Friday, 12 February 2016

Making Waves

Yesterday's announcement of 'the discovery of gravitational waves' was a prime example of a stupid mainstream media not understanding reality.

Although the LIGO crew have indeed found gravitational waves relating to a collision between two Black Holes eons ago, the first discovery of gravitational waves was made public on March 17th 2014.

John Kovac and his fellow scientists from the BICEP2 experiment reported that via three years of microwave measurements from the South Pole, they had detected colossal gravitational waves close to a billion light-years long.

The LIGO discovery relates to a cataclysmic collision of two Black Holes squeezing more than our Sun's mass into a volume smaller than Glasgow.

Max Tegmark: "What could possibly have created the vast waves BICEP2 saw, given that our Universe seems to contain no objects large enough to make them? In my opinion, the only compelling explanation for these waves is that inflation made them, by violently doubling the size of space in about a hundredth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth (10 to the power of minus 38) of a second and repeating it at least eighty times.

"So how seriously should we take inflation? It had emerged as the most successful and popular theory for what happened early on even before BICEP2, as experiments gradually confirmed one of its predictions: that our Universe should be large, expanding and approximately homogenous, isotropic and flat, with tiny fluctuations in the cosmic baby pictures that were roughly scale invariant, adiabatic and Gaussian."

Friday, 6 November 2015

Universe - Multiverse - Omniverse

Sunday, 16 August 2015

Evidence For Parallel Universes - Max Tegmark

Laura Mersini-Houghton Shows That Black Holes Do Not Exist

Carolina’s Laura Mersini-Houghton shows that black holes do not exist

The term black hole is entrenched in the English language. Can we let it go?

(Chapel Hill, N.C. – Sept. 23, 2014) Black holes have long captured the public imagination and been the subject of popular culture, from Star Trek to Hollywood. They are the ultimate unknown – the blackest and most dense objects in the universe that do not even let light escape. And as if they weren’t bizarre enough to begin with, now add this to the mix: they don’t exist.

By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.

“I’m still not over the shock,” said Mersini-Houghton. “We’ve been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about.”

For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It’s the point where a black hole’s gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it.

The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein’s theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.

In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe’s black holes.

But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.

The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed, offers exact numerical solutions to this problem and was done in collaboration with Harald Peiffer, an expert on numerical relativity at the University of Toronto. An earlier paper, by Mersini-Houghton, originally submitted to ArXiv in June, was published in the journal Physics Letters B, and offers approximate solutions to the problem.

Experimental evidence may one day provide physical proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the universe. But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive.

Many physicists and astronomers believe that our universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang. However, if singularities do not exist, then physicists have to rethink their ideas of the Big Bang and whether it ever happened.

“Physicists have been trying to merge these two theories – Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum mechanics – for decades, but this scenario brings these two theories together, into harmony,” said Mersini-Houghton. “And that’s a big deal.”

Saturday, 4 January 2014

Deleuze Guattari And God

Gilles Deleuze and Pierre-FĂ©lix Guattari:

"To anyone who asks: "Do you believe in God?" we should reply in strictly Kantian or Schreberian terms: "of course, but only as the master of the disjunctive syllogism, or as its a priori principle (God defined as the Omnitudo realitatis, from which all secondary realities are derived by a process of division).""

Saturday, 28 December 2013

How Capitalism Destroys Scientific Innovation

There is an infrastructural issue in late capitalism which undermines conceptual science.

This issue exists on two levels.

The over-focus on performative science of immediate economic benefit reduces the funding available for more innovative, conceptual cutting edge science that will benefit humanity in the medium to long term.

Additionally the limited funding available in, say, cosmology becomes over-subscribed leading to a global scientific cartel of shared interests who are protective of their financial lubrications regardless of the validity of their particular science.

This acts as a deceleration on discovery.

Take the multiverse first put forward by Hugh Everett in the late fifties.
It took nearly 50 years for any significant breach of the global scientific front of nay-sayers who each possessed a vested interest in the status quo.

The innovative nature of science is totally undermined by this refusal to accept the positive impacts of new knowledge and exactly mirrors, ironically, the blinkered thinking by states and business over man-made climate change (where mainstream science finds itself on the other side of the fence).

With cosmology, there is an additional layer of friction on innovation.
By maintaining a robust yet fake view of the universe, the scientific cartel further slow future innovation by educating future scientists in out-dated gobbledygook.

Such restricted experimentation of mind and deed does not prevent human advancement in science though.
The new movements merely develop elsewhere (at the Natural Philosophy Alliance, for example).

So while allegedly first tier university cosmology departments continue with their fictitious wave functions, inflationary processes, dark energies and a singular universe, the really radical thought is elsewhere.

We live in a multiverse.

The real solution probably lies in a complex holistical combination of:

i) a multiverse on several levels, 

ii) Big Bang/Big Crunch cycling in each individual universe, or,

iii) A Little Bang with each individual universe being a three-dimensional surface of a four-sphere,

iv) Quantum Bayesianism,

v)  Multiversal consciousness as a fundamental of the cosmos,

vi) Time being at best relative, and at worst an illusion.


A Love Supreme.

Saturday, 21 September 2013