Christof Wetterich

April 11, 2018, 4:00 pm
Christof Wetterich
Pushpa Bhat

Observation of the redshift of distant galaxies tells us that the ratio between intergalactic distances and the size of atoms increases. An expanding Universe or shrinking atoms both reflect the same reality and are equivalent. In a new view on cosmology with steadily increasing masses of elementary particles the universe can exist forever in the past and future – the big bang singularity turns out to be an artifact of an inappropriate choice of fields. Quantum gravity computations indicate that the universe could start in the infinite past near an ultraviolet fixed point with massless particles, and approach in the infinite future an infrared fixed point with spontaneously broken scale symmetry and massive particles. The cosmological constant problem is solved. The resulting model describes early inflationary cosmology and late dynamical dark energy with the same scalar field. It can be tested by observation of huge lumps in the cosmic neutrino background.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Christof Wetterich

April 11, 2018, 4:00 pm
Christof Wetterich
Pushpa Bhat

Observation of the redshift of distant galaxies tells us that the ratio between intergalactic distances and the size of atoms increases. An expanding Universe or shrinking atoms both reflect the same reality and are equivalent. In a new view on cosmology with steadily increasing masses of elementary particles the universe can exist forever in the past and future – the big bang singularity turns out to be an artifact of an inappropriate choice of fields. Quantum gravity computations indicate that the universe could start in the infinite past near an ultraviolet fixed point with massless particles, and approach in the infinite future an infrared fixed point with spontaneously broken scale symmetry and massive particles. The cosmological constant problem is solved. The resulting model describes early inflationary cosmology and late dynamical dark energy with the same scalar field. It can be tested by observation of huge lumps in the cosmic neutrino background.

I haven’t talked about it because I haven’t yet tried what he’s smoking.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Christof Wetterich

April 11, 2018, 4:00 pm
Christof Wetterich
Pushpa Bhat

Observation of the redshift of distant galaxies tells us that the ratio between intergalactic distances and the size of atoms increases. An expanding Universe or shrinking atoms both reflect the same reality and are equivalent. In a new view on cosmology with steadily increasing masses of elementary particles the universe can exist forever in the past and future – the big bang singularity turns out to be an artifact of an inappropriate choice of fields. Quantum gravity computations indicate that the universe could start in the infinite past near an ultraviolet fixed point with massless particles, and approach in the infinite future an infrared fixed point with spontaneously broken scale symmetry and massive particles. The cosmological constant problem is solved. The resulting model describes early inflationary cosmology and late dynamical dark energy with the same scalar field. It can be tested by observation of huge lumps in the cosmic neutrino background.

I haven’t talked about it because I haven’t yet tried what he’s smoking.

and the stuff I smoke doesn’t do that.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Christof Wetterich

April 11, 2018, 4:00 pm
Christof Wetterich
Pushpa Bhat

Observation of the redshift of distant galaxies tells us that the ratio between intergalactic distances and the size of atoms increases. An expanding Universe or shrinking atoms both reflect the same reality and are equivalent. In a new view on cosmology with steadily increasing masses of elementary particles the universe can exist forever in the past and future – the big bang singularity turns out to be an artifact of an inappropriate choice of fields. Quantum gravity computations indicate that the universe could start in the infinite past near an ultraviolet fixed point with massless particles, and approach in the infinite future an infrared fixed point with spontaneously broken scale symmetry and massive particles. The cosmological constant problem is solved. The resulting model describes early inflationary cosmology and late dynamical dark energy with the same scalar field. It can be tested by observation of huge lumps in the cosmic neutrino background.

I haven’t talked about it because I haven’t yet tried what he’s smoking.

