|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 09/15/2006 : 11:36:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
What process shall we use to compare the viability of various theories?
The scientific method, Michael.
quote:
quote:
and when it has been tested to an extent that there is some significant following in the mainstream community such that it cannot be ignored,
This is sort of a round about appeal to popularity/authority arguement. The "mainstream community" isn't always right.
You're absolutely correct, Michael. The scientific community isn't always right, which is why the state of science is constantly in flux. New hypotheses are always being tested, old theories are overturned, and new ones take their place. Which is why no one ever teaches science as anything other than what is currently believed to be true at the moment.
Your demands that science classes should be able to teach what is true in the absolute sense is a noble one, but alas one which is beyond human ability. All we can ever do is teach what seems most likely, which theories explain the most evidence. Right now the best theory for the origin of the Universe is the Big Bang theory. Could it be wrong? Of course. But if we didn't teach any theory that could be wrong then we wouldn't teach a thing, Michael.
If we taught students a completely evidenced piece of conjecture like the Big Slam that didn't have the support of the scientific community, then we couldn't rightly say that we're teaching science, Michael, even if that theory eventually turns out to be true. Science is a process. It has rules. The fact that you are single-mindedly intent on going around that process and instead want instant recognition for your pet ideas clearly indicates, as Dave has pointed out for some time now, that you aren't interested in science at all, Michael.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/15/2006 11:47:35 |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2006 : 12:44:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If someone steps into a classroom about astronomy, I think it might pique their interest to learn that we do *not* yet have all the answers.
God, you are such idiot Michael. You make such sweeping assumptions about everything that it is no wonder that you are almost always wrong...
Here is some info on an astromnomy 101 class:
quote:
Astronomy 1 - Summary of Important Points About Galaxies and Cosmology
The following are the most essential points for you to know for the Astronomy 1 exams.
.
.
.
In principle the universe could have any density, and the fact that it is so close to being critical would therefore seem to require an explanation (the flatness problem). In addition, the microwave background is incredibly isotropic even though different regions of the cosmic photosphere could not possibly have been in causal contact during the history of the universe in standard models (the horizon problem). One possible explanation of these problems is that the very early universe underwent a period of gigantic inflation.
Gee, that doesn't sound like the 'astronomy nazis' are trying to indoctrinate anyone, does it? 
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2006 : 12:49:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
The scientific method, Michael.
That's a bit vague HH. I was looking more for a "scoring system" for theories involving the universe itself. How many points does one "lose" for introducing unevidence fields and particles into the discussion? What if one of the fields presented, doesn't even change density with volume like most scalar and vector fields? How many points does one lose for that kind of an idea?
If by "scientific method" all you meant by what's "popular" in the moment, I'm afraid that's nothing but an appeal to popularity/authority arguement.
quote:
You're absolutely correct, Michael. The scientific community isn't always right, which is why the state of science is constantly in flux.
Well, we're in agreement on that point.
quote:
New hypotheses are always being tested,
How were 'inflaton fields' "tested" exactly?
quote:
old theories are overturned, and new ones take their place. Which is why no one ever teaches science as anything other than what is currently believed to be true at the moment.
Ya, but what is true in the moment isn't always "true".
quote:
Your demands that science classes should be able to teach what is true in the absolute sense is a noble one, but alas one which is beyond human ability.
Which is exactly why we should be teaching an open type of ciruculum.
quote:
All we can ever do is teach what seems most likely, which theories explain the most evidence.
Define "likely" as it relates to inflaton fields. What parent particle(s) release(s) them? Why don't they decrease density with an increase in volume? How likely do you think it is that someone will answer these questions this year, or within 2 years, or 10 years? How long has it been?
quote:
Right now the best theory for the origin of the Universe is the Big Bang theory.
"Best" theory? How can a theory that begins with undefined field of an unknown origin possibly be a "best" theory? What makes it "best" exactly? How can it even be "better" than my slam idea, or "better" than a static plasma comsmology theory? How do you even know that all matter was ever condensed to anything smaller than a 10 light year radius, let alone something smaller than a meter?
quote:
Could it be wrong? Of course. But if we didn't teach any theory that could be wrong then we wouldn't teach a thing, Michael.
