|LATER||Spooky Stuff||New Cosmos||Unknown Cosmos||No Big Bang||Relativity|
|Free Energy?||Tri-Science Chat||View of Time||Wild Excuse||Reason Why||Re: INERTIA|
|Sad Science||Fake Science||Aquatic Ape||Cosmo-Wrench?||Big Bang?||EARLIER|
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 01:27:09 +0100
Subject: FWD - Spooky stuff
An interesting example of something I've been arguing for and about for some time (added comment at foot of quote) - it's from `The Perversity of Physics' by Arthur Koestler (Parts 2&3)
"But, as already said, if the constituents of matter behaved as unsubstantial waves, they also behaved in other circumstances as massive particles. "The electron", de Broglie proclaimed, "is at once a corpuscle and a wave"(6). This dualism, which is fundamental to modern physics, Bohr called the "Principle of Complementarity". "Complementarity" became a kind of credo with the so-called "Copenhagen School" - the dominant school in theoretical physics founded by Bohr. Heisenberg, one of the pillars of that school, commented: "The concept of complementarity is meant to describe a situation in which we can look at one and the same event through two different frames of reference. These two frames mutually exclude each other, but they also complement each other, and only the juxtaposition of these contradictory frames provides an exhaustive view of the appearances of the phenomena"(7). In another place lie made a remark which illuminates one of the reasons for our present excursion into nuclear physics: "What the Copenhagen School calls complementarity accords very neatly with the Cartesian dualism of matter and mind"(8).
The same idea was expressed earlier on by Wolfgang Pauli, another giant of the quantum theory, about whom we shall hear more later:
The general problem of the relationship between mind and body, between the inward and the outward, cannot be said to have been solved by the concept of psycho-physical parallelism postulated in the last century. Modern science has perhaps brought us nearer to a more satisfactory understanding of this relationship, by introducing the concept of complementarity into physics itself. It would be the more satisfactory solution if mind and body could be interpreted as complementary aspects of the same reality(9).
This, together with the constant emphasis on the theme "atoms are not things"; "on the atomic level the objective world ceases to exist", is suggestive of that post-materialistic trend in modern physics which enticed many physicists into a flirtation with parapsychology - or at least into a tolerant attitude towards it. The connection will become clearer after a few more glimpses at the Wonderland of elementary particles.
The field equations of the electron, which treated the constituents of the material world as wave-functions, were beautifully confirmed by experiment. The theory worked. But it worked at the price of accepting its inherent contradictions. The new term "complementarity" became another verbal raft for the mind at sea. When an electron collided with another particle, it behaved more or less like a tiny cannon ball. But when an electron was fired at a screen with two holes in it, it produced the characteristic interference patterns which result when two wave-fronts meet (e.g. after dropping two stones into a pond). Are we to conclude that the single electron passed through both holes at the same time? Sir George Thomson, one of those who performed this now classic experiment, commented in his 1960 Presidential Address to the British Association: "[Commonsense would make one expect that] if a particle crosses a flat screen with two holes in it, it must have gone through one to the exclusion of the other. This is not true of an electron"(10)*. Sir Cyril Burt wrote about this fundamental paradox in more caustic terms: "If we attempt to describe the apparent behaviour of a single electron when fired at a thin screen of metal containing two minute holes, we should be constrained to infer that the particle passed through the screen in two places at once - a feat which has never yet (as far as I am aware) been performed by the ghosts of either folklore or psychical research"(11).
* One may add for the sake of piquancy that it was Sir George Thomson's father - Sir Joseph J. Thomson - who in the late 1890's discovered the electron; and that he was one of the earliest members of the Society for Psychical Research."
My comment: What is rarely if ever stressed is the mind-boggling fact that in the experiments of quantum physics (esp. the two slit experiment described above) the electron or photon (or more massy particle - I think whole atoms have been used), in order to achieve that interference pattern when being fired at low levels (i.e. `one at a time') must "know" what happened before - because the succession of particles achieve the interference pattern only over a period of time.
Which means that bits of mindless matter, at the most basic level, have `knowledge' of the world around them, and also a memory: knowledge of the past! link
You can understand why the `experts' avoid thinking or talking about that, as they still try to convince us of a deterministic description of reality - i.e. a Newtonian clockwork universe of strict cause and effect - which doesn't work, as you can see.
PS - more recently discovered are `quasi-crystals' (last years Nobel prize) which form themselves in a very complex pattern, repeated only over very large distances (in atomic terms). Which means those atoms must instantaneously "know" what is happening at arbitrary distance - perhaps clear across the universe!
[PPS - unfortunately our schools and colleges insist on beginning science teaching with those untrue and brain-stunting Newtonian concepts. As a result, although top scientists learn better facts, they're still prevented from thinking clearly about reality - their minds have been permanently clouded. ref]
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 19:25:38 +0100
Subject: FWD - "A NEW BABY PICTURE OF THE UNIVERSE
Ha! Note the big-sci mainstream (but maybe not all the panel below) are trying to ignore the fact that Planck's unexpected results - that one side of the Universe is `hotter' than the other + there's also a huge `cold' patch (much denser section) - actually disprove the predictions of the standard model:
i.e. that the universe had to inflate fast enough to get to this (desired) size in the (desired) time and therefore it should be practically identical in density and distribution in _all_ directions.
But that's clearly not true, so the scientific method _should_ now SCRAP the standard model and start again - but `big-sci' daren't do that. Wonder why?
A NEW BABY PICTURE OF THE UNIVERSE
Planck spacecraft observations support the prevailing theory of Big Bang cosmology - but they also raise puzzling new questions
THIS SPRING, HUMANITY WAS SHOWN ITS MOST DETAILED MAP of the early universe ever created. Generated by observations from the Planck spacecraft, the map shows fluctuations in temperature in the relic radiation left over from the Big Bang - the moment when space and time came into existence nearly 14 billion years ago. That relic radiation, a kind of afterglow from the Big Bang, is called the cosmic microwave background, or CMB. It streams toward Earth from everywhere in the sky, and it provides a snapshot of what the universe looked like when the CMB was generated 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
One of the major tenets of the Big Bang model of how the universe began is an idea called inflation. It proposes that 1036 seconds after the Big Bang, the universe expanded exponentially very quickly - from something that was billions of times smaller than a proton to something that was about the size of a fist.
Recently, scientists on the Planck team found certain large-scale features on the CMB sky, which they called "anomalies" that they cannot explain. One of them, for example, is a large cold spot, which corresponds to an anomalously large area of high density. What this means: the theory for how the universe began may need to be modified, amended or even fundamentally changed. In any of these cases, the result will be consequential to how we understand the evolution of existence.
