RE: Do we still need to build models beyond the Standard Model of particle physics ?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I am pleased to answer. As I said, a good conversation has never hurt anyone (even if we disagree).
I agree, but we can only do science insofar as we can conceive of experiments whose results we can perceive.
Yes, but there is a missing step. Between the perception and the comparison with data, we need a mathematical description of perception, that could be used for predictions and the actual comparison with data. Without this, ideas only stay ideas, and cannot be promoted to being theories.
How we experience time seems the reason that the Arrow of Time exists theoretically, since it seems irrelevant to a unitary spacetime continuum.
What about thermodynamics, or the expansion of the universe. To me, these are more than just ideas. And this is the starting point that shakes all the rest of the reasoning in your reply. Why would the arrow of time be reversible as we have data showing us that it is not.
This is why I have quit using the word hypothesis and now use speculation regarding my understanding, because without that framework it cannot be tested. I really should never have quit learning math.
That’s a pity as this missing step is really needed to go further. Otherwise, I can only provide observations that could put the speculation into troubles, but there is no way to have a final conclusive (quantitative) statement on this.
I am sure it is only nearly Godlike patience that enables you to suffer this discussion with a math illiterate.
Don’t worry. If I would have been bored, I would have stopped answering ^^
Math, or statements in any language, can be open ended, wrong, or incomplete. Physical reality cannot.
I don’t understand this. Physics uses math to express itself. Am I missing anything?
causality not necessarily limited to our perception of time as directional
This is another item I don’t get fully. We observe events and we can order them, can’t we? Therefore, we definitely 'make use' of the arrow of time.
The statement '...light can go back in time.' confuses me. Do you mean that light from distant, ancient events only reaches us long after such events, or is there a Nobel in your future?
No, nothing can go back in time. This is in fact how I understood your next-to-last reply. If events from the future can influence us, this means that light could go back in time. One step further, this means that we are in big troubles relative to existing data, at least at macroscopic scales.
We owe everything to France, or it's all your fault, depending on your viewpoint ;).
As I am not French, this is definitely not my fault. I hope you enjoyed your fourth of July! :)
Cheers!
I am glad to benefit from your expertise, as well as your good nature, even if you're not French.
It can be impossible to see the forest for the trees, and this is what I think is happening. Details like thermodynamics and inflation need to be interpreted against the backdrop of the forest as a whole, because aspects of the ecosystem unknown to us yet connect each of the trees of the forest unseen by us from our viewpoint. We know this has to be so because all the universe was in one point at one instant. All the forest has grown from one seed. It clearly is one thing.
I'm unaware of any cosmology currently advocated that asserts space and time are separate, or that mass expends force when effecting gravity, or that there are some places and times mass doesn't effect gravity, or that spacetime is separated into bits and pieces and instants and moments. None of these assertions, that spacetime is one thing from end to end, that gravity is an aspect of spacetime affected by mass, or that gravity isn't a force, originate with me, or are even controversial, to my knowledge. Better men than I showed these things were so and they have been affirmed by repeated observations.
Gravity is not a force and does not run low after warping spacetime for a while. The effect doesn't expire, wear out, or need refueling. It's just the shape of spacetime, spacetime's 4D topology, which takes no ergs or joules of energy to maintain or cause, any more than the volume of a rock does.
It does wane per the inverse square law with increasing displacement of mass from a given placera (place plus era. Catchy right?) of spacetime, but doesn't require fuel to cause it's effect, so the effect it had yesterday doesn't count against the effect it has today, or will tomorrow.
If mass that cannot be perceived today is effecting gravity today from yesterday and tomorrow, that mass is invisible, but it's affect can be calculated from gravitational lensing seen today, or the position of the Bullet Cluster being displaced from it's apparent center of gravity, or galactic arms moving faster than the matter we observe can pull them.
Those are observations that are said to require dark matter. But from the description of the universe we have already, there is lots of invisible matter causing the observed gravity. Almost all the matter in spacetime is invisible. Ordinary matter warps spacetime and transforms it to gravitospacetime, which is a whole and not chopped into past, present, and future, not east and west, and left and right, nor gravity, space, and time. So not only mass in the past is affecting gravitospacetime, but mass in the future, even as the universe expands and that mass moves away from galactic centers to pull on galactic arms, or the Bullet Cluster keeps colliding and mass long after today pulls it towards it's center of gravity after that mass has moved past that center.
