Saturday, September 11, 2010

How Could the Universe Originate from Nothing?




BELOW: The Multi-verse, a multiple -brane entity composed of an infinite number of parallel universes.



On The Larry King Show last night, Stephen Hawking appeared via satellite connection, along with his co-author Leonard Mlodinow, in respect of their fascinating new book: The Grand Design. King began the show with a one on one interview of Hawking, who again reiterated no God is necessary since the universe can incept itself. Mlodinow then expanded on this and answered criticisms of the other members of the panel: Deepok Chopra and a Jesuit (Fr. Robert J. Spitzer) who has written a book “New Proofs for the Existence of God”. (Alas, largely based on ancient Thomistic “proofs” well known since the 13 the century but only now adorned in new mathematical window dressing)

Hawking, then Mludnow, went into some depth on the way the universe could originate from nothing based on M-theory, but it's doubtful either King or the other panel members grasped it, since it would have taken time to explain fine points and background- time which which wasn’t available. (One big reason I object to these interviews when commercials still intrude every 7 minutes!)

Even on this blog, it's only possible to scratch the surface of the underlying M-theory which will be as alien to most readers as reading Chinese. But it is upon M-theory that Hawking and Mlodinow base their spontaneously originating universe. And YES, the mathematics shows it can be done- despite the linear human mind rebelling at the prospect. (I will provide links at the end which will help to get a basic grasp of M-theory as well as the origin of our universe from nothing)

A few points before beginning this intro to M-theory:

1) It is based on the “M” from Membrane and hence two-dimensional structures (e.g. D-branes) replace the usual cosmic strings associated with "String theory". Thus, M-theory supersedes string theory.

2) The origin of our universe from nothing occurs as a result of the contact of two hyperdimensional branes, not from a single particle, atom, or even a bubble of dark energy.

3) The M-theory used by Hawking can allow for an infinite number of parallel universes which have the possibility of interphasing.

With any manner of brane, D or other, we are dealing with a hyper-dimensional object. For example, in the case of D-branes, the number of spatial dimensions is equal to the total number of spatial dimensions in the entire space-time- which we call a “space-filling brane”.

In the case of normal 4D space-time (3 spatial dimensions, x, y, z and one of time, t) we have a D3-brane. Meanwhile, in bosonic string theory with 26 dimensions (25 of space, one of time) you would get a D25-brane. In superstring theory, with 10 space-time dimensions (9 of space, one of time) we get a D9-brane.

An unusual and intriguing aspect of M-theory in the multi-universe setting is that one can actually track back in time to the current state and reach a “negative” time domain before the Big Bang. At this stage one can actually depict a pair of universes colliding via their brane structures. (See top diagrams - where scales are in the Planck Length L(P) = 10^-33cm) When those branes come into contact(middle diagram), a new universe spontaneously forms, via a new Big Bang.

If one studies the (bottom-most) attached image showing a multi-verse in five dimensional space-time(4 of space and one of time, hence D4 brane) one can see how this can occur. In this panoramic view each of the separated circles bounding the periphery represents the M-brane of a different universe, a kind of “slice” as it were. Theoretically, though the branes are shown separate, it is possible for an infinite number to occur, in the same way there are an infinite number of points on the circumference of a circle.

If one follows the outer “circles” (M-branes) toward the interior we see a single point or singularity where all the branes converge. Toward the top we see the circles opening and then narrowing toward the center, followed by opening up again below the center. Now, at the very center we have the putative origin point of all the universes-branes. It is exactly here in the overall topology that two M-branes can collide to incite the inception of a new “circle” or M-brane universe.

Each such parallel universe created will have different laws of physics based on slightly different fundamental constants of nature (e.g. h, e, alpha etc.) One cannot have two universes exactly the same because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle of Quantum Mechanics applied to the whole multiverse. If then the latter is an aggregate super-quantum system and particles flit into and out of each universe (their unpredictable positions tied to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of each universe) then if 2 universes were exactly the same their values of h (Planck constant) would be also and electron spins, atomic spectra as well – leading to a fusion because of what we call “degeneracy”. On the other hand, if there are only a total of 10^49 leptons for all the multiverse, then they can all be shared given the temporal uncertainty in each M-brane can vary down to the Planck time of 10^-43 s.

As each temporal uncertainty (delta t) occurs in each M-brane it leads to an instantaneous change in energy delta E by which the associated particle in that parallel universe appears. The wave mechanics and electron probability waves for differing atoms we behold are simply the manifestation of the defined sharing of the electrons among all the parallel universes- the “smearing” effect in space proportional to the number of universes sharing the leptons.