I don’t follow your line of argument there.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Christof Wetterich

April 11, 2018, 4:00 pm
Christof Wetterich
Pushpa Bhat

Observation of the redshift of distant galaxies tells us that the ratio between intergalactic distances and the size of atoms increases. An expanding Universe or shrinking atoms both reflect the same reality and are equivalent. In a new view on cosmology with steadily increasing masses of elementary particles the universe can exist forever in the past and future – the big bang singularity turns out to be an artifact of an inappropriate choice of fields. Quantum gravity computations indicate that the universe could start in the infinite past near an ultraviolet fixed point with massless particles, and approach in the infinite future an infrared fixed point with spontaneously broken scale symmetry and massive particles. The cosmological constant problem is solved. The resulting model describes early inflationary cosmology and late dynamical dark energy with the same scalar field. It can be tested by observation of huge lumps in the cosmic neutrino background.

I haven’t talked about it because I haven’t yet tried what he’s smoking.

First I’ve heard of expanding atoms.

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Christof Wetterich

April 11, 2018, 4:00 pm
Christof Wetterich
Pushpa Bhat

Observation of the redshift of distant galaxies tells us that the ratio between intergalactic distances and the size of atoms increases. An expanding Universe or shrinking atoms both reflect the same reality and are equivalent. In a new view on cosmology with steadily increasing masses of elementary particles the universe can exist forever in the past and future – the big bang singularity turns out to be an artifact of an inappropriate choice of fields. Quantum gravity computations indicate that the universe could start in the infinite past near an ultraviolet fixed point with massless particles, and approach in the infinite future an infrared fixed point with spontaneously broken scale symmetry and massive particles. The cosmological constant problem is solved. The resulting model describes early inflationary cosmology and late dynamical dark energy with the same scalar field. It can be tested by observation of huge lumps in the cosmic neutrino background.

I haven’t talked about it because I haven’t yet tried what he’s smoking.

First I’ve heard of expanding atoms.

Where does it mention expanding atoms?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Christof Wetterich

April 11, 2018, 4:00 pm
Christof Wetterich
Pushpa Bhat

Observation of the redshift of distant galaxies tells us that the ratio between intergalactic distances and the size of atoms increases. An expanding Universe or shrinking atoms both reflect the same reality and are equivalent. In a new view on cosmology with steadily increasing masses of elementary particles the universe can exist forever in the past and future – the big bang singularity turns out to be an artifact of an inappropriate choice of fields. Quantum gravity computations indicate that the universe could start in the infinite past near an ultraviolet fixed point with massless particles, and approach in the infinite future an infrared fixed point with spontaneously broken scale symmetry and massive particles. The cosmological constant problem is solved. The resulting model describes early inflationary cosmology and late dynamical dark energy with the same scalar field. It can be tested by observation of huge lumps in the cosmic neutrino background.

I haven’t talked about it because I haven’t yet tried what he’s smoking.

I don’t follow your line of argument there.

It was just a quip :)

He’s been promoting this idea for some time now but it doesn’t seem to have made much impact.

Here’s a press article from 2013.

It all started with a bang, but the universe may not be expanding after all

Theoretical physicist Christof Wetterich publishes paper ‘a Universe without expansion’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/it-all-started-with-a-bang-but-the-universe-may-not-be-expanding-after-all-8759893.html

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

I haven’t talked about it because I haven’t yet tried what he’s smoking.

First I’ve heard of expanding atoms.

Where does it mention expanding atoms?

>and the size of atoms increases
Now I see that it could mean heavier, larger, more electrons etc.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

I haven’t talked about it because I haven’t yet tried what he’s smoking.

First I’ve heard of expanding atoms.

Where does it mention expanding atoms?

Its in the first sentence and I’m smoking pot.

Observation of the redshift of distant galaxies tells us that the ratio between intergalactic distances and the size of atoms increases

Imagine an atom the size of the moon!

I wonder what it would look like?

:)

This pdf from one of his talks at his university presents the idea in a somewhat random series of little statements.

https://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~wetterich/Talks/Cosmo/Y1820/Expanding%20universe%20or%20shrinking%20atoms_Napoli3_0319.pdf

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

First I’ve heard of expanding atoms.

Where does it mention expanding atoms?

Its in the first sentence and I’m smoking pot.

