DavidMcC wrote:More on the stopping of clocks at event horizons.
Obviously, it is the same phenomenon as the red-shifting of photons that come near the event horizon to be pulled into it - an outside observer only sees it approach, and get more and more red-shifted. (EDIT: I'm sure Hawking realized that, but science reporters might not have.) The phenomenon is related to the effect of climbing up a strong gravitational potential gradient, as occurs near an event horizon.
Also, the "logical inconsistencies" in Hawking were not so much about clock-stopping (it's only apparent to the remote observer, the clock keeps going as far as it is concerned), but also about his big bang coming from nothing, because that is a violation of the principle of conservation of total energy, one of the principles I attempt to maintain in my multiverse.

How did Hawking miss such a schoolboy error as violating the principle of conservation of total energy? It beggars belief. I'm glad your cosmology has a solution for this, DavidMcC.

Violation of conservation of energy is not a logical inconsistency that I can see. I believe conservation of energy (or mass-energy) is a consequence of Noether's theorem for flat and time invariant spacetimes.

Thus, if you violate conservation of energy in a flat and time invariant spacetime, you've got a logical inconsistency (since it's an actual theorem rather than a theory), however if your spacetime is not flat (such as in most solutions of general relativity) then that doesn't seem to be the case.

Thommo wrote:Violation of conservation of energy is not a logical inconsistency that I can see. I believe conservation of energy (or mass-energy) is a consequence of Noether's theorem for flat and time invariant spacetimes.

Thus, if you violate conservation of energy in a flat and time invariant spacetime, you've got a logical inconsistency (since it's an actual theorem rather than a theory), however if your spacetime is not flat (such as in most solutions of general relativity) then that doesn't seem to be the case.

Maybe, but that kind of violation doesn't cover a big bang from nothing, it only covers a gradual change of total energy with position relative to a strong gravitation source. Also, regardless of conservation or non-conservation, absolute nothingness cannot generate anything - you need a generator, because there is no god to act as one.
EDIT: I understand that Hawking argued that space has internal energy (which is undoubtedly true), and that can lead to spontaneous particle pair generation. However, that assumes that space pre-exists the big bang, when actually, the big bang created such energetic space in the first place.

I understood that the energy of space and particles is supposed to be cancelled out by the very negatve gravitational energy of the very small initial universe. For some reason, I forgot about this yesterday, so the real problem with the stand-alone big bang remains as how does absolutely nothing give birth to anything, regardless of energy? OTOH, the problem I have with the p-branes hypothesis is that it has no basis in observational science, whereas the "universe as a black hole" hypothesis at least invokes established science of black holes within this universe, but extends it to black holes in the mother universe (some of which which could be observed as black holes in this universe, if they are close enough in hyperspace).

DavidMcC wrote:Maybe, but that kind of violation doesn't cover a big bang from nothing, it only covers a gradual change of total energy with position relative to a strong gravitation source.

What's your source saying that such change is gradual? I can find no such claim in the literature. I also can't see the reason that you're claiming that violations of this mathematical law cannot cover a "big bang from nothing" (which incidentally seems to me to be a strange term for a state that includes objects like branes, but that's just semantics).

I should add that the early stages of the big bang clearly feature a strong source of gravitation, in the form of a singularity of approaching infinite density and enormous mass.

Thommo wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Maybe, but that kind of violation doesn't cover a big bang from nothing, it only covers a gradual change of total energy with position relative to a strong gravitation source.

What's your source saying that such change is gradual? I can find no such claim in the literature. I also can't see the reason that you're claiming that violations of this mathematical law cannot cover a "big bang from nothing" (which incidentally seems to me to be a strange term for a state that includes objects like branes, but that's just semantics).

There is no evidence whatsoever for branes being real. They are a figment of a mathematician''s imagination. Having said that, I was thinking more of Hawking's vertsion of the origin of a stand-alone universe, which does not involve a multiverse, or any underlying entity, makng it a bang from nothing, unless he subsdequently changed his mind about it, and I didn't notice.

I should add that the early stages of the big bang clearly feature a strong source of gravitation, in the form of a singularity of approaching infinite density and enormous mass.