So rather than teach nothing at all, lets teach a few ideas, discuss the pros and cons of multiple theories and let the chips fall where they may.
quote:
If we taught students a completely evidenced piece of conjecture like the Big Slam
How is bang theory more "evidenced" than slam theory exactly?
quote:
that didn't have the support of the scientific community,
So really, the only thing that defines "truth" by your standards is popularity within some community.
quote:
then we couldn't rightly say that we're teaching science, Michael, even if that theory eventually turns out to be true. Science is a process. It has rules. The fact that you are single-mindedly intent on going around that process and instead want instant recognition for your pet ideas clearly indicates, as Dave has pointed out for some time now, that you aren't interested in science at all, Michael.
If I was actually intent on "going around" the process, I would not have published any papers, and I would not be discussing the ideas publicly at all. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2006 : 12:57:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Gee, that doesn't sound like the 'astronomy nazis' are trying to indoctrinate anyone, does it?
No, that statement sounded pretty reasonable, but this tactic sure has that nazi ring to it:
quote:
God, you are such idiot Michael.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2006 : 13:55:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
What is the parent particle that spawns an "inflaton" field?
That question is based upon your misunderstanding of the theory, which has things going the opposite way: inflaton field energy degrades into the particles we know.quote:
Why does the density remain constant as volume increases exponentially?
It doesn't, that's a strawman you've created based upon your ignorance of how all scalar fields behave at high energy densities.quote:
How does the inflaton field overcome the forces of gravity?
The same way any other field does, did you think the inflaton somehow different in this respect? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2006 : 14:08:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
That question is based upon your misunderstanding of the theory, which has things going the opposite way: inflaton field energy degrades into the particles we know.
I must have asked you a half dozen times to define the size and/or energy state of the particle in reference to some other known particle. Are you suggesting that Higgs Bosons are made up of inflaton fields/particles?
quote:
It doesn't, that's a strawman you've created based upon your ignorance of how all scalar fields behave at high energy densities.
No, this statement came in reference to a quote in one of the inflation articles that Cune sent me earlier in the week which I previously quoted in this thread.
quote:
Before the universe was a tiny fraction of a second old, the theory holds, it already had completed a rapid burst of exponential expansion lasting perhaps only 10–35 second, during which time its volume increased by a factor of 10^90 or more. Fueling this outlandish growth was an exotic energy field — the inflaton (not inflation) field — that turned gravity on its head. During the brief inflationary epoch, the cosmos was filled with this invisible fog, which pushed space apart and stretched it out. This inflation-driving substance had another unusual property: it was hard to dilute, maintaining a constant or nearly constant density even as the volume of space it inhabited expanded like mad. Fortunately for life as we know it, inflation's gravity-defying energy field was unstable, and it eventually decayed into matter and the radiation now seen as the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_integral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux
That "nearly constant density" is certainly an "unsusual" properly compared to any other sort of scalar or vector field Dave.
quote:
quote:
How does the inflaton field overcome the forces of gravity?
The same way any other field does, did you think the inflaton somehow different in this respect?
I don't know Dave, it's evidently quite "different" in nearly every other respect. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 09/15/2006 14:20:57 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2006 : 20:43:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I must have asked you a half dozen times to define the size and/or energy state of the particle in reference to some other known particle.
There may not be any actual particle, Michael. QM requires that there is one, but QM isn't Lord-God-King of all physics. The energy of the field is important, but not the size or "energy state" of any hypothetical particle.quote:
Are you suggesting that Higgs Bosons are made up of inflaton fields/particles?
No more than the heat released from a falling stone smacking into the ground is "made up of" gravity. The potential energy in the inflaton field was converted (remember E=mc2) into particles which have mass. In fact, since the inflaton is universe-wide, any associated particle must be massless (like the photon).quote:
quote:
It doesn't, that's a strawman you've created based upon your ignorance of how all scalar fields behave at high energy densities.
