/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11177599
can you give the paper and more content please ? this is interesting

>>11177607
Best link I could find, I'm on my phone so I cant check the pdf directly, but it has the title and abstract at least.

If this thread is still up when I get home from work I'll post the actual paper.

>>11177607
>>11177618
Forgot the link.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.02087

very nice. This could spur some major advances if true.

Anyone who ever thought to opine on my scientific work in any formal capacity, and who decided that (1) I am tarded or (2) I might be tarded and they can't really tell just from looking at my papers, is going to end up on the bad side of my wrath. It is my honest opinion that anyone who knows their scientific ass from a scientific hole in the ground should have been able to immediately conclude that my research was absolutely not possibly below average in quality. Anyone to whom this wasn't obvious, and who also thought to opine on me negatively in a official capacity, is going to burn.

https://pdfhost.io/v/FQBawhe8_RZFpdf.pdf

>>11177629
>no citations
>only publishes on non-peer reviewed journals
yikes

>>11177637
Tooker has mental health problems. Don't stress.

>>11177599
I am sure that someone put a lot of effort into number 2. But it's so absurd. Calling it right now. You can bump this thread later. But the universe does not look like that.

>>11177642
Well, that's basically what this paper proposes. For the past 30 years or so 2 has been the standard model for the universe. But gravitational lending and a more accurate CMB measurement (along with certain aspects of QM) suggest that number 1 (the closed system) is far more likely.

But if the universe is a closed system then the age we measure from local sources and the age we get from C are like 5 billion years off, with no explanation.

>>11177650
Allow me to make a bad joke:
The explanation is (drums)
>yomomma went for a walk

>>11177599
What paper?

Conventional big bang cosmology is as much as made up myth as the book of Genesis. Its no coincidence both stories follow the same plot line and its no coincidence that astronomers willfully ignore all contrary evidence to their theory, because they were programmed from birth to believe in a biblical style origin of life.

>its between 13.5 and 14 billion y/o

Sorry for being dumb but, isn't time relative? How can you measure the age of the universe, when some parts of it age differently than others? When we say it's 14 billion years old, is that 14billion of years as we perceive them, or 14 billion years as the central point of the universe perceived them? or something else? or does the variance in time relativity make a small role in calculating it's age that it's just not even mentioned?

>>11177599
My theory is that the universe looks like this

How can the universe have a shape if the universe itself does not exist on some higher plane? Or does it just have an effective shape since it is expanding everywhere at the same time?

>>11177637
>one thing that has jack shit to do with anything
>another thing that has jack shit to do with anything

>>11177641
All your blessings get taken away because you wrote that.

>>11177695
Time is only relative to speed, not distance.

Basically, what humans perceive as time is really just matter/energy moving across space-time. That's why objects moving at faster speeds percieve time differently than at lower speeds.

Distance doesnt matter for time though. We are receding from the viewpoint of a distant galaxy at the same rate they are receding for us. The galactic redshift would be the same on either "end."

In fact, in a closed system like the one proposed in the paper, if you went far enough and "ahead" enough in time, you would eventually reach the same point from which you started. If we could see beyond the edge of the observable universe we might actually see our own galaxy at some point very far in the "future" or "past."

>>11177701
I dont think we'll ever know the answer to that. But CMB measurements suggest that the Universe does in fact have a shape. We just aren't sure what that shape is because we can only "see" as far as the edge of the observable universe.

>>11177599
The CMB probably is recording a sphere
Too bad it's probably not the universe. Maybe they should protect the horn of these satellites at L2 orbital so they don't get any ambient sign Al's from Earth. Sort of like the water vapors that emit that the same frequency they use for their data.

>>11177599

>>11177698

>>11177599
Am I missing something or are you saying "the old model predicts roughly what we've measured and this radical new one does not". Maybe it's the model that's broken and not the rest of physics.

>>11178119
The problem is that the old model doesnt handle gravitational lensing and CMB well.

The new model fixes those issues but doesnt jive with the locally modelled age of the Universe.

It's a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" scenario.

