The forbidden questions of comsology and physics

If you have the time and interest, you might take a look at it... it

And if there is a universe resultant from the explosion of the big bang, then wouldn't that universe exist on the other side of the event horizon

Thank you for the response.

I'm a little surprised at your reaction, that there just isn't an "other side," given your earlier comments.

But the reaction is understandable as a conclusion in the context of all that we actually know to this point.

I don't hold the same certainty, leaving it as a "just don't know" at this point.

.....Perhaps my response to a comment left there by Leadfoot may help to further explain.....

You can speculate about it if you find it interesting, but it's kind of like discussing brain surgery without knowing medicine, biology, or brain anatomy. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but without any actual knowledge of the topic, how good is it likely to be?

Quote:

You can speculate about it if you find it interesting, but it's kind of like discussing brain surgery without knowing medicine, biology, or brain anatomy. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but without any actual knowledge of the topic, how good is it likely to be?

That's a pretty useless comment Brandon. The vast majority of significant inventions and discoveries are made by people expanding beyond their native knowledge base, particularly at the threshold of disciplines, where they can bring new methods to bear and break out of the sterile patterns that impede progress. What is abundantly clear is that the current theories and methods are stuck, they keep leading to points where "everything breaks."

how many people have made discoveries in theoretical physics without ever having studied physics? Would that be zero?

Quote:

how many people have made discoveries in theoretical physics without ever having studied physics? Would that be zero?

George Green for one. Oliver Heaviside, Moshé Feldenkrais, Michael Faraday, Sir Isaac Newton, and Nicola Tesla as well. Enrico Fermi was largely self-taught in physics, Luigi Puccianti, superficially overseeing his instruction conceded that there was nothing he could teach him.
(Segrè, Emilio, 1970. Enrico Fermi, Physicist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.)
Many notable contributors to theoretical physics came from backgrounds in mathematics and engineering as well, such as Max Born.

Silly Brandon, when you're shown wrong, you merely try to change the setup that you yourself created, now you want to exclude those who were self-taught

or studied disciplines such as math or engineering, but no, you can't do that because I've proven my point that it was indeed these people who DIDN'T have formal training in physics

who made huge advances in the discipline largely BECAUSE they weren't constrained by the feeling that they had to accept the status quo. And FYI, yes, I've had engineering education, advanced mathematics, neuroscience and cognitive science education among other disciplines through the doctoral level and have taught both undergrad and graduate courses. And you're wondering if I'm qualified to ponder the nature of the universe on a public q/a website? Ha, I think so.

The vast majority of significant inventions and discoveries are made by people expanding beyond their native knowledge base, particularly at the threshold of disciplines, where they can bring new methods to bear and break out of the sterile patterns that impede progress.

Utter nonsense Brandon. Your comment about people who haven't studied physics was in response to my line above it:

Quote:

The vast majority of significant inventions and discoveries are made by people expanding beyond their native knowledge base, particularly at the threshold of disciplines, where they can bring new methods to bear and break out of the sterile patterns that impede progress.

So it should be obvious to anyone I'm not talking about ignorant uneducated individuals but rather intelligent, educated people who "expand BEYOND their native knowledge base." and I have given correct and legitimate examples of that. It is indeed the case that someone with a background in math, programming or engineering has a different knowledge base than someone whose education was exclusively in physics, and BECAUSE of that difference, they are able to approach problems differently and arrive at solutions that are outside of those taught in physics. This assertion is well established and proven in many disciplines and in the many patents issued by the USPTO. It seems you're not up to the task of contributing in any meaningful way to this discussion, I think it would be better if you find some other subject thread to entertain yourself.

The book is called "Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe." Each of those words stands for a major theoretical physics idea. The fashion is string theory; the fantasy has to do with various cosmological schemes, mainly inflationary cosmology [which suggests that the universe inflated exponentially within a small fraction of a second after the Big Bang]. Big fish, those things are. It’s almost sacrilegious to attack them. And the other one, even more sacrilegious, is quantum mechanics at all levels—so that’s the faith. People somehow got the view that you really can’t question it.

A few years ago you suggested that gravity is what separates the classical world from the quantum one. Are there enough people out there putting quantum mechanics to this kind of test?
No, although it’s sort of encouraging that there are people working on it at all. It used to be thought of as a sort of crackpot, fringe activity that people could do when they were old and retired. Well, I am old and retired! But it’s not regarded as a central, as a mainstream activity, which is a shame.