Skip to comments.Has the Cosmology Standard Model become a Rube Goldberg Device?
Posted on 06/26/2014 11:37:15 AM PDT by BenLurkin
So why ask the question, are physicists constructing a Rube Goldberg device?
Our present understanding of the Universe stands upon what is called the Standard Model of Cosmology. At the Royal Astronomical Society meeting this week, the discussions underfoot could be revealing a Standard Model possibly in a state of collapse or simply needing new gadgets and mechanisms to remain the best theory of everything.
Also this week, new data further supports the discovery of the Higgs Boson by the Large Hadron Collider in 2012, the elementary particle whose existence explains the mass of fundamental particles in nature and that supports the existence of the Higgs Field vital to robustness of the Standard Model. However, the Higgs related data is also revealing that if the inflationary period of the Universe did take place, then if taken with the Standard Model, one can conclude that the Universe should have collapsed upon itself and our very existence today would not be possible.
(Excerpt) Read more at universetoday.com ...
I’m going with the theory that we do exist. ;)
You see that “black space” outside of and surrounding the model of the universe as it expands... what’s that? ;- )
The mathematical arguments about the Big Bang are like those regarding a chord struck on a stage ten years ago - it happened but the vibrations have ceased to be heard any longer although they exist somewhere and then the argument is taken up by the tone deaf who arrived too late to hear it and it will be many years more before they are able to build a model of the original stage, the concert hall and of course “the musician.” Until then...
That... is God’s NO FLY ZONE.
I just read a fascinating article about how quantum mechanics can be explained by a complex model of wave propagation that completely lacks the “magical” blinking in and out of existence, bilocation, etc.
Grammar errors in a physics article are so embarrassing. (Psst! If you’re such an expert in space-time, Mr. Reyes, how do you not know that the past tense of “lead” is “led?”)
I have always preferred the Cosmetology Standard Model. I’ve never tried to teach the Cosmetology Standard Model, however, because I don’t believe in giving make-up exams.
(Yes, he’s just kidding)
I thought that was where the Tardis flies???
Inflation prior to the “establishment” of the velocity of light as a limit, just in that minuscule instant, has long seemed very appealing to me.
It's important to have beauty in these theories. Beauty and symmetry are synonymous at the quantum level. And since, as I believe, God derived the function we discovered as mathematics, it's logical that the universe should be understandable by us.
Based on my understanding of physics, I even lean toward more exotic descriptions of how superstings came into contact with one another giving rise to the creation event. Just consider the reflections off a turbulent pool bottom sometimes for a more 'classical' idea of this, and the notion seems a bit clearer. It doesn't occur in the pool, but in the model, what if one of these "cells" (closed strings) actually intruded into another?
'Seems sort'a interesting to me.