Three leading researchers connected to the Planck mission spoke recently with The Kavli Foundation in a roundtable discussion about the latest results. The participants:
George Efstathiou - Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge in the U.K., Director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology at Cambridge (KICC), and one of the leaders of the Planck project.
Anthony Lasenby - Professor of Astrophysics and Cosmology at the University of Cambridge and Deputy Director of KICC. Dr. Lasenby is a member of the Planck Core Team, a co-investigator for the spacecraft's High Frequency Instrument, and member of the Planck Editorial Board.
Krzysztof Gorski - Senior Research Scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA, and faculty member at the Warsaw University Observatory in Poland. Dr. Gorski is a Planck Collaboration scientist and one of the Co-Investigators of the Low Frequency Instrument on board Planck.
The following is an edited transcript of the discussion.
Reaction to the results from the Planck spacecraft
Anomalies in the CMB
Fluctuations in the CMB
Before we discuss the results, let me ask each of you: when you began studying the cosmic microwave background (CMB), did you ever expect to see the kind of amazing detail that the Planck spacecraft has offered?
GEORGE EFSTATHIOU: The new Planck data have given us more detail of the CMB than we ever could have predicted early in my career. I certainly didn't envisage that we would ever see this in my lifetime. When the Planck mission was being reviewed for funding in 1996, one of the questions asked was, `Why should we approve a satellite designed to measure fine-scale features in the CMB?' Despite the fact that the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) team had announced its discovery of CMB anisotropies in the early 1990s, some people had doubts that we could detect smaller-scale temperature fluctuations. The thinking then was that during the first billion years of the universe's history when the first stars and galaxies formed, re-ionization could have erased much of that smaller-scale detail in the CMB.
KRZYSZTOF GORSKI: I came into the field in 1986 when I was a postdoc at Berkeley, and at that time George was already a giant in the field. Direct observations up until that time had shown that the only apparent differences in temperature in the CMB were actually an effect due to the motion of the Earth through space. People were hoping for a discovery of more actual detail, and it came with COBE in 1992, then with the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) launched in 2001 and now it's come with Planck - as well a number of suborbital instruments. We've been pretty lucky that this has happened over the span of our careers.
Anthony Lasenby; Dr Lasenby is a member of the Planck Core Team and a co-investigator for the High Frequency Instrument. He has been involved particularly in Planck work on the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect - distortions in the CMB that indirectly reveal the presence of distant galaxy clusters (Credit: Cambridge University)
ANTHONY LASENBY: I started somewhat differently, because at the beginning I was on the experimental side rather than the theoretical side. I began by making observations of the microwave background back in 1978. It was pretty speculative then to be looking for anisotropies. We started looking, from a telescope at Tenerife, at really large angular scales, on the order of several degrees on the sky. At that time, my horizons were very much focused on mapping temperature variations at larger angular scales on the CMB sky. Only after that did I gradually realize that going to smaller and smaller angular scales would reveal more information. At Cambridge University we started a series of small ground-based experiments, which gave detailed coverage of small sky patches, and then in the 1990s I recognized that observing the CMB from space was the best way to move forward. I joined the Planck mission in 1993, and I think I knew from the beginning that this was going to be for us a definitive experiment for measuring these temperature anisotropies. And that is how it has turned out.
TKF: So let's talk about some strange things that Planck found in the CMB. The new data reveal anomalies that suggest that the distribution of fluctuations in the CMB is not as uniform, or isotropic, as inflation theory predicts. One of these anomalies is a large cold spot in theCMB sky. Do these new results change our thinking about inflation theory?
George Efstathiou - Dr. Efstathiou has been involved in the Planck mission since it was first proposed to the European Space Agency in 1993, and has contributed to studies of large-scale structure in the Universe, galaxy formation, dark energy and the cosmic microwave background radiation. (Credit: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation)
EFSTATHIOU: It means we have new questions that need answering. Today's universe could be 10100 times larger than the original patch of universe that inflated nearly 14 billion years ago during a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. As a result, the theory of inflation predicts that today's universe should appear uniform at the largest scales in all directions. That uniformity should also characterize the distribution of fluctuations at the largest scales within the CMB. But these anomalies in the CMB that previous experiments had hinted at and which Planck confirmed, such as the cold spot you mentioned, suggest that this isn't the case.
Planck has revealed fine-scale features in the CMB in exquisite detail; these are the fluctuations that seeded the formation of galaxies and galaxy clusters that we see today. But by confirming the larger-scale anomalies, Planck has also shown us that the universe may not be uniform at the largest scales. This is very strange. And I think that if there really is anything to this, you have to question how that fits in with inflation. You can modify the simplest inflation models to generate these features, but from the theoretical point of view these models are really ugly. They involve fine-tunings and so on, and it sort of undermines the motivation for thinking up inflation in the first place. It's really puzzling.
Krzysztof Gorski; Dr. Gorski is a member of the Planck Core Team. In the past, he has been a member of the team of COBE-DMR, the instrument that first measured CMB anisotropies. (Credit: JPL)
GORSKI: Still, the idea that the universe is so highly isotropic did not come about easily. It emerged in the 1960s and people wrestled with it for several decades before the inflationary ideas emerged. So, isotropy of the universe is not a theoretical idea; it's based on observations. Planck is making a statement about some features that indicate deviations from isotropy, and we're not certain what this means. Perhaps we may still eliminate these anomalies with more precise analysis; on the other hand, they may open the door to something much more grand - a re-investigation of how the whole structure of the universe should be.
EFSTATHIOU: The challenge of making sense of these anomalies begins with the fact that we don't have anything to compare our universe to. In other words, when you look at large-scale features in the CMB, we're limited by the fact that we have only one realization of the universe. So we don't have enough information to conclude that the anomalies we see are statistically significant.
Taken individually, I don't think you can argue convincingly that any one of these anomalies is so unlikely that we can rule out inflation. But even the most die-hard inflation advocate would have to accept that the universe, on large scales, looks odd. The big question is whether new physics is associated with that oddness. I think there is very little doubt that the universe on large scales looks odd, compared with what we would expect from simple inflation models.
"The sense of this being a unique time in the history of this field is profound, because we've lived through a time of not being able to see what we can see now in the CMB sky." - Krzysztof Gorski
TKF: Why does it matter that inflation theory may not completely fit with what we see in the universe?
EFSTATHIOU: Inflation is a beautiful theory that tries to explain how the universe came to appear as it does today, from the presence of galaxies and galaxy clusters to how those large-scale structures are distributed throughout the universe. It's fundamental to our understanding of how the universe began and evolved. If the Planck spacecraft is showing us features that inflation theory cannot easily explain, then we should be worried.
Perhaps our theory of inflation is not correct, despite its beauty and simplicity. We may have to either fix the theory, amend it in some way, or throw it out and look for another explanation for why we see the universe as it is today.
