Fundamental Constants of Physics: The Genes of the Universe - MIT Center for Theoretical Physics.

[Jonathan]

How may times have I told this ng that /everything/
evolves, even the fundamental constants?




Fundamental Constants of Physics" The Genes of the Universe
Andy Friedman
MIT Center for Theoretical Physics.

(excerpts)

There are many strong theoretical reasons for
believing that our universe is not the only one,
thus providing a compelling explanation for why
a universe could exists with the parameter values
necessary for life, even though, on the surface,
each individual set of parameters seems unlikely.


With his theory of Cosmological Natural Selection, Lee
Smolin makes, what this author views as, a spectacular
attempt to answer this question. He goes a step further
than the mere postulation of a multiverse, and ties
together natural selection, the most powerful principle
of biology, with cosmology, the most all-encompassing
branch of theoretical physics. Smolin's theory provides
a mechanism that explains why individual universes
attain their particular parameter values.

1. The formation of black holes creates a "baby universe",
the first singularity of the black hole tunneling
right on through to the initial Big Bang singularity
of the new universe thanks to quantum effects.

2. The standard model parameters of the baby universe
are slightly mutated from the present universe, in that
they differ only by small and random amounts.


Both of the above postulates are admittedly quite
speculative, but the arguments in favor of them
have considerable force.

Accepting for now the two postulates, namely that
black holes contain baby universes and that parameter
values are randomly mutated from parent to child
universe, what do we get? As Johan Baez emphasizes,

"Now given these hypothesis a marvelous consequence
ensures" Darwinian evolution! Those universes whose
parameters are such that many black holes are formed
will have many progeny, so the constants of physics
can be expected to be "tuned" for the formation
of many black holes."

Via the network of embedded parent-child black
hole universes, this mechanism "sweeps out"
the whole parameter space of all possible
universes, but distinctly favors by natural
selection those that produce more black holes.

Have made the intuitive leap of applying
natural selection to entire universes, the
power of the idea becomes clear. Natural
selection is such a broadly applicable
principle that it applies to ANY evolving
complex system, whether it happens to be
ecosystems, galaxies or baby universes.

In this way, the fundamental concepts
of physics can no longer be viewed
as unexplained numbers that merely
happen to exist. In fact the take on
a newer, grander importance, as the
creations of the cosmological natural
selections, and none other than the
genetic code of the universe


http://web.mit.edu/asf/www/PopularScience/Friedman_FundamentalConstants_2001.pdf

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 20:35:38 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com>:

>How may times have I told this ng that /everything/
>evolves, even the fundamental constants?

Probably more times than the assertion warrants, especially
since you're basically "preaching to the choir" about nearly
everything which exists and changes over time. But let's see
if you actually include anything below which supports your
contention that the fundamental constants (those we know of)
evolve and change over time in the universe we can directly
observe...

>Fundamental Constants of Physics" The Genes of the Universe
>Andy Friedman
>MIT Center for Theoretical Physics.
>
>(excerpts)
>
>There are many strong theoretical reasons for
>believing that our universe is not the only one,
>thus providing a compelling explanation for why
>a universe could exists with the parameter values
>necessary for life, even though, on the surface,
>each individual set of parameters seems unlikely.

Not there...

>With his theory of Cosmological Natural Selection, Lee
>Smolin makes, what this author views as, a spectacular
>attempt to answer this question. He goes a step further
>than the mere postulation of a multiverse, and ties
>together natural selection, the most powerful principle
>of biology, with cosmology, the most all-encompassing
>branch of theoretical physics. Smolin's theory provides
>a mechanism that explains why individual universes
>attain their particular parameter values.

Not there...

>1. The formation of black holes creates a "baby universe",
>the first singularity of the black hole tunneling
>right on through to the initial Big Bang singularity
>of the new universe thanks to quantum effects.

Not there...

>2. The standard model parameters of the baby universe
>are slightly mutated from the present universe, in that
>they differ only by small and random amounts.

Not there...

>Both of the above postulates are admittedly quite
>speculative, but the arguments in favor of them
>have considerable force.
>
>Accepting for now the two postulates, namely that
>black holes contain baby universes and that parameter
>values are randomly mutated from parent to child
>universe, what do we get? As Johan Baez emphasizes,
>
>"Now given these hypothesis a marvelous consequence
>ensures" Darwinian evolution! Those universes whose
>parameters are such that many black holes are formed
>will have many progeny, so the constants of physics
>can be expected to be "tuned" for the formation
>of many black holes."

Not there...

>Via the network of embedded parent-child black
>hole universes, this mechanism "sweeps out"
>the whole parameter space of all possible
>universes, but distinctly favors by natural
>selection those that produce more black holes.

Not there...

>Have made the intuitive leap of applying
>natural selection to entire universes, the
>power of the idea becomes clear. Natural
>selection is such a broadly applicable
>principle that it applies to ANY evolving
>complex system, whether it happens to be
>ecosystems, galaxies or baby universes.

Not there...

>In this way, the fundamental concepts
>of physics can no longer be viewed
>as unexplained numbers that merely
>happen to exist. In fact the take on
>a newer, grander importance, as the
>creations of the cosmological natural
>selections, and none other than the
>genetic code of the universe

Not there...

>http://web.mit.edu/asf/www/PopularScience/Friedman_FundamentalConstants_2001.pdf

Bottom line: Once again you have posted dozens of lines
which don't support your assertion, in this case that the
fundamental constants in our observable universe change over
time.

Whether the constants in an offshoot universe, assuming any
exist, differ from those we see here is irrelevant, since
that doesn't constitute a change *here*.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Jonathan]

On 1/15/2017 12:58 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 20:35:38 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com>:
>
>> How may times have I told this ng that /everything/
>> evolves, even the fundamental constants?
>
> Probably more times than the assertion warrants, especially
> since you're basically "preaching to the choir" about nearly
> everything which exists and changes over time.

But in the Darwinian sense, as the paper asserts.
But abstract thought is required for this discussion.

But let's see
> if you actually include anything below which supports your
> contention that the fundamental constants (those we know of)
> evolve and change over time in the universe we can directly
> observe...
>

Directly observe? Ya mean like the Big Bang?
We can't directly observe what the constants
were at the start, only extrapolate backwards
from the present.

