No Big Bang?

[hackenslash]

Just spotted an error in my first response arising from an edit:

The citation 'no beginning or end to time' being a distinguishing feature of this model is not accurate, because Guth's model again addresses this [strike:3pgoluh5](indeed, that was the motivation for the formulation of the inflationary model)[/strike:3pgoluh5], as does the Turok/Steinhardt model, and the Hwking/Hartle No-Boundary model.

The reason for this was that I incorrectly dealt with something in the article and thought that it had been cited as a distinguishing feature, because I remembered at least one of them not being a distinguishing feature. I corrected that before posting, but forgot to remove the comment about the motivation. The motivation for the inflationary model was, of course, the horizon problem.

Just thought I'd point that out before I got roasted for it. I'm not sure how you do things here yet, but in some of the places I frequent, I'd already have been on the spit by now.

[Tank]

Just spotted an error in my first response arising from an edit:

The citation 'no beginning or end to time' being a distinguishing feature of this model is not accurate, because Guth's model again addresses this [strike:gs7j3f99](indeed, that was the motivation for the formulation of the inflationary model)[/strike:gs7j3f99], as does the Turok/Steinhardt model, and the Hwking/Hartle No-Boundary model.

The reason for this was that I incorrectly dealt with something in the article and thought that it had been cited as a distinguishing feature, because I remembered at least one of them not being a distinguishing feature. I corrected that before posting, but forgot to remove the comment about the motivation. The motivation for the inflationary model was, of course, the horizon problem.

Just thought I'd point that out before I got roasted for it. I'm not sure how you do things here yet, but in some of the places I frequent, I'd already have been on the spit by now.

Roasting is reserved for the bad guys (if Whitney lets then stay long enough).

[hackenslash]

That's OK. It would have saved me a fiver at the tanning salon.  

[hackenslash]

Here's a pretty damning review of the paper.

Her conclusion? "Yes, if you pick and choose what physics to ignore you can arrive at meaningless equations."

[Tank]

Here's a pretty damning review of the paper.

Her conclusion? "Yes, if you pick and choose what physics to ignore you can arrive at meaningless equations."

Unfortunately this refutation is even further over my head than the original paper.    However I'm sure it keeps people off the street

Thanks for the link though I will attempt to read it again when my brain has cooled down a little.

[Dretlin]

Here's a pretty damning review of the paper.

Her conclusion? "Yes, if you pick and choose what physics to ignore you can arrive at meaningless equations."

I look forward to posting a replying to this - in four to five years and a new qualification later.

Actually, I will give it a stab.

Edit: this entire blog looks rather interesting. I may refer to this in the future. Thank you hackenslash!

[Tank]

Here's a pretty damning review of the paper.

Her conclusion? "Yes, if you pick and choose what physics to ignore you can arrive at meaningless equations."

I look forward to posting a replying to this - in four to five years and a new qualification later.

Actually, I will give it a stab.

Edit: this entire blog looks rather interesting. I may refer to this in the future. Thank you hackenslash!

That sounds interesting Dretlin. What are you going to study?

[KebertX]

Sorry, not buying it. The math may work out theoretically, but that doesn't make it true. Something is true because it matches reality, not because a well regarded person says it.  What was that rubbish about mass converting to length? Space to time I was thinking, "Interesting, that might make sense." Mass to length... Not so much.  This is too radical for me to think it's believable. We'd be giving up too much of physics that has been based on observation, in order to obtain a prettier equation.

This would mean giving up the arrow of time, which doesn't make sense, because in all of Human history, we've never begun to remember the future and look ahead to the past. This would end the constant speed of light, which makes no sense, because everywhere we look in the universe, the speed of light is the same.

This is like the BIRDEMIC of science!

[Dretlin]

Here's a pretty damning review of the paper.

Her conclusion? "Yes, if you pick and choose what physics to ignore you can arrive at meaningless equations."

I look forward to posting a replying to this - in four to five years and a new qualification later.

Actually, I will give it a stab.

Edit: this entire blog looks rather interesting. I may refer to this in the future. Thank you hackenslash!

That sounds interesting Dretlin. What are you going to study?

I am doing a joint honours but I am yet to pick my second subject. Though I am considering a science along side my main study, which is music.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Doesn't refractive media change the speed of light?

[Tank]

Doesn't refractive media change the speed of light?

Yes. But only while it's inside the lens. The speed of light is at its maximum in a vacuum. When travelling through a transparent substance the speed of light can be reduced considerably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

The second concept of the speed of light in a material is the average velocity of a pulse consisting of different frequencies. This is called the group velocity  and depends not only on the properties of the medium but also on the distribution of frequencies in the pulse. A pulse with different group and phase velocities (which occurs if the phase velocity is not the same for all the frequencies of the pulse) is said to undergo dispersion. Certain materials have an exceptionally low group velocity for light waves, a phenomenon called slow light. In 1999, a team of scientists led by Lene Hau were able to slow the speed of a light pulse to about 17 metres per second (61 km/h; 38 mph);

[Thumpalumpacus]

Trés suave, merci beaucoup.

[KebertX]

Doesn't refractive media change the speed of light?

Fire a Laser through a Bose/Einstein Condensate. Light has actually been slowed to 50mph this way!  
Just one question: can you afford a massive laser cooling device to chill Hydrogen to a temperature near absolute zero?

No?

Damn!

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've got a pretty good fridge, though.  a room-temp beer will ice up in four hours, if I so desire.

[Godlessons]

I thought I would clear up one thing.  I don't see anything that says that time would move backwards if you converted space to time.  If time is converted to space and mass converted to length, he says that the reverse is true, meaning that space can be converted to time and length converted to mass.  None of this conversion is outside of its current temporal relation that I can see, and that is actually a problem with what he's talking about, or a problem with my understanding.  I imagine it is a problem with my understanding, since this stuff is way over my head for the most part.  If I am right though, there is still a problem.

Now, someone said they could see how time can be converted to space, but not how mass can be converted to length.  I have the opposite problem.  I can see how length and mass can be connected, only because if you stretch out the space some given amount of matter takes up, it becomes less massive.  The hard part comes in where you have to imagine mass where there is no space, which is one of those problems I have with big bang models.  You can never get to T=0 with them.  If you remove all space, that means there is nowhere for any mass to hide, since it has no "where" there.

My problem is, I can't figure out what you have if you have more and less time based on what he's saying.  I'll have to look at it more in depth when I have more time.