Timeline for de Sitter cosmological limit
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 19, 2019 at 11:56 | comment | added | Anixx | -1 The CMB has wavelength of millimeters while de Sitter radiation has wavelength of billions of light years. | |
| Sep 21, 2012 at 22:44 | comment | added | Sandro Vitenti | To throw ideas is easy. The difficult part is to know the literature, the observations and work on the ideas to match everything already known (and more). | |
| Sep 21, 2012 at 22:40 | comment | added | Sandro Vitenti | People sometimes forget that there are several observational support for a hot dense epoch. The point is, ok, you may assume that all CMB radiation comes from other place. But to take your idea seriously you have to be compatible with all other observations. For instance, say that you explain the black body radiation, what about the $10^{-5}$ perturbations around it with an almost Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum? And how can you explain the abundance of light elements with a radiation dominated phase? The baryonic acoustic oscillations which match the CMB perturbations? | |
| Sep 21, 2012 at 0:13 | review | Late answers | |||
| Sep 21, 2012 at 22:44 | |||||
| Sep 13, 2012 at 22:04 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 4, 2012 at 5:42 | |||||
| Sep 10, 2012 at 4:30 | comment | added | breton carr | Maimon: I don't think your attitude is logical. It is possible to argue against a false statement, people do it all the time, without having a full-blown argument to deflate. It's not necessary to annoying to be honest, but academia can train that talent out of the unwary. You may be the next Newton, son, but I think your real talent lies in Bunny of Love! Love and neutrinos to all. | |
| Sep 10, 2012 at 4:02 | comment | added | breton carr | Porter: thanks for the suggestion. That's constructive. Lurscher: thanks for being open-minded. That's usually constructive too. | |
| Sep 9, 2012 at 19:37 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | @lurscher: I can't argue against it, because there is nothing here to argue against--- it's just a bald assertion of a false statement. If there were an argument, then I could argue against. | |
| Sep 9, 2012 at 18:15 | comment | added | lurscher | @RonMaimon, i find annoying to see you waste comments with attacks that do not bring anything to the discussion. I repeat: the fact that you say something is nonsense is not per se an argument that will convince anyone to believe it so. Please argue with physics arguments that at least others in the field may understand, don't expect us to have blind faith in your wisdom | |
| Sep 9, 2012 at 9:18 | comment | added | Mitchell Porter | @bretoncarr vixra.org/abs/1102.0010 She has a formula for neutrino masses, flip a sign and she gets "mirror neutrino masses", one of which matches the CMB temperature, so she postulates a connection. I don't believe it, but I like her ideas because they are simple and radically different, so they can open up new parts of "hypothesis space" for cosmology. You should write a few pages about your own idea and post it on vixra, that's what it's for. | |
| Sep 9, 2012 at 3:54 | comment | added | breton carr | Oops, OK. Sorry, I didn't know. I posted several answers because I couldn't write just one with the limited number of characters allowed. How come Ron Maimon seems threatened by my comment? | |
| Sep 9, 2012 at 3:34 | history | edited | David Z | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 27 characters in body
|
| Sep 9, 2012 at 3:34 | comment | added | David Z | @bretoncarr It's generally (including in this case) not needed to post more than one answer to a question, so I'm deleting your other answers. Feel free to edit this answer to contain some of their content if you like. Also I'm going to remove the copyright notice you've included, since copyright attribution is automatically covered by section 3 of the terms of service. | |
| Sep 9, 2012 at 3:06 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | -1: This is ridiculous. Your intuition is nonsense, and there is no need to share it. | |
| Sep 9, 2012 at 1:28 | comment | added | breton carr | tried to find her ideas on this subject, thru Google, without success. | |
| Sep 9, 2012 at 1:02 | comment | added | Mitchell Porter | Marni Sheppeard also thinks something like this, and there may be others. | |
| Sep 9, 2012 at 0:51 | history | edited | breton carr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 27 characters in body
|
| Sep 9, 2012 at 0:32 | comment | added | breton carr | No references, just intuition. Sorry, I don't usually operate on that level. So, I can't create a new paragraph in this format. Strange. More like a telegram. OK--consider, if de Sitter's model is correct. then there really exists a space-time horizon at a finite distance from the local observer. All inside this is called the "observable universe" At this horizon, we will see the same kinds of effect we see at the horizon of a black hole. Including Hawking radiation. This is what Bell Labs observed, not relic radiation from an imaginary, anthropocentric "big bang" Copyright Breton Carr 2012 | |
| Sep 4, 2012 at 16:53 | comment | added | lurscher | that is an interesting viewpoint i haven't heard or read before, not sure right off if it makes sense or what direct evidence contradicts. I would appreciate if you could provide some references | |
| Sep 4, 2012 at 5:39 | history | answered | breton carr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |