On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 10:14:13 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 10:52 AM John Clark <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:35 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> > *You seem to be convinced by inflation theory. * >>> >> >> No I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm not convinced it's right I'm >> just not convinced it's dead wrong as you seem to be. >> > > I think the many problem with inflationary theory are too easily > overlooked. > > >> >> *> Why has the inflation not been seen at LHC?* >>> >> >> The LHC just went offline, when it comes back online after 2 years of >> upgrades it should reach energies close to 15 TeV which corresponds to a >> temperature of 10^17 Kelvin, and that is the temperature the entire >> universe was in when it was about 10^-17 seconds old. But inflation was >> over by the time the universe was 10^-35 seconds old. To inflation the >> universe was already ancient when it was 10^-17 seconds old. >> > > I meant to write that the "inflaton", the particle associated with the > inflation field, would have been seen at LHC since it must couple strongly > to normal matter, but Google's autocorrect got the better of me, and > correct "inflaton" to "inflation". Reach big bang temperatures at the LHC > is not the issue here. > > > >> This may be related to the fact that no particle accelerator has found >> anything surprising in 50 years; but telescopes have, they've revealed new >> physics to us. >> >> >>> *> At the end of the inflationary period, the temperature was absolute >>> zero everywhere -- no fluctuations.* >>> >> >> If something was at absolute zero it would violate the third law of >> thermodynamics. It would also violate quantum mechanics because you'd know >> exactly what the velocity of a particle was (zero) and therefore its >> position would not be meaningful because division by zero is not defined. >> > > Inflation is a semiclassical theory, and the field is treated classically, > except when people want to introduce fluctuations. But they forget that > there are no such things as quantum fluctuations -- there are only > different results obtained from repeated measurement of the same state. >
*How is getting different results from repeated measurements different from "fluctuations"? AG* > Getting density fluctuations from quantum mechanics would violate energy > conservation. > *Where does the loss of energy go when we see cosmological red shifting? AG* > > Bruce > >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