Basically, our understanding of cosmology is flawed either way.

>>11177599
Happy that there are still things to explore.

This flat universe nonsense never made sense to me. An explosion in a vacuum should expand spherically, no? Both classically and quantum mechanically? Actually, especially quantum mechanically!

Physicists who believe this flat universe shit are the flatearthers of physics.

However, it could still very well be that angles behaved as if it was flat if space as we perceive it was the volume and not the surface.

>>11177637
>needing other people to tell you if something is correct or not
>needing a brand

Goddamn this board is such cringe hacks, you are just like vapid whores hat will only wear what is in season (meaning other vapid bitches are wearing it) with the proper brand name Gucci brad name.

Are you too stupid to read something and determine if it is true or mot on your own? You need a known title and names rubber stamp your thoughts and ideas. Fuck I hate the idiots on this board you are pathetic NPC hacks

>>11178246
>exploding in a vacuum
There isn't a vacuum outside of the universe, there isnt anything.

The Universe by definition contains everything that "is."

Whose to say what the actual shape of space time is when you cannot directly observe it?

>>11178255
Yes, fuck empiricism. If you can't figure out the shape of the universe from inside an empty, locked room, you're the tard not me.

>>11177599
Dark matter and now Dark time!

>>11178331

I see your dark time and raise you anti-dark time.

Fold?

>>11177599
These don't actually sound like very big discrepancies. Obviously for us, billions of years can seem like a huge difference but this is an area of science where things can take that long to change in significant ways. If something is off by levels of magnitude then that would be concerning. We can pinpoint the historical date of most fossils in margins of errors than 2 to 6 hundred years but that's not unimpressive or odd considering the massive timeframes we're exploring.

In a closed universe what's going on at the edge?
Like in a thought experiment where you magically teleport real close to the edge and throw something at it really hard what happens when your object gets to the edge? Or am I thinking about this wrong and it's not possible to move in that direction or something?

>>11178263
Depends. If you measure the radius of the universe to be x, any point further than x would technically be "outside of the universe" (from that point of reference, depending on definition), right? But yeah, there's no real, physical vacuum with quantum fluctuations there. of course (probably), until you try going there or wait long enough for expansion to happen. It's clear there can't be an "outside", when the universe lazily fills all of space as you go to infinity in any direction you can go.

What about regions that become disconnected due to expansion or gravity? They essentially become separate parallel universes, or maybe not, depending on the circumstances/frame of reference. Do they suddenly stop existing once they become mutually non-observable? Do you think observers in both will agree who stops existing?

I don't claim to know spacetime works exactly, or even if it really exists at all fundamentally, but there is research being done into it emerging from entanglement which seems like a promising approach. Basically positions are determined by the stuff something is entangled with. Ultimately it probably comes down to something like a primordial particle recursively interacting with itself and everything it spawns due to internal pressure of some kind (because "infinite" density). At least to me it makes the most sense considering the things we know about. (QM, expansion, black holes, CMB irregularities, etc).

That's no fleshed out theory of course, but it doesn't have to be for something else to not make any sense.

>>11178604
In this model the edge, or surface would represent the "now" hypersurface (slice of the whole space time at some point) as seen from some reference frame. Inside would be the past and outside the future.

>Or am I thinking about this wrong and it's not possible to move in that direction or something?
Essentially this. You're always at the edge, by definition, facing inward, while moving outward into the future. You can change the angle to a degree by accelerating, but that's it.

>>11178255
you're an idiot who will never publish anything worthwhile.

>>11177695
From what I read, the Universe was flat from the start, so time ran normally. Ie it would take the same time for first quarks and for us.

>>11178454
Straight flush of anti-gravitons, pay up

>>11178650
Hey that's pretty cool.

>>11177701
Think about gravitational lensing. That's actually space time changing shape because of gravity.

>>11177695
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_time

>>11177637
journals are useless, faggot. If you want it peer reviewed, go review it.

>>11177701
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian_geometry

>>11178650
So it's the Tesseract from Interstellar?

