There was once a man called Reginald Kapp. He was a British academic in the 1950s, and he retired and they made him a Professor Emeritus at Leeds University, which is a kind of honourary title based on merit. His field of expertise was hypothesis formation and he was considered a world authority. His pet interest was cosmology. He devised a hypothesis on the formation of the universe and this was in the days of Steady State. It was intended to be just an example of how such an hypothesis could be formed but I read his book when I was about 17, in 1968 and I felt it was so brilliant that his hypothesis stood a very high chance of being more or less true. I stopped believing that the Big Bang is the best explanation there and then.
If we have nothing but the universe is, essentially, a quantum generator, and if that quantum generator works by randomly generating one quantum of space and one of matter in a direct correlation with the volume of existing space, then the initial singularity doesn't need to be the genesis of the entire universe but the genesis of one quantum of matter. All quanta of matter are associated with a quanta of space and in effect, space is anti-matter and so, combined, they have a net charge and net mass of zero.
As the volume of space expands, so does the rate of generation of space and associated matter. The effect is an accelerating expansion, just like that which has been observed to exist. If all units of matter associated with space have a half life then extinctions of matter, happening randomly, will be concentrated in areas of concentration of matter. This applies if space is the stable part of the duo and associated with genesis of new matter and new space at a constant rate per unit volume of space, and matter is the unstable element which carries the half life.
A half life, like in radioactivity, doesn't point to which atoms of uranium or quanta of matter break down and extinguish themselves. The macro effect is random at a constant rate but nothing can be predicted for specific units of matter. At all times, each has exactly the same chance as any other of disappearing, no matter how long it has existed.
So since matter disappears fastest where it is concentrated most and at each extinction of a unit of matter, an associated unit of space disappears too, that means that space contracts near concentrations of matter, proportionally to the mass of matter present. And that accounts for gravity.
The situation is basically that the regions of intergalactic space are expanding and generating matter but each random extinction imparts a slight contraction and over time, that imparts a spin to the clouds of intergalactic dust, which gradually turn into discrete galaxies and become centres of extinction. The mathematics is there to account for the element of imparted spin, apparently, and I could follow it when I was 17 much better than I could explain it now.
I like this hypothesis and what's more it follows Occam's Nose much better than the Big Bang.
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Vastly similar to -
Pratītyasamutpāda, commonly translated as dependent origination, or dependent arising, is a key doctrine of Buddhist philosophy, which states that all dharmas arise in dependence upon other dharmas: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist".Wikipedia
I’d say Opti made the best point of all. 1st is born a philosophy and then a hypothesis is built. The science used to make the measurements has its foundation in the philosophy of how the world is.
Science can explain the most wondrous once original premise is believed.
Problem is - it’s people saying this stuff. Science doesn’t have a mouth.
There was once a man called Reginald Kapp. He was a British academic in the 1950s, and he retired and they made him a Professor Emeritus at Leeds University, which is a kind of honourary title based on merit. His field of expertise was hypothesis formation and he was considered a world authority. His pet interest was cosmology. He devised a hypothesis on the formation of the universe and this was in the days of Steady State.
Those days were over by the 1950s (unless you mean there were just a very few die hard disbelievers in the Big Bang). Hubble's work was in the 20s and 30s, and that was enough to convince almost everyone. Einstein notably considered a steady state cosmology in 1931, but serious problems and the strong evidence of expansion led him to drop it like a hot potato.
It was intended to be just an example of how such an hypothesis could be formed but I read his book when I was about 17, in 1968 and I felt it was so brilliant that his hypothesis stood a very high chance of being more or less true. I stopped believing that the Big Bang is the best explanation there and then.
I can understand that: a beautiful hypothesis is very appealing. But the evidence proves steady state theories wrong. The young Universe we see far away was very different to the Universe we live in now, and this is most so early on.
If we have nothing but the universe is, essentially, a quantum generator, and if that quantum generator works by randomly generating one quantum of space and one of matter in a direct correlation with the volume of existing space, then the initial singularity doesn't need to be the genesis of the entire universe but the genesis of one quantum of matter. All quanta of matter are associated with a quanta of space and in effect, space is anti-matter and so, combined, they have a net charge and net mass of zero.
Steady state means that it looks similar at different times. This simply isn't so. There is a time 13.8 billion years ago when the Universe was a hot, nearly uniform, expanding gas. Thereafter changes include the formation of galaxies and quasars, the disappearance of quasars, generations of stars starting with ones with almost no heavy elements to later ones with heavy elements from earlier supernovae, and so on.
