Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I thought I posted this, or something akin to it, yesterday, but I can’t find it now, so I’m posting it (again?).

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/05/05

Boddy, Carroll and Pollack have been re-examining how quantum fluctuations work in cosmology. Sean Carroll explains:

“In an expanding universe that has nothing in it but vacuum energy, there simply aren’t any quantum fluctuations at all. Our approach shows that the conventional understanding of inflationary perturbations gets the right answer, although the perturbations aren’t due to “fluctuations”; they’re due to an effective measurement of the quantum state of the inflaton field when the universe reheats at the end of inflation. In contrast, less empirically-grounded ideas such as Boltzmann brains and eternal inflation both rely crucially on treating fluctuations as true dynamical events, occurring in real time — and we say that’s just wrong.”

If this idea is right, which Carroll concedes, is some way from being established, it could cast serious doubt on the idea of eternal inflation. That should ruffle a few feathers.


There never was nothing.
.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Not a real response. I just wanted to acknowledge your offer. I hadn't seen this blog before. I read your link and didn't really understand exactly what he was talking about. I plan to start following the blog and see if I have some AHAH moments where I catch on to what he is saying. I have done that sometimes.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I'm in much the same position, Bill, looking for AHAHs, make sure you share it if you find one first. smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Sorry Bill.S you won't find many AHAH moments in that Sean Carroll crackpot paper that doesn't even get the basics right.

Jacques Distler wrote a rather clever and concise strip down of the argument to a level even a layman can understand

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/002652.html

The actual paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0298v1.pdf

A few of the more caustic of us wondered how far over the edge a scientist goes before they realize they have become that "crackpot" everyone tries to ignore.

This fits into the Marosz version of how to do science, you just throw out all the actual data and observations and make it up as you go because you have predestined the end point and anything disagreeing to end point you ignore.

Would you like to join us in grabbing a shovel smile

Last edited by Orac; 06/08/14 02:51 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5