Planck Anomalies - The Planck mission has imaged the oldest light in our universe, called the cosmic microwave background, with unprecedented precision. The results fit well with what we know about the universe and its basic traits, but some unexplained features are observed. (Credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration)
TKF: Apart from the large-scale anomalies that we've talked about, what do we think caused the fluctuations that we see at smaller scales - the variations that Planck has now mapped in such impressive detail?
EFSTATHIOU: The leading theory is that these began as quantum fluctuations, and they were amplified in scale as the universe inflated.
LASENBY: A major tenant of physics predicts there will always be fluctuations on the tiniest scales. So we expect that these fluctuations, present at the moment of the Big Bang, were magnified by inflation. And it's these amplified fluctuations that led to the formation of galaxies and galaxy clusters.
TKF: Can we draw a direct connection from the smaller-scale fluctuations that we see in the CMB to the galaxies and galaxy clusters that we see today?
EFSTATHIOU: We cannot make a direct connection between what we see in the CMB and the galaxies and galaxy clusters that came after the CMB was generated. But, we can do large computer simulations where we start off with fluctuations that have the same statistical properties that we've observed in the CMB sky, and it works extremely well in describing the kind of large-scale structure - the cosmic web of galaxies and galaxy clusters - that we see today.
"The anomalies we found run contrary to the idea that isotropy at large scales points to how thorough inflation was. Inflation actually may have been more limited in scope than previously theorized." - Anthony Lasenby
TKF: Taken as a whole, what questions do the latest Planck data put to rest and what new ones do they raise?
LASENBY: Planck has shown, with much improved error bars, that the simplest inflation models are really doing fine. But there are still some mysteries, and Planck data is really putting pressure on some alternative inflation models. The anomalies we found run contrary to the idea that isotropy at large scales points to how thorough inflation was. Inflation actually may have been more limited in scope than previously theorized.
EFSTATHIOU: A more limited inflation period is possible, but it's just ugly. If Anthony could calculate why inflation may have been more limited than current theory predicts, then I would be more impressed. history of the Universe The Planck mission has made the most precise map ever of the oldest light from our universe, the cosmic microwave background, harking back to less than 400,000 years after the big bang. Patterns of light in this map reflect not only events that happened just moments after the Big Bang, but also the light's long journey from the distant universe to Earth. By studying these patterns, scientists can learn about the origins, fate and ingredients of our universe. (Credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration)
TKF: What does Planck's accomplishments, so far, mean to you?
GORSKI: It's a truly unique time that we've been going through over the past 25 years, and the sense of fulfillment is enormous. I've been privileged to be able to participate and work directly on the COBE mission and now Planck. The sense of this being a unique time in the history of this field is profound, because we've lived through a time of not being able to see what we can see now in the CMB sky. And now, we are moving beyond the time when it was measured exquisitely well and new horizons are being established for what to attack in the future. Planck's legacy will be with us for a very long time, and I don't expect there will be another mission like Planck for a long time. This will basically be it. Studying how CMB light is polarized will reveal more about the early universe, and this is the future of this field. There are now a lot of younger people participating in this CMB field, but they don't have that same connection to what happened in the 1980s and earlier. The three of us are in a group that does remember. We were direct witnesses to how everything changed dramatically.
EFSTATHIOU: I think there can be no doubt that with Planck we're uncovering fundamental truths about the universe. On the one hand, the data shows us a strong confirmation that inflation occurred - and that suggests that our ideas about some of the earliest moments of the universe are correct. On the other hand, it points to something we don't yet understand. As a scientist, if you have a theory that fits very well with certain aspects of the data, then you should look more critically at places where there might be discrepancies. There are aspects of the latest data from Planck - and we saw suggestions of it in data from COBE and WMAP - that don't fit well with our theoretical picture of the universe.
"I think there can be no doubt that with Planck we're uncovering fundamental truths about the universe." - George Efstathiou
LASENBY: I echo what both Kris and George said. Speaking personally, I'm particularly interested in inflation, and the primordial power spectrum, which tells us about how the intensity of fluctuations in the CMB varies at different angular scales on the sky. I'm also interested in alternatives to standard inflation. It's intriguing to me that we are getting interesting hints that point toward some departures from the standard paradigm. For me, these latest results from Planck are intriguing, and there's a lot more I would like to see worked on over the next year or so.
- July 2013
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:25:44 +0100
Subject: Re: FWD - "What We Still Don't Know About The Cosmos - series
Right Jane, although they're supposed to be front-line thinkers you can see some (maybe all) are clinging onto restrictive assumptions, about carbon, oxygen (and brains like ours) because it's more comfortable that way.
Your thought reminded me of these two short `heretical' talks by Vallee and Sheldrake (think both would be banned by TED today - actually the Sheldrake talk _was_ banned) - Ray
Jacques Vallee - A Theory of Everything (else)... TEDxBrussels (17 min)
Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK (18 min)
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:54 AM
> Enjoying the first one - thanks Ray - it strikes me as almost amusing that scientists discussing things in the video - and of course they have to - are viewing the rest of the cosmos through the limitations we have as planet earth dwellers, restricted as we are by our physical bodies and brains - whereas elsewhere the laws of the universe may be totally different and not even perceivable through our current form - for example discussing 'gravity' where many discount gravity as a factor, preferring to use the term 'magnetism'
Sent: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 19:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
>> Looks like a nice series - am on the second so far, [they seem] quite up to date - Ray
>> what we still don't know (about the cosmos) part 1
>> are we alone
>> why are we here
>> are we real
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 20:19:16 +0100
Subject: FWD - "About that Big Bang?
Here you go - these are brave folk; many have lost their careers - just because they tell the truth - Ray
UNIVERSE - The Cosmology Quest Parts 1 - 4
[below]: the story of the lies told about the Cosmic Background Radiation (CMBR).
When it was finally measured it agreed with Steady State forecasts of 2 to 4 degrees K (the Big Bang forecast was for 50 K (that's TEN THOUSAND TIMES higher energy-level).
What did the establishment and the media do? They just lied and pretended that's what they'd forecast all along. [But they couldn't unprint their previous papers and books - although they tried] - Ray
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 10:54:21 +0100
Subject: Re: Davis' Advanced Propulsion Paper Describes Puthoff's PV-GR
It's now Thursday morning and have made time to listen to Radio 4's `In Our Time'.
Today it's a discussion with three `experts' on the subject of Einstein's `Relativity' [09:00 repeated 21:30; see http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02144gl for the archive copy].