But when we observe warped spacetime and the matter and forces in it, we see across space, perceiving time only as an instant, and can only reckon from a theoretical time of origin to the present, or estimate what future may come. We perceive an arrow of time that does not exist because spacetime is a whole. It's not broken into the past, present, and future like we experience. We are trapped in warped spacetime, like light.
All I am attempting is to synthesize the stated attributes of the trees into a forest. Mass warps spacetime moderated by the inverse square law, and there's no part of spacetime that effect does not reach. The 4D topology of spacetime does not take time to effect. It just is the shape of spacetime. Spacetime has not been claimed to be partial, erupting from the vacuum instant by instant, by any credible mechanism I am aware of. We perceive an arrow of time, because we are matter and forces like light, trapped in spacetime, but that is not a limitation suffered by spacetime, so spacetime should be what it appears to be, which is whole and entire, from beginning to end .
The existence of spacetime as a unitary thing is pretty solidly supported by a lot of different evidence. Data showing an arrow of time starts off weak, because time is only an aspect of spacetime, and space doesn't have a direction. Given our perception of time as a series of instants, it would be awfully hard to produce data that showed anything else. I note that every experimental result must be interpreted, and I can't think of a way to interpret any experimental result to show the future.
Conceptually, the only way to interpret spacetime being whole is to understand that the future is complete. If spacetime isn't entire, it needs to be shown that spacetime is somehow being created, or transformed from the past, everywhere across it's entire breadth, at every instant. That's a tall order.
Math is a language, not the physical reality it is used to describe. People can make incomplete, false, and inconclusive statements in math. String Theory is notorious for it, I am told. I do not think the universe can be any of those things. When I drop my hammer it hits something conclusively, for real. If I estimate what would happen if I drop my hammer, I am just writing a story.
Physical reality is not it's description. Math cannot fully describe a thing, no matter how it is attempted. If I say a stone is a certain width, I have left out it's mass, it's color(s), and on and on.
The arrow of time and causality are artifacts of our perception, of our existence as matter and forces in spacetime. In a complete universe comprised of past, present, and future, we still see our existence arising instant by instant, because we are not spacetime. We are trapped in it, blinded to the future, and severed from the past.
Math does not have an inherent arrow of time. E=IR is completely reversible. If so much of the universe can be described so elegantly without an arrow of time by such a simple thing as Ohm's Law, it seems likely to me the arrow of time is only a product of our perceptions, rather than physical reality. More to the point, there seems to be no credible mechanism for warped spacetime to be partial. Short the future, it would be erupting at all times everywhere, and this is not even hinted at. It seems to be complete and entire.
We just can't see it.
If you are fine with the fact that I am not French, then it is alright ^^ To be honest, I should apply one day for citizenship (I live here for almost 15 years). I am just too lazy to go through all the paperwork…
This is precisely the point of my previous message. It is not a matter of “seeing” or “perceiving”. We have a theory, which means a mathematical framework dedicated to explain physical phenomena, that can make predictions and be compared with data. That’s a very different thing from “ideas” or “thoughts”. In order for something else to take over, we need this something else to be promoted to a full theoretical framework with all mathematical aspects built in, predictions and comparisons with data. This is how to proceed to see one theory being eventually replaced by another (or generalised as often domains of application play a role).
Not everything you mentioned has already been studied and assessed. However, some of the points raised are. For instance, the fact that gravity arises from spacetime deformations is fully embedded in general relativity, isn’t it? Of course, there are new ideas in your proposal. As I wrote before, some of them seem to be in contradictions with current data and lead to problems.
In general relativity, gravity arises from deformations of spacetime. We call it a force, even if it has a different origin from that of the other forces. I have the impression that here, it is just semantics, isn’t it?
Newton’s law of gravitation, with its typical 1/r2 behaviour, is generalised in general relativity. I am not sure to follow the reason why the two should be incompatible. They just have different domains/regimes of application.
As already mentioned, my problem is not the today/yesterday part, which we can include in calculations without any problem, but the tomorrow part. There is no way for the future to impact us without being in contradictions with common physics (that is backed up by centuries of data). As I said earlier, causality is important. If you want to convince me that the future can have a role, I am afraid that there is no other way except going into the mathematical foundations of your idea.