To fix ideas here, consider the phenomenon we call "tunneling", whereby a given particle (e.g. proton) of kinetic energy K can overcome a potential energy barrier of "height" (magnitude) V (> K). The key underpinning is de Broglie's demonstration (1926) that particles can also possess a wave nature. If they have this wave nature, they can - depending on the wave function - penetrate the energy barrier provided by the Coulomb force.(The matter wave form changes in the process of transmission through the barrier, say in 1-D from an exp(-ikx) function to a sin (kx + phi) where phi denotes phase angle). In effect, this wave nature - which is uniquely quantum mechanical in origin- allows a higher energy barrier to be penetrated by a lower energy particle, something totally without parallel in Newtonian physicsThus, an event or process that seems at first blush like it could never occur (at least during the time interval of Earth's duration) DOES indeed occur! It occurs because the small probability of quantum tunneling exists, and also because in the solar core we are talking about billions and billions of nuclei. The sheer numbers mean that a fusion reaction that is sustainable can and will occur!

For us, in this universe, the probability is on the level of a given fusion occurring 1 time per 14 billion years. (See, for example, Kippenhahn and Wiegert, `Stellar Structure and Evolution', Springer-Verlag, p. 149, and Martin Schwarzschild, `Structure and Evolution of the Stars', Dover, p. 75). But in other parallel universes we would expect the probability to vary since the tunneling capability would vary since the wave nature of electrons varies by virtue of lepton sharing. Thus, in a parallel universe adjacent to ours one may encounter a Sun-like star that exhibits one fusion per 8 billion years. At first glance this seems to allow for much more rapid fusion and hence photon flux, and hence higher luminosity- however one suspects that the other physical constants will “adjust” to keep the sun-like star sun-like at or about our own star’s energy production level. (For example, for this to happen, the fine structure constant alpha may be less)


Since this “sharing” occurs hyper-dimensionally, the time uncertainties don’t influence the spatial properties of atoms, their chemical bonding etc. in those universes. (Which might otherwise be expected based on the length contraction properties for objects traveling at near c rates, according to special relativity) In addition, if two branes (for differing parallel universes) are in too close contact or interphase, then their mutual gravimetric properties can be adjusted or modulated (See Chapter 8 of Hawking’s previous book, The Universe in a Nutshell). For this reason, I don’t believe that one can ever obtain evidence for such interphase, as David Deutsch claims. For one purported experiment, see:

Deutsch's proposed experiment performed to demonstrate parallel universes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qFE2mUMw2Q&NR=1

Readers interested in a greater descriptive basis for M-theory and parallel universes can go to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMcgAUotJkM&feature=related


Those who wish to see how the universe originated from nothing (the collision of two branes in negative time):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcsWJ8NywSk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAagw6iug


None of this stuff is simple or easy and it definitely tests people’s level of understanding. It's clear that those without any physics or any science background will likely have much more difficulty grasping the arguments and will be more likely to fall back on superstitious pseudo-information or grabbing for the "god of the gaps" (Anything you can't understand, creating a "gap" in your brain, drag in a god to cover it).

A good book to read before getting into Brane dynamics or M-theory is Hawking’s Universe in a Nutshell.

19 comments:

Chuck said...

The simple fact is that Professor Hawking should return to the black hole that god made for him since he advances no argument beyond those offered many years ago by the fakers Laplace and Lagrange. For the uninformed mathematical physicists, those who don't know up from down (and these are the vast majority), "god" is the nickname among mathematicians for one Kurt Gödel .
(See discussion on "Is it possible that black holes do not exist? " on Physics Forums
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=421491 for relevant citations.)
In any case all rational scientific discourse has been effectively banned since the illegal shutdown of the first international scientific association and journal in 1837 by the Duke of Clarence, Ernest Augustus. See Percy Byssh Shelley's Mask of Anarchy for a pertinent depiction of the Duke of Clarence, the face behind Castlereagh. A simple google search for "("magnetic union" OR "Magnetischer Verein") AND ("Göttingen Seven" OR "Göttinger Sieben") gauss weber" shows that there has been no serious discussion of that action on the subsequent development of scientific practice.
We must assume therefore that the concurrent and congruent Augustin-Louis Cauchy scientific method of theft, assassination, plagiarize at leisure remains hegemonic. Chuck Stevens 571-252-0451 stevens_c@yahoo.com

Ron Krumpos said...