[Ruth Gregory - Professor of Mathematics and Physics at Durham University; Martin Rees - Astronomer Royal and Emeritus Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge; Roger Penrose - Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford]
They began defining attributes of Relativity; non-absolute space, bending of space-time near large masses (planets?) etc., then they came to `Time' itself and the mental gyrations (re-definitions and excuses) began in earnest.
First they had to use `flat space' (a Euclidean universe) so as to make Minkowski's diagrams of `space-time' seem authoritative (he created them to support Einstein's `Relativity' concepts). They recalled the time-cones picture that Minkowski used to illustrate his explanation of the "Twins Paradax", where one twin travels at near light speed to a distant planet, and returns home, after 50 years have passed, to find his brother is an old man while he (the traveller) has only aged by a few years.]
That's the crux of the misunderstanding (of Einstein, Minkowski & Relativity): they thought that `differently accelerated observers' (the two twins) each had a separate `Time', whereas (IMHO) independent modern experiments (cesium clocks in airplanes - uef/cesium-relativity.txt) seem to show that observers (and clocks) merely feel the aging process at different rates, depending on their _absolute_ speed of travel through _absolute_ space.
So the core of `Relativity' - that both space (of locations) and time (of events) were only relative and would actually be different for differently moving observers - is only a mis-perception of the physical effects on different observers of different (absolute) speeds-of-travel.
To me that says Relativity has failed as an explanation of `physics' - i.e. the behaviour of objects existing and moving in space and time. And I think Einstein himself came to that same conclusion later in life; as expressed in his letter of 1954 - see blinded.html#ein
So I'm forced back (yet again) to the message of a few years ago, at uef/getdowntoit.txt
BTW - Here's a bit of modern realism about Relativity (and QM) which the mainstream Press _doesn't_ quote much:
qed-standardm-reltvty.txt - i.e. _all_ of modern physics rests on incomplete or even wrong theories.
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 10:54:21 +0100
Subject: Re: Davis' Advanced Propulsion Paper Describes Puthoff's PV-GR
Hi Maynard - and Eleanor,
here's a quote from `Time, Space and Things' review of Physics Theories, talking about those observed inertial effects on Einstein's water-filled balloons - 1 rotating, 1 static - in `The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity':
"The fact that nothing in our existing laws of nature predicts this behaviour means that our laws are incomplete."
talking of Mach positing that ".... all inertial properties of an object are determined by the existence of all other bodies in the universe. This is known as Mach's principle. Einstein accepted it fully in his theory of general relativity and was led to the concept of curved space-time. But no one has yet produced a fully satisfactory theory of inertial mass based upon the influence of matter in the rest of the universe".
Your `gravitational lensing', `time-dilation', _and_ compression in the direction of (relativistic) travel, along with proportional increase in mass, are predicted by many theories, some of which existed prior to GR being written up (like Lorenz's and Fitzgerald's independent but roughly equivalent conclusions).
And we should note that:
"all the so-called tests of General Relativity so far carried out are really tests only of the principle of equivalence [that gravity can be thought of as equivalent to acceleration] rather than of geometry [of curved space-time]." (p 129 Time, Space & Things).
My view of GR (and Quantum) isn't particularly controversial, it's just that most folk don't get to hear of facts known in the inner circles of science. Here's a rare recently published opinion of the state of physics today:
"Today general relativity is widely (though not universally) regarded as another effective field theory, useful only for distances much larger than about 10^-33 centimetres, and particle energies much less than an energy equivalent to the rest mass of 10^19 protons. No one today would (or at least no one should) take seriously any consequences of general relativity for shorter distances or larger energies."
"Quantum electrodynamics is itself not the final answer. It arises from the equations of a more fundamental theory, the modern Standard Model of elementary particles, in an approximation in which all energies are taken to be too small to create the quanta of the W and Z fields, the fields that appear in the Standard Model as the siblings of the electromagnetic field. And the Standard Model is not the final answer; we think it is only a low-energy approximation to a more fundamental theory whose equations may not involve electromagnetic fields or W or Z fields at all."
- Steven Weinberg pp. 254, 255 of `It Must Be Beautiful - Great Equations Of Modern Science'
All the field theories (some described in Tom Van Flandern's Gravity papers -
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/speed_limit.asp and others listed at http://www.metaresearch.org/) are merely that: stories about behaviours of objects in space and time when described as effects of putative "fields".
None of those theories can actually be `proven', and in fact all of the _mechanics_ of objects' behaviours in space and time (i.e. what most people think of as real "Physics") is actually ruled by the inertial characteristics of mass. And that isn't addressed by any `field theory' - including Einstein's.
Re: `Flatland' and Abbott - think you've missed my point. There can be NO experimental evidence originated by Flatlanders (us) - s/he can only see such evidence if and when it is supplied by someone or something from another, _further_ dimension.
Even so, and all being said, it looks most likely that a breakthrough in physics, maybe enabling apparently "free energy" (which isn't really free), will come by solving the big problem; that of INERTIAL MASS and its characteristics.
From: J. M
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: UFO UpDate: Re: Davis' Advanced Propulsion Paper Describes Puthoff's PV-GR
Well, I don't pretend to have the physics background to challenge Einstein. But I do note that he successfully predicted gravitational lensing and time dilation. Which is pretty impressive.
Nobody really understands the underlying relationship between gravity and inertia. PV-GR attempts to explain black holes by terming them another kind of condensed matter, similar to neutron stars. Davis notes that effects at or near an event horizon have never been detected. What goes on underneath remains a mystery. It's still unclear that black holes even exist.
WRT: Abbott and extra dimensions of movement, where is the experimental evidence? Beyond UFO phenomena of course. But something controlled and in a lab.
The 'free energy' paradox is either:
1) These guys (Puthoff, et all) are spectacularly wrong. Thermodynamic systems are as the scientific community sees them right now and cannot be expanded to contain ZPE.
2) The scientific community will have to accept an expanded notion of a system that includes ZPE in their calculations. That will take some time for the community to come to terms with, a la Kuhn.
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 21:16:02 +0100
Subject: FWD - Smolin on `Time' + more cosmology (+ Einstein next week
Here's that `Material World' episode - as described, it seems to be much more than _just_ Lee Smolin (review below). - Ray
[BTW - think BK Ridley, in `Time Space & Things' says that "changing constants of nature over time follow inevitably from the `rules' of Relativity", and as Ridley is a rigidly logical thinker probably have to accept that - within present physics, but personally have doubts about `Relativity' itself.]
Multiverses; Culture-driven Evolution; Lee Smolin on Time
Duration: 30 minutes
First broadcast: Thursday 30 May 2013
Laura Mersini-Houghton is appearing at this weekend's How The Light Gets In festival of philosophy and music in Hay-on-Wye.Born in Albania, she is a cosmologist at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill whose theory of the origin of the visible universe has attracted a lot of attention for its strong observational predictions.
