> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:31 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model > > Dan wrote: > > > Actually, atoms, protons, neutrons, pions, etc. are not orbital in > nature. > > Are there similarities in structure?
Some, but the differences are more staggering. In all cases, we are dealing with angular momentum and an attractive force. This leads to certain patterns in systems with any complexity at all. Almost all of the time, the angular momentum is such that a singularity will not form. The well known exception is, of course, a black hole....where a singularity still forms. Now, other factors are involved, and there can be more than one force involved, but that does not undermine the utility of looking at the similarity in atoms and galaxies in terms of attractive force and angular momentum. It should be noted that there are extremely important differences that are not seen in the classical models we use to describe the atom. For example, the highest values for the function that determines the probability of measuring an electron's position is within the nucleus. If that happened on a classical level, the most likely position to find the earth would be within the sun. > > Why egotistical? Science is not about uncovering mysteries and truths, > > it's about modeling observation. The Big Bang does a very good job of > > that. > > As long as the universe is 74% "mysterious" dark energy, for which there > is no direct evidence. Huh? The Big Bang theory is over 50 years old. It, and the steady state universe theory were evenly competing theories until 1964, when the cosmic background radiation was discovered....supporting the Big Bang. Numerous observations were made since then, allowing for/requiring refinement of the Big Bang theory. One thing worth noting on this is the tie in with particle physics. The energy densities of the early universe and the energy densities available at particle accelerators were similar, allowing for cross correlations of the physics of the universe and the physics seen in the lab. There were a large number of strong cross correlations observed. There are, of course, still problems modeling some of the structure. One problem is the grainy nature of the universe. The universe is structured in such a way that it was difficult to reconcile the size of the structures with both the speed of light and the energy densities at which these structures could form. In other words, in a classical big bang theory, when the universe was small enough for these structures to form in a manner consistent with the speed of light, it was too hot for these structures to form. Thus, the expansion phase was introduced. It postulates somewhat different physics during the first few milliseconds than is seen now. It is not unreasonable to consider this as somewhat of an ad hoc theory, somewhat like the Bohr atom. Now, on to dark energy.... Recent observations have indicated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Some unknown force is causing the galaxies to fly apart at an increasing rate. Force is correlated with energy, of course, and the rate of expansion can be used to calculate how much energy is required....thus the estimate of the amounts that are given. Another way of expressing this is the cosmological constant. Both dark energy and the cosmological constant are ways of modeling what we see. They are different ways of saying the same thing. Neither are required for the Big Bang theory, per se, but both are means of modeling the fact that the universe is observed to be expanding at an accelerating rate. Now, it is possible to come up with other theories that have other explanations for the acceleration. But, in order for these theories to supplant the Big Bang, they will also have to model all that the Big Bang has successfully modeled. And, that's a large amount of data. The interest is focused on the difficulties of the Big Bang....and how it needs to be modified to fit new observations. That's where the interest should be, and where the fun is. If you were to tell me that you think that the present theories will be replaced with a better theory in a few years, a few decades, etc., I wouldn't argue. What I would argue is that the present theories will be seen as a subset of that theory....just as classical electromagnetism is a subset of QED. > > There are lotsa cross correlations with other observations, there is > > a tremendous amount of data that are consistent with the Big Bang., etc. > It's consistant with "let there be light" and the scientist's desire to > _know_ the answer as well. Virtually every (if not actually every) physicist/astrophysicist I've talked with about this are happy coming up with the best models of observations they can...period. Usually, it's the non-professionals that insist that science is a means of knowing "the truth." Carl Sagan is a noticeable exception to this....and I find much of what he says to be problematic. As an aside, I'd argue that this is correlated to his letting his politics trump his professionalism later in his career. > > Finally, what if Wheeler is right about the universe. :-) > > Eh? A paraphrase of his statement is: "It's true that the universe is vast, and we are a small part of it. But, it's also true that the universe would not exist without a primitive act of registration." This metaphysics is more consistent with observations than realism. This doesn't make it right, and it certainly isn't proven by physics....but it is very consistent with observations. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