No, this statement came in reference to a quote in one of the inflation articles that Cune sent me earlier in the week which I previously quoted in this thread.quote:
Before the universe was a tiny fraction of a second old, the theory holds, it already had completed a rapid burst of exponential expansion lasting perhaps only 10–35 second, during which time its volume increased by a factor of 10^90 or more. Fueling this outlandish growth was an exotic energy field — the inflaton (not inflation) field — that turned gravity on its head. During the brief inflationary epoch, the cosmos was filled with this invisible fog, which pushed space apart and stretched it out. This inflation-driving substance had another unusual property: it was hard to dilute, maintaining a constant or nearly constant density even as the volume of space it inhabited expanded like mad. Fortunately for life as we know it, inflation's gravity-defying energy field was unstable, and it eventually decayed into matter and the radiation now seen as the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_integral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux
That "nearly constant density" is certainly an "unsusual" properly compared to any other sort of scalar or vector field Dave.
Well, vector and scalar fields are only comparable through integrals, and the quote is factually wrong (in more than one way), since the inflaton field still exists, and it's value stayed nearly constant during the inflationary epoch (although the total energy density of the universe continued to drop during that short time). You might also try the Wikipedia entry on scalar fields in physics since the two references you've got up there are more about scalars in math than in physics.quote:
I don't know Dave, it's evidently quite "different" in nearly every other respect.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2006 : 04:55:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Really? No progress at all?!? Have you read every major journal on cosmology and astrophyiscs? Have you attended every major academic conference? Have you?
No Cune, no significant progress on the key issues. I've not attended every cosmology conference, nor do I ever intend to do such a thing.
Let's put the cards on the table Cune. If you believe that the core issues and problems of the inflation theory have been addressed recently, give me some simple answers, and show me the evidence. Give me me some papers to read, but give me an overview in a general sense. What is the parent particle that spawns an "inflaton" field? Why does the density remain constant as volume increases exponentially? How does the inflaton field overcome the forces of gravity?
Please. In your original post, you said:
quote:
in 25 years of effort, not one *inch* of progress has been made toward resolving the big problems with inflation theory, not the field density problems, not the lack of evidence for monopoles or the lack of evidence of inflaton fields, nothing.
Now, progress in science can't litterally be measured in inches, so your statement can't be tested as such. However, the figurative use of "not an inch" generally means "not at all". However, that people are writing articles in peer-reviewed journals suggests that some progress is being made, since peer-reviewed journals tend not tp publish things like "Stuff I was Talking About with my Colleague at Lunch" and so on.
And indeed, some ideas about inflation have come, been discussed, and then discarded because they don't work. Indeed, most of Guth's publications are on-line, and just a few years ago, he published an article summarizing the various competing theories and why some are better than others.
So clearly, some progress is being made, and your assertion otherwise is simply incorrect.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2006 : 06:35:03 [Permalink]
|
Sorry for taking so long before answering.
I'd like you to confirm, so I know I get your statements right...
You were suggesting that plenty of neutrons escape the Neutron star core that has the mass of about 50% of the Sun's mass.
What process is keeping the outer sphere centered around the core?
What is the escape velosity at the surface of the neutron star? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2006 : 14:02:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
So when some viable theory arises that is as compelling as the Big Bang,
But who gets to decide when something is "compelling", and by whos standards? What process shall we use to compare the viability of various theories? How many points does one lose for introducing unevidenced fields and particles when creating a "theory" about the universe?
Well, Michael we're talking in abstracts. In the real world, of course, the answer is that each professor decides what is going to be taught in her class.
It works something like this: before classes begin for the semester, the professor begins to put together the syllabus for class. If she's done it before, she'll look over what she did last time. She may find that she likes what was covered, the readings assigned, and so on. Alternatiely, she may find that she's not focusing enough on topic X and so opts to cut a discussion of topic Y to make room for more X. Moreover, she may find that a new article or text has appeared that is superior to what she was assigning in the past. And of course, there may be new ideas that she feels should be introduced.
The nature of academia compells scholars to stay on top of the latest ideas and trends in the field, and facilitates things like going to conferences and access to journals and books. So it's safe to say that professors-- particularly those as larger and/or more presigeous schools-- will be exposed to lots of ideas, and will likely be participating in the investigation of those ideas.