>>11177682
propose something better or at least clarify your problems with it. If you don’t you can’t accuse people of basing their opinions on faith without being a hypocrite.

>>11178650
Oh, ok, that makes sense.
Thanks anon.

>>11178564
These don't actually sound like very big discrepancies.
Both the observations and calculations have some margin of error. Here they are so far apart that it is extremely unlikely they correlate.
In other words, the measurements are more precise than the discrepancies.

>>11178708
>journals are useless
That has got to be one of the most childish statements I've seen in a while

>>11177599
Closed universe makes sense to me. Arent 6 spatial dimensions in string theory compact? Sure the other 3 will also be compact, just very large. Also, infinite universe seems unphysical to me.

>>11178604
>In a closed universe what's going on at the edge?

Kek. Your average flat-earth fucktard has the answer to THAT one...

>>11177599
>13.5 billion and 14 billion
>5 billion year discrepancy
I'm probably the dumbest guy in this thread but isn't that only 500 million years? Where is the 5 billion figure coming from?

>>11178966
13.5 billion is what you get from measuring the distance to local phenomena like cepheid variable stars and super novae.

14 billion is what you get when you use an open or flat model of universe structure

18 billion is what you get with a closed universe structure.

>>11178966
>>13.5 billion and 14 billion
>>5 billion year discrepancy
>I'm probably the dumbest guy in this thread but isn't that only 500 million years? Where is the 5 billion figure coming from?

Everybody's assuming it's a typo by the absented-minded OP "professor"... (but good to call attention to it).

>>11178980
Oh, okay. The 18 billion figure didn't appear in the OP so I was confused. Thanks.

http://www.sciepub.com/IJP/abstract/11137

The universe is infinite, no beginning, no limits in space
Read LAST PARAGRAPH of the above link

>>11179001
>The universe is infinite, no beginning, no limits in space

In that light, may I suggest those interested watch this video. This guy has applied some unique insights into the whole question - with numbers and equations to back it up. Very thought-provoking (and might actually be true):

Nassim Haramein Sacred Geometry And Unified Fields
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36TRtMcwvLM

>>11177650
I'm pretty sure the consensus is that we live in de Sitter (the top one) space? The problem is that we have no nice way to describe gravity in it using string theory afaik

>>11178626
Things that are outside our current horizon are not in 'separate' or 'parallel' universes lol, they're just not in our observable universe.

Also you seem to really misunderstand curvature of the universe.

>>11178762
t. works as editor
they provide no benefit to society.
things like arxiv and researchgate exist. The only thing that carries journals/publishers are retards like you that mistake the quality of authors with quality of journals. They don’t write shit, they just cash in from work that can exist without them.

>>11179135
No, we live in anti-de Sitter space, anon.

>>11177599
>particularly as we advance our understanding of quantum mechanics

What did you mean by this? What advance has there been in our understanding of quantum mechanics that has to do with this model?

>>11178246
>However, it could still very well be that angles behaved as if it was flat if space as we perceive it was the volume and not the surface.
That's not what "the shape of the universe" means.

>>11179169
>Things that are outside our current horizon are not in 'separate' or 'parallel' universes lol, they're just not in our observable universe.
Doesn't that depend on the kind of horizon? If the regions become unable to exchange signals they effectively split off to become separate entities, even if they share a past, don't they? And even if communication was somehow possible (through wormholes/prepared entangled particles/magic or whatever), observers wouldn't even agree with what they see around them, except for things that were in both's past light cone, right?

I know that things that weren't observable before can end up becoming observable eventually, but in some cases that's impossible, too. For an extreme example, the interior regions of black holes are (clasically) completely separated from each other, unable to communicate and I guess even parallel in a geometric sense. For someone living in one, the other regions would be parallel universes, or not?

>Also you seem to really misunderstand curvature of the universe.
>>11179475
>That's not what "the shape of the universe" means.
I corrected myself here >>11178650, that's less wrong, right? I got this mixed up with something else I was thinking about where the surface of the sphere would be light, time distance from that light, with angles giving position. That of course doesn't take into account gravity, leading to a "flat universe"/global Minkowski spacetime unless you also add meme energy, too. Correct me if I'm wrong.