[In "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking postulates that the M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics...the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate and later abandoned. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.

In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”

Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (fx raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.

Copernicus said...

Chuck wrote:

"In any case all rational scientific discourse has been effectively banned since the illegal shutdown of the first international scientific association and journal in 1837 by the Duke of Clarence, Ernest Augustus"

That's a significant statement, and would be moreso if *rational* scientific parameters were all that mattered. But as author Mlodinow pointed out on 'The Larry King Show" - suring an altercation with the Jesuit (Fr. Spitzer) Science also depends on empirical-experimental findings and these may not in the first instance - agree with conventional rationality based on classical logic.

Our empirical pursuits, especially in quantum mechanics (which many don't understand even 70 years on) has led to such "irrational" findings as: matter waves, nonlocal connections and photons with both wave and particle properties.

Obviously, as mathematical infrastructure has advanced, especially into domains such as complex numbers, conformal transformations, the Residue theorem - so has the physics infrastructure accordingly.

My point is that when you have such advances, whether in areas like QM or mathematical physics, it is not a foregone conclusion you will get a "rational scientific discourse" especially if the word "rational" is too narrowly or subjectively defined!

janidebar said...

"The simple fact is that Professor Hawking should return to the black hole that god made for him since he advances no argument beyond those offered many years ago by the fakers Laplace and Lagrange. For the uninformed mathematical physicists, those who don't know up from down (and these are the vast majority), "god" is the nickname among mathematicians for one Kurt Gödel "

What a bunch of nonsense! So Laplace and Lagrange (who developed the Lagrangian) are 'fakes'? How so? Explain yourself!

Hawking is entitled to venture into any research he wants once he uses methods accepted by the majority of physicists and whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

And I suppose you are a mathematical physicist who 'knows up from down'? If you're not a mathematical physicist, and you've given us no supporting info that you are, you have no business commenting on topics clearly outside your understanding and knowleddge base.

janidebar said...

"A simple google search for "("magnetic union" OR "Magnetischer Verein") AND ("Göttingen Seven" OR "Göttinger Sieben") gauss weber" shows that there has been no serious discussion of that action on the subsequent development of scientific practice."

God, another character on mushrooms! Is that what it takes to write blog comments now?

Copernicus, you need to exercise more scrutiny when allowing these comments. Too many border on the absurd and they *they* squawk about irrational science!

Copernicus said...

janidebar wrote:

Copernicus, you need to exercise more scrutiny when allowing these comments. Too many border on the absurd and they *they* squawk about irrational science!

---

Well, look at it this way, if I censored every flaky comment as well as all the plain obnoxious ones (or those who insist in writing in Mandarin Chinese - when it's obvious I only accept English) then I might have very fewe comments.

This way, I give those like you and Caleb a chance to strut your stuff and pull up any comments you don't like as you've done here!

Along this topic, what continues to fascinate and amaze me is how very ordinary commentators appear to believe they actually know more than Hawking! Obviously, his book is just a superficial grazing and before one can seriously critique him they'd do better to obtain the formal papers on which the book is based.

This is somewhat reminiscent of the fundies that go off on the "defects of evolution", when they've never even read 'The Origin of Species' - only parroted when they saw from second hand sources (usually of the fundagelical mindset).

Chuck said...

For janidebar, a useful review article detailing how Kurt Gödel is primarily responsible for the focus on cosmological singularities after 1950 is found in General Relativity and Gravitation: One Hundred Years after the Birth of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2, Ed. A Held (Plenum Press, New York, 1980), was F. J. Tipler, C. J. S. Clarke and G. F. R. Ellis “Singularities and horizons: A review article” p. 97. Gödel created these black holes as a proper location for the mathematical physicists who abused his good friend Albert Einstein--with a time reversal twist so that after 40 years or so they return to where they began in 1950.

Chuck said...

With the determination of the Ceres orbit Gauss experimentally demonstrated the superiority of Kepler over Newton. Laplace and Lagrange are proved fakers by overlooking that fact and maintaining the axiomatic flaw in the Newtonian approach which leads to the three body entanglement. More recent work further confirms this:
Titius-bode and the helicity connection: a quantized field theory of protostar formation
Daniel R. Wells
paper appears in: Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Issue Date: Dec. 1986
Volume: 14 Issue: 6
On page(s): 865 - 873
ISSN: 0093-3813
Abstract
The Titius-Bode relation is discussed in terms of the basic physics of the formation of the solar system. It is demonstrated that the Bode numbers are the eigenvalues of the Euler-Lagrange equation resulting from the variation of the free energy of the generic plasma that formed the sun and planets. It is postulated that a major disturbance in the plane of the galaxy resulted in the formation of a plasma structure that proceeded to lose energy to it surroundings until it reached its lowest possible free-energy state. The free energy of the plasmoid is varied subject to appropriate side conditions. The resulting morphology is described by first-and second-order Bessel functions. There is close agreement between the Bode numbers and the zeros of the Bessel functions of the first kind of order one. The result is a minimum action field theory of planetary formation that does not invoke the concept of "action at a distance" forces.

Chuck said...

With regard to the "up, down" issue, Gauss has a rather pointed discussion of how the "sharp-witted" philosopher Kant flubbed this crucial issue in his papers on biquadratic residues. A point further taken up by Bernard Riemann in his Hypotheses which underlie geometry paper.

Chuck said...

With regards to rational, logical or any other types of discussion, I am simply pointing out that science today is under a jackboot far worse than the Spanish Inquisition. As Dr. Edward Teller pointed out in April 1983 at NYU, certain topics are simply forbidden to be discussed. If you stay within the acceptable bandwidth, everything is ok. The science of Carl Gauss is in the forbidden zone.

Copernicus said...

Chuck wrote:

"With regards to rational, logical or any other types of discussion, I am simply pointing out that science today is under a jackboot far worse than the Spanish Inquisition"


Well, I still say that is your opinion but you haven't validated it in any way other to cite a couple odd papers. I can cite just as many showing the converse.

If science were under such a "jackboot" (a highly loaded and emotive term) then it is doubtful we'd see so much of it translated into practical utilities - from MRI machines, to computer chips, op-ams and solid state electronics (DVD players, Tvs etc) which make use of quantum tunneling, for example.

Then, as to your claims regarding Keplerian orbits as opposed to Newtonian, having studied celestial mechanics and the 3-body problem, I can tell you right now we'd never have gotten an Apollo to the Moon, far less craft to Mars, Venus, etc. if the basic celestial mechanics (largely based on Newtonian gravitation) didn't work.

Yes, we have some Keplerian inputs, like Kepler's equation, but the basic thrust is that we'd never have gotten off the Earth to reach another world if half the claims you're making are valid.

Bottom line: Science WORKS! And until you can show clearly that it doesn't, and we have no practical or material gains to show for it, I am afraid you really do have to cease consuming those "mushrooms" (or whatever it is that has you going).

It's also disconcerting that you arrive here conferring all this wisdom or insight but you have a blank profile. Why? It might help allay fears if you at least provided part of your vita, at least what degrees you hold, where obtained etc. I know it would allay janidebar's suspicions, and would mighgtily help with mine.

Ordinarily, I don't give two dimes to a donut whether a commentator obtained a cooking school certificate or Ph.D. in astrophysics, but since you are definitely coming off as an "expert" in your comments, I think it's fair we know if your really are. Just a suggestion.

Copernicus said...

Chuck wrote:

"With regards to rational, logical or any other types of discussion, I am simply pointing out that science today is under a jackboot far worse than the Spanish Inquisition"


Well, I still say that is your opinion but you haven't validated it in any way other to cite a couple odd papers. I can cite just as many showing the converse.

If science were under such a "jackboot" (a highly loaded and emotive term) then it is doubtful we'd see so much of it translated into practical utilities - from MRI machines, to computer chips, op-ams and solid state electronics (DVD players, Tvs etc) which make use of quantum tunneling, for example.

Then, as to your claims regarding Keplerian orbits as opposed to Newtonian, having studied celestial mechanics and the 3-body problem, I can tell you right now we'd never have gotten an Apollo to the Moon, far less craft to Mars, Venus, etc. if the basic celestial mechanics (largely based on Newtonian gravitation) didn't work.

Yes, we have some Keplerian inputs, like Kepler's equation, but the basic thrust is that we'd never have gotten off the Earth to reach another world if half the claims you're making are valid.

Bottom line: Science WORKS! And until you can show clearly that it doesn't, and we have no practical or material gains to show for it, I am afraid you really do have to cease consuming those "mushrooms" (or whatever it is that has you going).

It's also disconcerting that you arrive here conferring all this wisdom or insight but you have a blank profile. Why? It might help allay fears if you at least provided part of your vita, at least what degrees you hold, where obtained etc. I know it would allay janidebar's suspicions, and would mighgtily help with mine.

Ordinarily, I don't give two dimes to a donut whether a commentator obtained a cooking school certificate or Ph.D. in astrophysics, but since you are definitely coming off as an "expert" in your comments, I think it's fair we know if your really are. Just a suggestion.

Copernicus said...

Chuck wrote:

"With regards to rational, logical or any other types of discussion, I am simply pointing out that science today is under a jackboot far worse than the Spanish Inquisition"


Well, I still say that is your opinion but you haven't validated it in any way other to cite a couple odd papers. I can cite just as many showing the converse.

If science were under such a "jackboot" (a highly loaded and emotive term) then it is doubtful we'd see so much of it translated into practical utilities - from MRI machines, to computer chips, op-ams and solid state electronics (DVD players, Tvs etc) which make use of quantum tunneling, for example.

Then, as to your claims regarding Keplerian orbits as opposed to Newtonian, having studied celestial mechanics and the 3-body problem, I can tell you right now we'd never have gotten an Apollo to the Moon, far less craft to Mars, Venus, etc. if the basic celestial mechanics (largely based on Newtonian gravitation) didn't work.

Yes, we have some Keplerian inputs, like Kepler's equation, but the basic thrust is that we'd never have gotten off the Earth to reach another world if half the claims you're making are valid.

Bottom line: Science WORKS! And until you can show clearly that it doesn't, and we have no practical or material gains to show for it, I am afraid you really do have to cease consuming those "mushrooms" (or whatever it is that has you going).

It's also disconcerting that you arrive here conferring all this wisdom or insight but you have a blank profile. Why? It might help allay fears if you at least provided part of your vita, at least what degrees you hold, where obtained etc. I know it would allay janidebar's suspicions, and would mighgtily help with mine.

Ordinarily, I don't give two dimes to a donut whether a commentator obtained a cooking school certificate or Ph.D. in astrophysics, but since you are definitely coming off as an "expert" in your comments, I think it's fair we know if your really are. Just a suggestion.

janidebar said...

"For janidebar, a useful review article detailing how Kurt Gödel is primarily responsible for the focus on cosmological singularities after 1950 is found in General Relativity and Gravitation: One Hundred Years after the Birth of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2, Ed. A Held (Plenum Press, New York, 1980), was F. J. Tipler.."

Write NO more! Frank Tipler! Author of 'The Physics of Immortality' and 'The Physics of Christianity'? You've already lost all your credibility!

Godel had nothing, not one damned thing, to do with black holes! Instead Karl Schwarschild presented them as one mathematical solution to Einstein's general relativity equations.

But to assert Kurt Godel sowed some meme that hatched black holes is bare nonsense. I also agree with copernicus that we ought to know what your credentials are to be citing these papers and making thse statements.

An empty profile, without even a hint of your education is not very encouraging. You could be merely a clever troll that's very adept at finding obscure papers to support an obscure viewpoint, and knows how to use the language of science or math. I've seen them before when I taught in junior college, and also university. (One of my TAs was actually into this game).

So now, copernicus,is it not time to pull the plug on this guy or are yo going to let him clutter your blog even more than he has with this wacky, unfounded comments and sources?

There is plenty of astrophysical evidence that black holes are real and definitely DO exist. Check out:

http://blackholes.stardate.org/directory/factsheet.php?p=Cygnus-X-1

janidebar said...

copernicus wrote:

"If science were under such a "jackboot" (a highly loaded and emotive term) then it is doubtful we'd see so much of it translated into practical utilities - from MRI machines, to computer chips, op-ams and solid state electronics (DVD players, Tvs etc) which make use of quantum tunneling, for example."


That's exactly so! I can't imagine how any sane person could refute it! If modern science (physics, say) was as lame and 'jackbooted" as this character claims - and we've no idea who or what he is- then one wouldn't see all the practical offshoots in our world.

This alone shows he's a crackpot. We've already seen other crackpots come in here and spout foolishness, so why not one more? And quoting Frank Tipler!

I think you even did an amazon book review lambasting one of his books, didn't you? That alone ought to show that nothing from Tipler can be trusted, and he is the lead author in that Godel paper Chuckie cites.

As I said, time to pull the plug on him. Time to return the blog to the adults!

Copernicus said...

janidebar wrote:

"I think you even did an amazon book review lambasting one of his books, didn't you? That alone ought to show that nothing from Tipler can be trusted, and he is the lead author in that Godel paper Chuckie cites."