Given this setting, I think it's safe to say that if a scholar weren't convinced by the evidence for the BB, that scholar could introduce those critiques in her class. That most-- or perhaps all-- basic instro to astronomy/cosmology classes don't entertain anti-BB theories strongly suggests that mainstream science accepts it.
Moreover, as class time is limited-- 15 or so weeks, meeting just a few hours a week-- a professor has to necessarily focus on some things to the exclusion of others. It's not hard to imagine that the things that are introduced will be mainstream, and follow what the professor thinks is correct. If there is significant debate in mainstream academia about a particular idea, a professor will likely present both but of course favor her idea more.
If you think that solid suns or Big Slams should be taught, you'll need to reach out to a significant amount of the scientific community and convinced them that you're right. The best way to do this is to publish in major journals and present at major conferences. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2006 : 16:23:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Really? No progress at all?!? Have you read every major journal on cosmology and astrophyiscs? Have you attended every major academic conference? Have you?
No Cune, no significant progress on the key issues. I've not attended every cosmology conference, nor do I ever intend to do such a thing.
Let's put the cards on the table Cune. If you believe that the core issues and problems of the inflation theory have been addressed recently, give me some simple answers, and show me the evidence. Give me me some papers to read, but give me an overview in a general sense. What is the parent particle that spawns an "inflaton" field? Why does the density remain constant as volume increases exponentially? How does the inflaton field overcome the forces of gravity?
Please. In your original post, you said:
quote:
in 25 years of effort, not one *inch* of progress has been made toward resolving the big problems with inflation theory, not the field density problems, not the lack of evidence for monopoles or the lack of evidence of inflaton fields, nothing.
Now, progress in science can't litterally be measured in inches, so your statement can't be tested as such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflaton
Sure it can Cune. All you have to do is go to the Wiki "bible" as it were and look. The column inches devoted to this subject to this point in time amount to what would have probably been written by Guth himself when he first proposed the idea.
Compare that content to say the content of "neutrinos", and you'll find a lot more evidence to support their existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
Many column inches of progress have occured in the last 25 years toward demonstrating the existence of neutrinos with mass. All sorts of progress is occuring in this field of science, yet none has ocurred on the subject of inflaton.
quote:
However, the figurative use of "not an inch" generally means "not at all". However, that people are writing articles in peer-reviewed journals suggests that some progress is being made, since peer-reviewed journals tend not tp publish things like "Stuff I was Talking About with my Colleague at Lunch" and so on.
And Wiki represents the "consensus" on the subject evidently.
quote:
And indeed, some ideas about inflation have come, been discussed, and then discarded because they don't work. Indeed, most of Guth's publications are on-line, and just a few years ago, he published an article summarizing the various competing theories and why some are better than others.
And yet what consensus has been reached in 25 years according to Wiki?
quote:
So clearly, some progress is being made, and your assertion otherwise is simply incorrect.
The only way you could "prove" me to be incorrect, is to answer some of the questions I posed to you earlier. Your reluctance to answer my questions with direct answers is due to the fact that while a number of ideas have come and gone, no real progress has occured. The questions I asked you remained unanswered by even the experts in the field as of this moment in time.
Now that isn't to say that some evidence might not emerge somewhere in the future. Some evidence might emerge to support the idea one day, and some consensus on the subject might emerge as well. However, as of this moment in time, what you see on Wiki, is what progress has been made in the consensus on inflaton fields/particles. Because no one can say where a inflation field/particle falls into physics and QM, it cannot be a part of QM and particle physics. It will remain outside of particle physics and QM until and unless someone can show how it fits into the scheme of things. So far in 25 years of effort, the "consensus" on the subject is that there isn't much to say about the subject. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2006 : 17:41:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I must have asked you a half dozen times to define the size and/or energy state of the particle in reference to some other known particle.
There may not be any actual particle, Michael. QM requires that there is one, but QM isn't Lord-God-King of all physics. The energy of the field is important, but not the size or "energy state" of any hypothetical particle.
