Gravity waves: Inflationary Big Bang vs. Cyclic Universe?

I was watching a program which were comparing various Big Bang theories
against each other. In it, they said one way to falsify Inflation vs.
Cyclic Universe theories is that a Cyclic Universe will *not* produce
gravity waves. Does anybody know why this would be the case? One would
think that whatever mechanism lead to the BB, would always cause a lot
of gravity ripples.

I found some info on it, but it doesn't really explain what leads to
this conclusion:

The one possible test that they point to that could distinguish the inflation and cyclic scenarios is the expected more sensitive measurement in coming years of a possible B-mode polarization signal due to gravity waves in the CMB. They claim that inflation predicts a significant amount of B-mode polarization, whereas the cyclic model doesn’t.

Endless Universe | Not Even Wrong
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=563

Yousuf Khan

"Yousuf Khan" wrote:
I was watching a program which were comparing various Big Bang theories
against each other. In it, they said one way to falsify Inflation vs.
Cyclic Universe theories is that a Cyclic Universe will *not* produce
gravity waves. Does anybody know why this would be the case? One would
think that whatever mechanism lead to the BB, would always cause a lot of
gravity ripples.

I found some info on it, but it doesn't really explain what leads to this
conclusion:

The one possible test that they point to that could distinguish the
inflation and cyclic scenarios is the expected more sensitive measurement
in coming years of a possible B-mode polarization signal due to gravity
waves in the CMB. They claim that inflation predicts a significant amount
of B-mode polarization, whereas the cyclic model doesn’t.

Endless Universe | Not Even Wrong
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=563

hanson wrote: Yossel, all you did was adding your opinion
to the greatest story ever told: "Cosmology".. which is
a STORY! Any and all variations are interpretations
and educated guesses of what happened yore and yonder.
Nowadays all that the public sees are those Photoshopped
pictures and artists' renditions. Enjoy all that.
It's a vast improvement over religious creationism by the
Abrahamic delusions and other tribal, drug induced states.

On Apr 12, 5:40 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:

I was watching a program which were comparing various Big Bang theories
against each other. In it, they said one way to falsify Inflation vs.
Cyclic Universe theories is that a Cyclic Universe will *not* produce
gravity waves. Does anybody know why this would be the case? One would
think that whatever mechanism lead to the BB, would always cause a lot
of gravity ripples.

I found some info on it, but it doesn't really explain what leads to
this conclusion:

Gravity waves has nothing to do cosmology but the very mathematics of
GR that allows a wave equation to be derived similar to the wave
equations derived by Maxwell that explained light as electromagnetic
radiation. shrug

The one possible test that they point to that could distinguish
the inflation and cyclic scenarios is the expected more sensitive
measurement in coming years of a possible B-mode polarization
signal due to gravity waves in the CMB. They claim that inflation
predicts a significant amount of B-mode polarization, whereas the
cyclic model doesn’t.

Cosmology cannot be tested but stated. shrug

Endless Universe | Not Even Wrong
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=563

shrug

On Apr 12, 8:40*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
I was watching a program which were comparing various Big Bang theories
against each other. In it, they said one way to falsify Inflation vs.
Cyclic Universe theories is that a Cyclic Universe will *not* produce
gravity waves. Does anybody know why this would be the case? One would
think that whatever mechanism lead to the BB, would always cause a lot
of gravity ripples.

I found some info on it, but it doesn't really explain what leads to
this conclusion:

*The one possible test that they point to that could distinguish the inflation and cyclic scenarios is the expected more sensitive measurement in coming years of a possible B-mode polarization signal due to gravity waves in the CMB. They claim that inflation predicts a significant amount of B-mode polarization, whereas the cyclic model doesn’t.

Endless Universe | Not Even Wronghttp://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=563

* * * * Yousuf Khan

xxein: Wublee comes close. He explains that the math is similar to
EM. But it just doesn't follow that the math is describing a physical
wave. EM is just an escape function for energy. It has its
longitudinal length appear as a "wave" because the pulse energy is
released as building to a peak and then decreasing down until the next
pulse. Pictorially as an ocean wave.

A so-called 'gravity wave' is different in that it changes the dynamic
equlibrium of the temporary state of the present energy in the
universe because of the changes of position of the causal mass. And
it does not end there. The energy is forced to continuously seek its
equilibrium.

There is much more to it than that though. No one can comprehend all
the complexities that come with it. And then there is that pesky
E=mc^2. 'E' as provided by EM radiation? Or E the result of causal
change of its position in a temporal equilibrium i.e. just a flow from
here to there to seek an equilibrium? Could it be acceptable that the
notion we have as a wave has infinitely complex behavior beyond our
knowledge?

I think we can have both at scale. Whether a sunburn or metabolic
change that allows something like a cancer to occur, or the
astronomical motions, they all have something in common but are
witnessed at different scales of belief that we yet have to unite.

The same as considering a gravity wave as a 'wave' without knowing or
considering any other explanation.

I would welcome any intelligent discussion on this. Just label it
"xxein and gravity" for post or email.