As she and Marcus Chown explain to Quentin Cooper, the recently released data from the Planck telescope lend particular support. Could the big blue blotch on the Cosmic Microwave Background be a kind of shadow cast just after the big bang by a neighbouring universe beyond our own?
"Are evolutionary changes in our genome a cause or a consequence of cultural innovation?"
In last week's journal Science, a piece by Simon Fisher and Matt Ridley suggested that contrary to much received wisdom, we must consider whether sometimes in the evolution of the human genome, it is cultural changes which have led to genetic ones. According to Ridley, mistaking cause for effect is common in the science, and this realisation could have profound consequencies for our understanding of who - and why - we are.
Is time real after all?
Many physicists and thinkers over the last century or so have treated our experience of the passage of time as an illusional human adaptation, and is actually unreal. Some powerful physics relies on time being reversible, and a lot of particle physics works equally well backwards as forwards. But in Lee Smolin's new book, Time Reborn, he outlines his conclusions from 20 years thinking, that time is real after all. As he explains to Quentin, more importantly for him this implies the laws of physics are not constant, but have likely changed over the course of the history of the universe.
High-class speculation but mostly just speculation.
I.e. for item i) - we've recently reviewed the Plank results
for item ii) - the A.S papers addressed sex-gender drive and culture-drive
for item iii) - the UEF papers considered aspects of Time
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 09:44:23 +0100
Subject: FWD - "Time Warped: Unlocking the Mysteries of Time Perception
Right. And that quote reminded me of Spinoza's - "The only difference between a human and a stone rolling down-hill is that the human thinks it's in charge." - Ray
BTW - have a theory that the `passage of time' is a constant slow change in the universe's balance of parameters (the `constants of nature').
Time Warped: Unlocking the Mysteries of Time Perception by Claudia Hammond - review by Robin McKie, The Observer, Sunday 19 May 2013
Consider the fate of innocent test subjects who were tricked into believing no one on their psychology experiment liked them. Asked to estimate the passage of a minute, they reported times that were far longer than test subjects who had been told people liked them. Suffer rejection and time starts to drag, in short. "Thus the belief that a few strangers dislike you can alter your time perception," concludes Hammond.
Such observations are important because the way we perceive time is crucial to our lives. The intelligibility of spoken language depends on millisecond precision in pronunciation, for example, while the word "time" turns out to be the most widely used noun in English.
Oddly, however, there appears to be no single part of the brain that measures the passage of hours and minutes, which is just one of the many curiosities about our species' attempts to assess time. Of these paradoxes, the most intriguing - quoted by Hammond in her final chapter - was expressed by Kierkegaard: "Life can only be understood backwards but must be lived forwards."
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 21:32:07 +010
Subject: FWD - Like we thought (almost + MAYBE ) - "Cosmic cold spots hint at other universes
Ha! Recall that 22 April article - Subject: FWD - Wrench needed for the `Standard Model'?
The Planck Results on the Cosmic Microwave Background (below)
Well, seems that other folk thought _almost_ the same as we did, and have come up with some _other_ alternatives - Ray
[Seems to me it's just another desperate invention to save the standard model [site refs] - here's the others]
Cosmic cold spots hint at other universes
BY:JONATHAN LEAKE From: The Times May 19, 2013 11:50AM
SCIENTISTS believe they have found the first evidence that other universes exist.
The finding, based on data gathered by the European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft, implies that our universe could be just one of billions - perhaps an infinite number.
Such theories have been discussed by cosmologists for decades - but until now they have lacked any evidence.
A few weeks ago, however, scientists published a spectacular new map of the cosmic microwave background - the "radiation" left behind after the Big Bang that created the universe 13.8bn years ago.
The map, based on Planck data, showed anomalies in the background radiation that, some cosmologists say, could only have been caused by the gravitational pull of other universes outside our own.
"These anomalies were caused by other universes pulling on our universe as it formed during the Big Bang," said Laura Mersini-Houghton, a theoretical physicist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
"They are the first hard evidence for the existence of other universes that we have seen."
Such ideas are controversial but are attracting growing interest among physicists. This is because Mersini-Houghton, and her colleague Professor Richard Holman, at Carnegie Mellon University, published a series of papers from 2005 predicting what Planck would see.
In particular, they predicted that the ancient radiation permeating our universe would show anomalies generated by the pull from other universes.
The scientists analysing the Planck data have now published a paper acknowledging the anomalies exist and cannot be explained by conventional means. "It may be that the statistical anomalies described in this paper are a hint of more profound physical phenomena that are yet to be revealed," it said.
Planck worked by gathering radiation from when the universe was just 370,000 years old - still glowing from the Big Bang. It has been travelling across space for 13.8bn years and so is remarkably faint but still detectable. In theory, that radiation should vary a little on the scale of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, but at much larger scales it should be evenly distributed.
In practice, however, Planck's data shows this is not the case. The radiation is stronger in one half of the sky than the other. There is also a large "cold" spot where the temperature is below average.
Mersini-Houghton will set out her findings in Britain, first at the How The Light Gets In festival in Hay-on-Wye, starting this week, and then at a cosmology conference in Oxford.
They are likely to provoke a powerful reaction from other academics, some of whom have spent decades working on alternative theories that will be scrapped if Mersini-Houghton and Holman are proven right.
Malcolm Perry, professor of theoretical physics at Cambridge, said the idea needed work but was "very exciting". "It is exactly right to say that this could be the first evidence for other universes."
George Efstathiou, professor of astrophysics at Cambridge, who co-authored the papers setting out the Planck findings, said the suggestion that the data offered evidence for other universes was speculative but "very interesting".
He added: "Such ideas may sound wacky now, just like the Big Bang theory did three generations ago. But then we got evidence and now it has changed the whole way we think about the universe."
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 15:29:01 +0100
Subject: Reason Why (INERTIA expo + RW pages)
Was getting queries from folk, often school-kids having problems with the stuff in their books and whose teachers maybe couldn't explain it to them (got some grateful feedback from one or two teachers), so laid out some basic stuff;
Inertia or Momentum - at inertia.html
Anti-intuitive effects of Inertia - at inertmass.html
Weight vs. Mass, and `Gravity' - at graveffect.html
(that last one seemed to open the eyes of some `informed' adults - see www.spacebanter.com/archive/index.php/t-40599.html and maybe scroll down to Carsten A. Arnholm's witty comment on all their arguments, those Scandinavians can be quite sharp.)
