Is the current big bang model wrong?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But because parity has not yet been defined in MM, I can't imagine how you might draw conclusions about it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
A mechanical model is one consisting of objects which interact by contact in a logically consistent manner. There are no strictly "logical interactions", i.e. interactions which are acausal from a mechanical perspective.

Yet that is what parity non-conservation shows in the weak interaction. There can be no mechanical cause for it in principle. What we are given is a case where nature shows a preference for left over right when no mechanical differentiation is logically possible. Hence, something must inevitably be added to MM to account for what is mechanically acausal.

The only way to evade such a situation while staying within the confines of MM is to postulate another part of the universe (which is not accessible) that takes the opposite hand thus restoring the logical equivalence of left and right. But such a postulate is as theoretically evasive as a "many worlds" hypothesis which handles problems by postulating any number of corrective universes for any number of theoretical problems.

This is not a trivial problem because it opens the "floodgates" to all manner of irrational ideas. Yet, one is forced to open the sluice and deal with all the floating crap that one, at first, thought could be kept out of a rational mechanical world. A detailed examination of existence is more like wading through vomit up to one's armpits than doing carpentry, plumbing and auto body repair. Hence, few are interested in looking too closely.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />Yet that is what parity non-conservation shows in the weak interaction. There can be no mechanical cause for it in principle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That statement depends on the interpretation now favored by quantum mechanics. However, as I mentioned, MM has not yet been developed to the point of trying to explain spin or weak interactions. But I have little doubt that, when it is developed into those areas, the physical interpretations will be quite different than those of QM, as has been true for most quantum properties so far. And because of that, it would be impossible to claim that "there can be no mechanical cause for it in principle", and expect that to still hold for MM's physical interpretations. As I indicated, "spin" is not really angular momentum, making the meaning of parity doubly in doubt.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">something must inevitably be added to MM to account for what is mechanically acausal.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I doubt that any new concepts need to be added to MM, but the model needs to be developed much farther than has yet occurred. So yes, much development needs to be added.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The only way to evade such a situation while staying within the confines of MM is to postulate another part of the universe (which is not accessible) that takes the opposite hand thus restoring the logical equivalence of left and right.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I doubt that is the direction a resolution will take. But if it came to that, MM would undoubtedly be able to show that parity, like entropy, is simply a function of scale, with some scales dominated by one parity and others by the opposite parity, with conservation overall.

However, sympotmatic of what I'm really trying to point out here is that "parity" is not even defined on the galactic scale, which tells me that it does not mean why QM thinks it means on the quantum scale. MM is very definite about all scales being fundamentally the same, differing only in details. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">that parity, like entropy, is simply a function of scale ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Parity can never be a "function of scale" ... it is a function of geometrical logic ... not physics. That there should be as much leftness as rightness is one of the "constraints" on any physics model (unless one postulates to the contrary).

It means the same thing on every scale. On the galactic scale there is no known problem with this rule ... just in weak particle interactions.

You can imagine a handed twist in a standard model field but I don't think that MM can produce any analogous construct other than by a chance assembly of MIs. Now, if you put odd shaped "hooks" and such on particles (ala Democritus) ... some would have a handedness. However, they would have an equal chance of being left or right handed.

I don't think you want to go down that road anyway. ;o)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />Parity can never be a "function of scale" ... it is a function of geometrical logic ... not physics. That there should be as much leftness as rightness is one of the "constraints" on any physics model (unless one postulates to the contrary).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't think we are communicating. Give me the simplest example you can imagine for handedness in a molecule. Then tell me why the same thing couldn't apply to clusters of galaxies, with galaxies in the role of atoms. The fact that we can't see galaxy clusters and their motions in 3-D yet doesn't mean they could not have handedness.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It means the same thing on every scale. On the galactic scale there is no known problem with this rule ... just in weak particle interactions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But there <i>could</i> be handedness for galaxies, just as there is for molecules. So why can't parity be a function of scale, just as entropy is? Maybe successive mediums on different scales alternate in the handedness they tend to produce, just as they seem to alternate increasing or decreasing the total entropy of the universe.

I'm not proposing a model here. I'm merely arguing that sweeping generalizations such as "mechanical models can't explain parity non-conservation" do not apply to MM. But before we can make real progress, we must first figure out what "spin" means. In that regard, the only constraint that seems certain is that it does not mean "rotational angular momentum". -|Tom|-

I have a question about scale.

If things look essentially the same at "every scale" then that means "scale" has gradations. At some point a star, or a galaxy, or a cluster, etc., is going to "play the role" of an atom (using Tom's phrase). My question is what is this point? What is the point, or gradation, where the next scale (relative to an atom) occurs?

Because unless I'm not getting something, it seems pretty far up there. Our entire visibile universe may very well not be large enough to play the role of an atom. And if that's the case, how can the MM ever be verified?

Emanuel

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But there could be handedness for galaxies, just as there is for molecules. So why can't parity be a function of scale, just as entropy is? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I agree that there could be handed galaxies and molecules. But that's not the problem. Such handed constructs with many of the same handedness would be just a statistical fluke. The parity violation of the weak interaction is not a statistical fluke ... it is the embodiment of a law of nature. But such a violation (predictable in every repetition of appropriate experiments), cannot be statistical else experiments would result in equally probable left-right results.

This eliminates mechanical models because "all mechanical models are, at base, causal". But the choice of left over right is necessarily acausal because there is no quantitative difference between left and right upon which to base a "choice". Hence, one must postulate another universe to balance out our ingrained requirement for causality ... or ... we may postulate another part of this universe where the phenomena are reversed so as to yield the balancing results.

However, if we postulate either of the above ... our postulate is rooted in acausality. For the handed events (if they were considered a statistical fluke) would be an outrageous affront to our statistical expectations ... an affront perhaps even greater than that to our causality requirement.

Imagine fair coins being tossed billions of times and all coming up heads. What would we think of this? We could not accept it as chance. We would seek a "cause" for the incredible string of heads. And ... finding none ... we would have to propose that causality was somehow, someway violated.

The parity violation of the weak interaction demands that one give up statistics and/or causality. One of them must go (as an absolute) and one must open those floodgates. Certainly statistics and causality are valid perhaps everywhere else, but a single place where they are routinely violated must stick in anyone's craw. It certainly did for me.