I'm really going to have to think about how to even continue this conversation with you Dave. Everytime I ask you to define anything at all related to how this mystical inflaton field/particle fits into particle physics or QM, you balk. Wiki offers me no hint as to what progress in the consensus might have emerged over the past couple of decades to answer my most rudimentary list of questions, starting with how this field/particle relates to, and ties back into particle phyiscs and QM. You can't seem to answer these rudimentary questions either.
I've come to respect you enough to believe that if there was a consensus on this subject, you'd have just answered my questions in a straight foward manner by now. You have not, and you evidently cannot. That suggests to me that these answers do not exist. That may be giving you more credit than you're due, but I doubt it. I think you'd at least have cited papers you felt could answer my questions.
Instead of presenting me with such evidence, you "seem" (at least IMO) to be 'bashing' QM now, by claiming that QM isn't the "God" of particle physics and "physics" in general. Ok, I "sort" of see your point Dave, but then *what* is "king" Dave? Define "reality" for me so we can talk physics if QM and particle physics aren't king?
Surely a single theory of the universe that postulates the existence of a field or particle must at least explain where it fits into QM and/or particle physics? If not, how can it even be studied at all? So far, as best as I can tell at least, no clear progress is occuring, certainly nothing like the progress we see in occuring in neutrino particles/fields. I may still doubt that neutrinos change lepton configurations mid flight, but I don't doubt their existence one bit! At least we have a viable and verifyable way to measure them at this point in time, even in only "crudely" (resolution wise).
quote:
quote:
Are you suggesting that Higgs Bosons are made up of inflaton fields/particles?
No more than the heat released from a falling stone smacking into the ground is "made up of" gravity.
When did we become Buddists and start switch to metaphors? Are you suggesting a "slam" process now? Your answer was very "Buddhist like" rather than informative IMO. Where does the inflaton field fit into particle physics?
quote:
The potential energy in the inflaton field was converted (remember E=mc2) into particles which have mass. In fact, since the inflaton is universe-wide, any associated particle must be massless (like the photon).
Then where did all the numberous Higgs Bosons of the universe come from? Were they "eternally present", or are you suggesting they are created somehow in the inflation process?
quote:
Well, vector and scalar fields are only comparable through integrals,
Yes, but they do give us very good predictions on how much flux to expect, and it's never constant with distance. When you start exponentially increasing the volume, the "fog" these folks talk about would naturally decrease in density. Here however the 'fog' mysteriously is not deluted and retains the same 'density'. How is that possible?
quote:
and the quote is factually wrong (in more than one way), since the inflaton field still exists,
Just out of curiousity, if you believe that inflaton still exists and is still occuring today, why do we need "dark energy" in astronomy today? Why not tidy things up a bit, and blame the continued inflaton for acceleration too?
quote:
and it's value stayed nearly constant during the inflationary epoch (although the total energy density of the universe continued to drop during that short time).
How did that work?
quote:
You might also try the Wikipedia entry on scalar fields in physics since the two references you've got up there are more about scalars in math than in physics.
Will do, but I don't see how they'll be different as it relates to density or flux across a field.
quote:
quote:
I don't know Dave, it's evidently quite "different" in nearly every other respect.
You keep saying things like "I don't know" or "whatever the heck that is," yet you expect us to believe that you are not ignorant of the physics of this theory?
I've been accused of putting words in your mouth everytime I "assume" anything about what you believe in. Cune accused me of not keeping up with the times. I simply asked questions to make sure I was A) not putting words in your mouth, and B) not assuming that some changes have not occured that "might" be relevant. You keep dodging my questions however, so I can only assume that not a lot of progress has been made, and it's not just *me* that is "ignorant" here of how these things work, but rather then whole scientific community. That Wiki page on inflaton fields looks suspiciously short on content or signs of progress in recent years. There are no references to any tests by named physicists. There are not dates listed, no people listed, no experiments listed, nothing.
quote:
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2006 : 18:24:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Sure it can Cune. All you have to do is go to the Wiki "bible" as it were and look. The column inches devoted to this subject to this point in time amount to what would have probably been written by Guth himself when he first proposed the idea.
This might be the lamest attempt to defend your position on inflation you've thus far used. If I understand correctly, you're arguing that since wikipedia doesn't have much to say about inflation, nothing much has been done?