And I only provided excerpts, read the paper
and then your opinion might be informed
enough to continue.

Try the above link. It didn't cut and paste so
I couldn't retype the whole thing. But you're
welcome anyways.

[Jonathan]

On 1/15/2017 12:58 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 20:35:38 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com>:
>
>> How may times have I told this ng that /everything/
>> evolves, even the fundamental constants?
>
> Probably more times than the assertion warrants, especially
> since you're basically "preaching to the choir" about nearly
> everything which exists and changes over time. But let's see
> if you actually include anything below which supports your
> contention that the fundamental constants (those we know of)
> evolve and change over time in the universe we can directly
> observe...

And btw, you're arguing with this guy below, not me.
I'm trying to think who's opinion I should
listen to, you or a theory from this guy.
Maybe I should write him a note that Bob says
he's full of crap.

I'll let you do that.



Awards and honors[edit]

Smolin was named as #21 on Foreign Policy Magazine's list
of Top 100 Public Intellectuals.[18] He is also one of
many physicists dubbed the "New Einstein" by the media.
[19] The Trouble with Physics was named by Newsweek
magazine as number 17 on a list of 50 “Books for our Time”,
June 27, 2009. In 2007 he was awarded the Majorana Prize
from the Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, and
in 2009 the Klopsteg Memorial Award from the American
Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) for
“extraordinary accomplishments in communicating the
excitement of physics to the general public,” He is
a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and the American
Physical Society. In 2014 he was awarded the Buchalter
Cosmology Prize for a work published in collaboration
with Marina Cortês.[2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin

[jillery]

From your cite above:

**************************************
According to Susskind and many other physicists, the last decade of
black hole physics has shown us that no information that goes into a
black hole can be lost. Indeed, the debate over this issue has been
resolved with Stephen Hawking, the largest proponent of the idea that
information is lost in a black hole, reversing his position. In this
light, information transfer from the parent universe into the baby
universe through a black hole is not conceivable.
******************************************

According to the above, Smolin's speculation, that black holes spawn
new universes whose laws are based on the laws of this universe, is
without foundation.

Here's a more recent article which also illustrates the lack of
substance:

<http://www.space.com/21335-black-holes-time-universe-creation.html>

*****************************************************
SPACE.com: How would these universes pass on their traits to daughter
universes?

Smolin: At the level in which I propose this theory I didn't answer
that question, just like Darwin had no idea how inherited traits were
inherited, because he didn't know anything about the molecular basis
of genetics, which was only discovered with DNA. So I was able to make
those predictions without specifying the microscopic basis of
inheritance in cosmology.
*****************************************************

Smolin's comparison of himself to Darwin is flawed. Smolin is correct
that Darwin didn't know about genes, but it was long-known from animal
husbandry that children inherit characteristics from their parents.
There are no equivalent observations on which to base Smolin's
speculation about child universes.

So what does Smolin actually base his speculation on?

You make a claim in your posts to this topic, that everything evolves
in a Darwinian sense, which is not from Lee Smolin, so you can't hide
behind his expertise and celebrity.

More to the point, you assert above that Bob Casanova wrote or implied
something he did not. If he expressed a sense of crappiness, it would
almost certainly refer to you alone, not Lee Smolin or Andy Friedman
or even Johan (John?) Baez.

One can only wonder why you dilute what little credibility you have by
posting such obvious and easily falsified untruths.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[RSNorman]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 18:11:49 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

All that, yes.

In addition you should know that Smolin's notion is that the constants
of our universe are indeed shaped by a weird notion of seemingly
Darwinian evolution (mutation plus selection) but not at all for life
or for the existence of humans. No, our universe is fine tuned to
produce black holes!

[Burkhard]

My theory, that is the theory I made, which is to say, it is mine, is
that the "tuner" is a manufacturer of snooker tables for the gods , who
play on a galactic scale, with planets for balls and black holes for
pockets. Life is just a totally unwanted bacterial infection on some of
the balls, which can lead to bad kicks and which the divine snooker
players ask the referee to remove with a silk towel before making a
difficult pot.

Through a weird form of cosmic resonance, these facts have found their
way into human religion through flood stories and similar divine
punishment that rids the earth of life, and in one notable case in a
recognition that the "fine tuner" is indeed a carpenter.

[RSNorman]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:30:38 -0700, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>

I hope that it was obvious that the "you" who should know refers back
to Jonathan. I was just adding onto jillery's list for him.

[jillery]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:09:51 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>My theory, that is the theory I made, which is to say, it is mine, is
>that the "tuner" is a manufacturer of snooker tables for the gods , who
>play on a galactic scale, with planets for balls and black holes for
>pockets. Life is just a totally unwanted bacterial infection on some of
>the balls, which can lead to bad kicks and which the divine snooker
>players ask the referee to remove with a silk towel before making a
>difficult pot.
>
>Through a weird form of cosmic resonance, these facts have found their
>way into human religion through flood stories and similar divine
>punishment that rids the earth of life, and in one notable case in a
>recognition that the "fine tuner" is indeed a carpenter.
>

Ancient Chinese saying: universe with infected balls and holes needs
better hygiene.

[eridanus]

El domingo, 15 de enero de 2017, 1:39:58 (UTC), Jonathan escribió:
> How may times have I told this ng that /everything/
> evolves, even the fundamental constants?

No big deal. Physical constants were assumed to be constant for they looked
constant. Then, there were not reasons to believe otherwise.
But our knowledge is achieved here, with our brains, and in the place we are
in. In the center of our galaxy or nearby things can be different. Billions
of years before present, things could had been different. But we have not any
way to know it.

At a distance of some billion years from us, we cannot be sure what could be
the value of some physical constants.