Observation of the redshift of distant galaxies tells us that the ratio between intergalactic distances and the size of atoms increases

Imagine an atom the size of the moon!

I wonder what it would look like?

:)

See? Direct evidence that smoking pot makes you forget the apostrophe.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

First I’ve heard of expanding atoms.

Where does it mention expanding atoms?

>and the size of atoms increases
Now I see that it could mean heavier, larger, more electrons etc.

No, you missed a bit:
“the ratio between intergalactic distances and the size of atoms increases.”

It is the ratio of the distances that increases.

That means that either space is expanding or atoms are shrinking.

Or maybe both.

Or maybe there is no difference between those two possibilities.

Im ok with the idea of the universe existing in the past as an evolving state.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Im ok with the idea of the universe existing in the past as an evolving state.

Has anyone suggested it didn’t have an evolving state in the past?

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where does it mention expanding atoms?

Its in the first sentence and I’m smoking pot.

Observation of the redshift of distant galaxies tells us that the ratio between intergalactic distances and the size of atoms increases

Imagine an atom the size of the moon!

I wonder what it would look like?

:)

See? Direct evidence that smoking pot makes you forget the apostrophe.

I forgot the apostrophe!

Wont anyone think of the apostrophes

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I haven’t talked about it because I haven’t yet tried what he’s smoking.

I don’t follow your line of argument there.

It was just a quip :)

He’s been promoting this idea for some time now but it doesn’t seem to have made much impact.

Here’s a press article from 2013.

It all started with a bang, but the universe may not be expanding after all

Theoretical physicist Christof Wetterich publishes paper ‘a Universe without expansion’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/it-all-started-with-a-bang-but-the-universe-may-not-be-expanding-after-all-8759893.html

Well that’s the question. Why does everyone just dismiss it?

Even TATE doesn’t give it a mention.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t follow your line of argument there.

It was just a quip :)

He’s been promoting this idea for some time now but it doesn’t seem to have made much impact.

Here’s a press article from 2013.

It all started with a bang, but the universe may not be expanding after all

Theoretical physicist Christof Wetterich publishes paper ‘a Universe without expansion’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/it-all-started-with-a-bang-but-the-universe-may-not-be-expanding-after-all-8759893.html

Well that’s the question. Why does everyone just dismiss it?

Even TATE doesn’t give it a mention.

Have a look at the pdf I linked. There are lots and lots of exclamation marks.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t follow your line of argument there.

It was just a quip :)

He’s been promoting this idea for some time now but it doesn’t seem to have made much impact.

Here’s a press article from 2013.

It all started with a bang, but the universe may not be expanding after all

Theoretical physicist Christof Wetterich publishes paper ‘a Universe without expansion’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/it-all-started-with-a-bang-but-the-universe-may-not-be-expanding-after-all-8759893.html

Well that’s the question. Why does everyone just dismiss it?

Even TATE doesn’t give it a mention.

It’s not the current flavour of acceptable or cool physics perhaps

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Im ok with the idea of the universe existing in the past as an evolving state.

Has anyone suggested it didn’t have an evolving state in the past?

A few have.

Considerer something evolving

and something that just pops up out of nowhere.

Seems logical to go with an ever evolving state winch changes over time.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

It was just a quip :)

He’s been promoting this idea for some time now but it doesn’t seem to have made much impact.

Here’s a press article from 2013.

It all started with a bang, but the universe may not be expanding after all

Theoretical physicist Christof Wetterich publishes paper ‘a Universe without expansion’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/it-all-started-with-a-bang-but-the-universe-may-not-be-expanding-after-all-8759893.html

Well that’s the question. Why does everyone just dismiss it?

Even TATE doesn’t give it a mention.

Have a look at the pdf I linked. There are lots and lots of exclamation marks.

OK

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t follow your line of argument there.

It was just a quip :)

He’s been promoting this idea for some time now but it doesn’t seem to have made much impact.

Here’s a press article from 2013.