What does "approaching infinite" mean? No finite value can be called "approaching infinite". Perhaps you mean "very large indeed", but then you need a measure of what that is. In my cosmology (=/= branes), there would be a threshold gravitational potential well depth that triggers the formation of the first quantum loops of a new universe.

EDIT: It is a myth that the entire mass of the universe was conatined in the first Planck length of space. I calim it is more realistic to argue that there was a threshold density of matter in the mother universe that triggers a big bang, and then the loops of the new space rapidly spread to fill the volume occupied by the collapsed body in the mother universe. (A large, unknown density, but not "approaching infinite").

DavidMcC wrote:...
There is no evidence whatsoever for branes being real. They are a figment of a mathematician''s imagination. ...

How much observational evidence is there for a “mother” universe and/or the extra dimension of space in your idea? Is it also 0?

DavidMcC wrote:

Thommo wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Maybe, but that kind of violation doesn't cover a big bang from nothing, it only covers a gradual change of total energy with position relative to a strong gravitation source.

What's your source saying that such change is gradual? I can find no such claim in the literature. I also can't see the reason that you're claiming that violations of this mathematical law cannot cover a "big bang from nothing" (which incidentally seems to me to be a strange term for a state that includes objects like branes, but that's just semantics).

There is no evidence whatsoever for branes being real. They are a figment of a mathematician''s imagination. Having said that, I was thinking more of Hawking's vertsion of the origin of a stand-alone universe, which does not involve a multiverse, or any underlying entity, makng it a bang from nothing, unless he subsdequently changed his mind about it, and I didn't notice.

Thanks for clarifying, but the question was what the source is to say that violations of conservation of energy must be gradual under such a situation? You're pinning a lot on this, but you haven't given a reason for it.

On the matter of the asides I would agree that branes are entirely theoretical and we have no basis for assuming they exist, but the same can certainly be said for extradimensional black holes that exist outside of our cosmos. The law of conservation itself is also straight from a mathematician's imagination (Emmy Noether's) as far as I can tell, so I'm not sure how strong of a criticism that is.

Please note - those are asides and the important point is the question in the first sentence of the first paragraph.

DavidMcC wrote:

I should add that the early stages of the big bang clearly feature a strong source of gravitation, in the form of a singularity of approaching infinite density and enormous mass.

What does "approaching infinite" mean?

It means that the density (what they call an intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic measure) is arbitrarily large as one gets close to the singularity that exists within the big bang model. Whether that physically means very large and what very large means I make no comment about.

This was a response to you saying that there would have to be a "strong gravitation source" for conservation of energy (which I took to mean mass-energy) to be broken. I.e. I was saying that there was indeed something that could be classified as a strong gravitational source.

DavidMcC wrote:EDIT: It is a myth that the entire mass of the universe was conatined in the first Planck length of space. I calim it is more realistic to argue that there was a threshold density of matter in the mother universe that triggers a big bang, and then the loops of the new space rapidly spread to fill the volume occupied by the collapsed body in the mother universe. (A large, unknown density, but not "approaching infinite").

I appreciate the clarification regarding your speculation, but I don't honestly see how that's any less of a myth. I'd certainly rather the questions that were asked were addressed before we moved on too.

Strange... you both seem to be operating under a misconception

However, hard evidence of branes has been provided by the successful physical discovery of Higgs Boson, which had been ignored for decades.

According to theoretical physicist and author Christophe Galfard, who has worked closely with Stephen Hawking, the branes are an unprecedented explanation of alternate universes: “They can be of many different dimensions, and they can all turn into one another and act like strings themselves.”

http://reflectionofmind.org/large-hadro ... universes/

snip

According to Lisa Randall, professor of physics at Harvard University, theories about extra dimensions couldn’t be proved without discovering special particles. “These heavier versions of particles – called Kaluza-Klein states – would have exactly the same properties as standard particles (and so be visible to our detectors) but with a greater mass. Such heavy particles can only be revealed at the high energies reached by the Large Hadron Collider.”

Maybe I am. If you could explain in what way the Higgs Boson is hard evidence for branes that might be informative.

Macdoc wrote:Strange... you both seem to be operating under a misconception

However, hard evidence of branes has been provided by the successful physical discovery of Higgs Boson, which had been ignored for decades.