Then moved up a few grades to more in-depth reviews of secondary effects also ultimately - but anti-intuitively - down to Inertia (and Rotation);
Lazy Centrifugal / Centripetal `Forces' - at centri.html
Lazy Coriolis `Force' - at coriolis.html
Lazy Precession - at precess.html
(and _that_ last one also seemed to ring a bell, but with maturer adults: after a while it was being given to physics students (second-year IIRC) as an on-line handout by the University of California (San Diego) Physics Dept, and I think the net-based part of the University of Hong Kong had it featured somewhere, maybe in their blogs.)
The object wasn't to pass exams or earn money (or kudos) but simply to show basic principles _without_ formal text-book waffle (which turns-off most young folk and many adults too).
And, when you use basic principles you often find that the text-books have been missing the point or even getting it wrong, because many of the ultimate reasons for effects are rather anti-intuitive - not what you'd first expect - (see all above, which are mostly quite different from text-book explanations, although now some seem to be following that lead; without acknowledgement of course).
From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 16:51:09 +0100
Archived: Fri, 17 May 2013 07:28:41 -0400
Subject: For Those Asking For Basics On Inertia
For those folk who've been asking for a run-down on INERTIA. [It's vitally important to our physical world - but `scientists' don't like to talk about it]
Humans thought that various observed physical effects were caused by different `forces', each having its own physical domain. Some folk - who began to call themselves `scientists' - collected many records of those various effects in order to quantify them, even progressing to finding arrangements of mathematics which fitted - or appeared to fit - the actions of those effects.
These were rather boastfully called `Laws of Nature', or separately referred to as `Laws' of each domain known to the scientists; which were GRAVITATIONAL, ELECTRICAL, MAGNETIC, and NUCLEAR (which became subdivided into STRONG and WEAK nuclear forces).
Eventually scientists realized that when they created an electrical field they also made a magnetic field, so they combined the two into the electromagnetic force or domain.
And then they also realized that the nuclear forces weren't quite independent - the weak nuclear force at least was influenced by electromagnetic fields. So that too was incorporated in the electromagnetic domain.
Which gives us two huge domains: gravitational and electromagnetic (with the strong nuclear force [interaction] as an orphan or outsider).
If we delve down into the accumulated `science' of the gravitational domain, we find that it all rests on the behaviour of a piece of matter in a gravitational field of another larger piece of matter.
The acceleration is directly proportional to the volume / density of the larger piece of matter - so that volume / density was called gravitational mass.
And, delving down into the accumulated `science' of the electromagnetic domain, we find that it all rests on the behaviour of a piece of charged matter in an electromagnetic field.
The direction of the behaviour is determined by the polarity of the charge(s), but the acceleration is inversely proportional to the volume / density of the charged piece of matter;
i.e. a larger / denser piece of matter (with identical charge) is that much more reluctant to move - so its volume / density was called inertial mass.
Weirdly, for the scientists - who could see no connection between the two defined masses, the gravitational mass turned out to be the same as the inertial mass - to the limits of measurement accuracy at least.
[Both gravitational and electromagnetic effects are inversely proportional to the square of the distance between particles involved - often called the `inverse square rule'; but it's easily illustrated by candlelight illuminating a sheet of paper at a distance of one yard; when the paper is moved out to two yards it only receives one quarter of the light, in other words you'll need four sheets of paper at two yards to collect the same light as one sheet at one yard. All directly `radiated' effects follow that rule.]
Here's scientists' comments about the mystery of inertia and of gravitational vs. inertial mass:
"The notion of mass as gravitational charge is perhaps the best "theoretical" notion of mass we have. Note that this idea of mass is qualitatively different from the idea of "inertial mass": that quantity which makes it difficult to change the velocity of an object. That these two quantities, gravitational charge and inertial mass, are equal, is another of the fundamental mysteries of physics." - www.rwc.uc.edu
"This experience - of the equal falling of all bodies in the gravitational field - is one of the most universal which the observation of nature has yielded; but in spite of that the law has not found any place in the foundations of our edifice of the physical universe." - A Einstein, writing in Annalen der Physik,35.
(Yup, same problem: inertial mass identical to gravitational mass - Ray)
"It is a curious and still not fully understood phenomenon that the inertial mass and the gravitational mass are always exactly the same." - John Gribbin in Companion to the Cosmos 1996 ISBN 0-297-81725-6.
"The reason why things coast for ever has never been found out. The law of inertia has no known origin" - Richard P Feynman in The Character of Physical Law (1965) 1992 ISBN 0-14-017505-9.
Prof. B.K Ridley's assessment of our `scientists' understanding of gravity and e.m.r:
"We can describe what happens quite accurately and we think we understand. But really we do not. The invisible influences of gravitation and electromagnetic fields remain magic; describable, but nevertheless implacable, non-human, alien, magic."
and of the ongoing inquiry into the mystery of inertia:
"If acceleration is relative rather than absolute, then the inertial mass of a body is a measure of the force exerted by the rest of the universe when you push the body. .... [that is] to be contrasted with the search for for the origin of inertial mass pursued through quantum field theory. ... [to] push our concepts of microscopic matter down to infinitesimally tiny dimensions in order to calculate the self-energy, and hence inertial mass, of elementary particles."
- Prof. B.K Ridley - in `Time, Space & Things'
N.b. - While I believe the eminent professor is - as always - right and truthful in his description of the current scientific opinion and state-of-art, I also believe there's at least one more likely frame: in this scenario acceleration _is_ absolute (inc. the acceleration intrinsic in rotation or spin) yet the inertia of any mass (of hadronic matter like we're made of) lies in its interactions with the surrounding "energy-field" of the universe (it's a sort of dynamic radial force-field with an effectively instantaneous [hence multiples of c2 in calculations] `speed', acting both inwards and outwards [hence the ubiquitous `root -1' in all calculations].
PS - assembled a bit slapdash, so any corrections would be welcome
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 04:10:03 +0100
Subject: FWD - "Whole fundamental view of biology needs to change"
Ha! They're diplomatic about it but privately the profession of biology is in turmoil - Ray
Guardian News - guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 21 January 2009 18.32 GMT
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life Evolutionary biologists say crossbreeding between species is far more common than previously thought, making a nonsense of the idea of discrete evolutionary branches
Charles Darwin's "tree of life", which shows how species are related through evolutionary history, is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to leading scientists.
The great naturalist first sketched how species might evolve along branches of an imaginary tree in 1837, an idea that quickly came to symbolise the theory of evolution by natural selection.
But modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading, with scientists saying a more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an impenetrable thicket. Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a "tangled bank".
"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.
Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled "web of life".
Microbes swap genetic material so promiscuously it can be hard to tell one type from another, but animals regularly crossbreed too - as do plants - and the offspring can be fertile. According to some estimates, 10 per cent of animals regularly form hybrids by breeding with other species.
