics were to disappear, our planet, indeed the entire universe, would no longer exist.  Arguably, the laws of physics are more real than our planet, or our entire universe.  They certainly are not nothing.

The reason I'm writing this is because the article was irritating me so much by ignoring this clear and important point.  I didn't actually shout at the magazine, but I did keep informing it that it was being pigheaded and foolish (none of which caused any changes in the print).

The good news is that near the end of the article, Mr. Nadis finally added, "Although a universe, in Vilenkin's scheme can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place before hand-- namely the laws of physics."

Well at last somebody's finally willing to admit it!  Took them long enough.

Conclusion: While it is true that the universe may have been spontaneously created in accordance with the laws of quantum physics, this is simply another matter of regression. We do not thus solve the problem of origin, we only move the problem a little bit further back. The question now becomes, who created the laws of physics? Or, if one takes the atheist position, what created the laws of physics?

Some afterthoughts: There has been at least one experiment in which a universe in what is called Misner space was created in a computer simulation, said universe eventually shocked the experimenters when it created a closed time like loop and sent some of itself back to the beginning of time to give birth to itself.  And you thought science was all cold heartless theory!  What soap opera could beat that scenario?  (Yes,  know...All You Zombies by Robert A. Heinlein)

We also should not forget the concept that our universe may be nothing more than a computer simulation, or perhaps even a creation of some alien graduate student whose science is so advanced that his...her..its... doctoral thesis was to create a viable universe, ours.

Big Bang Theory

I was just watching my recording of the latest Big Bang Theory.  I couldn't help being amused by the ongoing conflict between Sheldon and Leslie Winkle.  As demonstrated in an earlier program, the key source of contention is loop quantum gravity versus string theory as a method of reconciling quantum physics with Einsteinian physics.  The reason this is so amusing is because in reality there is exactly such a sharp and often bitter conflict between the two groups. 

It actually is not unusual for scientists who hold conflicting opinions to get emotional over the issues involved.  This particular area, however, is especially hot. The reason is that for very long time those adhering to string theory got all the attention and all the research grants (that's money to us nonscientists) and were  insistent that loop quantum gravity believers were inherently wrong, largely because they insisted on there being 11 spatial dimensions in our universe. Obviously, insisted the string theory believers, there were only 10!  Okay, I admit this sounds pretty abstruse and uninteresting, but to those involved in the argument it wasn't just important; it was personal.

In more graphic terms, string theory was and is sexy.  Loop quantum gravity is your grandmother kissing you goodnight. When string theorists attacked loop quantum gravity theorists over the correct number of dimensions, it was like the first string football team teasing the chess club.

And then things got really fun.  After years of this ongoing series of Sheldon versus Leslie Winkle style confrontations between highly intelligent and superbly educated scientists, an announcement was made. It seems that there had been a problem with string theory--there were too many string theories. Depending on how you did the math, a variety of different outcomes were possible, each contradicting the others. They all seemed appealing, but when it comes mathematics you don't want a long line of competing outcomes. You want an answer. You want the answer.  

It seemed that string theory was hopelessly mired in a mass of uncertainty. But then a string theorist had a brilliant insight! He discovered that all these apparently contradictory results were actually different facets of one bigger result which brought everything together, resolved the conflicts, and saved string theory.  All you had to do to make everything work, he said, was to add an 11th dimension!

At this point you must remember that the string theorists had spent years and years sneering at the loop quantum gravity theorists because they insisted on 11 dimensions when there were obviously, absolutely, and totally undeniably only 10.

Loop quantum gravity theorists were not amused.

The resentments on both sides continue to this day.

The autotrophs began to drool

OK, Big Bang Theory, I was wrong to condemn you for the autotrophs reference.

http://theskepticalsamurai.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/the-autotrophs-began-to-drool

Mea culpa, but you culpa, too.  Your reference made no sense without explanation.

Note: In the comments that follow there is an unusually enjoyable discussion referrence to "chemoheterotrophs did in fact exist before chemoautotrophs"

Well, I found it enjoyable.