It all started with a bang, but the universe may not be expanding after all

Theoretical physicist Christof Wetterich publishes paper ‘a Universe without expansion’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/it-all-started-with-a-bang-but-the-universe-may-not-be-expanding-after-all-8759893.html

Well that’s the question. Why does everyone just dismiss it?

Even TATE doesn’t give it a mention.

You should write to them and ask why.

then let us know their reply.

Bubblecar said:

This pdf from one of his talks at his university presents the idea in a somewhat random series of little statements.

https://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~wetterich/Talks/Cosmo/Y1820/Expanding%20universe%20or%20shrinking%20atoms_Napoli3_0319.pdf

It’s a Powerpoint presentation!

Disjointed short sentences are how they work. It’s supposed to be an aid to a spoken presentation, not a complete discussion by itself!

Probably someone should suggest he eases up on the exclamation marks though!

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

This pdf from one of his talks at his university presents the idea in a somewhat random series of little statements.

https://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~wetterich/Talks/Cosmo/Y1820/Expanding%20universe%20or%20shrinking%20atoms_Napoli3_0319.pdf

It’s a Powerpoint presentation!

Disjointed short sentences are how they work. It’s supposed to be an aid to a spoken presentation, not a complete discussion by itself!

Probably someone should suggest he eases up on the exclamation marks though!

You missed an exclamation mark.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

This pdf from one of his talks at his university presents the idea in a somewhat random series of little statements.

https://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~wetterich/Talks/Cosmo/Y1820/Expanding%20universe%20or%20shrinking%20atoms_Napoli3_0319.pdf

It’s a Powerpoint presentation!

Disjointed short sentences are how they work. It’s supposed to be an aid to a spoken presentation, not a complete discussion by itself!

Probably someone should suggest he eases up on the exclamation marks though!

You missed an exclamation mark.

You have to leave out at least one.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

This pdf from one of his talks at his university presents the idea in a somewhat random series of little statements.

https://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~wetterich/Talks/Cosmo/Y1820/Expanding%20universe%20or%20shrinking%20atoms_Napoli3_0319.pdf

It’s a Powerpoint presentation!

Disjointed short sentences are how they work. It’s supposed to be an aid to a spoken presentation, not a complete discussion by itself!

Probably someone should suggest he eases up on the exclamation marks though!

He put on his sweatshirt!

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

It was just a quip :)

He’s been promoting this idea for some time now but it doesn’t seem to have made much impact.

Here’s a press article from 2013.

It all started with a bang, but the universe may not be expanding after all

Theoretical physicist Christof Wetterich publishes paper ‘a Universe without expansion’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/it-all-started-with-a-bang-but-the-universe-may-not-be-expanding-after-all-8759893.html

Well that’s the question. Why does everyone just dismiss it?

Even TATE doesn’t give it a mention.

Have a look at the pdf I linked. There are lots and lots of exclamation marks.

yeah lends to slideshow fro variously presentations

my impression (or hunch) for a while has been it’s quite possible the universe isn’t expanding as commonly conceived, that out terrestrial experience and observation may incline us to believe

haven’t been convinced by the big bang either, inflation theory

It’s not just atoms that would need to be getting smaller to account for this. All objects up to and including galaxy clusters would also be getting smaller, and all the universal “constants” would also have to be changing commensurately. If there are two models to choose from, and one of them is needlessly complicated, pick the other one.

dv said:

It’s not just atoms that would need to be getting smaller to account for this. All objects up to and including galaxy clusters would also be getting smaller, and all the universal “constants” would also have to be changing commensurately. If there are two models to choose from, and one of them is needlessly complicated, pick the other one.

The one with mysterious dark energy and dark matter and inflation and constants that don’t add up you mean?

I’m not totally convinced that that is simpler.

dv said:

It’s not just atoms that would need to be getting smaller to account for this. All objects up to and including galaxy clusters would also be getting smaller, and all the universal “constants” would also have to be changing commensurately. If there are two models to choose from, and one of them is needlessly complicated, pick the other one.