But as we do not know, we had not been there, there is not any way for us
to know this. Then, the reasonable things is to shut up and say nothing.

eri

[jillery]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 01:08:03 -0800 (PST), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El domingo, 15 de enero de 2017, 1:39:58 (UTC), Jonathan escribió:
>> How may times have I told this ng that /everything/
>> evolves, even the fundamental constants?
>
>No big deal. Physical constants were assumed to be constant for they looked
>constant. Then, there were not reasons to believe otherwise.
>But our knowledge is achieved here, with our brains, and in the place we are
>in. In the center of our galaxy or nearby things can be different. Billions
>of years before present, things could had been different. But we have not any
>way to know it.
>
>At a distance of some billion years from us, we cannot be sure what could be
>the value of some physical constants.
>
>But as we do not know, we had not been there, there is not any way for us
>to know this. Then, the reasonable things is to shut up and say nothing.
>
>eri

You should find this article enlightening:

<https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/distant-quasars-show-that-fundamental-constants-never-change-6e3a1d88511c#.g4p1ogcv0>

<http://tinyurl.com/j9t76po>

******************************************
To only 1.3 parts in a million, the fundamental constant a
[fine-structure constant] once again appears to be truly constant.
******************************************

[eridanus]

I will read the article.
But things so fine as 1.3 in a million are on the verge of incredulity.
Anyway, some constants can be truly constant, others could change along
the time and space. It is a hypothesis based on nothing.

In any case there is a long way to Tipperary the Irish sang in WWI
Eri

[J. J. Lodder]

To 10^-6 is poor accuracy, by the standards of todays physics.
The only excuse for it is that it is so far away,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

[Shakes head] Why the nonsense about never-changing, truly constant.
Is 'constant to 1.3 parts in a million'
really to difficult to understand for todays kiddies?

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:48:30 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com>:

>On 1/15/2017 12:58 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 20:35:38 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> How may times have I told this ng that /everything/
>>> evolves, even the fundamental constants?
>>
>> Probably more times than the assertion warrants, especially
>> since you're basically "preaching to the choir" about nearly
>> everything which exists and changes over time.

>But in the Darwinian sense, as the paper asserts.
>But abstract thought is required for this discussion.

I have no idea what you're trying to convey here; "Darwinian
sense"?

> But let's see
>> if you actually include anything below which supports your
>> contention that the fundamental constants (those we know of)
>> evolve and change over time in the universe we can directly
>> observe...

>Directly observe? Ya mean like the Big Bang?

No, like what we can actually observe. Are you *really* so
dense that you didn't understand what I wrote?

>We can't directly observe what the constants
>were at the start, only extrapolate backwards
>from the present.

Not really. We can directly observe objects and events from
nearly 12 billion years ago; the limit of the speed of light
is Your Friend.

>And I only provided excerpts, read the paper
>and then your opinion might be informed
>enough to continue.

See below; it's up to you to support your assertions, not up
to your audience to dig them out.

ISTM that if the cited paper contained the info you claimed
it does (that the fundamental constants we know of have
changed over time in this universe) you would have included
at least a bit of that as an excerpt. Instead, you included
several excerpts which referenced other postulated universes
and their possible variant constants, something which was
not in question and which is inherent in most multiverse
conjectures. So if such claims exist in your cited article
it's up to you to at least show where, with an excerpt if
possible.

>> Bottom line: Once again you have posted dozens of lines
>> which don't support your assertion, in this case that the
>> fundamental constants in our observable universe change over
>> time.
>>
>> Whether the constants in an offshoot universe, assuming any
>> exist, differ from those we see here is irrelevant, since
>> that doesn't constitute a change *here*.
>>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:01:29 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com>:

>On 1/15/2017 12:58 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 20:35:38 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com>:

>>> How may times have I told this ng that /everything/
>>> evolves, even the fundamental constants?

>> Probably more times than the assertion warrants, especially
>> since you're basically "preaching to the choir" about nearly
>> everything which exists and changes over time. But let's see
>> if you actually include anything below which supports your
>> contention that the fundamental constants (those we know of)
>> evolve and change over time in the universe we can directly
>> observe...

>And btw, you're arguing with this guy below, not me.

No, I'm arguing with *your* assertion that the fundamental
constants change over time in this universe, an assertion
you failed to support with any cited work, as noted
elsethread.

>I'm trying to think who's opinion I should
>listen to, you or a theory from this guy.
>Maybe I should write him a note that Bob says
>he's full of crap.

No, Bob says *you* are full of crap, or at the least that
you haven't supported *your* contention regarding observed
change in the fundamental constants. When you provide a
quote from Smolin which says that we can discuss it further.

>I'll let you do that.
>
>
>
>Awards and honors[edit]
>
>Smolin was named as #21 on Foreign Policy Magazine's list
>of Top 100 Public Intellectuals.[18] He is also one of
>many physicists dubbed the "New Einstein" by the media.
>[19] The Trouble with Physics was named by Newsweek
>magazine as number 17 on a list of 50 “Books for our Time”,
>June 27, 2009. In 2007 he was awarded the Majorana Prize
>from the Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, and
>in 2009 the Klopsteg Memorial Award from the American
>Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) for
>“extraordinary accomplishments in communicating the
>excitement of physics to the general public,” He is
>a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and the American
>Physical Society. In 2014 he was awarded the Buchalter
>Cosmology Prize for a work published in collaboration
>with Marina Cortês.[2
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin

Nothing there about support for your assertion. Again.

[jillery]

It's important to be clear just what that "poor accuracy" refers to.
That's not the uncertainty of what the fine-structure constant is
today, which is measured to 0.32 ppb. Instead, that is the
uncertainty of what the fine-structure constant was billions of years
ago. Given that, it's not surprising the error is larger. The
measurement is still a remarkable technical achievement. That the two
agree helps silence pseudo-skeptics.

[J. J. Lodder]

Well yes, very good work,
but it is not that world-shaking.
It's just one or two decimal places more
on previous results for the same.

BTW, it does blow earlier results that claimed a small
(but still much larger) non-zero effect,

Jan

[Jonathan]

And the person that wrote the cite of yours above
began with these statements, glad I looked ....


***********************
"Leonard Susskind, who later promoted a similar string theory
landscape, stated:

"I'm not sure why Smolin's idea didn't attract much attention.
I actually think it deserved far more than it got."[6]

However, Susskind also argued that, since Smolin's theory relies
on information transfer from the parent universe to the baby
universe through a black hole, it ultimately makes no sense
as a theory of cosmological natural selection.[6] According
to Susskind and many other physicists....."
*******************



And then you rely on that conclusion even though in the
next paragraph Smolin responds with this....