What does ‘the future is complete’ mean? I don’t get this. Does it mean spacetime is finite and that there is an upper limit on time?
Yes it is, And it is used as a language in physics, so that we could make predictions, and especially so that we could make any theory falsifiable (or tested if you prefer). Qualitative statements are rapidly not sufficient anymore when developing new ideas. I know that you already mentioned that this is an issue for the current discussion, but I am afraid that this is the only way to move further.
What about the formulation of physics laws with maths? In the same way, math does not have any inherent notion of physics too. For a physicist, math is a tool, and is used as such. The mathematical framework describing any theory allow us to use the theory to go beyond a qualitative description.
Cheers!
I agree. It is a strong reason I am so grateful for your criticism.
Other than temporal issues with causality, I have not grasped the contradictions (which I don't think a contradiction, but simply unaccounted for practical reasons). I am loathe to burden you, but humbly request specifics that I might better wrap my head around what I am conceiving that is novel and outrageous, because I consider what I (try to) say as simply a comprehensive conception of the sum of established conventions. I am really not an inventor of original thoughts, but more of a slow, if thorough, considerer of those of my betters, I think.
Mathematically there is no difference between discussing a force or a dimension. However, the difference between Newton and Einstein is that the universe is completely different in form, despite the math describing orbital mechanics producing quite similar orbits in either, so similar that the simpler math reckoning force of gravity rather than the topology of spacetime is used in rocket science.
I can note the similarity between a legal person and a natural person for legal purposes, while the difference between a living breathing soul and an agreement between such persons (a corporation) is quite substantial, and results in love, suffering, and birth and death only applying to natural persons, which yet fails, largely, to affect some law (with sometimes horrific consequences).
Because we are confined in spacetime as are all matter and forces, the tree of time conceals the extent of the forest from us in our interpretation of experimental results. I suspect that reconsidering many such in a cosmological context in which spacetime completely extended from the East to the West, and from the Beginning to the End, while it would not alter the mathematical formulae or calculations relevant to the experiment (if such experiment were not differentiating between those conceptions of spacetime), would be quite different in terms of the underlying mechanisms being reckoned, just as Newtonian cosmology required a luminous aether which the Einsteinian cannot abide.
Yes. Spacetime, if there is a beginning to it, is finite. I here note that originally I stated that spacetime was infinite, and you pointed out there was no specific basis for that assumption. Mathematically it is possible in (at least) three ways for infinity to be stated. Something that neither begins nor ends is infinite, and if it ends or begins but not the inverse.
However, if there was a big bang in which all the universe was contained in a point at an instant the physical fact of the universe, as distinct from description of concepts of it, constrain that physical entity to forms that reference that origin. A clock can only be the sum of it's parts, while the description of a clock will both embellish and neglect aspects of that discrete reality and can (must) perpetually approach that reality without actually conforming to it.
No statement in any language, including math, can be complete as a physical thing is necessarily complete and cannot embellish or neglect aspects of it. Even math must necessarily lie by omission, at least, or by embellishment, unavoidably. Heisenberg showed this, IMHO.
While I used Ohm's Law to demonstrate that concision of formulae is a consilient principle of physics, Ohm's Law also fails to fully encompass physical reality. I do not seek to disparage math, but to correctly consider it's proper role, which, while essential, is not all that is necessary to encompass physics. You correctly note that I cannot do physics without the necessary math, but physics also has arisen from insights and conceptions that have not been derived from math, even if they have later been described with math. Apples fall from trees, and the acceleration they undergo is due to the shape of spacetime, calculably identical to if they were rocket powered.
So, I attempt to convey what I conceive quantitatively in English, which limits the quantities to none or all, and estimates those in between. A poor substitute for math, I concur, but competent to that degree. When I say spacetime is complete I mean that all events that can be described are fully actualized (they 'have' happened), including those which are at times to come and which are concealed from us by the constraints of time on forces that cannot reach us from those placeras. We cannot perceive them. That does not mean they don't exist, or that gravity from them, not being a force, doesn't affect the full breadth of spacetime. Mass anywhere or anytime in spacetime affects all spacetime, and the statements 'anywhere' and 'anytime' are false in physics, because there is no where without a when, nor a when without a where, and all subject to gravity.