I just downloaded an article by Guth published in 2000 (you can find it on his MIT website). The article, "Inflation and Eternal Inflation" is a nice summary of inflation as it was understood then. Guth cites 46 different publications in his work. Ostensible, the majority of these are publications that touch on different issues of inflation. Clearly, people are working on it and making progress. Ineed, in the first few pages we read: quote:
In the original version of the inflationary theory [1], the proposed state was a scalar field in a local minimum of its potential energy function. A similar proposal was advanced by Starobinsky [2], in which the high energy density state was achieved by curved space corrections to the energy-momentum tensor of a scalar field. The scalar field state employed in the original version of inflation is called a false vacuum, since the state temporarily acts as if it were the state of lowest possible energy density. Classically this state would be completely stable, because there would be no energy available to allow the scalar field to cross the potential energy barrier that separates it from states of lower energy. Quantum mechanically, however, the state would decay by tunneling [3]. Initially it was hoped that this tunneling process could successfully end inflation, but it was soon found that the randomness of false vacuum decay would produce catastrophically large inhomogeneities. These problems were summarized in Ref. [1], and described more fully by Hawking, Moss, and Stewart [4] and by Guth and Weinberg [5]. This “graceful exit” problem was solved by the invention of the new inflationary universe model by Linde [6] and by Albrecht and Steinhardt [7].
In other words, since Guth's initial proposal (reference 1), a number of scholars have critiqued it (including Guth himself) and alternate proposals have been put forward.
By any reasonable definition, this is progress. Note: your statement wasn't a comparison between inflation and any other idea. It was a comment solely on inflation. You asserted that no progress has been made in our understanding of inflation. This is clearly wrong. Indeed, given that it took me all of 5 minutes to find this, it seems clear that you have no idea what's going on with regards to inflation.
In fact, in Guth's article, he writes: quote:
All grand unified theories predict that there should be, in the spectrum
of possible particles, extremely massive particles carrying a net
magnetic charge. By combining grand unified theories with classical cosmology without inflation, Preskill [23] found that magnetic monopoles would be produced so copiously that they would outweigh everything else in the universe by a factor of about 1012.
Earlier, you made it sound like Guth invented the monopole problem. He obviously didn't. Assuming that Guth and the reviewers of the article are being honest, ths ramifications of this passage are huge. After all, you claimed that Guth made up the monopole problem. Clearly he didn't. Indeed-- "all grand unified theories" suggest lots of monopoles.
Again, I'm almost stunned that you haave no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the BB and inflation. You speak about it as though you are keenly aware of the issues. In fact, however, even a basic investigation reveals facts that are counter to your assertations. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2006 : 19:12:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The only way you could "prove" me to be incorrect, is to answer some of the questions I posed to you earlier. Your reluctance to answer my questions with direct answers is due to the fact that while a number of ideas have come and gone, no real progress has occured. The questions I asked you remained unanswered by even the experts in the field as of this moment in time.
Oh I see-- I just caught this. So there's a special new Mozina definition of "progress" which apparently goes like this: I ask questions. If you, being a complete non-specialist in the field at hand, cannot answer them to my satisfaction, then there is no progress.
I am sure I an not alone is thinking that this is almost as lame as citing the size of a wikipedia entry as evidence for the scientific progress of an idea. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2006 : 19:24:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The only way you could "prove" me to be incorrect, is to answer some of the questions I posed to you earlier. Your reluctance to answer my questions with direct answers is due to the fact that while a number of ideas have come and gone, no real progress has occured. The questions I asked you remained unanswered by even the experts in the field as of this moment in time.
Oh I see-- I just caught this. So there's a special new Mozina definition of "progress" which apparently goes like this: I ask questions. If you, being a complete non-specialist in the field at hand, cannot answer them to my satisfaction, then there is no progress.
Progress to Michael means that cosmologists must have everything worked out 100% or it's all garbage. This, of course, is no different than the the creationists' tactic of throwing out problem X and insisting evolution explain it or concede that all of evolutionary theory is worthless.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/16/2006 19:25:30 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
