the far past should look like the far future, only backwards.

Quoth my roommate: “And in heels.”

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0112066

Which, in fact, they cite. Note too [from this paper] that phantom
cosmologies *do not* have to be singular.

2. The big bang mass has an increasing speed, in our observable spacetime, from 0 toward speed of light c with times past of 0 toward 15 billion years (or distances of 0 to 15 billion light-years), giving outward force by Newton’s 2nd empirically based law: F = ma = m.dv/dt = m(c – 0) / (age of universe) = mcH, where H is Hubble’s constant (based on v = HR, where R is distance).

3. Newton’s 3rd empirically based law suggests equal inward implosion force, carried by gauge bosons, which shielded by mass, proves gravity and electromagnetism to within 1.65% (proof below). This mechanism also predicts particle masses and other observables, and eliminates most of the unobserved ‘dark matter’ speculation and the need for a cosmological constant / dark energy (the latest data suggest that the ‘cosmological constant’ and dark energy epicycle would need to vary with time!

These are all existing accepted facts; the Feynman diagrams are widely accepted, as is the spacetime, the big bang, Newton’s laws of motion. The result, that apples fall at the measured acceleration, is apparently ‘only a personal pet theory that should be suppressed from arXiv.org and ignored’. Drs Lee Smolin and Peter Woit could sit under an apple tree to verify that existing ‘string theory’ gravity is ‘speculative gibberish’: it is an effort to destroy science using untestable hocus pocus ‘string theory’!

Update: Lee Smolin has now kindly acknowledged the possibility of using this type of argument (that quantum field theory gauge boson exchange process predicts magnetic moments and Lamb shift, so an attempt to unify the spacetime fabric with Feynman path integrals is an empirically defendable physical reality, unlike ‘string theory’ speculation). This applies for some kind of spin foam vacuum in loop quantum gravity, as mentioned on Peter Woit’s blog. Smolin is committed to the very difficult mathematical approach, but was decent enough say:

Nigel Says: January 14th, 2006 at 2:18 pm

Some kind of loop quantum gravity is going to be the right theory, since it is a spin foam vacuum. People at present are obsessed with the particles that string theory deals with, to the exclusion of the force mediating vacuum. Once prejudices are overcome, proper funding of LQG should produce results.

Lee Smolin Says: January 14th, 2006 at 4:41 pm

… Thanks also to Nigel for those supporting comments. Of course more support will lead to more results, but I would stress that I don’t care nearly as much that LQG gets more support as that young people are rewarded for taking the risk to develop new ideas and proposals. To go from a situation where a young person’s career was tied to string theory to one in which it was tied to LQG would not be good enough. Instead, what is needed overall is that support for young scientists is not tied to their loyalty to particular research programs set out by we older people decades ago, but rather is on the basis only of the quality of their own ideas and work as well as their intellectual independence. If young people were in a situation where they knew they were to be supported based on their ability to invent and develop new ideas, and were discounted for working on older ideas, then they would themselves choose the most promising ideas and directions. I suspect that science has slowed down these last three decades partly as a result of a reduced level of intellectual and creative independence avaialble to young people.

Thanks,
Lee

‘… the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly…’ – http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince06.htm

‘(1). The idea is nonsense. (2). Somebody thought of it before you did. (3). We believed it all the time.’ – Professor R.A. Lyttleton’s summary of inexcusable censorship (quoted by Sir Fred Hoyle in ‘Home is Where the Wind Blows’ Oxford University Press, 1997, p154).

For such wide speculation on the stringevangislistic views, it is not done without recognizing experimental basis, like a everyone saids, “does not exist.”

They never considered how they might handle it in extra dimensions, and such. It is just called a fantasy for some so a “real debate” is needed by the experts to help us lay people contend with letting our minds run amuck.:).

Maybe that’s an Edge question that John Brockman could handle?

I’d say the same could be said about inferring the past as well as predicting the future, which is why I find the usual retorts of scientists to the creationist/ID/… types (on this site and others) so hollow. Many of these people basically don’t believe that the same scientific laws held X thousand years ago. And of course it’s impossible to disprove that, or even the statement that God snapped his fingers and created the universe at noon yesterday. So it seems to me that really the only way of countering is by philosophically out-flanking them: You can believe whatever you want, but I’ll be better at finding diamonds in the ground, curing diseases, … because I’m going to use standard theories of geology, evolution, … And then tell them that they can still apply these theories successfully without believing that they’re ‘really’ true, only that they ‘appear’ to be true.

I feel like I’m committing a double sin by posting an mostly off-topic tautology, but I think I’ve seen objections on this site to the point of view behind what I just wrote and the remark I quoted above, and I didn’t want to let the moment go without saying something.

Great post, by the way.

Do You mean, degrees of freedom?

People are afraid to approach this subject?

ASa layman this perspective is troubling, since it is not fully understood.

In physics, the fifth dimension is a hypothetical dimension which would exist at a right angle to the fourth dimension

If the “debate” is held, would this help move the ideas in context of Sean posts ahead for consideration? I dunno:)

I have no doubt that the blackhole at our Galactic core, plays an important part in protecting/sheilding my atomic structure, if there is a future of Big-Rip, Iam certain I would not feel a thing!

The Universe varies in Time, not all “times” are equivilent.

but is this Zero Point Energy another way of stating singularity?

IN context of the “quantum harmonic oscillator,” you would have to make certain deductions about how you interpret that?

Is the universe never ever really flat?

Its the reverse of Einsteins Field Equations, and consequently leads to a very high rate of dimensional flatness?

Matter tells space which way to curve?

In one of sean’s collaborated papers, he deals with the problem thus, the future of Time’s Arrow evolves into a singularity, that could be detached from its past, at a LATE cut-off time.

The big-rip, which is in the future, but can also have an history pertaining to a cyclic past, Big-Bang>>Big-Crunch>>Big-Rip>>Big-Crunch…

What is not known is the make-up of the Spacetime/Vacuum ratio? If all of Spacetime is being acted upon by Dark Energy emminating from the Vacuum, then all of matter will, in the future, be constrained into a density that cannot allow structure to communicate by visible energy, all of radiative energy will lose its ability to communicate from Atom to Atom with Photons that is.

From an observers point of view, that is looking out into the cosmos, we would NOT see light from our Galactic neigbours(the expansion of Dark Energy would be forcing Galaxies apart exponentionally).

It would appear to us(at a time of first evidence) that all Galactic Blackholes, would be taking in local light at an increased rate.

Visable Energy would be offset by the Dark Energy, and theoretically, the Dark Energy would be in effect, PUMPING energy into Galactic Blackholes(Because this is where all of 3-D matter occurs) to such a rate that there occurs a change in Phase, a Collapse of Spacetime.

Where this is the Singularity of an eventual future civilization, is where the Cyclic models come into their own.

To eleviate any fears, the very first sight of evidence of an oncoming, big-rip/big-bang/big-crunch, would still be of the order of magnitude wherby our everyday lives would not be effected in any way at all, except philosophically.

Some see it like this:
http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1995ApJ%2E%2E%2E445%2E%2E%2E%2E7R&nosetcookie=1Vacuum%20Zero-Point-Field%20Pressure

but is this Zero Point Energy another way of stating singularity?

Is this right?

If held to current technologies and pre producable themes held in context of our cosmo, can we take such levels of “dark energy production” to be from the cause of strange quark productions?

I assume that maybe 90% of cosmologists think his ideas are just nuts. His papers are very hard for a layman like me to follow (as indeed was much of “The Physics of Immortality”,) but I get the feeling that some of his basic ideas behind the wilder speculations are more ignored than contested. Any comments?