Our Expanding Universe And Its Bubble

[hazelm]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181228164824.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Scie

nce+News%29

 

Scientists propose a new model with dark energy and our universe riding on an expanding bubble in an extra dimension.  Perhaps other universes ride along on this same bubble.  It reminds me of  the theory of the self-reproducing universe. At any rate it is hoped that, with this model,  string theory will solve the mystery of dark energy.

 

There is a lot of repetition and little real information in this article but maybe more will come forward elsewhere.     Like what is the connection between string theory and dark energy or our expanding universe?   We have only hints here.  More to come forth. 

 

We can remember when string theory was laughed at.  That's the way of science.  Yes?

 

 

 

[A-wal]

Or the fact that redshift is proportional to distance shows that the redshift isn't caused by galaxies moving away from us but by the light following a curved path from our perspective so the further it's traveled, the more redshifted it's obviously going to be.

 

Whatever happened to science seeking the simplest model?

[hazelm]

Or the fact that redshift is proportional to distance shows that the redshift isn't caused by galaxies moving away from us but by the light following a curved path from our perspective so the further it's traveled, the more redshifted it's obviously going to be.

 

Whatever happened to science seeking the simplest model?

The more complicated your talk, the smarter people think you are.  And it works.  Think about it.

[A-wal]

The more complicated your talk, the smarter people think you are.  And it works.  Think about it.

The more complicated your talk, the smarter dumb people think you are and the dumber smart people think you are.

[hazelm]

The more complicated your talk, the smarter dumb people think you are and the dumber smart people think you are.

Right you are but which outnumbers the other?  The answer is off-topic.  So, I'll skip it.  Back to the article,  I do like the picture it draws.  But it is just a model and - unless I miss something - telling us nothing of how they came up with the model.  I don't mean to put them down.  They doubtless had a good foundation for the model but where is it?  Or is this just their starting point to get an idea going?  Fair question?

[A-wal]

You should check out Eric verlinde and emergent gravity, it is based on string and quantum theory and explains may be dark energy, dark matter, and how gravity works, even supporting mond theory.

MOND has now been ruled out by recent observations.

[hazelm]

You should check out Eric verlinde and emergent gravity, it is based on string and quantum theory and explains may be dark energy, dark matter, and how gravity works, even supporting mond theory.

Eric Verlinde.  The name sounds familiar.  Maybe I am thinking of Andrei Linde.  I'll look for Verlinde.  I have plenty of books whose indexes I can check.  Thanks.

[hazelm]

Which recent observations. MOND is a  curve fit based on actual observations. 

 

 

 

Eric Verlinde has an identical twin, also a theoretical physicist, that works on the Holographic principal, which is also based on string theory and quantum mechanics.

 

Andrei Linde is famous for the inflationary universe, he modified Alan Guths expanding universe, which is a modification on the Big Bang, originating with a singularity that no one believes in.

 

If you search on Eric Verlinde, and arxiv you will get some hits, other people are also working on his theories and I have come across nothing suggesting he is wrong, his calculations to keep passing all the tests.

 

This is a 2016 paper on emergent gravity https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269.pdf a video 

and a shorter 4min video 

Thank you.

[A-wal]

Which recent observations. MOND is a  curve fit based on actual observations.

I can't remember exactly but I know it was disproved a couple of months ago by observations that the gravitational constant isn't affect by the rate of gravitational acceleration (MOND's main prediction).

 

MOND was a great model, it described something (gravity) completely differently to the current model and made definite and testable predictions, exactly what a scientific model should do. Its creator deserves a lot of credit, instead people with untestable models are winning the Nobel prize.

[hazelm]

I can't remember exactly but I know it was disproved a couple of months ago by observations that the gravitational constant isn't affect by the rate of gravitational acceleration (MOND's main prediction).

 

MOND was a great model, it described something (gravity) completely differently to the current model and made definite and testable predictions, exactly what a scientific model should do. Its creator deserves a lot of credit, instead people with untestable models are winning the Nobel prize.

Gravity theory saved from death:  https://phys.org/news/2018-09-gravity-theory-death.html

 

See if this helps.  I actually went to try to find what you'd seen but hit this first.

[A-wal]

Gravity theory saved from death:  https://phys.org/news/2018-09-gravity-theory-death.html

 

See if this helps.  I actually went to try to find what you'd seen but hit this first.

Ah cool. It's a way nicer explanation than dark matter. Still not convinced it's right though.

[hazelm]

Gravity theory saved from death:  https://phys.org/news/2018-09-gravity-theory-death.html

 

See if this helps.  I actually went to try to find what you'd seen but hit this first.

 

Ah cool. It's a way nicer explanation than dark matter. Still not convinced it's right though.

 

 

I know.  A lot depends on who wrote the reports.  Last I knew St Andrews was a fine university.  So is Nature magazine where the original article was. Can you check that magazine?  I don't try to read it as it is so full of physics equations.  Far over my head.  Anyway,  I'll do some more looking.  When I sent the above last night, it was far after my sleep-time and I just shut down.

[A-wal]

This nicely sums up why I thought MOND had been ruled out:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0498-9


But (and thanks for bringing this to my attention):
https://physicsworld.com/a/galaxy-rotation-study-rules-out-modified-gravity-or-does-it/


This is why dark matter is such a ****ing stupid model, imo:
"The CDM model explains this discrepancy by assuming the visible matter is attracted by dark matter as well as other visible matter. However, dark matter could be found in different quantities and different places in different galaxies, so this relationship should have quite a lot of scatter."

Completely made up substance that's distribution can be whatever the hell you want it to be to explain any observations of higher than expected gravity. And this is what will eventually kill it:
"A mathematically predictable deviation from the predictions of Newtonian dynamics is hard to explain under the CDM model."

Although they'll try to claim that it actually supports the model. 5% real stuff, 27% dark matter, 68% dark energy =

[exchemist]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181228164824.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Scie

nce+News%29

 

Scientists propose a new model with dark energy and our universe riding on an expanding bubble in an extra dimension.  Perhaps other universes ride along on this same bubble.  It reminds me of  the theory of the self-reproducing universe. At any rate it is hoped that, with this model,  string theory will solve the mystery of dark energy.

 

There is a lot of repetition and little real information in this article but maybe more will come forward elsewhere.     Like what is the connection between string theory and dark energy or our expanding universe?   We have only hints here.  More to come forth. 

 

We can remember when string theory was laughed at.  That's the way of science.  Yes?

I can't ever remember string theory being "laughed at", when it appeared in the 60s. I do recall some scepticism that would lead anywhere. I gather Peter Woit, who strikes me as having his feet on the ground, is a sceptic. But he can be wrong. 

 

The interesting thing in your link is the claim that there could be testable predictions of this idea.  However, disappointingly, the writers do not give any clues as to how this could be done. 

[hazelm]

I can't ever remember string theory being "laughed at", when it appeared in the 60s. I do recall some scepticism that would lead anywhere. I gather Peter Woit, who strikes me as having his feet on the ground, is a sceptic. But he can be wrong. 

 

The interesting thing in your link is the claim that there could be testable predictions of this idea.  However, disappointingly, the writers do not give any clues as to how this could be done. 

That is an issue I have with a number of Science Daily articles.  They give hints but no foundation to them.  They will say a certain medicine is being tested for some disease but not name the medicine.  Similar problems in other fields.  Could it be that I don't know how to read them?  Could be.  Do you remember the show "I love a mystery"?  Sometimes I find a lot of mystery in these articles.  Enough to send me searching for answers.  Nothing wrong with that?