"Smolin has noted that the string theory landscape is not
Popper-falsifiable if other universes are not observable.
[citation needed] This is the subject of the Smolin–Susskind
debate concerning Smolin’s argument: "[The] Anthropic
Principle cannot yield any falsifiable predictions, and
therefore cannot be a part of science."



And then further down you seemed to have missed this...



"When Smolin published the theory in 1992, he proposed as a
prediction of his theory that no neutron star should exist
with a mass of more than 1.6 times the mass of the sun.
[citation needed] Later this figure was raised to two solar
masses following more precise modeling of neutron star
interiors by nuclear astrophysicists. If a more massive
neutron star was ever observed, it would show that our
universe's natural laws were not tuned for maximal
black hole production, because the mass of the strange
quark could be retuned to lower the mass threshold for
production of a black hole. A 2-solar-mass pulsar was
discovered in 2010.[9]

In 1992 Smolin also predicted that inflation, if true, must
only be in its simplest form, governed by a single field
and parameter. Both predictions have held up, and they
demonstrate Smolin’s main thesis: that the theory of
cosmological natural selection is Popper falsifiable."

>
> According to the above, Smolin's speculation, that black holes spawn
> new universes whose laws are based on the laws of this universe, is
> without foundation.
>

The rebuttal is without foundation as it's not
falsifiable, while Smolin's theory made predictions
that held up and is falsifiable.


And you seem to be woefully behind the times, which
is quite usual for this ng.


Recent developments[edit]

Hawking et al. on 5 Jan 2016 proposed new theories of
information moving in and out of a black hole.[26][27]
The 2016 work posits that the information is saved in
"soft particles", low-energy versions of photons and
other particles that exist in zero-energy empty space.[28]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox



Here is Hawking's latest theory not even a year old.
And guess what, the core idea of black hole info
loss addresses happens to be, that's right, the idea
I've been hammering here for years over whether reality
is deterministic OR NOT.

And he fails to settle the question.

As I've said a hundred times the input side is
deterministic, but due to feeding the output
back into the input side means the output
is NOT deterministic, but displays non-linear
or unpredictable behavior. Which should be
obvious as all open systems, such as an
evolutionary system, is not predictable.
And Hawking appears to conclude the info
paradox solution takes on some kind of duality
where info can be lost, yet still be deterministic.





SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
jAN 8, 2016

Stephen Hawking's New Black-Hole Paper, Translated:
An Interview with Co-Author Andrew Strominger

The Harvard physicist explains the collaboration's
long-awaited research on the black-hole information
paradox

Seth Fletcher: Physicists are comfortable with all sorts of
insane-sounding ideas, but the idea that black holes
destroy information is not one of them. Why is this
something that they cannot abide?

Andrew Strominger: Black holes destroying information means
that the world is not deterministic. That is, the present
doesn't predict the future perfectly, and it also can't
be used to reconstruct the past. That's sort of the essence
of what a physical law is. Going way back to Galileo or
earlier, the idea of a physical law is that you start out
with bodies in some state of motion and interacting, and
you use the physical laws to determine either where they
will be in the future or where they must have come from.

So it's a very big thing if black holes destroy information.
It's a very big thing to say that we cannot use physical
laws in the way that we've been accustomed to for thousands
of years to describe the world around us.

Now just because it's a very big thing doesn't mean that
it's impossible. In a way, the history of physics is the
history of learning that things that we thought had to be
true weren’t true. We used to think that space and time
were absolute. We used to think the Earth is the center of
the universe. All of these things seemed completely obvious
and well defined. And one by one they went by the wayside.

That could happen to determinism, too. The very fact that the
universe has a beginning seems to be in contradiction with
determinism, because if you have nothing and then there’s
something, that’s not deterministic. So determinism should
be on the table. And indeed when Hawking first came out
with his argument [that black holes destroyed information],
it seemed like such a good argument that many or even most
of the people who listened to it believed that determinism
was over.

But three things happened that have changed that. The first
is that you can’t just throw up your hands and say we can’t
describe the universe. You need some kind of alternative—some
sort of probabilistic laws or something. And Hawking and other
people put out some formalism that enables you to have
probabilistic laws, and so on, but it was rather quickly
shown to be internally self-inconsistent.

The second thing was that experimentally it’s not plausible
to say that determinism breaks down only when you make a
big black hole and let it collapse because according to
quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, you would
have little black holes popping in and out of the vacuum.

And so you would have to violate determinism everywhere.
And the experimental bounds on that are truly extraordinary.
So experimentally there are very serious consequences if
there are even teeny, tiny violations of determinism.

SF: What are some of those consequences?

AS: In order to say that a symmetry implies a conservation
law, you need determinism. Otherwise [symmetries] only
imply conservation laws on the average. So electric charge
would only have to be conserved on the average. Or energy
would only have to be conserved on the average. And the
experimental bounds on energy conservation are extraordinary.
If you added terms to the laws of physics that violated
determinism in some form, they would have to have
fantastically small coefficients, one part in many trillions.

So [the black-hole information paradox] is experimentally a
problem and it's theoretically a problem. Those are the
first two things. The third thing was string theory.
I would say up until the 1990s, the community was kind
of split 50-50. But then Cumrun Vafa and I showed that
certain string-theoretic black holes were capable of storing
the requisite information, and they apparently also have
some method of letting the information go in and out.

And the fact that that worked—I mean, people had been trying
for 25 years to reproduce this Bekenstein-Hawking area
entropy law, or in other words, to derive the information
content of a black hole from first principles. And nobody
had been able to do it. And then we did it with complete
accuracy. All the numbers, everything worked perfectly.
And it had to be some kind of clue to something. It couldn’t
just be an accident.

Now, we don’t know whether or not string theory describes
the world, and we won’t know anytime soon. But this,
I think, gave a lot of people, including Hawking, hope
that in the real world there would be some mechanism
that resembled what happens in string theory and enables
information to come out of a black hole.

SF: And in a new paper that you, Stephen Hawking, and Malcolm
Perry posted online this week, you argue that you’ve
taken some concrete steps toward explaining how information
can get in and out of a black hole. The first step in your
argument is to undercut some of the assumptions underlying
Hawking’s original argument using “new discoveries about
the infrared structure of quantum gravity.”
Can you tell us about these discoveries?