As the volume of space expands, so does the rate of generation of space and associated matter. The effect is an accelerating expansion, just like that which has been observed to exist. If all units of matter associated with space have a half life then extinctions of matter, happening randomly, will be concentrated in areas of concentration of matter. This applies if space is the stable part of the duo and associated with genesis of new matter and new space at a constant rate per unit volume of space, and matter is the unstable element which carries the half life.
None of those unverified hypotheses alters the fact that the Universe was much denser and more uniform very early in its life and all of the other changes. The Big Bang is also excellent at explaining the occurrence of the different elements, starting with a mix formed during the early expansion (when temperatures were hot enough for fusion), and changing thereafter as stars burn.
A half life, like in radioactivity, doesn't point to which atoms of uranium or quanta of matter break down and extinguish themselves. The macro effect is random at a constant rate but nothing can be predicted for specific units of matter. At all times, each has exactly the same chance as any other of disappearing, no matter how long it has existed.
So since matter disappears fastest where it is concentrated most and at each extinction of a unit of matter, an associated unit of space disappears too, that means that space contracts near concentrations of matter, proportionally to the mass of matter present. And that accounts for gravity.
The situation is basically that the regions of intergalactic space are expanding and generating matter but each random extinction imparts a slight contraction and over time, that imparts a spin to the clouds of intergalactic dust, which gradually turn into discrete galaxies and become centres of extinction. The mathematics is there to account for the element of imparted spin, apparently, and I could follow it when I was 17 much better than I could explain it now.
I like this hypothesis and what's more it follows Occam's Nose much better than the Big Bang.
But where is the scientific method in it? It is all hypotheses and no successful predictions. Moreover, I don't believe there would be any way to make it compatible with a Universe that is so strongly time dependent.
No successful predictions? It predicts gravity, of course, but that's taken as read. But it predicted acceleration of expansion of the universe. That is an incredibly important and significant achievement. Yes, it was hypothesised about but it predicted it, long before it was confirmed.
Quite honestly, I'm reading your criticisms and all you are doing is emphasising the differences with the BB from the point of view of someone who believes that the BB has been confirmed. And yet, virtually no-one I've ever questioned has been able to state which version of the BB they support, since it can be taken to mean origination from a point, or from an infinity of points, at a discrete time or over a period of time. I've heard all combinations of these ideas, and the BBT is definitely ad hoc, meaning it is added to and patched whenever it requires it. Also, the maths doesn't work in the supposed initial moment.
Also, how can the BB support acceleration of expansion? It obviously cannot and therefore a steady state process is clearly needed to explain it, over and above the BBT, which rather destroys the original idea that the BB was an elegant solution. The steady state input can be space or energy. If it's space then that supports Kapp's theory. I strongly doubt the energy explanation. More than strongly.
So you're criticising this from the p.o.v. of an assumption of the truth of the Big Bang and yet you haven't shown anything that supports the BB. No science, no nothing, so your criticism of Kapp's hypothesis from the p.o.v. of "the lack of science" is mirrored in the complete lack of direct evidence for the BBT. (Big Bang Theory)
Acceleration of expansion is such a natural feature to include in general relativity that the very first version had this term (the cosmological constant). It was dropped for most of the 20th century because there was no evidence that it was not zero, and the version with it set to zero was thus the simplest theory explaining the facts. In the 1990s, it was shown that the Hubble factor was not only not constant, it was increasing, so a non-zero cosmological constant was added to the standard cosmology. It's a shame Einstein wasn't around to see it.
I was comparing the Big Bang Theory with all steady state theories from the point of view of the scientific method. Rather than "nothing" as you inexplicably claim, the Big Bang Theory explains (in addition to the expansion itself):
- the detailed nature of the CMB (this is a big one)
- other observations of the early Universe, as structure emerges from the near uniform expanding gas
- the accurate elemental composition of the early Universe (where light elements were cooked by fusion in a few minutes)
These are major reasons the Big Bang Theory is so well-established.
By contrast you can't deduce these things from a steady state hypothesis. I am not even sure how you can fudge a time-varying Universe: it's the exact opposite of what it implies.
There's no direct evidence that the CMB is a relic of the BB. It's an assumption. I've no idea of what a time-varying universe would be. Perhaps when you use such names you could mention what they refer to? I would be grateful if you would do so because it's tedious for everyone who has to Google every three words. Thanks. Back in the day when I studied things like relativity I had the concentration and focus to understand the arguments from a BB perspective but I still think that the BB is fundamentally unlikely and that it's accepted because it's easiest to accept it for a number of reasons.
The point about the "near uniform expanding gas" refers just as much to intergalactic space and we don't know how large the universe is or how old it is if the BBT is incorrect, so although your criticism works IF the BB is true, it probably doesn't if it's false.