Seems to be an appeal to “alternative” for its own sake in this idea.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

It’s not just atoms that would need to be getting smaller to account for this. All objects up to and including galaxy clusters would also be getting smaller, and all the universal “constants” would also have to be changing commensurately. If there are two models to choose from, and one of them is needlessly complicated, pick the other one.

Seems to be an appeal to “alternative” for its own sake in this idea.

Seems a strange way to describe the consideration of alternatives to particular scientific theories.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

It’s not just atoms that would need to be getting smaller to account for this. All objects up to and including galaxy clusters would also be getting smaller, and all the universal “constants” would also have to be changing commensurately. If there are two models to choose from, and one of them is needlessly complicated, pick the other one.

Seems to be an appeal to “alternative” for its own sake in this idea.

Seems a strange way to describe the consideration of alternatives to particular scientific theories.

I’m describing the emphatic way he’s pushing it :)

I’m not qualified to assess the physics but it doesn’t seem that many other cosmologists have found this idea helpful over the past 7 years or so.

There’s not much point delving into these proposals in depth until a lot of physicists are using approving exclamation marks for the same idea.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Seems to be an appeal to “alternative” for its own sake in this idea.

Seems a strange way to describe the consideration of alternatives to particular scientific theories.

I’m describing the emphatic way he’s pushing it :)

I’m not qualified to assess the physics but it doesn’t seem that many other cosmologists have found this idea helpful over the past 7 years or so.

There’s not much point delving into these proposals in depth until a lot of physicists are using approving exclamation marks for the same idea.

I’m not going to delve into it in depth whatever. I haven’t got the latin.

But it does seem worth discussing why there is so little discussion of his recent work.

I mean he does have a pretty impressive history of work in the area. He’s not just some Zarkov.

ah, we remember back in the days when we lived inside the hollow earth

>I’m describing the emphatic way he’s pushing it :)

or, the person could be projecting their excitement, which I think is more the case

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

It’s not just atoms that would need to be getting smaller to account for this. All objects up to and including galaxy clusters would also be getting smaller, and all the universal “constants” would also have to be changing commensurately. If there are two models to choose from, and one of them is needlessly complicated, pick the other one.

Seems to be an appeal to “alternative” for its own sake in this idea.

Seems a strange way to describe the consideration of alternatives to particular scientific theories.

I’m kind of with Car on this. “In Rand McCall, hamburgers eat people!”

transition said:

>I’m describing the emphatic way he’s pushing it :)

or, the person could be projecting their excitement, which I think is more the case

there’s another aspect too, much as the world has become so diverse cough, there’s so much of it, so much out there today, abundance you know, but the truth of it is the abundance of diversity is very territorial about normal, so anything new really is heresy

transition said:

transition said:

>I’m describing the emphatic way he’s pushing it :)

or, the person could be projecting their excitement, which I think is more the case

there’s another aspect too, much as the world has become so diverse cough, there’s so much of it, so much out there today, abundance you know, but the truth of it is the abundance of diversity is very territorial about normal, so anything new really is heresy

I mean who that doesn’t frequent this forum hasn’t had a thought that equates with it’s a type of territorial patrol

patrolling normal

transition said:

transition said:

transition said:

>I’m describing the emphatic way he’s pushing it :)

or, the person could be projecting their excitement, which I think is more the case

there’s another aspect too, much as the world has become so diverse cough, there’s so much of it, so much out there today, abundance you know, but the truth of it is the abundance of diversity is very territorial about normal, so anything new really is heresy

I mean who that doesn’t frequent this forum hasn’t had a thought that equates with it’s a type of territorial patrol

patrolling normal

I leave it to the properly trained people to judge these matters.

Most cosmologists love new ideas, it’s their lifeblood. But they are appropriately critical, picky and choosy.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

transition said:

there’s another aspect too, much as the world has become so diverse cough, there’s so much of it, so much out there today, abundance you know, but the truth of it is the abundance of diversity is very territorial about normal, so anything new really is heresy

I mean who that doesn’t frequent this forum hasn’t had a thought that equates with it’s a type of territorial patrol

patrolling normal

I leave it to the properly trained people to judge these matters.

Most cosmologists love new ideas, it’s their lifeblood. But they are appropriately critical, picky and choosy.

i’m not sure you’re acknowledging you’re territorial here in ways, or not

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Seems to be an appeal to “alternative” for its own sake in this idea.

Seems a strange way to describe the consideration of alternatives to particular scientific theories.

I’m kind of with Car on this. “In Rand McCall, hamburgers eat people!”

A quick Binge found that, in spite of your typo.

The thing is, I don’t see how recognising that measurement of distances is relativistic equates with a statement that reverses observational evidence.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

transition said:

there’s another aspect too, much as the world has become so diverse cough, there’s so much of it, so much out there today, abundance you know, but the truth of it is the abundance of diversity is very territorial about normal, so anything new really is heresy

I mean who that doesn’t frequent this forum hasn’t had a thought that equates with it’s a type of territorial patrol

patrolling normal

I leave it to the properly trained people to judge these matters.

Most cosmologists love new ideas, it’s their lifeblood. But they are appropriately critical, picky and choosy.

But they also normally love to explain why they pick and choose, rather than just ignoring it.

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

I mean who that doesn’t frequent this forum hasn’t had a thought that equates with it’s a type of territorial patrol

patrolling normal

I leave it to the properly trained people to judge these matters.

Most cosmologists love new ideas, it’s their lifeblood. But they are appropriately critical, picky and choosy.

i’m not sure you’re acknowledging you’re territorial here in ways, or not

I leave it to the scientists to patrol their territory, and respect the boundary decisions they make. While bearing in mind that these are subject to continual change.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

I mean who that doesn’t frequent this forum hasn’t had a thought that equates with it’s a type of territorial patrol

patrolling normal

I leave it to the properly trained people to judge these matters.

Most cosmologists love new ideas, it’s their lifeblood. But they are appropriately critical, picky and choosy.

But they also normally love to explain why they pick and choose, rather than just ignoring it.

Here is where we need an enlightening little comment from the likes of Cusp :)

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

I leave it to the properly trained people to judge these matters.

Most cosmologists love new ideas, it’s their lifeblood. But they are appropriately critical, picky and choosy.

i’m not sure you’re acknowledging you’re territorial here in ways, or not

I leave it to the scientists to patrol their territory, and respect the boundary decisions they make. While bearing in mind that these are subject to continual change.

I only mention it because I wonder sometimes if i’m acting territorially here, and as it goes many people don’t attribute territorialness to their own species

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I leave it to the properly trained people to judge these matters.

Most cosmologists love new ideas, it’s their lifeblood. But they are appropriately critical, picky and choosy.

But they also normally love to explain why they pick and choose, rather than just ignoring it.

Here is where we need an enlightening little comment from the likes of Cusp :)

Yes, that would be good.

OTOH, I did discuss much the same idea back in the days of the old forum, without getting much out of Cusp.

OTOOH, I’m no cosmologist, so it’s not unreasonable to dismiss whatever crazy ideas I have on the subject.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But they also normally love to explain why they pick and choose, rather than just ignoring it.

Here is where we need an enlightening little comment from the likes of Cusp :)

Yes, that would be good.

OTOH, I did discuss much the same idea back in the days of the old forum, without getting much out of Cusp.

OTOOH, I’m no cosmologist, so it’s not unreasonable to dismiss whatever crazy ideas I have on the subject.

One person’s crazy is another person’s normal!

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

i’m not sure you’re acknowledging you’re territorial here in ways, or not

I leave it to the scientists to patrol their territory, and respect the boundary decisions they make. While bearing in mind that these are subject to continual change.

I only mention it because I wonder sometimes if i’m acting territorially here, and as it goes many people don’t attribute territorialness to their own species

In the cosmological (and general ontological) realm, territories tend to be quite starkly distinct.