>>11177599
Is the triangle supposed to be the observable universe? If so, why a triangle?

>>11178719
>i believe in the big bang, that god created a universe which has beginning and and end and is understandable by a monkey with he feet stuck in the mud on one planet who has no ability to triangluate and accurate view of the heavens
skepticism and science go hand in hand, your fantastical belief system which says that man somehow understands the beginning and origins of the universe accurately is a religious-like belief in which charlatans posing as scientists are substitutes for priests.
just repeating what the old men in white robes from the academic ivory towers are saying without inspecting it or questioning it yourself is cultist like behavior

>>11179592
The triangle just shows how a really big triangle would be warped by the inherent curvature of spacetime. So if you wanted to build a huge intergalactic triangle the angles would have to add up to more than 180 degrees or the lines won't connect, unless I'm still confused, but essentially it works just like on earth.

>it's 19 billion instead of 14 billion
so what's the big deal?

>>11179609
Not an argument, present evidence contrary to the big bang.

>>11179621
Correct, the image doesn't display much anything other than some examples of triangles in different geometry, its the the black background and a lifetime of media conditioning which makes the image look spacey. Your description of an example of the difference between real world geometry (curved space) and the imaginary, oversimplified Euclidian geometry of Newtonian space with it's universal rest frame should be understandable by most of the people who don't have advanced educations in math and astrophysics. The relative importance of triangles will hopefully be understood in terms of lensing characteristics and relative distances in Minkowski space and other impacts of the topological characteristics of gravitational fields on the appearance of the night sky.

>>11177599
To use "open" and "closed" as synonyms for "negative or zero curvature" and "positive curvature" is not optimal, although I understand that they do it for a lack of concise English words for it. Just to point it out: There can be universes with zero and possibly even negative curvature that are still finite (and also repeating if you just go far enough in one direction).

>>11179609
Why aren’t you providing evidence that Big Bang cosmology isn’t accurate, and instead using ad hominem?

>>11179645
Well redshift quantization disproves the current conventional wisdom model that the Harvard-MIT academic mafia has been trying to shove down your throat since they developed it by combining Edwin Hubble's observations with their religious indoctrination to invent the big bang. Redshifting itself effectively strips information from light radiated by far off sources, so anyone saying they know what happened at time which was is highly redshifted in their own model of the universe is postulating theories which aren't fundamentally disprovable, they're working outside of the scientific method and they only people who place faith in their theories must be unaware of a lot of the fundamental realities of cosmology, thats its very stupid and all made up, just as much as it was 500 years ago in the days be before Tycho Brahe, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo and Newton.
Those Harvard-MIT celebrity scientists are right now in the midst of both a bribery scandal as well as the Epstein business so I don't see why people are still hell bent on placing their faith in those people's version of realty.

>>11179710
Big Bang cosmology isn't scientific, its not disprovable. All of the evidence of what you're being told is true is hidden away from your view for all of eternity, invisible at redshifts over nine thousand. You can look out to about redshift 4 or so with an 8" telescope and a CCD, a 10 meter telescope will kick up your lookback time ability a few integers up the redshift scale, if you wanted to look back to redshift 9001 and see the universe as it looked at a million years of age and get into the 4 digit redshift numbers then the size of telescope mirror you'd need would start to be measured in light years. so anyone postulating theories about something like that is bound to be about as accurate as people who are guessing if the cat in Schrodinger's box is alive or dead without opening the box.

>>11177720
Space can exist without matter and energy. Therefore time must be able to as well.

>>11177599
Thread doesn't end up at center of gravity. Universe still pulls.

>>11177599
It's not about the curvature... I don't think, that... I think it's more foamy... And problem is that universe is in centrifugal and counter movement, to that movement. Stretching together, and rotating from it so fast, that it's going outside... Like a smoke in the air... Yes, actually even space particles behave like smoke in the air, more like... Ice balls, that form in clouds that fall on ground. Really fast centrifugal motion.