While the evolution of mathematics has necessarily proceeded from our evolving conception of physics, Euclidean geometry becoming Riemannian geometry complicates the conceptual picture of reality with 'lies' (I say this having only (limited) comprehension of Euclidean geometry). Euclidean geometry only pertains to theoretical concepts, and not to actual reality in which space cannot exist without time. I am not trying to be pedantic, but to here consider actual functional ability of math to pertain to what is real. As a carpenter I use Euclidean geometry daily shaping structures, and, like rocket scientists using Newtonian force calculations to reckon orbits, precisely conforming to actual reality in my calculations would hopelessly complicate my work. Such is the human condition.
In reality at the scales under discussion this humanity is relevant to our consideration of the future insofar as light from there doesn't reach us and we can only speculatively predict events. That is not a constraint on gravity which is not matter and forces as we are. Being unable to perceive the future cause of an event from our viewpoint in the present creates the appearance of chaos, which cannot exist in a clockwork universe that actually physically exists and utterly resolves all forces equitably. The gears in a clock have specific form, and cannot estimate or miscalculate the force they express or impart. Calculations do unavoidably estimate and miscalculate by their nature (lying by omission or embellishment), and we can only consider what we conceive, which is yet only partially accurate, because we largely evolve our conceptions from our perceptions. Physics is not conceptually limited to our perceptions, but is practically limited today by our human nature.
We estimate with probability chaotic events, but the universe resolves equitably by causing events appearing to us to be chaotic through it's nature we cannot perceive because we are human. While physics is theoretically able to be conceptually accurate and complete, it isn't yet, because of the dichotomy between what we perceive and have yet to conceive correctly.
Otherwise you'd do other work.
No problem with the burden, as soon as I will have time I will answer (you may however need to be patient when week-ends approach… :)
To clarify what I mean with contradictions, let’s say that the standard model of cosmology allows for an explanation to a lot of observations (galaxy rotation curves, the cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, structure formation, etc.). In order for any new model to be considered seriously, it should be shown (quantitatively) that this new model does (at least) as good as the standard model. I do not see how your proposal could do this (although as I said, I only ask to be convinced quantitatively).
This does not mean that one is incorrect and the other one is correct. Both have their own domains of application. Depending on the system we study, we may want to use Newtonian gravity or general relativity.
Although I would like to see how that works mathematically, I still don’t see how to future events could impact present and past events (even when including spacetime deformations and so on). Moreover, you actually assume that there is a beginning and an end. That is a strong assumption. Whereas we can define what beginning means (more or less, as this is more complicated than it seems), how would you define the end?
Indeed, here there is a need for some assumptions, that belong to the details of the model. See also the paragraph just above.
This is where the model is quite undefined. In the early days, time is actually undefined and general relativity is not a correct description. We need to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics here, and such a description is still missing.
It is however sufficient to describe many cases…
I disagree here. A mathematical formulation is what defines a physics theory. Otherwise, we only get bold statements.
This is hard to grasp. Future events have not happened. They will happen, but they have not yet happened. Even if time is part of spacetime, time is time and means something. I think this is the same issue I don’t fully understand since the very beginning of our conversation. How can the future affect present and past observations?
Again, this is true. Depending on what you study, this or that formalism is more appropriate. For the dynamics of the universe however, Newtonian mechanics is not enough.
I could ask no more of you, and am happy to await your convenience.
I consider my speculation regarding spacetime as more conservative of the standard model than dark matter is, because no such strange properties of matter as WIMPs require need to be demonstrated, and spacetime's failure to be shown to be constantly erupting is also explained by the same mechanism.
I reckon that if there is a beginning, there must be an end, because that is the nature of physical things that I have observed, like clocks and rocks. However, conceptually, I do not have a problem with an unending universe, although I feel that such would also not have a beginning. I am not particularly wedded to any specifics, but more intent on grasping what is extant, regardless of whether it began or ends. I can't possibly see either beginning or end and can only speculate regarding them.
I am comfortable with my incapacity to perceive some things. It only takes a few hours to get far enough away from land to no longer be able to see it, and I have been familiar with this phenomenon from my early youth. I am quite confident that though I can't see the land that it is there, just as I left it when going to sea. Time is a little different, but my experience is that the future always comes, even though I didn't just leave it, like a distant shore. I am comfortable accepting that the future comes despite I cannot perceive it coming and can only experience a present that was once the future when what was the present became the past. It's just how matter and forces experience reality, a constraint on our perception.
