"we still do not understand the true evolution of the universe"

[RedshiftDrift]

from Alexander Unzicker. Watch one minute of this if not the whole thing: https://youtu.be/aD0S1rH8AiE?t=1309

[bgreenman]

I Enjoyed Unzicker's program. If physics wants to move forward it should put am emphasis on studying philosophy and physics-astronomy programs should recruit scholars outside the main physics paradigm. i also feel there should be a grants program for independent science scholars who work outside mainstream institutions to enable them to have time to develop new ideas.

[budrap00]

If physics wants to move forward it has to revert to the study of physical systems, rather than the tending of consensus mathematical models.

[MJoseph315]

Given that he has endorsed the ‘liquid metallic hydrogen’ theory of the sun, I’m a little skeptical of Mr. Unzicker.

[bgreenman]

i Agree

[RedshiftDrift]

@MJoseph315 @bgreenman this ad hominem argument is a fallacy. Isaac Newton endorsed alchemy yet produced a theory of gravitation that is still in use today.

[bgreenman]

I Mad a mistake

[OlliSant]

The universe has a Steady State, not development, no beginning, no end. No expansion. Static universe, dynamic parts. Static space, dynamic matter: galaxies and forces. The Steady State is the web of galaxies always and everywhere, the dynamics is explosions and clouds locally.

This is one possible metaphysics.

[RedshiftDrift]

This "border/transition" between 'small closed systems' and 'large open systems' happens when the material parts of the system can no longer move across the size of the system within the lifetime of those parts.

Example of a small closed system: the water molecules inside a steam engine (1 km/s) can move a distance comparable to the size of the steam engine in 100 ms, which is much smaller than the lifetime of the water molecule (stable unless dissociated by e.g. red-hot iron). Thermodynamics works well in that regime, it was actually developed for steam engines.

Example of a "border/transition" system: stars in a galaxy (300 km/s) can move a distance comparable to the size of the galaxy in one rotation time (200 million years) which is comparable to the lifetime of a small star (100 million years).

Example of a large open 'system': galaxies in a galactic supercluster (3000 km/s) potentially could move a distance comparable to the size the supercluster, but gravitational close-encounters diffuse the galaxies. It would take galaxies much more than 50 billion years to make it across a supercluster, much longer than the lifetime of a galaxy that gets destroyed by collisions, quenching, instabilities, etc.

The supercluster can no longer be considered a system. It does not degrade energtically, instead it exchanges energy via light between its material components and other superclusters. This is the beginning of a transition to the "timeless" regime discussed above. Even star-light travelling across the open-system gets scattered and redshifted down to a microwave background after redshift z = 1000, which corresponds to a distance of 90 Gly. The energy from the degraded radiation is not lost, it provides the energy to return intergalactic heavy elements back to hydrogen.

Any concept of entropy or a 'generalized second law' implies a direction of time and change. But time starts to lose its physical significance beyond galaxy clusters: no clock (counter) can survive long enough to measure that time. Without a clock, 'change' cannot be observed and loses its physical meaning. As a physicst, this is where my science ends - beyond that we are talking metaphysics, philosophy and religion...

[sahil5d]

@RedshiftDrift

I am discussing a static model

'static' does have a specific meaning in cosmology, but for popular audiences the word can cause a hiccup in thought, because 'static' typically means "lacking in movement, action" https://www.google.com/search?q=define+static. What do you think about using 'dynamic'? Like 'dynamic cosmology', 'dynamic equilibrium cosmology'.

[bgreenman]

Idea worth investigating

[RedshiftDrift]

@sahil5d you can explain to the public that 'static' refers to Euclidean space (no action of space), as opposed to the 'expanding space' of Big Bang cosmology. "Static" as in:

• no Big Bang,
• no Inflation,
• unchanging laws of physics,
• unvarying fundamental constants,
• trustworthy,
• reliable,
• steadfast,
• etc. That's what popular audiences should be told.

Popular audiences are interested in 'click bait': explosions, relativistic jets, colliding galaxies, black holes, demolition derbies... what's another hiccup going to do? How about showing them the real universe which maintains itself against the possibility of falling into total chaos, the "forces of good" standing up to the "forces of evil" for at least 30 billion years (as far as science can tell). That's better than a Star Wars movie.

There are many more cosmologies than words we can use to describe them succinctly. Since it is clear that galaxies and planets are 'dynamic', the word to describe a cosmology should refer to what is special about that cosmology, and especially, what makes it different from mainstream cosmology. As budrap00 pointed out, my misanthropic view doesn't incite me to conform to public opinion. If 'static' is not exciting enough, popular audiences can remain in their ignorance. Whatever it is called, “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

P.S. Andrei Kirilyuk proposes a 'dynamic' cosmology to describe a dynamic interaction process of interacting fields. Popular audiences have certainly never heard about it.

[sahil5d]

'static' as no Big Bang, no Inflation, unchanging laws of physics, unvarying fundamental constants -- that makes sense to me.

But, and I should have mentioned this earlier, there is a another small issue in 'static' sounding like 'steady state' (Hoyle) which is wrong, and big bang cosmologists often use "big bang vs steady state" as a false binary.

The fewer hiccups the better, because popular audiences comprehending ACG's arguments will mean this scientific revolution happens at the speed of internet diffusion instead of academic discussion.

[bgreenman]

I support Redshiftdrift's version of a static model in which energy is conserved

[AndriiKyryl]

Energy is always conserved, in any model, but normally it tends to irreversibly change its form, from "potential" (fuel) to "thermal" (radiation and ashes).

[bgreenman]

correct

[OlliSant]

The problem is the whole and parts. You cannot understand the whole universe without understanding rightly the parts. And not the parts without right understanding of the whole universe (Whole and parts in Hegel).

Obviously we don't yet have the right understanding of the whole. It is in some kind of Steady State, not the observable universe, not any smaller "universe". Just the biggest totality is in Steady State. And when we go to the bigger and bigger universe, somewhere we meet the biggest one. It has no outside, there is all that exists.