>>11179723
>Big Bang cosmology isn't scientific, its not disprovable.

Not true. Cosmic inflation cosmology makes many testable predictions. It’d be pretty easy to disprove it by proving the universe isn’t expanding. Unfortunately for you, it is expanding.
Why lie?

>>11179745
>Cosmic inflation cosmology makes many testable predictions
None of then predict redshit quantization, but if you're a professional astronomer and you try to point that out then your peers won't review it positively because the Harvard-MIT academic mafia don't like people who contradict their religious beliefs (big bang AKA god AKA Yahweh).

>>11179761
>quantization
Redshift quantization isn’t real. Even if it was, it would only require a modification to cosmic inflation cosmology.

>>11177629
Have you considered the possibility that your work is actually shit and you will burn in hell for spreading shit?

It could be an hologram.

>>11179764
>Redshift quantization isn’t real.
In that case why have astronomers spent the past half century trying unsuccessfully to disprove it observationally? The theory should be easy to disprove if its not real, thats the scientific method
>Even if it was, it would only require a modification to cosmic inflation cosmology.
But you're so confident that it isn't real, why are you so insistent on denying the observed reality of redshift quantization? If you're willing to accept the observed reality of redshift quantization which places the Earth at the dead center of concentric spheres of galaxy formation then how do you explain it in the context of an expanding universe with isotropic mass distribution?
Modern astronomy can't even explain something as simple as galactic rotation curves because they don't understand how gravity really works, nobody in their right minds should believe that those same people could present an accurate description of the origins of the universe, which a much larger and more complex problem than simple galactic rotation.

>>11179639
observations via redshift say it’s 14 billion

>>11177599
we have to go back

M

>>11180699
>observations via redshift in our current rest frame say it’s 14 billion
just change your rest frame bro, go into expanding space and it'll look older

After reading some of the replies in this thread, I feel I need to remind you of the rules:

>Minimum requirements to post in physics threads

>Please do not post on the associated topic if you can not at least answer the question below

>Cosmology and the big bang
>How do you solve the Friedmann equations for a matter dominated universe?

If you don't know how people actually calculate something like that 14 billion year number (and it's in chapter 1 of a cosmology textbook) what the fuck are you all posting for?

>>11177599
there is no

>>11182269
redshift in our galaxy is equally dependent on distance in every direction

>>11177695
It's the perception of time. Think FPS or ticks. The faster you go less the ticks.

>>11177629
>https://pdfhost.io/v/FQBawhe8_RZFpdf.pdf
So, what you're trying to say is that we cannot comprehend the exponentials approaching infinity to be able to understand our true place in existence?

>>11179552
Sir, your explanation really resonates with me. Thanks.
Of course! In a universe expanding at the speed of light it's all going to be relativistically cut off at some point.
Someone's gong to have to invent FTL travel!

>>11177599
Once again, saying "there is nothing new to be done in physics", proves to be a certain way to be wrong.

>>11177599
>the current "crisis" in cosmology
...is just pop-sci sensationalism. Cooler heads will figure it out.

>>11179711
>conventional wisdom
>academic mafia
>religious indoctrination
>celebrity scientists are right now in the midst of both a bribery scandal as well as the Epstein business
take your meds pls

>>11184926

>>11177599
Could there be other shapes besides those 3?

>>11178650
so perhaps black holes would make things "fall" all the way into the big bang

>>11186730
Yes, we dont even know for sure IF the universe has a shape (although or CMB radiation measurements suggest that it does). The second example in particular (an "open" system) could be almost any shape.

My own personal belief based on nothing other than it making sense and "feeling right" (yes, I know how retarded that sounds, but you have to believe something), is that our Universe is a closed system (the first example) shaped like a torus sphere with time flowing out of a white hole on one "end" (which we perceive as the "big bang" and flowing into an infinitely massive singularity/black hole at the other "end."

What we percieve as "time" is movement across this shape.

>>11177629
based

>>11178650
You are completely mistaken about what closed universe means. It means the 3d spatial slices have spherical geometry. There is no edge or boundary surface of a 3d sphere, just like there is no edge on the surface of our earth (a 2d sphere).