On Apr 12, 10:04*pm, "hanson" wrote:
"Yousuf Khan" wrote:
I was watching a program which were comparing various Big Bang theories
against each other. In it, they said one way to falsify Inflation vs.
Cyclic Universe theories is that a Cyclic Universe will *not* produce
gravity waves. Does anybody know why this would be the case? One would
think that whatever mechanism lead to the BB, would always cause a lot of
gravity ripples.

I found some info on it, but it doesn't really explain what leads to this
conclusion:

The one possible test that they point to that could distinguish the
inflation and cyclic scenarios is the expected more sensitive measurement
in coming years of a possible B-mode polarization signal due to gravity
waves in the CMB. They claim that inflation predicts a significant amount
of B-mode polarization, whereas the cyclic model doesn’t.

Endless Universe | Not Even Wrong
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=563

hanson wrote: Yossel, all you did was adding your opinion

to the greatest story ever told: "Cosmology".. which is
a STORY! *Any and all variations are interpretations
and educated guesses of what happened yore and yonder.
Nowadays all that the public sees are those Photoshopped
pictures and artists' renditions. Enjoy all that.
It's a vast improvement over religious creationism by the
Abrahamic delusions and other tribal, drug induced states.

ThemTheThey've stated that if one does not learn from Usenet History,
then one is condemned to repeat Repeat REPEAT it... how condemnable!

Dedicated to all, plus one and +1, the greatest stories ever told...

In Mahipal Singh Virdy
eloquently writes:

"That's a valid point. But physics is not a story. One has to be
cognizant of the difference between Reality and the stories within
Reality about Reality.

Example: Say for the sake of brainstorming, we as humans lost all
records of the past. Lost all the books and symbols that the past has
impressed upon us. Don't ask how, just assume so.

Now, what would happen? It is highly unlikely that the stories of the
Religions of the world would be recreated the same as they exist
today. The chances are nearly zero. On the otherhand, the laws of
physics would be exactly the same when rediscovered. Only the names
and faces of the discoverers would change.

In this objective sense, physics is not a story. While everything else
is. The laws of physics are independent of the cultural and
traditional biases, including the religious ones, of any society
contemplating this entity called Physics."

"How brilliant! This could be called the Law of Conservation of
Reason: "Unlike folklore, the laws of physics remain constant under
cultural stress." -- Ande Rychter, "

Enjo(y)... Cheers...
--
Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple"... as in Loops, Syrup, Wood.

http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/
"If the line between science fiction and science fact
doesn't drive you crazy, then you're just not tr(y)ing!"

On Apr 13, 2:43 pm, xxein wrote:
On Apr 12, 8:40 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:

I was watching a program which were comparing various Big Bang theories
against each other. In it, they said one way to falsify Inflation vs.
Cyclic Universe theories is that a Cyclic Universe will *not* produce
gravity waves. Does anybody know why this would be the case? One would
think that whatever mechanism lead to the BB, would always cause a lot
of gravity ripples.

I found some info on it, but it doesn't really explain what leads to
this conclusion:

The one possible test that they point to that could distinguish
the inflation and cyclic scenarios is the expected more sensitive
measurement in coming years of a possible B-mode polarization
signal due to gravity waves in the CMB. They claim that inflation
predicts a significant amount of B-mode polarization, whereas the
cyclic model doesn’t.

Endless Universe | Not Even Wrong
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=563

xxein: Wublee comes close. He explains that the math is similar to
EM. But it just doesn't follow that the math is describing a physical
wave. EM is just an escape function for energy. It has its
longitudinal length appear as a "wave" because the pulse energy is
released as building to a peak and then decreasing down until the next
pulse. Pictorially as an ocean wave.

Well, it does not matter if you accept Ampere’s assumption in the
physical phenomenon of magnetism or not. Nevertheless, magnetism has
so very adequately to be able to explain away just about all mundane
phenomena observed. It was Maxwell who cleverly showed with
definitive mathematical argument that the electric and the magnetic
fields are able to propagate away as waves at exactly the speed of
light. That was one of mankind’s proudest moments on par with
Newton’s gravity thing. shrug

A so-called 'gravity wave' is different in that it changes the dynamic
equlibrium of the temporary state of the present energy in the
universe because of the changes of position of the causal mass. And
it does not end there. The energy is forced to continuously seek its
equilibrium.

Energy is a phenomenon created by an observer. It is ridiculous to
tell energy to seek an equilibrium within the harmony of the
universe. shrug

There is much more to it than that though. No one can comprehend all
the complexities that come with it. And then there is that pesky
E=mc^2. 'E' as provided by EM radiation? Or E the result of causal
change of its position in a temporal equilibrium i.e. just a flow from
here to there to seek an equilibrium? Could it be acceptable that the
notion we have as a wave has infinitely complex behavior beyond our
knowledge?

No, waves represent simple phenomena in nature that have been well
understood. shrug

I think we can have both at scale. Whether a sunburn or metabolic
change that allows something like a cancer to occur, or the
astronomical motions, they all have something in common but are
witnessed at different scales of belief that we yet have to unite.