.........

SF: Is there a clear road ahead?

AS: I’ve got a list of 35 problems on the board, each
of which will take many months. It’s a very nice stage
to be in if you're a theoretical physicist because there a
re things we don’t understand, but there are calculations t
hat we can do that will definitely shed light on it.

Read more here...

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/dark-star-diaries/stephen-hawking-s-new-black-hole-paper-translated-an-interview-with-co-author-andrew-strominger/




In short information may be lost, but the world
might still be deterministic, but they just
aren't sure yet...gee, sounds like they're
hinting about some kind of duality of opposing
forms.

To state the issue of black holes losing information
is a settled matter is a gross distortion of the facts.
Even with Hawking's latest paper, if you read the
analysis above it's clear this an ongoing controversy.


Your rebuttal fails.

> Here's a more recent article which also illustrates the lack of
> substance:
>
> <http://www.space.com/21335-black-holes-time-universe-creation.html>
>
> *****************************************************
> SPACE.com: How would these universes pass on their traits to daughter
> universes?
>
> Smolin: At the level in which I propose this theory I didn't answer
> that question, just like Darwin had no idea how inherited traits were
> inherited, because he didn't know anything about the molecular basis
> of genetics, which was only discovered with DNA. So I was able to make
> those predictions without specifying the microscopic basis of
> inheritance in cosmology.
> *****************************************************
>
> Smolin's comparison of himself to Darwin is flawed. Smolin is correct
> that Darwin didn't know about genes, but it was long-known from animal
> husbandry that children inherit characteristics from their parents.
> There are no equivalent observations on which to base Smolin's
> speculation about child universes.
>
> So what does Smolin actually base his speculation on?
>
> You make a claim in your posts to this topic, that everything evolves
> in a Darwinian sense, which is not from Lee Smolin, so you can't hide
> behind his expertise and celebrity.
>

He claims the universe evolves in a Darwinian sense
and your attempt to falsely portray info loss
in a black hole as a settled matter fails to
refute that theory.

And from a cite by the poseur Norman please
note the incomplete list below, does an
....ecosystem evolve in a Darwinian sense?

Complexity science deals with the following
complex systems and far more as evolving
systems in the same way a biological system
is treated, abstractly modeled of course.

This is the rest....



What is Complex Systems?

Our Center studies systems like economies, the brain,
ecosystems, political systems, social networks, and the
Internet that consist of many interacting individuals,
nodes, or parts and that produce collective behaviors
that exceed and even transcend the capabilities of the
constituent parts. The behaviors of interest include:

SELF-ORGANIZATION into patterns, as occurs with
flocks of birds, periodicity in disease outbreaks, or
residential segregation.

EMERGENCE of functionalities, such as cognition in the
brain or the robustness of networks.

CHAOS, where small changes in initial conditions ("the
flapping of a butterfly's wings in Argentina") produce
large later changes ("a hurricane in the Caribbean").

"FAT-TAIL" BEHAVIOR, where rare events (e.g. mass extinctions,
market crashes, and epidemics) occur much more often than
would be predicted by a normal (bell-curve) distribution.

ADAPTIVE INTERACTION, where interacting agents (as in markets
or the Prisoner's Dilemma) modify their strategies in
diverse ways as experience accumulates to produce cooperative
behavior.

Note that these emergent behaviors need not align with the
goals of the individual parts. This complex of
unintuitive relationships between the micro and the
macro makes these systems difficult to analyze,
explain, and predict.
http://lsa.umich.edu/cscs/about-us/what-is-complex-systems.html



The above is the abstract form of Darwinian evolution
and how to apply it universally.

Try to name one discipline that can't be modeled
by the above? It applies to just about any system
that has many interacting parts, which is about
....everything.

> More to the point, you assert above that Bob Casanova wrote or implied
> something he did not. If he expressed a sense of crappiness, it would
> almost certainly refer to you alone, not Lee Smolin or Andy Friedman
> or even Johan (John?) Baez.
>

His response was nothing more that 'no it isn't...'no it isn't,
....'no it isn't'. That's the reply of a ten year old child, he
deserves to get slapped for such a lazy and empty reply.

> One can only wonder why you dilute what little credibility you have by
> posting such obvious and easily falsified untruths.

Your convenient omissions while falsely claiming
black hole information loss is a settled matter
as your only rebuttal leaves your credibility
in taters.

I related a theory, and you've failed to rebut it
except with dated and erroneous facts.

Nice try, but no cigar.



Jonathan

[jillery]

That's why I cited it. Too bad you pushed it so far below it has lost
its context. Restored immediately below:

>> Here's a more recent article which also illustrates the lack of
>> substance:
>>
>> <http://www.space.com/21335-black-holes-time-universe-creation.html>
>>
>> *****************************************************
>> SPACE.com: How would these universes pass on their traits to daughter
>> universes?
>>
>> Smolin: At the level in which I propose this theory I didn't answer
>> that question, just like Darwin had no idea how inherited traits were
>> inherited, because he didn't know anything about the molecular basis
>> of genetics, which was only discovered with DNA. So I was able to make
>> those predictions without specifying the microscopic basis of
>> inheritance in cosmology.
>> *****************************************************
>>
>> Smolin's comparison of himself to Darwin is flawed. Smolin is correct
>> that Darwin didn't know about genes, but it was long-known from animal
>> husbandry that children inherit characteristics from their parents.
>> There are no equivalent observations on which to base Smolin's
>> speculation about child universes.
>>
>> So what does Smolin actually base his speculation on?

No answer. No surprise.


The following is from your cited Wiki article:

>***********************
>"Leonard Susskind, who later promoted a similar string theory
>landscape, stated:
>
>"I'm not sure why Smolin's idea didn't attract much attention.
>I actually think it deserved far more than it got."[6]
>
>However, Susskind also argued that, since Smolin's theory relies
>on information transfer from the parent universe to the baby
>universe through a black hole, it ultimately makes no sense
>as a theory of cosmological natural selection.[6] According
>to Susskind and many other physicists....."
>*******************
>
>
>
>And then you rely on that conclusion even though in the
>next paragraph Smolin responds with this....