Last year, scientists at the University of Texas at Arlington found a strange chunk of DNA in the genetic make-up of eight animals, including the mouse, rat and the African clawed frog. The same chunk is missing from chickens, elephants and humans, suggesting it must have become wedged into the genomes of some animals by crossbreeding.
The findings mean that to link species by Darwin's evolutionary branches is an oversimplification. "The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 16:56:22 +0100
Subject: FWD - Comment on "What you need to know about climate sensitivity"
Comment on "What you need to know about climate sensitivity" a Guardian article from Dana Nuccitelli - Friday 10 May 2013.
"We also know that if we double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the increased greenhouse effect will cause the planet's average surface temperature to warm about 1.2°C (2.2°F) in response. That may not sound like very much, but the difference between an ice age and the current warm period is only about 5°C (9°F). Seemingly small temperature changes make a big difference in the Earth's climate."
To a troubleshooter's* eye that's dangerous fast-talking, maybe designed to cover-up the logical "error" (to put it kindly) in the first sentence, which took correlation to mean causation.
I.e. - some scientists (AGW alarmists?) had a few data points late in the last century which said that CO2 was increasing and also that [global] temperatures _might_ be rising (those temperature data are really fuzzy). So they rushed to a hard and fast conclusion which tied the two together as cause and effect.
First thing a troubleshooter should do is take a look at all the evidence - and we have a longer record going back about 4.5 billion years.
See "Geological timescale: Concentration of CO2 and temperature fluctuations" - there's a copy at
From that we can see that temperature does _not_ follow CO2 variations, not immediately and not even if you wait a million years or so.
So what patterns can we see? Well, the last few years of data clearly shows the biggest influence.
Solar activity over the last three years - which had been predicted to be a fast solar minimum and a steep rise to a large maximum - has actually been a deep and long solar minimum followed by a weak rise which hasn't yet reached a noticeable maximum (this cycle seems to be running a year or two later than `normal').
That has been accompanied by a noticeable cooling - a drop in world-wide average temperatures.
[If CO2 was the main driver of temperatures that wouldn't have happened, since today's CO2 level is constant or still increasing]
And checking all historical records we find that solar activity _does_ correlate with world temperatures - precisely and [relatively] immediately.
See glacials.html#clear for temperature graphs from Arctic and Antarctic records, and then check against these solar activity graphs:
"Solar activity events recorded in radiocarbon"
"400 Years of Sunspot Observations"
In conclusion we can see that, while the Guardian "science" article did contain some facts, its central message was based on a fiction: (probably) well-meaning propaganda.
That's not science.
(copy sent to the Guardian Science-Desk)
Date: Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:22:24 +0100
Subject: FWD - "clues to our ancestors' lives as 'aquatic apes'?
Yup, have had a lot of sympathy for Elaine's `theory' since getting hold of two or three of her books - but the `old guard' have played their usual game of bad-mouthing anything which threatens their careers - Ray
Big brains, no fur, sinuses - are these clues to our ancestors' lives as 'aquatic apes'?
David Attenborough joins growing body of scientific support for theory that could explain one of the great leaps of human evolution
Robin McKie, The Observer, Saturday 27 April 2013 14.15 BST
It is one of the most unusual evolutionary ideas ever proposed: humans are amphibious apes who lost their fur, started to walk upright and developed big brains because they took to living the good life by the water's edge.
This is the aquatic ape theory and although treated with derision by some academics over the past 50 years, it is still backed by a small, but committed group of scientists. Next week they will hold a major London conference when several speakers, including David Attenborough, will voice support for the theory.
"Humans are very different from other apes," said Peter Rhys Evans, an organiser of Human Evolution: Past, Present and Future. "We lack fur, walk upright, have big brains and subcutaneous fat and have a descended larynx, a feature common among aquatic animals but not apes."
Standard evolutionary models suggest these different features appeared at separate times and for different reasons. The aquatic ape theory argues they all occurred because our ancestors decided to live in or near water for hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of years.
The theory was first proposed in 1960 by British biologist Sir Alister Hardy, who believed apes descended from the trees to live, not on the savannah as is usually supposed, but in flooded creeks, river banks and sea shores, some of Earth's richest sources of food. To keep their heads above water, they evolved an upright stance, freeing their hands to make tools to crack open shellfish. Then they lost their body hair and instead developed a thick layer of subcutaneous fat to keep warm in the water.
Scientists have since added other human attributes of claimed aquatic origin - a recent addition being the sinus, said Rhys Evans, an expert on head and neck physiology at the Royal Marsden hospital, London.
"Humans have particularly large sinuses, spaces in the skull between our cheeks, noses and foreheads," he added. "But why do we have empty spaces in our heads? It makes no sense until we consider the evolutionary perspective. Then it becomes clear: our sinuses acted as buoyancy aids that helped keep our heads above water."
Other palaeontologists dismiss parts of the theory. One or two human features could have arisen because our ancestors picked homes near the sea but the entire package of attributes - lack of fur, upright posture, big brains, sinuses and others - is just too much, they add.
"I think that wading in a watery environment is as good an explanation, at the moment, for our upright gait as any other theory for human bipedalism," said Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum, London. "But the whole aquatic ape package includes attributes that appeared at very different times in our evolution. If they were all the result of our lives in watery environments, we would have to have spent millions of years there and there is evidence for this - not to mention like crocodiles and other creatures would have made the water a very dangerous place."
It is not just human physiology that reveals our aquatic past, argue the theory's supporters. Our brain biochemistry is also revealing. "Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is an omega-3 fatty acid that is found in large amounts in seafood," said Dr Michael Crawford, of Imperial College London.
"It boosts brain growth in mammals. That is why a dolphin has a much bigger brain than a zebra, though they have roughly the same body sizes. The dolphin has a diet rich in DHA. The crucial point is that without a high DHA diet from seafood we could not have developed our big brains. We got smart from eating fish and living in water.
"More to the point, we now face a world in which sources of DHA - our fish stocks - are threatened. That has crucial consequences for our species. Without plentiful DHA, we face a future of increased mental illness and intellectual deterioration. We need to face up to that urgently. That is the real lesson of the aquatic ape theory."
BIRTH OF A NOTION
Originally outlined by biologist Alister Hardy, the aquatic ape hypothesis achieved prominence when the theory was taken up by the Welsh writer Elaine Morgan in the early 70s. (Her previous work had included writing episodes of Dr Finlay's Casebook.)
Morgan, pictured, became infuriated with male-dominated explanations for human attributes such as hairlessness. According to prevailing ideas, human males lost their body hair when they took up hunting and needed to sweat profusely in the African heat. But no explanation was given to account for loss of female body hair. As a result, Morgan turned to the aquatic ape theory, which she believed provided a more balanced vision of human evolution. Morgan wrote a popular account of the theory, The Descent of Women, which became a bestseller on both sides of the Atlantic. She followed this up with other books on the subject, including The Scars of Evolution and The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Most recently, Morgan defended her belief at a TedX presentation in 2009.