Exempli gratia, the supernaturalists and their religions might as well be a separate species from the realists.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

I leave it to the scientists to patrol their territory, and respect the boundary decisions they make. While bearing in mind that these are subject to continual change.

I only mention it because I wonder sometimes if i’m acting territorially here, and as it goes many people don’t attribute territorialness to their own species

In the cosmological (and general ontological) realm, territories tend to be quite starkly distinct.

Exempli gratia, the supernaturalists and their religions might as well be a separate species from the realists.

I disagree.

Almost all real territories have boundaries so fuzzy, you can’t really call them territories at all.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

I only mention it because I wonder sometimes if i’m acting territorially here, and as it goes many people don’t attribute territorialness to their own species

In the cosmological (and general ontological) realm, territories tend to be quite starkly distinct.

Exempli gratia, the supernaturalists and their religions might as well be a separate species from the realists.

I disagree.

Almost all real territories have boundaries so fuzzy, you can’t really call them territories at all.

There’s a fairly wide gulf between the world observed by modern scientific tools and the world imagined by ancient storytellers.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

I leave it to the scientists to patrol their territory, and respect the boundary decisions they make. While bearing in mind that these are subject to continual change.

I only mention it because I wonder sometimes if i’m acting territorially here, and as it goes many people don’t attribute territorialness to their own species

In the cosmological (and general ontological) realm, territories tend to be quite starkly distinct.

Exempli gratia, the supernaturalists and their religions might as well be a separate species from the realists.

whatever the appeal of, or to the various formalisms, the reality is most of the universe emerged by way of something entirely not that

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

In the cosmological (and general ontological) realm, territories tend to be quite starkly distinct.

Exempli gratia, the supernaturalists and their religions might as well be a separate species from the realists.

I disagree.

Almost all real territories have boundaries so fuzzy, you can’t really call them territories at all.

There’s a fairly wide gulf between the world observed by modern scientific tools and the world imagined by ancient storytellers.

Yes, but those are sub-regions within territories.

All the connecting sub-regions have fuzzy boundaries as well.

Are we to presume that an attempt to explain reality, that requires protracted metaphysical philosophical defence, is more useful an explanation that stands on its real evidence ¿

SCIENCE said:

Are we to presume that an attempt to explain reality, that requires protracted metaphysical philosophical defence, is more useful an explanation that stands on its real evidence ¿

Why would you presume that?

Neither of the two theories (or should that be hypotheses) being discussed seem to fall into that category.

SCIENCE said:

Are we to presume that an attempt to explain reality, that requires protracted metaphysical philosophical defence, is more useful an explanation that stands on its real evidence ¿

doubtful there are many examples of objective or any observation where something of the act of observing (or measuring) isn’t injected into whatever (representation of that) observed, so yeah philosophy won’t become insignificant soon

No one talks about it because it’s a pile of steaming horseshit.
It violates Noether’s Theorem and requires that fundamental constants like μ₀ and ε₀ are not constants.

btm said:

No one talks about it because it’s a pile of steaming horseshit.
It violates Noether’s Theorem and requires that fundamental constants like μ₀ and ε₀ are not constants.

What is the evidence for these statements?

What is the evidence that those values are fundamental or constant?

a pile of steaming horseshit

1h 20min

Haven’t watched it (yet)

Looks like the slides he’s using are the ones Bubblecar linked to.

The Rev Dodgson said:

btm said:

No one talks about it because it’s a pile of steaming horseshit.
It violates Noether’s Theorem and requires that fundamental constants like μ₀ and ε₀ are not constants.

What is the evidence for these statements?

What is the evidence that those values are fundamental or constant?

If those constants are not constant then the amount of energy in the universe is not constant. This violates Noether’s Theorem.

btm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

btm said:

No one talks about it because it’s a pile of steaming horseshit.
It violates Noether’s Theorem and requires that fundamental constants like μ₀ and ε₀ are not constants.

What is the evidence for these statements?

What is the evidence that those values are fundamental or constant?

If those constants are not constant then the amount of energy in the universe is not constant. This violates Noether’s Theorem.