The following is not from Smolin, but a continuation of the Wiki
article you cited:

>"Smolin has noted that the string theory landscape is not
>Popper-falsifiable if other universes are not observable.
>[citation needed] This is the subject of the Smolin–Susskind
>debate concerning Smolin’s argument: "[The] Anthropic
>Principle cannot yield any falsifiable predictions, and
>therefore cannot be a part of science."

The line of reasoning above would apply as well to Smolin's child
universes.

>And then further down you seemed to have missed this...
>
>
>
>"When Smolin published the theory in 1992, he proposed as a
>prediction of his theory that no neutron star should exist
>with a mass of more than 1.6 times the mass of the sun.
>[citation needed] Later this figure was raised to two solar
>masses following more precise modeling of neutron star
>interiors by nuclear astrophysicists. If a more massive
>neutron star was ever observed, it would show that our
>universe's natural laws were not tuned for maximal
>black hole production, because the mass of the strange
>quark could be retuned to lower the mass threshold for
>production of a black hole. A 2-solar-mass pulsar was
>discovered in 2010.[9]
>
>In 1992 Smolin also predicted that inflation, if true, must
>only be in its simplest form, governed by a single field
>and parameter. Both predictions have held up, and they
>demonstrate Smolin’s main thesis: that the theory of
>cosmological natural selection is Popper falsifiable."

The Wiki article doesn't say how Smolin's child universes being passed
attributes from this universe has anything to do with his two
predictions.

>> According to the above, Smolin's speculation, that black holes spawn
>> new universes whose laws are based on the laws of this universe, is
>> without foundation.
>
>
>The rebuttal is without foundation as it's not
>falsifiable, while Smolin's theory made predictions
>that held up and is falsifiable.

What rebuttal is without foundation? Smolin's expressed predictions
aren't about child universes from black holes.

>And you seem to be woefully behind the times, which
>is quite usual for this ng.
>
>
>Recent developments[edit]
>
>Hawking et al. on 5 Jan 2016 proposed new theories of
>information moving in and out of a black hole.[26][27]
>The 2016 work posits that the information is saved in
>"soft particles", low-energy versions of photons and
>other particles that exist in zero-energy empty space.[28]"
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

Even if black holes preserve all the information they absorb, that
doesn't explain the variations Smolin needs for his child universes to
act in a Darwinian fashion.

I didn't post a rebuttal. I asked you a question. Your answer to it
fails by its omission.

Quote this false portrayal to which you refer, or retract.

The above doesn't describe the post I read. Perhaps you read
something from one of Smolin's child universes.

As Casanova confirmed in a follow-up, his "crappiness" referred to
*your* comments, not Smolin's, so your claim about what he wrote is
without foundation and pointless hyperbole.

>> One can only wonder why you dilute what little credibility you have by
>> posting such obvious and easily falsified untruths.
>
>
>
>Your convenient omissions

I omitted nothing of relevance. Instead, you have added irrelevant
noise and mangled context into incoherence. Apparently you think
aping your strange bedfellow makes you look clever.


> while falsely claiming



I falsely claimed nothing. That's what you do.

>black hole information loss is a settled matter
>as your only rebuttal leaves your credibility
>in taters.

I like my taters peeled.

>I related a theory, and you've failed to rebut it
>except with dated and erroneous facts.

I note your conflation of baseless speculations with tested scientific
theories.

>Nice try, but no cigar.

I don't smoke. The smoke here from you, accompanied by your mirrors.

[R. Dean]

On 1/15/2017 3:48 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> On 1/15/2017 12:58 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 20:35:38 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> How may times have I told this ng that /everything/
>>> evolves, even the fundamental constants?
>>
>> Probably more times than the assertion warrants, especially
>> since you're basically "preaching to the choir" about nearly
>> everything which exists and changes over time.
>
>
> But in the Darwinian sense, as the paper asserts.
> But abstract thought is required for this discussion.
>
>
>
> But let's see
>> if you actually include anything below which supports your
>> contention that the fundamental constants (those we know of)
>> evolve and change over time in the universe we can directly
>> observe...
>>
>
>
>
> Directly observe? Ya mean like the Big Bang?
> We can't directly observe what the constants
> were at the start, only extrapolate backwards
> from the present.
>

Whoever said it - it's a good point. Scientist can
extrapolate backwards in time almost to the Big Bang
itself. If the constants or the physical laws
changed, then this backward extrapolation would be an
illusion, since it doesn't amalgamate this changing.
If they changed how could you do science?

[jillery]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 10:28:09 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 1/15/2017 3:48 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 1/15/2017 12:58 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 20:35:38 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> How may times have I told this ng that /everything/
>>>> evolves, even the fundamental constants?
>>>
>>> Probably more times than the assertion warrants, especially
>>> since you're basically "preaching to the choir" about nearly
>>> everything which exists and changes over time.
>>
>>
>> But in the Darwinian sense, as the paper asserts.
>> But abstract thought is required for this discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> But let's see
>>> if you actually include anything below which supports your
>>> contention that the fundamental constants (those we know of)
>>> evolve and change over time in the universe we can directly
>>> observe...
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Directly observe? Ya mean like the Big Bang?
>> We can't directly observe what the constants
>> were at the start, only extrapolate backwards
>> from the present.
> >
>Whoever said it - it's a good point.

Not really, it's just "were you there?" in other words.


>Scientist[s] can

>extrapolate backwards in time almost to the Big Bang
>itself. If the constants or the physical laws
>changed, then this backward extrapolation would be an
>illusion, since it doesn't amalgamate this changing.
>If they changed how could you do science?

Causes have effects. We directly observe those effects, from which we
infer their causes. In the case of the Big Bang, we observe that
galaxies accelerate away from us according to their distance, as
described by Hubble's Law. We also observe the Cosmic Microwave
Background Radiation with its distinctive black-body temperature
curve. The Big Bang is a reasonable inference from these observations.

The laws of classic physics support the above up to the first second
or so of the Big Bang, where they break down into infinities and
singularities. To go before then requires quantum physics, which is
supported by observations of nuclear accelerators and stars.

The above is a simplified description. Nevertheless it's sufficient
to raise the question; what part(s) of the above do you think is
illusion?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 10:28:09 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:

>On 1/15/2017 3:48 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 1/15/2017 12:58 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 20:35:38 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> How may times have I told this ng that /everything/
>>>> evolves, even the fundamental constants?
>>>
>>> Probably more times than the assertion warrants, especially
>>> since you're basically "preaching to the choir" about nearly
>>> everything which exists and changes over time.
>>
>>
>> But in the Darwinian sense, as the paper asserts.
>> But abstract thought is required for this discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> But let's see
>>> if you actually include anything below which supports your
>>> contention that the fundamental constants (those we know of)
>>> evolve and change over time in the universe we can directly
>>> observe...
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Directly observe? Ya mean like the Big Bang?
>> We can't directly observe what the constants
>> were at the start, only extrapolate backwards
>> from the present.
> >
>Whoever said it - it's a good point.

Then one can only wonder why you responded directly to
jonathan's irrelevancy and ignored the response I provided.

>Scientist can
>extrapolate backwards in time almost to the Big Bang
>itself.

Science can see back in time almost to the BB; extrapolation
is not required. IOW, your (and jonathan's) strawman is on
fire.

> If the constants or the physical laws
>changed, then this backward extrapolation would be an
>illusion, since it doesn't amalgamate this changing.
>If they changed how could you do science?

Easily (relatively so); all one needs to "do science" is
valid data and the desire to apply that data to formulate a
testable hypothesis, and if the constants change in a
measurable and predictable manner the data would be
available.

I notice that you, like jonathan, chose to ignore my
comments below regarding the lack of support for his
conjectures. Nothing to say?

[R. Dean]

The condition I described was conditional. The condition being if the
constants or the laws of physics changed or were changing, scientist
could not extrapolate backwards to Planck Time with any degree of
certainty.

[Burkhard]

True.And the same holds true for events (that you think were) 5 weeks,
or 5 days, or 5 seconds ago. If the present is such an unreliable guide
to the past, knowledge becomes impossible.

So we have a choice - adopt epistemological nihilism of the sort lots of
people go through when teenagers and despair, or run with it and find
out as much as we can, even though it might just turn out that we were
but NPCs in a complex simulation that lasted only for seconds.

[Steven Carlip]

On 1/14/17 5:35 PM, Jonathan wrote:

> How may times have I told this ng that /everything/
> evolves, even the fundamental constants?

> Fundamental Constants of Physics" The Genes of the Universe
> Andy Friedman
> MIT Center for Theoretical Physics.

> (excerpts)

> There are many strong theoretical reasons for
> believing that our universe is not the only one,
> thus providing a compelling explanation for why
> a universe could exists with the parameter values
> necessary for life, even though, on the surface,
> each individual set of parameters seems unlikely.

> With his theory of Cosmological Natural Selection, Lee
> Smolin makes, what this author views as, a spectacular
> attempt to answer this question. He goes a step further
> than the mere postulation of a multiverse, and ties
> together natural selection, the most powerful principle
> of biology, with cosmology, the most all-encompassing
> branch of theoretical physics. Smolin's theory provides
> a mechanism that explains why individual universes
> attain their particular parameter values.

Lee Smolin is a colleague, and I've talked with him a
fair amount about this proposal. Here are a few basic
things you should keep in mind:

1. Lee would be the first to admit that this is a very
speculative idea, certainly not something to rely on. He
would argue that the proposal has made predictions that
could have falsified it, and have not (others, like Vilenkin,
think it *has* been falsified), but in any case it is very
far from being established.

2. The proposal is based on two ad hoc postulates: that
black holes give birth to new "baby universes," and that
the fundamental physical constants in these new universes
differ, but only by small amounts, from those of their
"parent universes." Neither of these comes from anything
else we know; both are made for the purposes of this model.
The first assumption is not completely unreasonable --
we don't know what happens near the would-be singularity
of a black hole, and there have been other proposals in
different contexts that there could be baby universes. The
second, though, the idea that the baby universes could have
slightly different constants, doesn't come from anything else
-- it's completely ad hoc.

3. This is a multiverse proposal. The claim is *not* that
the physical constants evolve in *our* universe, but rather
that more "baby universes" exist with certain values of the
constants than others. It's not quite "natural selection"
in the usual sense, since there's no "death" -- the proposal
is just that universes "mutate" (by some completely unknown
mechanism) and that some populations of universe grow faster
than others.

4. The "selection" in the proposal is not selection not life,
or complexity, or self-organization, or anything like that.
It's merely selection for "number of black holes." There is
nothing in Smolin's proposal that has anything to do with
complexity or emergence.

Steve Carlip

[jillery]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:12:16 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

I understand that's your opinion. Apparently you don't understand I
disagree with your opinion, for the reasons given. My understanding
is, if the laws of physics had changed in the past, those changes
would have left effects, which would be observable in the present.

For example, from observations of particular kinds of supernovae, it
is inferred that up to about 5 billion years ago, the rate of
expansion of spacetime was decreasing, but then it increased, possibly
as a result of a shift in the universe from being dominasted by
attracting gravity to being dominated by repulsing dark energy.

For example, if the nuclear forces were different in the past, we
would observe in the present differences in certain properties of
stars as a function of their distance from Earth. It has been
observed these properties are constant regardless of distance. From
that observation it's reasonable to infer the nuclear forces are the
same now as they were in the past.

[J. J. Lodder]

Complete nonsense.
You are again assuming that constants just do something randomly.

For comparison< you can't predict what the pressure
at the end of the stroke of your bicycle pump will be,
for during the compression the temperature will change.

Or can you?

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

The cosmic background radiation IS the big bang, seen directly.
You cannot see further back in time
because the universe was not transparent before then,

Jan

[R. Dean]

No! Exactly the opposite, I assume that constants are just that ,
invariable, stable, fixed and constant.

>
> For comparison< you can't predict what the pressure
> at the end of the stroke of your bicycle pump will be,
> for during the compression the temperature will change.
>
> Or can you?
>

This, I think is different, a bicycle pump is not a constant.
There are variables during the stroke.
> Jan
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 09:47:30 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

Yes.