Just as I can conceive of a distant shore I am confident is extant but cannot perceive, I can conceive of a future that is extant but that I cannot perceive. Either the present is constantly erupting from something, or it already exists. I am unaware of any observations of such eruption, or of some cataclysmic destruction of the former present when it becomes the past, which doesn't exist anymore than the future does - or exists just as much as the future does.
Since neither eruption nor cataclysmic destruction of the present is suggested by any observations, a whole spacetime seems suggested. This is also supported by light bringing us news of distant events that happened long ago, but are only perceivable by us now as light enables us to be informed. Unless the past continued to exist, spacetime couldn't exist, and light couldn't bring us information from the past. There would be no lightspeed, and the universe would be static. No motion could occur.
Since spacetime must include the past, it similarly includes the future, because it is a field without an arrow. There is no arrow of space, and since spacetime is what actually exists, there can neither be an arrow of time. Our difficulty regarding the existence of the future is very relevant to my comments regarding how our perceptions limit our conceptions of spacetime. It is a fact that our brains are <1400 cc of potential neuronal connections, which creates a limit on the intellectual capacity potential to humans. Our eyes perceive only a very limited spectrum of light, and only perceive for a limited number of hours. These are constraints on our ability to see and understand what exists, and not limitations on what exists. I expect to be unable to perceive almost all that exists, and similarly expect to be unable to conceive of almost all that exists, because I am such an infinitesimal speck of goo.
I think this is why we yet debate such basic fundamental aspects of reality. We are not particularly suited to understand them. We are designed to hunt and forage for food, and, if we are lucky, to pass our genes to our posterity.
The appearance of events in spacetime to us as chaotic is due to our perception of an arrow of time because we are matter and are constrained by time as is light. I suggest that causality has no arrow of time and such events aren't chaotic at all, simply caused by future requirements. Chaos is an aspect of our existence as matter, but causality is no more constrained by time than is gravity, as I conceive of gravitospacetime.
However, chaos is not quantum structure. I confess lacking the ability to discuss in math constrains my ability to understand the existence of quanta, and such grasp as I have comes from my primitive grasp of the orbitals of electrons in chemistry. I do not understand why electrons are proscribed from intermediate existences but must be in particular orbitals, only grasping that such is what is observed.
I note that the nature of matter is poorly understood and the quite inadequate attempts to understand the dual slit experimental results as observer effect demonstrates our present incapacity to understand what matter is.
Mathematical descriptions of events do not necessarily convey understanding of what is actually happening. Noting quantitative evolutions does not equate to actually understanding the nature of matter. I am utterly certain that matter is what it is whether or not it is being observed. Given the above discussion of our potential to conceive of reality due to the constraints both of physics and our infinitesimal and gooey persons, I reckon expectation we are inherently able to understand such things is unreasonable.
We are necessarily able to reckon whether bashing something on the head with a rock will enable us to eat it. This does not encompass an ability to understand the nature of the constituents of the rock, which we have not evolved naturally to conceive. I do not think our conception of quantum mechanics, despite that we can note and use some aspects of quantum effects, are necessarily accurate descriptions of what is real and actual.
I can bash something on the head with a rock without understanding the physical matter comprising the rock, and making use of the Hall effect is conceptually similar. Understanding math is not the same as understanding the underlying physical reality, and this is the difference between a thing and a description of a thing. As I noted we cannot accurately and completely describe a clock in any language, but the clock must actually and really be exactly and specifically what it is, and not anything else. This is a fact of math and physics, and of any language we can use to discuss it.
Stating this does not mean that math isn't essential to physics. Accurate quantization of effects is essential to grasping the existence of such effects, despite that such quantization doesn't automatically convey complete understanding of those effects. However, our incapacity to conceive of fundamental aspects of gravitospacetime isn't due to failure to quantize the fundament, but of our ability to perceive it at all. Our limited capacity to conceive evolved from our natural ecological function in which reckoning the ballistics of a rock flung at a fleeing antelope's head has limited applicability to such matters, and this makes grasping what math means problematic.
Math and understanding the reality underlying quanta reckoned aren't the same thing.
Here I am again, even faster this time ^^
Maybe. However, as already pointed out, dark matter can also be different from WIMPs. In fact, a lot of WIMPy possibilities are now strongly constrained.
There are tons of potential explanation and options for dark matter. The one that any individual prefers is at the end of the day a matter of subjectivity. Provided a given model allows for quantitative predictions and that predictions agree with data, we are fine. (I guess you may see me coming here, so that I will restrain from further commenting on this.)
In standard cosmology, the notion of beginning is very undefined too. However, this does not matter much for predictions to be made in the standard model of cosmology. In your scenario, however, this is a different story because it is required to account for anything (if I got the idea correctly). For that reason, precise definitions are in order (or at least a precise procedure to handle computations).
Note here that light does not bring us information from the very early day. Light we see today cannot date from any moment prior to the recombination epoch.
OK. Let’s proceed differently (despite all the criticisms that I have already made relative to this idea). How should I detect anything coming from the future? In other words, how anything from the future would influence any measurement? How could I falsify this idea? Without a clear answer to this, I don’t know how to move on further with the discussion. It's like discussing an idea that can neither influence anything we will ever measure, so that it is hard to get the goal of it.
I can emphasise the last sentence I wrote.
All of this sounds a bit like there is an idea, but there is no way to neither express it, nor make it testable. In other words, there is an idea that leads to no predictions, and therefore no possible comparison with data. I am then asking about the point of this? What is the purpose if it cannot be confronted to reality (i.e. measurements)?
I don’t follow here.
Math is the language used by physics to describe the world. This is how it is. Moreover, predictions are crucial to test ideas (and thus to test our understanding). No math means no predictions, and thus no way to test anything (and thus no way to test our understanding).
Absent some ongoing event that is creating the time aspect of spacetime, which no observation supports, spacetime is extant as a field, which we observe of it's spatial aspect. Given that space is visibly a field, how could time not be, since spacetime is one thing?
We have evidence that mass in the past and future do effect gravity in the past - the same evidence used to claim some other form of matter must exist - of more gravity being effected than matter observed effects in a given instant. The matter observed presently isn't extant presently. It is present at various times in the past, depending on how far away from us it is and how long it took light from there to reach us. It is assumed to only effect gravity in a series of sequential instants, across a spatial field. But spacetime is a field and time is not separate from that field, not only occurring as a sequence of instants that confine the affect of matter in that field to such instants.
Heisenberg points out that math cannot encompass all that is. What description is undertaken is only a partial description of what is. What physically exists is unable to be described fully in math. The incapacity of math to describe it fully does not prevent it from being fully extant. Physics is necessarily more than can be stated in any language, including math. A description of something cannot fully describe it. Math can describe a clock's function, but not all the aspects of the clock.
From the mathematical description of the electrical draw of a clock and the display, the function of the clock can be ascertained. But only a close look at the circuit board can enable understanding of how the specific clock achieves that function. Simply describing the relationship of the display to the power draw does not provide that level of detailed understanding. For some things the clock may do, describing the display and it's relationship to the power draw may provide no insight at all, such as for a clock radio that provides weather information for Singapore. Math is very powerful, but it is not the only thing necessary to understand physical reality.
I note that Einstein pointed out that the acceleration of gravity is indistinguishable from any other acceleration force. On Earth the gravitational acceleration is described as 144m/s/s. According to the inverse square law, as stated here https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/inverse-square-law
The acceleration from visible mass is estimable by this means, both by the distances between masses involved in motion of galactic arms, the Bullet Cluster collision, and even tides, for example, and the time difference between such masses and the time of a given measurement.
Substituting estimated values into the inverse square law formula is possible with both distance and time, since both meters and seconds are variables in the equation. Estimating the movements of the masses involved over time would be necessary to estimate the intensity of the acceleration from masses in former and future positions than observed presently, as well as the impact of the inverse square law on mass earlier or later than the time of observation.
While I have only hammers and saws and cannot undertake such estimations and calculations, these are the kinds of calculations that have produced the claim ~85% of the mass effecting gravity is invisible, and that I speculate is simply acting per the inverse square law applied in the spacetime continuum, rather than only as sequential instants.
If such calculations closely resembles observations, within reasonable estimations, then my hypothesis is not falsified. If such calculations are grossly different than observations, the hypothesis is falsified.
This idea is absent from the list because it has no mathematical formulation. Qualitatively, there are issues with it (we already discussed them) and without any way to make predictions to be compared with data, there is no way to get it considered by physicists. For this, a way to make predictions is unavoidably needed.
Do you mind showing me which evidence we have that future events impact us? I am not aware of any.
Note that there is no direct evidence for dark matter. The only thing we know is that the simplest explanation for many cosmological observations requires it. This is not an evidence, which is actively searched for today.
Moreover, it is not a proof we need dark matter at all costs. Maybe the greatest explanation has not been invented yet. Who knows? In the meantime, this is a model (which is slightly different from a theory) that works well.
The purpose of physics is to provide a description of any phenomenon from a small number of fundamental principles. There, we rely on what we call a theory. In common parlance the word “theory” describes an attempt to explain events. In scientific language, it is different. A theory is a mathematical structure which precisely explains all known experimental facts in a certain domain.
Therefore, maths are needed for physics. Also, the example of the clock you raised, I don’t see how it does not agree with what I wrote. For each aspect, there are laws allowing to understand it, that we can formulate mathematically.
Let me know move on with the discussion on falsification.
How is this possible? You could this estimation be done? How should I modify the calculations to account for this? Without this, the idea is neither testable nor falsifiable, isn’t it? This is what puzzles me from the beginning.
I disagree with this. Classical mechanics and observations of visible objects in the universe have shown a disagreement. Adding some invisible mass and redoing the calculations using the same laws allowed to obtain agreement between theory and data.
However, the story does not stop with galaxy rotation curves. There are many cosmological observations for which predictions can be made and that feature agreement with data once the same dark matter is accounted for. For that reason, I insisted several time on the fact that the standard model of cosmology will only be replaced by something that does as good related to data.
You are quite correct to state that physics is utterly dependent on math. While I cannot understand the math, it is clear from having a look at gauge fields, charge carriers, and Lagrangians, that we'd have no standard model without math. The language of math is vital to the purpose of physics, and I am not a physicist because I am incompetent to communicate in that primary language of physics, at least.
Einstein's explanation for why the speed of light is the absolute limit points out that the faster an object is moving across space, the slower it is moving across time, until at lightspeed time is frozen. His famous equation, E=MC^2, relates space and time such that they are inextricable. How seconds to meters is accounted I remain blithely unaware, but this is not my original concept, rather that of Einstein. I only point out that when gravity affects a region of this continuum, it is reaching across both aspects of it, and not space alone.
However, observations reveal that the universe is expanding, and the farther away something is, the faster it is moving away. The general consensus regarding this phenomenon is that spacetime is erupting into being between gravitationally bound systems. I am unaware of any source of this creation of spacetime, of any cost of it, or of any disturbance it's birth may cause. There's no explanation for it at all, but it fits the observation that the universe is expanding in the way it is.
https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/c/Cosmic_inflation.htm
How there can be a spacetime continuum that is complete, yet erupts from the vacuum in bits and pieces, I can neither explain. It seems that observation trumps speculation and things are what they are whether we can derive the reason they are that way or not.
The visible mass observed is calculated to be insufficient to account for observed motion of galactic arms, or the collision of the Bullet Cluster, and these are amongst the observations that are the basis for theories proposing dark matter.
Such observations depend on estimations of how matter is distributed across time and space. That estimation clearly is undertaken and considered rigorous enough to have mathematical validity, or such claims would not bother physicists much, as you state.
Such estimation is not solely potential to theories proposing novel forms of matter, and should be no different undertaken to consider mass affecting spacetime from other moments. Both are theories involving dark, or invisible, matter, although one involves novel form(s) of matter and the other normal matter effecting gravity across time. It seems the estimations have been done and dark matter theories just plug in enough mass where and when it needs to be to satisfy those estimations, as you state.
Just stating that ordinary matter satisfies those estimations isn't any different, except in that it doesn't require adding to the bestiary of particles in the standard model, and treats spacetime as Einstein showed it to be, a unitary field, a continuum.
While the effect of gravity across time seems a novel concept, it is the only way gravity occurs. There is no universal instant of time across the spacetime continuum, but an objects time and movement through it is relative to it's movement through space. All gravity has to be effected across time, because time for every massive object is unique to it's inertial frame, and there is no universal instant of shared time. All time is relative. The inverse square law is sufficient to cover all gravity, since all gravity is effected across time.
We are matter. We cannot peer into the future because light cannot reveal it to us. Gravity is not matter, not a force, and is not constrained by time like we are. Physicists can show the gravity caused by unseen mass, but cannot see mass causing the gravity across the spacetime continuum.
I have attempted to discuss spacetime as a field. How can a thing that is a field, that we observe to be a field in which mass exists, be somehow not a field? Space is not something that exists. Space cannot be mathematically treated without time and reflect physical reality, as Einstein pointed out.
Both dimensions of distance and delay, of space and time, are part of the spacetime continuum. Gravity warps spacetime spatiotemporally, not spatially and temporally. How can it reach across the spatial aspect but not the temporal? It makes no sense that gravity is considered to be not reaching across time to affect spacetime. How can time be excluded from spacetime for that purpose?
If the aspects of spacetime are labeled, S=space, T=time, and G=gravity, the calculation can be represented such that (matter in STG affects ST = G) = (matter in (STG)). While math can be used to state (matter in STG affects (S)(T) = G), this is not what happens in the actual universe, because S and T are not different things that are added together, but features of one thing. STG is unitary. It isn't separate parts that can be added together, despite math having rules that allows separate parts to be added together, because math is a language that can be used on things that are separate parts that can be added together, like apples. STG isn't separate apples. It is one apple.
Just following grammatical rules does not create true statements. Just like I can say in English following grammatical rules 'Valued-customer is a horrible person.' and that statement is grammatically correct but completely false, just so the mathematical statement (matter affects (S)(T) = G) is just as false. S and T aren't different things that can be added together, just like valued-customer and horrible person aren't things that can be added together in this way to make a true statement. This is an example of how we can lie in any language, including math.
Just like people, spacetime is not the sum of it's parts. If you break valued-customer into constituent parts you would not be able to spot little bits of horribleness, because I only am valued-customer as a whole. Gravity is an aspect of spacetime and not of it's parts, which do not exist separately but only emerges as a whole. Regardless of whether some novel form of matter does or does not exist, matter affects spacetime it exists in, and since time is relative to a massive object's inertial frame, and there is no universal instant during which gravity is effected, it can only reach across time and space together.
Note that this may be my last answer for the next 3-4 weeks as I will soon take some long offline time. I will come back to you at my return or during the break if I have enough strength to connect.
I don’t understand what you mean by “creation of spacetime”. The universe is in a state of accelerated expansion (a fact). What are the cosmic ingredients behind this? Well we don’t know and this is an open question.
What do you mean by “complete”? I don’t understand this word in this context. If you discuss the ingredients I mentioned above, then well, we don’t know.
There is no fundamental principle behind the model, but it works. Moreover, the standard model of cosmology is mathematically sound, and you seem to ignore structure formation and the cosmic microwave background that are important indirect support for it. From there, finding the fundamental principles behind all of this consist of open questions. Many work on this.
In other words, the standard model offers us a way to get an idea about the true nature of cosmology and to make predictions in the meantime we have a better framework that does at least as good.
Maybe. Then show me the associated predictions and let's compare them with data. As in the beginning of this thread, I don’t understand how the future could impact the present (even within a curved spacetime).
Again, how could we integrate the future in calculations? Even if time is relative, causality and the arrow of time are important. This applies to the rest of the previous comment: we observe events today, that date from the past (light takes time to travel). I don’t see how to explain present observations with future ones.
I need to see the theoretical formulation to try to understand this. It is clear that gravity and spacetime are related and no one has ever said that we should ignore relativistic effects. This is not the problem. The problem is how something happening in the future could affect us today.
I have realized I can make a prediction based on my idea that ordinary matter is the dark matter causing excess gravity. It is that where ordinary matter is observed to be, dark matter should be, since it is the ordinary matter we observe I propose is the dark matter affecting spacetime across time.
It is my understanding that observation has not shown this to be so. Instead, dark matter appears to be locally flat, and it's effect is negligible and lost in the large gravitational field caused by normal matter hereabouts, while having significant impact from places we do not observe matter to be.
My speculation appears to be falsified.
I hope you have a great vacation, and I am very grateful for the kindness you showed me.
Thanks!
I agree with your conclusion. We know precisely where dark matter should be, and it is not everywhere where we have normal matter. This therefore seems to contradict your predictions.
See you in three weeks! (I will disconnect in 2 days.)