Response to question 1?

If the amount of energy in the Universe is not constant then Noether’s Theorem is not applicable, so it can’t violate Noether’s Theorem.

The Rev Dodgson said:

btm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What is the evidence for these statements?

What is the evidence that those values are fundamental or constant?

If those constants are not constant then the amount of energy in the universe is not constant. This violates Noether’s Theorem.

Response to question 1?

If the amount of energy in the Universe is not constant then Noether’s Theorem is not applicable, so it can’t violate Noether’s Theorem.

umm energy is just a consequence of presumption that other rules are more fundamental so are we to consider it as a more fundamental quantity for the purposes here

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

btm said:

If those constants are not constant then the amount of energy in the universe is not constant. This violates Noether’s Theorem.

Response to question 1?

If the amount of energy in the Universe is not constant then Noether’s Theorem is not applicable, so it can’t violate Noether’s Theorem.

umm energy is just a consequence of presumption that other rules are more fundamental so are we to consider it as a more fundamental quantity for the purposes here

Not sure who that was addressed to, but:

“umm energy is just a consequence of presumption that other rules are more fundamental”

Which other rules that are presumed to be more fundamental give rise to energy? Mass and distance?

“so are we to consider it as a more fundamental quantity for the purposes here”

Not in my opinion, but I’m not sure what the consequences are if we did.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Christof Wetterich

April 11, 2018, 4:00 pm
Christof Wetterich
Pushpa Bhat

Observation of the redshift of distant galaxies tells us that the ratio between intergalactic distances and the size of atoms increases. An expanding Universe or shrinking atoms both reflect the same reality and are equivalent. In a new view on cosmology with steadily increasing masses of elementary particles the universe can exist forever in the past and future – the big bang singularity turns out to be an artifact of an inappropriate choice of fields. Quantum gravity computations indicate that the universe could start in the infinite past near an ultraviolet fixed point with massless particles, and approach in the infinite future an infrared fixed point with spontaneously broken scale symmetry and massive particles. The cosmological constant problem is solved. The resulting model describes early inflationary cosmology and late dynamical dark energy with the same scalar field. It can be tested by observation of huge lumps in the cosmic neutrino background.

That’s just a rescaling. Relativity physicists do that all the time. Rescaling doesn’t affect the physics, only the numbers. It doesn’t affect the physics associated with cosmological constant for instance.

For example, it makes more sense to rescale time and space when talking about matter falling into a black hole.

In another example, on Penrose diagrams the infinite future is rescaled to a finite distance on the diagram.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Christof Wetterich

April 11, 2018, 4:00 pm
Christof Wetterich
Pushpa Bhat

Observation of the redshift of distant galaxies tells us that the ratio between intergalactic distances and the size of atoms increases. An expanding Universe or shrinking atoms both reflect the same reality and are equivalent. In a new view on cosmology with steadily increasing masses of elementary particles the universe can exist forever in the past and future – the big bang singularity turns out to be an artifact of an inappropriate choice of fields. Quantum gravity computations indicate that the universe could start in the infinite past near an ultraviolet fixed point with massless particles, and approach in the infinite future an infrared fixed point with spontaneously broken scale symmetry and massive particles. The cosmological constant problem is solved. The resulting model describes early inflationary cosmology and late dynamical dark energy with the same scalar field. It can be tested by observation of huge lumps in the cosmic neutrino background.

That’s just a rescaling. Relativity physicists do that all the time. Rescaling doesn’t affect the physics, only the numbers. It doesn’t affect the physics associated with cosmological constant for instance.

For example, it makes more sense to rescale time and space when talking about matter falling into a black hole.

In another example, on Penrose diagrams the infinite future is rescaled to a finite distance on the diagram.

“That’s just a rescaling. Relativity physicists do that all the time.”

On the one hand, that’s how it seems to me. I don’t see the difference between talking about space expanding or rulers contracting.

On the other hand, he says it does make a difference, and there are measurable differences in predictions.

So isn’t it worth doing the measurements?