According to theoretical physicist and author Christophe Galfard, who has worked closely with Stephen Hawking, the branes are an unprecedented explanation of alternate universes: “They can be of many different dimensions, and they can all turn into one another and act like strings themselves.”

http://reflectionofmind.org/large-hadro ... universes/

The Higgs Boson as evidence of branes is news to me.

snip

According to Lisa Randall, professor of physics at Harvard University, theories about extra dimensions couldn’t be proved without discovering special particles. “These heavier versions of particles – called Kaluza-Klein states – would have exactly the same properties as standard particles (and so be visible to our detectors) but with a greater mass. Such heavy particles can only be revealed at the high energies reached by the Large Hadron Collider.”

When/if they are found at TeV scale energies, Lisa Randall will have a prediction come true. It has not happened yet, though.

ETA See also THE HIGGS BOSON FOR MATHEMATICIANS. LECTURE NOTES ON GAUGE THEORY AND SYMMETRY BREAKING by M.J.D. Hamilton, 2015, where the word brane does not appear. Indeed, the combination - bra - appears only with respect to the term algebra and its derivatives.

newolder wrote:

Macdoc wrote:Strange... you both seem to be operating under a misconception

However, hard evidence of branes has been provided by the successful physical discovery of Higgs Boson, which had been ignored for decades.

According to theoretical physicist and author Christophe Galfard, who has worked closely with Stephen Hawking, the branes are an unprecedented explanation of alternate universes: “They can be of many different dimensions, and they can all turn into one another and act like strings themselves.”

http://reflectionofmind.org/large-hadro ... universes/

The Higgs Boson as evidence of branes is news to me.

...

Likewise to me!

Thommo wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thommo wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Maybe, but that kind of violation doesn't cover a big bang from nothing, it only covers a gradual change of total energy with position relative to a strong gravitation source.

What's your source saying that such change is gradual? I can find no such claim in the literature. I also can't see the reason that you're claiming that violations of this mathematical law cannot cover a "big bang from nothing" (which incidentally seems to me to be a strange term for a state that includes objects like branes, but that's just semantics).

There is no evidence whatsoever for branes being real. They are a figment of a mathematician''s imagination. Having said that, I was thinking more of Hawking's vertsion of the origin of a stand-alone universe, which does not involve a multiverse, or any underlying entity, makng it a bang from nothing, unless he subsdequently changed his mind about it, and I didn't notice.

Thanks for clarifying, but the question was what the source is to say that violations of conservation of energy must be gradual under such a situation? You're pinning a lot on this, but you haven't given a reason for it.

On the matter of the asides I would agree that branes are entirely theoretical and we have no basis for assuming they exist, but the same can certainly be said for extradimensional black holes that exist outside of our cosmos. The law of conservation itself is also straight from a mathematician's imagination (Emmy Noether's) as far as I can tell, so I'm not sure how strong of a criticism that is.

Please note - those are asides and the important point is the question in the first sentence of the first paragraph.

DavidMcC wrote:

I should add that the early stages of the big bang clearly feature a strong source of gravitation, in the form of a singularity of approaching infinite density and enormous mass.

What does "approaching infinite" mean?

It means that the density (what they call an intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic measure) is arbitrarily large as one gets close to the singularity that exists within the big bang model. Whether that physically means very large and what very large means I make no comment about.

This was a response to you saying that there would have to be a "strong gravitation source" for conservation of energy (which I took to mean mass-energy) to be broken. I.e. I was saying that there was indeed something that could be classified as a strong gravitational source.

DavidMcC wrote:EDIT: It is a myth that the entire mass of the universe was conatined in the first Planck length of space. I calim it is more realistic to argue that there was a threshold density of matter in the mother universe that triggers a big bang, and then the loops of the new space rapidly spread to fill the volume occupied by the collapsed body in the mother universe. (A large, unknown density, but not "approaching infinite").

I appreciate the clarification regarding your speculation, but I don't honestly see how that's any less of a myth. I'd certainly rather the questions that were asked were addressed before we moved on too.

You may denounce it as a "myth" and "speculation", but this is just your propaganda, which ignores the evidence that supports my hypothesis (which is basically little more than extending Lee Smilin's LQG and "universes are black holes" hypothesis - see the LQG thread again). The Hawking-esque single universe from nothing what-so-ever is absurd, and the branes hypothesis invents its own complicated mythology to explain big bangs, but with no evidence what-so-ever, once again.