--

Yeppers, that was on his 'Physics of Immortality'. There were so many errors recounted and disclosed in that, I ranked it as low as I could (1 star). And as you say, Tipler can't be trusted. If he could generate so many errors in that single book, it is plausible that no paper generated would be any more worthwhile and that is irrespective of anyone refuting it. (They may well have regarded it as not worth investing the time to do so, since any halfway educated person, on the nature of black holes for example, would realize (as you pointed out) they didn't emerge from some planeted meme but emerged as a solution to the Einstein general relativity eqns.

In case you're interested, Schwarzschild's specific form was:

ds^2 = -(1- 2M/r)dt^2 + dr^2/1 - 2M/r + r^2 (dq^2 +sin^2 qdf^2)

where I use 'q' in place of theta, and f in place of phi, for simplicity in symbols.

When "Chuck" gives us some background on himself, as to his qualifications to proffer "expert-like" comments (implying we ought to take them seriously) I may publish them again.

But up to now all I've seen is wacky, way out, on the margins stuff- suggesting if he is an expert it's in some rarefied mathematical field with little utility other than philosophical rumination.

Copernicus said...

janidebar wrote:

There is plenty of astrophysical evidence that black holes are real and definitely DO exist. Check out:

http://blackholes.stardate.org/directory/factsheet.php?p=Cygnus-X-1

---

Good! And if "Chuck" can bestir himself, he will find a number of peer-reviewed papers on black holes, accretion disks, etc. on the American Asrtronomical Society site. A number of them include:

1) On the Correlations of Massive Black Holes with Their Host Galaxies

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/637/1/96/fulltext

2) The Jet Power, Radio Loudness, and Black Hole Mass in Radio-loud Active Galactic Nuclei

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/637/2/669/fulltext


3) Binary Mergers and Growth of Black Holes in Dense Star Clusters

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/637/2/937/fulltext


4) Black Hole Advective Accretion Disks with Optical Depth Transition

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/637/2/968/fulltext

5) Black Hole Masses and Eddington Ratios at 0.3 < z < 4

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/648/1/128/fulltext

--

Of course he may demur, asserting all astronomers also fall into the "jackbooted" category!

Copernicus said...

"Yeppers, that was on his 'Physics of Immortality'. "


Apologies here! I stand corrected, it was 'The Physics of Christianity' (that was on amazon.com). The other review, for 'The Physics of Immortality' was done for the Trinidad & Tobago Astronomical Journal. This followed their publication of my paper: 'Has the Universe a Purpose?' some years earlier (ca. 1994) in their journal.

Note to readers: I *do* welcome diverse and even contrary, or controversial inputs, but do expect where commentators are pronouncing or writing *to appear* as experts that they back this up with published creds, as opposed to blank profiles.

This doesn't mean they have to reveal full bios, but just enough to back up their posing as 'the expert' in whatever the issue is, especially if their take is highly unusual or oddball.

I'd expect the same from a 'reincarnation' of Immanuel Velikovsky, arguing that our celestial mechanics is mere babble and planets can and do regularly collide with each other!

In Chuck's case, the argument that black holes aren't real and they don't truly exist is equally controversial and just as oddball, and I make the same demands to give us his academic bona fides, rather than citing an oddball paper by a known crank (Frank J. Tipler).

And, btw, I DO consider anyone (even a physicist) who tries to supernaturalize or use obscurantist babble to justify 'immortality' or 'Christianity' as a CRANK!

brian.weekes said...

Hi guys. Interesting blog. I found it while doing a search on Brane Space on google. I see you have been trolled by some guy named Chuck above. Well - just so you know I am happy to say before posting anything that I have no qualifications, have published no peer reviewed works and generally know the only things that I do know from reading books. (I read too many. I need to get a life).

I seem to be a bit different from other people in that while I believe in God I also strongly believe in science and its role in the universe and furthermore I also believe that anything that attempts to dress up religion as science is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate society and should be considered to be nothing more than pseudoscience.

I have often wondered why I seem to have a different view than a lot of other people. I think its because both religious people and scientists seem to be at each others throats all around me.

Personally I am fascinated about science. And while I believe in God I refuse to allow the 'traditional' beliefs of a lot of uneducated people effect my views on science. If anything I change my views on the nature of God the more I learn about science. I guess evolutionists would call this an example of an evolving belief system. Perhaps their right but just the same I am happy to remain a believer in a God while also having a great interest in science. Anyway - I like the blog and will keep reading (though it will mostly go over my head). All the best.