>You cannot see further back in time
>because the universe was not transparent before then,

OK, so change what I posted to "Science can see back in time
to the BB". Either refutes Dean's assertion that only
observation of current phenomena is possible, and that
anything prior to the present is based only on those current
observations.

[R. Dean]

Are you saying the background radiation is a constant or the
galaxies increasing are constants? If not why mention them?
These conditions have/are changing along with the entropy in the
universe.

>
> For example, from observations of particular kinds of supernovae, it
> is inferred that up to about 5 billion years ago, the rate of
> expansion of spacetime was decreasing, but then it increased, possibly
> as a result of a shift in the universe from being dominasted by
> attracting gravity to being dominated by repulsing dark energy.
>

I don't know that. Has this been measured?

>
> For example, if the nuclear forces were different in the past, we
> would observe in the present differences in certain properties of
> stars as a function of their distance from Earth. It has been
> observed these properties are constant regardless of distance. From
> that observation it's reasonable to infer the nuclear forces are the
> same now as they were in the past.
>

Okay I do not disagree with you on this.

Thanks Jill;
Ron

[jillery]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:17:41 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

I am saying the background radiation and galaxies preserve evidence of
the history of physical constants.

>> For example, from observations of particular kinds of supernovae, it
>> is inferred that up to about 5 billion years ago, the rate of
>> expansion of spacetime was decreasing, but then it increased, possibly
>> as a result of a shift in the universe from being dominasted by
>> attracting gravity to being dominated by repulsing dark energy.
> >
>I don't know that. Has this been measured?

I don't know what you mean by "this" or "that". What has been
measured is a change in the expansion rate of the universe over time.
What is deduced from these and other observations is the energy in the
universe was once dominated by gravity, and now it's dominated by dark
energy.

[J. J. Lodder]

Yes, and you can account for them,
just like you could account for say alpha changing slightly
on the way to the big bang,

Jan

[R. Dean]

Yes, by using a strain gage and a continuous recording device.
Otherwise, you would be guessing at the pressures during the stroke.

>
> just like you could account for say alpha changing slightly
> on the way to the big bang,
>

On the way _to_ the Big Bang? Would that not be before the B.B.?
Ron


> Jan
>

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:26:01 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

Some people treat cosmic inflation as a separate phenomenon from the
Big Bang.

[R. Dean]

Even so, the Big Bang preceded the inflation.

[R. Dean]

Yes this is true, but is the background considered a constant?

>
>>> For example, from observations of particular kinds of supernovae, it
>>> is inferred that up to about 5 billion years ago, the rate of
>>> expansion of spacetime was decreasing, but then it increased, possibly
>>> as a result of a shift in the universe from being dominasted by
>>> attracting gravity to being dominated by repulsing dark energy.
>>>
>> I don't know that. Has this been measured?
>
>
> I don't know what you mean by "this" or "that". What has been
> measured is a change in the expansion rate of the universe over time.
> What is deduced from these and other observations is the energy in the
> universe was once dominated by gravity, and now it's dominated by dark
> energy.
>

I didn't understand what you were saying. But I do realize that the
expansion rate is known: dark energy is the force that is stretching
distances between galaxies. Also as the universe expands, the
gravitational attraction between galaxies is gradually being reduced.
Consequently, an imbalance arises between dark energy, a constant, and
gravity. This accounts for the speeding up of the expansion of the
universe.

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:58:16 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

AIUI for those who make this distinction, the phrase "Big Bang" refers
to the original understanding of Georges Lemaître's hypothesis, which
is described without referring to the effects of Guth's cosmic
inflation:

<https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/all-about-cosmic-inflation-211a64441ddd#.agyjpuf9s>

<http://tinyurl.com/jm6dbwg>

*****************************************************
You must understand that these problems and puzzles are ONLY
difficulties if you insist that we extrapolate back to those arbitrary
high energies and temperatures. If, instead, we allow for the
possibility that we CAN'T extrapolate back to the highest energies and
temperatures and densities and smallest scales possible, but instead
theorize that something else happened to CAUSE AND SET UP the hot,
dense, expanding, matter-and-radiation-filled Universe, we can not
only solve these problems, but figure out what came BEFORE the Big
Bang framework is applicable.

And that’s exactly what the theory of cosmological inflation says. It
says that PRIOR to the Universe being described by the
matter-and-radiation-filled, expanding state we have today, it went
through a period where there was practically NO matter or radiation,
and instead the Universe was dominated by energy inherent to space
itself, and expanded exponentially!

(CAPS = author's emphasis)
********************************************************

First there was cosmic inflation, and what followed is the Big Bang.

[J. J. Lodder]

Come on, the equation of state of air is well known.
You can just calculate it.
If your hobbyist pottering results in another answer,
so much the worse for your measurements,

Jan

[RSNorman]

You are being more than a little ingenuous, although in a good cause.

You do need to know the thermal properties of the walls of the pump
not to mention the resistance of the connection between pump and tire.

[J. J. Lodder]

> >> >>>> The condition I described was conditional. The condition being if
> >> >>>> the constants or the laws of physics changed or were changing,
> >> >>>> scientist could not extrapolate backwards to Planck Time with any
> >> >>>> degree of certainty.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Complete nonsense.
> >> >>> You are again assuming that constants just do something randomly.
> >> >> >
> >> >> No! Exactly the opposite, I assume that constants are just that ,
> >> >> invariable, stable, fixed and constant.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> For comparison< you can't predict what the pressure
> >> >>> at the end of the stroke of your bicycle pump will be,
> >> >>> for during the compression the temperature will change.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Or can you?
> >> >>>
> >> >> This, I think is different, a bicycle pump is not a constant.
> >> >> There are variables during the stroke.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, and you can account for them,
> >> >
> >> Yes, by using a strain gage and a continuous recording device.
> >> Otherwise, you would be guessing at the pressures during the stroke.
> >
> >Come on, the equation of state of air is well known.
> >You can just calculate it.
> >If your hobbyist pottering results in another answer,
> >so much the worse for your measurements,
> >
>
> You are being more than a little ingenuous, although in a good cause.

You can't be ingenious enough, eh?

> You do need to know the thermal properties of the walls of the pump
> not to mention the resistance of the connection between pump and tire.

You can always add more variables.
It doesn't change the point,

Jan