BTW, whaen I said that my hypothesis was LITTLE MORE than extending Lee Smolin''s LQG, I did not mean that it is little more than Smolin's LQG. It is also an improvement on Abhay Ashtekar's LQG, because he arbitrarily dismisses the "background" (which would be his equivalent of the hyperspace continuum in my cosmology) after depending on it to generate his quantized space! Yet, if that background did not exist, it could not have genererated the space in the first place!

DavidMcC wrote:You may denounce it as a "myth" and "speculation", but this is just your propaganda, which ignores the evidence that supports my hypothesis (which is basically little more than extending Lee Smilin's LQG and "universes are black holes" hypothesis - see the LQG thread again). The Hawking-esque single universe from nothing what-so-ever is absurd, and the branes hypothesis invents its own complicated mythology to explain big bangs, but with no evidence what-so-ever, once again.

Let's try again.

If there is evidence of extradimensional black holes existing outside our known cosmos, what is it exactly?

And one last try at a question that's already been repeated multiple times: What is your source or reason for saying that violations of conservation of energy must be gradual?

We still seem to be lacking a precise statement of the hypothesis and what it predicts as well, which would seem to make claims of it being an improvement on anything extremely premature.

Thommo wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:You may denounce it as a "myth" and "speculation", but this is just your propaganda, which ignores the evidence that supports my hypothesis (which is basically little more than extending Lee Smilin's LQG and "universes are black holes" hypothesis - see the LQG thread again). The Hawking-esque single universe from nothing what-so-ever is absurd, and the branes hypothesis invents its own complicated mythology to explain big bangs, but with no evidence what-so-ever, once again.

Let's try again.

If there is evidence of extradimensional black holes existing outside our known cosmos, what is it exactly?

The observed black holes can be extra-dimensional (your term, not mine), if they are close enough in hyperspace for gravity to act across the gap. (It must be short range, otherwise we would not see the inverse square law for gravity in this universe.

And one last try at a question that's already been repeated multiple times: What is your source or reason for saying that violations of conservation of energy must be gradual?

Again, that's just your spin (which is the reason I have to keep repeating the correct physics to you) I say that they are limited to very short times, (by the uncertainty principle). This is as bad as your FTL debacle.

We still seem to be lacking a precise statement of the hypothesis and what it predicts as well, which would seem to make claims of it being an improvement on anything extremely premature.

Of course it's an improvement! Astronomers and cosmologists admit that there is much that does not make any sense to them, without my cosmology (especially for dark energy and dark matter). See my posts in pages 6 and 7 of the LQG thread. (Did you even read it?)
I have already dealt with the issue of predictions - they come out only as "postdictionss", because there was already "overkill" (if you like) in the known phenomena when I formulated my cosmology.

On the question of conservation laws and symmetries, it is true that, in particle physics, there is only conservation when there is symmetry, but no particle events have been shown to be irrreversible. Unfortunately, it is usually entirely impractical to experimentally examine such things as particle decays in reverse, because of the requirememt to converge specific combinations of particles. Irreversibility occurs in bulk physics, but this is because of heat generation. Heat (and temperature and entropy) is a phenomenon restricted to bulk physics, as oppsed to particle physcis.

David, if you decide to actually answer the questions I'd be delighted to continue the conversation.

I just hope that you realise that despite comments like "which is the reason I have to keep repeating the correct physics to you" you actually haven't done that. I'm afraid all you've done is imply you're repeating an explanation that you've never actually provided. Your say-so and physics are two quite different things.

Just posting this quite interesting looking paper (I found it from this blog) here for anyone who wants it:-

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.1487.pdf

I also found a couple of pages about violations of energy conservation in GR, one by Sean Caroll that might be worth a read:-

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blo ... conserved/

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... gy_gr.html

Yes, I was going to link to Carroll's "Energy is not conserved" blogpost earlier but you seemed to handle it well enough.

The number of extra dimensional toy models is rapidly approaching Carroll's estimate for the dimension count, 10googol, linked earlier. Experimental confirmation of at least 1 extra can't come soon enough.