Also, I tend to think that the topography of the universe gives similar mathematical results for some aspects of it that we're aware of, independently of some theory. I think perhaps it might be surprising how close results based on different assumptions about the universe would agree, since the universe is the basic shape it is, and so we have that and we have all the data on things we can actually see. Now, what I just wrote conflicts with the previous paragraph. I'm just throwing a few spanners around. Too tired at the moment to think well.
I told the story of Reginald Kapp not to push his idea so much as to illustrate randomness in a more or less interesting way, as part of a story. I'm not going to get into another argument about it. Goodnight.
Problem is - it’s people saying this stuff. Science doesn’t have a mouth.
right. nature has never any of it...as STEM is reactive.
outta all the threads ive ever been on ?...this is definitely one a them.
wut if apparent randomness of the observed wuz actually due to randomness of the observer ?
iows, wut if its all in ur head & nature isnt random at all ? i mean history repeats itself, right ?
idk, maybe its just the song im listening to....nvm me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDLCSb8EIMk
w/e u do togi, dont start listening to me. no one else does.
The thread gets read by plenty of people that just won't bother to post in any event. That makes Lola a star, Henry the 8th I am.. everyone. So like as not, we provide countless people we will never know a certain entertainment value. 
I just sip another glass of chard, waitin on my five lessons a week to re up. Wait, five lessons a week with platinum?
Erik.. fix that.
You can also deduce that there is more than 95% chance of the number of 5's being between 1999000 and 2001000 (and similar statements for other probabilities).
There's no direct evidence that the CMB is a relic of the BB. It's an assumption.
The existence of the CMB can be deduced from the Big Bang Theory. It is an inevitable consequence of it. Crucially, it has the correct temperature (it is possible to calculate the initial temperature of the Universe at the time of last scattering, and the present temperature of the CMB can be deduced by allowing for the expansion over the intervening period).
I've no idea of what a time-varying universe would be. Perhaps when you use such names you could mention what they refer to?
Very simple. Early in its life the Universe was a hot plasma, then a hot gas, then galaxies and quasars formed until eventually the Universe is like it is today, with older galaxies and no quasars. Far from time-independent, as required by a steady state theory.
I would be grateful if you would do so because it's tedious for everyone who has to Google every three words. Thanks. Back in the day when I studied things like relativity I had the concentration and focus to understand the arguments from a BB perspective but I still think that the BB is fundamentally unlikely and that it's accepted because it's easiest to accept it for a number of reasons.
The point about the "near uniform expanding gas" refers just as much to intergalactic space and we don't know how large the universe is or how old it is if the BBT is incorrect, so although your criticism works IF the BB is true, it probably doesn't if it's false.
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. We see a Universe that was uniform and hot very early on. That is what the CMB is. We don't see the lack of local uniformity that is the norm now (a sizeable fraction of the matter is "clumped" into galaxies).
Also, I tend to think that the topography of the universe gives similar mathematical results for some aspects of it that we're aware of, independently of some theory. I think perhaps it might be surprising how close results based on different assumptions about the universe would agree, since the universe is the basic shape it is, and so we have that and we have all the data on things we can actually see. Now, what I just wrote conflicts with the previous paragraph. I'm just throwing a few spanners around. Too tired at the moment to think well.
I told the story of Reginald Kapp not to push his idea so much as to illustrate randomness in a more or less interesting way, as part of a story. I'm not going to get into another argument about it. Goodnight.
You don't have to discuss the facts, but it is relevant to post them for balance.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
I know what I'm talking about.
I'll explain it more clearly. We have a notion of true randomness, which is an ideal which we assume MIGHT correspond to a concrete reality. The concrete reality we can call "real true randomness", for the purposes of this discussion.
However, we start from the premise that "real true randomness" may exist and that "true randomness" is an ideal that is meant to correspond to it, if it exists, or to set a limit, if it doesn't. We have no access to the mechanisms at work, if any, and all we can do is to go ahead and analyse sequences for patterns, to the best of our ability.
Each of these ideas or concepts refers to the same thing, because we have no means of distinguishing them and because they define the same as one another. For three millennia and maybe more, mankind has been trying to theorise about idealism. We have Platonists, for whom, perhaps, the only real is the ideal. There are real idealists and probably ideal realists. They're like the Socialist Workers' Party of Tooting and the Workers' Socialist Party. Each approach is only a matter of transient perspective on the same thing. It is probably necessary to study idealism is philosophy for about two years to make absolutely sure that you have noted all the differing approaches and yet all we would have done would be to have undertaken a course in practical psychology.
Ultimately, there is no difference except one of transient, human perspective.
my 50c..
you clearly know what youre talking about, and thats all to it.
but here's the funny thing.. elroch dont talk about "real true randomness" nor "true randomness". ask him.. lol