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:37:48 +0100
Subject: FWD - Wrench needed for the `Standard Model'?
The Planck Results on the Cosmic Microwave Background
22 April 2013 by Pavel Kroupa, posted in Cosmology, Dark Matter, Modified Gravity
The much awaited Planck results on the CMB have been published recently. The results are consistent with those arrived at by using Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measurements.
This agreement is excellent news, because it means that the two missions are consistent and thus the Planck data enhance our confidence in what we know about the CMB.
As can be seen from these numbers, the two parameters are consistent with each other within the measurment uncertainties. Thus, the Planck mission has nicely confirmed the WMAP fit to the standard model of cosmology.
(much more at page ...)
That seemed rather complacent, even if he did admit that there's two massive anomalies in both sets of data:
first is a huge temperature `asymmetry' (one side of the universe is hotter than the other),
second is an `unexpectedly large' cold spot to one side of the universe.
According to the `standard model' neither should exist.
SO went looking for further, less complacent comment on these new results and found this:
The recent Planck satellite combined with earlier results eliminate a wide spectrum of more complex inflationary models and favor models with a single scalar field, as reported in the analysis of the collaboration. More important, though, is that all the simplest inflation models are disfavored by the data while the surviving models - namely, those with plateau-like potentials - are problematic.
We discuss how the restriction to plateau-like models leads to three independent problems: it exacerbates both the initial conditions problem and the multiverse-unpredictability problem and it creates a new difficulty which we call the inflationary unlikeliness problem. Finally, we comment on problems reconciling inflation with a standard model Higgs, as suggested by recent LHC results.
In sum, we find that recent experimental data disfavors all the best-motivated inflationary scenarios and introduces new, serious difficulties that cut to the core of the inflationary paradigm.
(more at page ...)
In other words the only inflation models allowed by the figures are simply much too unlikely - "exponentially unlikely" they say elsewhere. (And they seem to have difficulty reconciling _anything_ with the new fancy "God particle" claimed by the LHC)
Taking all those `anomalies' into account it seems the wheels have come off'f the `Standard Model'.
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:34:31 +0100
Subject: FWD - "Star factory in the early Universe challenges galaxy evolution theory
Ha! This seems to `challenge` the whole Big Bang scenario, not just `galaxy evolution theory' - Ray
ESA > Our Activities > Space Science > Herschel
Star factory in the early Universe challenges galaxy evolution theory
17 April 2013
ESA's Herschel space observatory has discovered an extremely distant galaxy making stars more than 2000 times faster than our own Milky Way. Seen at a time when the Universe was less than a billion years old, its mere existence challenges our theories of galaxy evolution.
The galaxy, known as HFLS3, appears as little more than a faint, red smudge in images from the Herschel Multi-tiered Extragalactic Survey (HerMES). Yet appearances can be deceiving: this small smudge is actually a star-building factory, furiously transforming gas and dust into new stars.
Our own Milky Way makes stars at a rate equivalent to one solar mass per year, but HFLS3 is seen to be churning out new stars at more than two thousand times more rapidly. This is one of the highest star formation rates ever seen in any galaxy.
The extreme distance to HFLS3 means that its light has travelled for almost 13 billion years across space before reaching us. We therefore see it as it existed in the infant Universe, just 880 million years after the Big Bang or at 6.5% of the Universe's current age.
Even at that young age, HFLS3 was already close to the mass of the Milky Way, with roughly 140 billion times the mass of the Sun in the form of stars and star-forming material. After another 13 billion years, it should have grown to be as big as the most massive galaxies known in the local Universe.
This makes the object an enigma. According to current theories of galaxy evolution, galaxies as massive as HFLS3 should not be present so soon after the Big Bang.
The first galaxies to form are expected to be relatively small and lightweight, containing only a few billion times the mass of our Sun. They form their first stars at rates of a few times that experienced by the Milky Way today.
The small galaxies then grow by feeding off cold gas from intergalactic space and by merging with other small galaxies. So, finding the age at which the first massive galaxies appeared can constrain galaxy evolution theories. But this is not easy.
"Looking for the first examples of these massive star factories is like searching for a needle in a haystack; the Herschel dataset is extremely rich," says Dominik Riechers of Cornell University, who led the investigation.
Tens of thousands of massive, star-forming galaxies have been detected by Herschel as part of HerMES and sifting through them to find the most interesting ones is a challenge.
"This particular galaxy got our attention because it was bright, and yet very red compared to others like it," says co-investigator Dave Clements of Imperial College London.
Red in this case means brightest at longer infrared wavelengths and, owing to the effect of redshift in our expanding Universe, this can indicate extreme distance. Follow-up observations with a suite of ground-based telescopes confirmed that HFLS3 was the most distant galaxy of its kind ever found, seen just 880 million years after the Big Bang, at redshift 6.34.
With this in hand, the astronomers were able to confidently translate the galaxy's infrared brightness into a star formation rate, discovering its extraordinary nature.
HFLS3 is making so many stars that it is called a `maximum starburst'. The whole galaxy is wreathed in star formation, to the point where the intense radiation of the young stars almost blows away the star-forming material in the galaxy. Environments like this do not exist on galaxy-wide scales in the Universe today.
"Early starbursts like HFLS3 produced the heavy elements that made up later generations of stars and galaxies, and much of the matter we know today," says Dr Riechers.
Even in the early Universe, they are expected to be extremely rare. The mere existence of a single such object so early in the Universe poses a challenge to current theories of early galaxy formation, which predict that they should reach such large masses only much later.
The team are continuing to comb the enormous dataset from Herschel looking for more examples of such extreme, early galaxies.
"With these observations, Herschel has found a rare example of a galaxy bursting with stars at a time in cosmic history when there were very few such galaxies," says Göran Pilbratt, ESA's Herschel Project Scientist.
"This underlines the pioneering nature of Herschel and its ability to reveal a previously hidden Universe, improving our understanding of how galaxies form."
Notes for Editors:
"A Dust-Obscured Massive Hyper-Starburst Galaxy at Redshift 6.34" by D. A. Riechers et al. is published in Nature, 18 April 2013.
The survey was conducted as part of the Herschel Multi-tiered Extragalactic Survey (HerMES), led by S. Oliver of the University of Sussex, UK and J. Block of JPL/Caltech, USA.
Herschel is an ESA space observatory with science instruments provided by European-led Principal Investigator consortia and with important participation from NASA.
For further information, please contact:
ESA Science and Robotic Exploration Communication Officer
Tel: +31 71 565 6799
Mob: +31 61 594 3 954