Please learn about something before you make an authoritative sounding post. This ruins the quality of the board, a complete shitpost would have been better than your post.

>>11187751
Those shapes are 3D shapes. They have nothing to do with time. Learn what a FLRW metric is

>>11177599
Couldn't care less about the current state of physics. Interacting with some of them, jesus fucking christ. These people have no idea what they're doing. I'd rather stick to maths.

>>11186730
Under the assumption that the universe is homogeneous (it has roughly the same distribution of matter everywhere), no, those 3 are only possibilities for the geometry.

A caveat is even if we restrict it to 3 local geometries there can be different topologies at large scales, but we can only observe the patch of our visible universe, so we can't really say much about that.

Cosmology isn't science, you can't reproduce results in a lab, you can't properly make observations beyond a certain point and one has to assume the laws of physics are the same even in remote regions of the universe which you can't reach or observe. On top of that the universe is fucking expanding. It is just a waste of taxpayer's money.

>>11187834
Time is literally what we perceive as the movement of matter/energy across space. Hence why time is perceived differently depending on the speed of matter as it moves through the Universe.

I made a shitty diagram to clarify.

>>11187974
Your diagram is better than your idea

>>11187974

you need to read this paper http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/7/3/5/index.html to the end - and the full article listed as 5th reference

>>11188131
Explain

>>11188131
Subliminal butt.

>>11188139
I suppose it's possible, but we would need to confirm several different currently unobserved particles for that model to be true. Also the CMB should look very different than it does in an infinite scenario.

space > time

fight me

>>11189644
> the CMB should look very different than it does in an infinite scenario
you're just regurgitating conventional wisdom that doesn't have any real validity. cmb looks like it does because thats the pattern of radiation received, anyone who tells you that they know anything more meaningful than that about it is lying, cmb has only been measured accurately in one rest frame and it hasn't been measured accurately enough to detect a rate of change over timespans less than a human lifetime, so anyone can guess at what it all means without ever having to worry about being proved wrong.
there are no repeatable experiments in cosmology, the theories aren't fundamentally disprovable, it isn't a real science, it is a religion and the astronomers are the ivory tower priests that you lowly morals worship, the big bang theory is just a cheap ripoff of the book of genesis, repacked to appeal to people who self-identify as "too enlightened for religion", it doesn't have much validity when compared to actual observational data, although because cosmology isn't a real science, it is always possible to make the data fit into the big bang model if thats your desire.

>>11189649
Space is location along the geometry of the Universe. Time is movement along that geometry. Gravity is a bend in space time but not universal geometry. Gravity is also not nearly as well understood as we like to think.

>>11189656
At least my hypothesis doesnt rely on theoretical particles and forces. If you have such a hatred for cosmology why are you in this thread? Only retards think the classical explanation of the "big bang" is accurate, but it was A beginning.

And of course cosmology has elements of religion. Humans have always used religion to explain the origins of the universe. It's just that cosmology makes an attempt to use actual observations, but no one is claiming cosmology is even remotely correct. It's all theoretical, like a great mind experiment.

>>11189672
>If you have such a hatred for cosmology why are you in this thread?
now you're getting emotional because i debunked your illogical fallacies, your whole system of beliefs is crumbling and the dissonance in your thinking is becoming more apparent to you, stirring up negative feelings.

>>11189778
"You" didn't debunk shit, and that paper you linked to is every bit a psued as anything else posted in this thread. The irony of this whole argument is that you claim cosmology cant be proven or disproved, and yet you keep referencing an infinite universe that also be neither proved nor disproved.

There is a 4th law of thermodynamics. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy! Syntropy is the integration or convergence of information into predictions, expectations or priors. Entropy is the differentiation or divergence of information into new states. Integration is dual to differentiation, divergence is dual to convergence. Duality creates reality!

Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Energy = duality, potential energy is dual to kinetic energy.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought
Space is dual to time -- Einstein
Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- Heisenberg.