God helps you if you do not believe in Leprechauns or genies. Only
these guys can grant you wishes. So, think carefully of your wishes
before indulging them since these creatures can be as tricky to deal
with as the self-styled physicists. shrug

The same as considering a gravity wave as a 'wave' without knowing or
considering any other explanation.

Gravity waves on based on the assumption if the Riemann curvature
tensor is valid. Since the Riemann tensor is created through man-
made, tweaked mathematics that offers no connections to the real
world, chances are that the Riemann tensor mirrors mere idols in pagan
religions. shrug

I would welcome any intelligent discussion on this. Just label it
"xxein and gravity" for post or email.

To carry on any intelligent discussion in physics, you must be
proficient in mathematics. Are you? shrug

In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
I was watching a program which were comparing various Big Bang theories
against each other. In it, they said one way to falsify Inflation vs.
Cyclic Universe theories is that a Cyclic Universe will *not* produce
gravity waves.

"Gravity waves" and "Gravitational waves" are two very different
things, but a little searching says it's the latter that is meant.
Sadly, even some otherwise credible web sites seem to get the two
mixed up.

Does anybody know why this would be the case?

There are other sources of gravitational radiation in the early
Universe, but those all lead to E-mode polarization. It's
specifically the B-mode polarization that is the signature of
inflation.

There's an overview at
http://www.b-pol.org/bpol-science.php
and more illustration at
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/~yuki/CMBpol/CMBpol.htm
(Read "gravitational waves" where these sites write "gravity waves.)

The short answer (as far as I can tell, not being an expert on this
subject) is that the origin of the polarization is quantum
fluctuations, which are initially tiny but magnified by inflation.
Without inflation, there's no such magnification or at least not
enough to make the signature observable.

If anyone has a clearer (or more accurate!) explanation, I'd love to
see it.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

On 17/04/2013 5:10 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
There are other sources of gravitational radiation in the early
Universe, but those all lead to E-mode polarization. It's
specifically the B-mode polarization that is the signature of
inflation.

What do the E- and B-mode polarizations mean anyway? B-mode I'm guessing
is the type that is caused by Inflation only, and it's expected to have
a wavelength as large as the observable universe. How do you detect a
wave that big that you may be sitting right on top of?

There's an overview at
http://www.b-pol.org/bpol-science.php
and more illustration at
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/~yuki/CMBpol/CMBpol.htm
(Read "gravitational waves" where these sites write "gravity waves.)

Good stuff, I'm reading through the first one, I'll get to the second a
bit later.

The short answer (as far as I can tell, not being an expert on this
subject) is that the origin of the polarization is quantum
fluctuations, which are initially tiny but magnified by inflation.
Without inflation, there's no such magnification or at least not
enough to make the signature observable.

If anyone has a clearer (or more accurate!) explanation, I'd love to
see it.

So far this thread has been occupied mostly by kooks, hopefully somebody
in the field can see this and answer?

Yousuf Khan

On Apr 17, 8:42 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 17/04/2013 5:10 PM, Steve Willner wrote:

There are other sources of gravitational radiation in the early
Universe, but those all lead to E-mode polarization. It's
specifically the B-mode polarization that is the signature of
inflation.

What do the E- and B-mode polarizations mean anyway? B-mode I'm guessing
is the type that is caused by Inflation only, and it's expected to have
a wavelength as large as the observable universe. How do you detect a
wave that big that you may be sitting right on top of?

If Yousuf has bothered to study GR, he will realize GR has nothing to
do with E&M. That means the hypothetical gravity waves, which are the
same **** as the gravitational waves, cannot be produced out of E&M.
shrug

There's an overview at
http://www.b-pol.org/bpol-science.php
and more illustration at
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/~yuki/CMBpol/CMBpol.htm
(Read "gravitational waves" where these sites write "gravity waves.)

Good stuff, I'm reading through the first one, I'll get to the second a
bit later.

Well, tell us what you think of these analyses based on the basic
assumptions of current cosmological model turn out. Koobee Wublee
couldn’t wait. shrug

The short answer (as far as I can tell, not being an expert on this
subject) is that the origin of the polarization is quantum
fluctuations, which are initially tiny but magnified by inflation.
Without inflation, there's no such magnification or at least not
enough to make the signature observable.

So far this thread has been occupied mostly by kooks, hopefully somebody
in the field can see this and answer?

Maybe Yousuf can become an expert in cosmology just like everybody
else by staring at these two articles since he does not know anything
about the mathematics of gravity waves in the first place. Of course,
since he knows nothing about the subject, somehow he is very good at
spotting kooks who he thinks also know nothing about the subject.
Yes, this is a typical the idiot calling another idiot an idiot. The
rest is a typical poker game and nothing to do with the discussion of
physics. What else is new? shrug

In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
What do the E- and B-mode polarizations mean anyway?

They describe the pattern of polarization seen on the sky. One of
the references I gave earlier shows examples, and a web search will
find others.

In principle, either pattern can have any wavelength; the wavelengths
and patterns depend on what physical process caused the polarization.
So far as we know now, only inflation can create B-mode patterns.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA