Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Like Tree7Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Apr 25th 2019, 06:38 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by fligmin View Post
I am wrong here big time.

Need three flavors of quark and I would believe that small differences in knot size will eventual help but if mass is needed then motion will make up the difference
I think you're wrong, but not for this reason... it's because there's already quite a lot of knowledge about the cosmos which has been gleamed by observations of space and the kinds of things that you're speculating about are very complex topics. If you get some textbooks which explain the main findings of the last 100 years or so, you'll be in a much, much better position to start coming up with reasonable hypotheses to very difficult problems. It will also help with communication, because you'll know the terminology which everyone uses to talk about these things.

Cosmology is a very intense and difficult topic... if you go in blind, you might come out even more confused than when you went in!

There is 6 kinds each with an anti quark so all you need is 6 different general sizes of knots to form out of the large scale structure of the universe.
After that expansion pulls them apart so gravity between them is reduced and the forces can become dominant then physics and those forces can work their magic.
As I said in my previous post, at even larger scales, the structure of the universe is flat. The inhomogeneities in this map (which are not the same as knots in the filaments and voids) are believed to be artefacts reflected in the cosmic microwave background radiation, which I think is probably what you're trying to discuss.

this thread is now likely to go silent as physics is beyond my math. Its out of my field being 55 year old mill worker who runs a 6 foot circular saw to cut logs to length is breaking them down to 18 inch or 24 inch pieces and waste less the 6 inches at the end - Quality is in play in those choices to - math don on fly in head. That's my biggest math issue in life.
Age is not an issue, only the motivation to learn. Judging from your posts, you definitely have that, so don't feel like you need to stop (at least on my part)... just remember that physics, like anything else, takes a lot of work and a guiding hand to do well. If you put the work in, you'll surely be rewarded!
topsquark likes this.
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25th 2019, 06:54 AM   #22
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 73
Does not rule my thoughts out either as I think he is not totaly wrong. My suggestion is for a much smaller Black hole - Way smaller than a quark. Actually down to infinity smaller. I suggest a repeating BB. A mechanism by which Matter before the BB cycle is pulled apart. Doing this ultimately favours certain sizes of black holes and rules out others - his size is ruled out at this point in time.

He is on the right track - he said it should be simple. It is Im a mill worker and I see it - could be a canal on mars - but I see it and he started going in this direction.

--------------------------------------------

The findings don't completely rule out Stephen Hawking's famous notion. But they suggest that primordial black holes would have to be truly tiny to explain dark matter.

https://www.livescience.com/65300-ha...-unlikely.html
fligmin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25th 2019, 07:06 AM   #23
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 73
I think you're wrong, but not for this reason... it's because there's already quite a lot of knowledge about the cosmos which has been gleamed by observations of space and the kinds of things that you're speculating about are very complex topics. If you get some textbooks which explain the main findings of the last 100 years or so, you'll be in a much, much better position to start coming up with reasonable hypotheses to very difficult problems. It will also help with communication, because you'll know the terminology which everyone uses to talk about these things.

Cosmology is a very intense and difficult topic... if you go in blind, you might come out even more confused than when you went in!
I have actually been reading since grade 6. I went through Many ideas - 30 years ago I was wondering if something was wrong with light and red shift. I read every day. Its my passion.

I was the loner who went to the library and sat by myself and read astronomy.
fligmin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25th 2019, 07:50 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by fligmin View Post
I was the loner who went to the library and sat by myself and read astronomy.
Nothing wrong with that!

I have some recommendations for books which you might enjoy.

This one is a good introduction and won't be too maths heavy:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...mology&f=false

The next two are frankly some of the best books I've ever read. I honestly cannot recommend them highly enough. However, they have a lot of mathematics, so if you're no good at maths, it will make for some tough reading.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...yfield&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...yfield&f=false

Finally, there's this one...

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...mology&f=false

I've not read this one, but this one is the meat and potatoes... the straight dope. I wouldn't expect anyone to really go through all of that heavy maths, but this is the kind of physics that everyone in cosmology wishes they could do (if they can't do it already). I would say that this is the kind of book for the researchers that really want to make an impact.
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25th 2019, 06:00 PM   #25
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 73
Ill take a look, I have noticed something in the beginning of this conversation and through it that I notice. That when I make a good point and its easy to see, You argue I need MAth and this and that and time. You say I need to read and go back to the beginning as its complicated.

Hawking was starting to realise That maybe it was easy and you were All overlooking some simple thing - himself included. I know im not dumb as I tested my self and in school even though my scores were low and tons of incompletes, ADD BAD daydream. When those fancy IQ and aptitude tests came I started getting in crap all around - My school grades did not reflect what they said, Im not bragging because Ya its high but not that high and I know the second I go there are 50 people smatter or more. Ill simply state I put spelling, Grammar and math aside and strengthened my thinking.

What im trying to say is all of physics and astronomy FOR THE MOST part is to caught up in math, Theory( trying to out do another's) (guess that's ego - our onw worst enemy), then there is the IT HAS TO BE COMPLICATED OR its nothing. And LAst I know my math and can write a paper you don't and can't there fore you know nothing. The worst is the guy who has one comment - you spelled a word wrong - like he is better cause he can spell -that don't mean he can think and understand.

I understood time space gravity and such - can I remember the equations , No - Never will, Do I understand the layman version - Yes. I can think apply what your wizardry tells me. but some could have all the math in the world and theory and not know how to apply it.

school will not help me. Reading thing over and over till the lay person view sticks so hard it hurts - OK sure but remember a name - date - number - lol for me that's trivial data to be dumped so I can think.

So its to simple - even he says so.

Now im not trying to offend You - Im actually starting to like You A little. Im just making a point.
benit13 likes this.
fligmin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25th 2019, 06:55 PM   #26
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 73
Here is a thought - if I go back to the very early periods before BB All the space is there - It is proven that the space we are in expanded from a SMALL AREA - Keep in mind ALL THE SPACE AROUND YOU THAT YOU CAN SEE was still there. If I break up Mass outside timespace small enough it could look and behave In that small area The same as under your feet and above your head.

The matter still had room.

I can argue This - You can not argue is was not. I at least can point up and say look here. Just gravity. Look there (before BB) Just gravity and guess what all the space is there.

So It was Hot

IF(big if) the knot (you know what I mean) is to become a Quark in a larger scale of things(you know what I mean at this point) I have another thought or question.

If I look at our knot - looking at an argument that the universe is expanding and COOLING. Can it be argued that right now the universe and the quark are to hot to truly become a quark. Again A relative view depending on where I look at it from.

Its all simple thinking. You all should be able to do without the math. If you understand what it tells you.

Last edited by fligmin; Apr 25th 2019 at 07:02 PM.
fligmin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26th 2019, 03:52 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by fligmin View Post
Ill take a look, I have noticed something in the beginning of this conversation and through it that I notice. That when I make a good point and its easy to see,
I'm sure you think it's easy to see, but what you're talking about made no sense to me and I've actually published astrophysics literature. Subjective language is a mine-field.

Quote:
You argue I need MAth and this and that and time. You say I need to read and go back to the beginning as its complicated.
Yes, because the models are quantitative, not qualitative. Mathematical models are an extremely important method of communicating relationships between different things. Without it, physics would be borderline impossible. That's true whether we like it or not.

Quote:
Hawking was starting to realise That maybe it was easy and you were All overlooking some simple thing - himself included.
Sure, everyone wishes that there are simple explanations to things. After all, that's why we have Occam's razor, but the phenomena we're dealing with are not simple phenomena... maybe there are simple answers to complex unsolved problems, but if they were easy to spot we'd have them already.

Quote:
I know im not dumb as I tested my self and in school even though my scores were low and tons of incompletes, ADD BAD daydream. When those fancy IQ and aptitude tests came I started getting in crap all around - My school grades did not reflect what they said, Im not bragging because Ya its high but not that high and I know the second I go there are 50 people smatter or more. Ill simply state I put spelling, Grammar and math aside and strengthened my thinking.
Your experiences are much more common than you think. Personally, I think it's a symptom of poor teaching and poor teaching systems, so imho there''s no need to dwell too much on bad school experiences.

However, if you struggled at maths, you sure did pick a subject where maths is important... have you considered getting into philosophy instead? There's a lot less mathematics there and the subject matter is really, really interesting

Quote:
What im trying to say is all of physics and astronomy FOR THE MOST part is to caught up in math, Theory( trying to out do another's) (guess that's ego - our onw worst enemy), then there is the IT HAS TO BE COMPLICATED OR its nothing.
You can think that, but the truth is that natural world is complicated. We know this because countless people have studied nature and there are plenty of examples pf phenomena that don't have simple explanations. For example, why is the orbit of Mercury non-circular? Why do fluids seem to spontaneously mix together in weird spirally-pillar structures (Rayleigh instabilities)? Why do clocks slow down relative to other clocks when you travel really fast? Why do electrons seem to behave like waves or like particles? Why is every galaxy moving away from us?

You can debate all those things in forums until the cows come home, but until you dive into mathematics, you'll never have satisfactory explanations for these phenomena. Mathematics allows for quantitative studies and that allows for a considerable increase in expressive power for how we try to describe the world. It also makes the process of getting rid of incorrect hypotheses much easier, because we can do so based on incompatibilities with measured data, not just because they seem unsatisfactory.

As it turns out, we do have explanations for those phenomena and they are extremely complex and detailed. They are also available as mathematical theories and that allows for a predictive power which is the envy of philosophers and scientists in other fields.

Quote:
And LAst I know my math and can write a paper you don't and can't there fore you know nothing. The worst is the guy who has one comment - you spelled a word wrong - like he is better cause he can spell -that don't mean he can think and understand.
I agree, pedants suck. I try very hard to be helpful and not pedantic, but I'm not perfect

Quote:
I understood time space gravity and such - can I remember the equations , No - Never will, Do I understand the layman version - Yes. I can think apply what your wizardry tells me. but some could have all the math in the world and theory and not know how to apply it.

school will not help me. Reading thing over and over till the lay person view sticks so hard it hurts - OK sure but remember a name - date - number - lol for me that's trivial data to be dumped so I can think.

So its to simple - even he says so.

Now im not trying to offend You - Im actually starting to like You A little. Im just making a point.
No worries! I'm not offended at all.

However, physics is not like philosophy or history... there are correct and incorrect answers to things. Maths is necessary, whether you like it or not. Sorry... that's just how things are. If you skip the maths, you're going to have to skip a lot of physics too.
topsquark likes this.
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26th 2019, 04:05 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by fligmin View Post
Here is a thought - if I go back to the very early periods before BB All the space is there - It is proven that the space we are in expanded from a SMALL AREA - Keep in mind ALL THE SPACE AROUND YOU THAT YOU CAN SEE was still there. If I break up Mass outside timespace small enough it could look and behave In that small area The same as under your feet and above your head.

The matter still had room.

I can argue This - You can not argue is was not.
Sure I can. The canonical big bang theory says nothing about cosmogenesis, but even in conservative extrapolations to the moment of the big bang, all matter in the universe was contained within it. The idea that matter can exist outside time and space is not standard and has all sorts of consequences.

I at least can point up and say look here. Just gravity. Look there (before BB) Just gravity and guess what all the space is there.

So It was Hot

IF(big if) the knot (you know what I mean) is to become a Quark in a larger scale of things(you know what I mean at this point) I have another thought or question.
Yes, you're suggesting that the structure of the filaments and voids (and knots) is a consequence of variations in the early Universe. That's actually fairly well understood now because of observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), but I haven't read the papers that compare the inhomogeneites in the CMB to cosmological structure, so I'm not sure.

This thing with quarks though? Please use the term "quark-gluon plasma".

If I look at our knot - looking at an argument that the universe is expanding and COOLING. Can it be argued that right now the universe and the quark are to hot to truly become a quark. Again A relative view depending on where I look at it from.

Its all simple thinking. You all should be able to do without the math. If you understand what it tells you.
A lot of what you are saying here is actually fairly standard stuff, it's just taken days for me to understand because you don't use the same terminology that everyone else does.

That said, you are talking about mass existing outside the universe... that's weird. There's no evidence to believe that.
topsquark likes this.
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26th 2019, 07:12 AM   #29
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 73
There is mass outside space time - its what's beyond the event horizon - I asked posts back if my definition of a black hole was correct - that definition is what's beyond the event horizon. I did not describe the accretion disk. But by god you end up with mass outside spacetime - simply what it is and yes - Weird aint it.
fligmin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26th 2019, 07:51 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by fligmin View Post
There is mass outside space time - its what's beyond the event horizon - I asked posts back if my definition of a black hole was correct - that definition is what's beyond the event horizon. I did not describe the accretion disk. But by god you end up with mass outside spacetime - simply what it is and yes - Weird aint it.
Black holes are totally different from the early universe. When we talk about cosmology, large scale structure and the early universe, we cannot use the same terminology... it doesn't make sense. It's like trying to describe an apple using car terminology.

Also, afaik, there is no evidence that any mass in a black hole somehow makes it outside space-time. If it did, you would expect the gravitational pull to decrease over time. I certainly wouldn't bet money on that!
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
anti, matter, missing



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anti matter: a topic of both old and new htam9876 Philosophy of Physics 29 Jun 28th 2018 05:13 AM
How does light interact, and travel through Solid matter as matter gets thicker, in w timemachine2 Light and Optics 0 Mar 4th 2016 04:27 PM
Gravity and Anti-matter topsquark Physics 3 Apr 2nd 2014 12:54 PM
Am I right or am I missing something? zenctheo Energy and Work 6 Apr 15th 2008 06:26 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed