The Universe Is NOT Expanding At An Accelerated Rate

Constatine

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
1,781
Read an interesting article from Scientific American about this paper today.

Have Astronomers Decided Dark Energy Doesn't Exist?





So they're saying that even if you grant the CMB and baryon oscillations can be attributed to theories that don't call for an accelerating universe, this study still concludes there's a 99.7% chance that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. If you grant that the standard theories of CMB and baryon oscillating stand even a tiny 10% chance of being true, this pushes an accelerating expansion universe odds to well over 99.999%. You can be really mean and cut that back by orders of magnitude to 99.99%. That's still a big hurdle to overcome and corresponding requires a lot of evidence to prove wrong. It's unlikely anything short of a prediction that linear expansion makes that conflicts with accelerated expansion is going to do the trick.
These type of statistics are very misleading. The calculations they do to come up with such numbers relys on many assumptions that further lower the odds (by a lot). Never trust a scientific work that pushes an idea in a persuasive fashion(though I did not read the whole article so this might be fine), and never ever trust "chances this is true" statistics in physics.
 

DrJ

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
721
I think it's a bit premature to revoke a Nobel Prize. One study is just one bit of evidence.

Interestingly enough, that's exactly how science works: one observation contradictory to a theory is indeed enough to disprove it. Of course one has to take care that the observation is legitimate and that there isn't another explanation. And, sure, we'd always feel better about having more contradicting observations. But at the end of the day, it only takes a single observation of a black swan to disprove the claim that all swans are white.

I don't think enough people - especially academics - truly appreciate the substantial asymmetry of the scientific method. It only disproves, it never proves for all time. Whenever I see a 'scientific' or other article saying that some set of observations "proves" a theory, I immediately know I am in the literary presence of morons. Due to the asymmetry, theoretical knowledge is clearly very fragile since it must stand up to every observation, not just a subset of them. Given such fragility, true scientists should be prepared and even excited to constantly be overturning theories, but it's a mindset that's not well-suited to academic careerism.

In any case, if you want more observations contradicting the accelerating expanding universe theory, you should really check into Halton Arp's work as Haidut suggested. Arp was one of the few academics who truly was a scientist and understood the asymmetry of the scientific method, and his writing reflects it.
 

Constatine

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
1,781
Interestingly enough, that's exactly how science works: one observation contradictory to a theory is indeed enough to disprove it. Of course one has to take care that the observation is legitimate and that there isn't another explanation. And, sure, we'd always feel better about having more contradicting observations. But at the end of the day, it only takes a single observation of a black swan to disprove the claim that all swans are white.

I don't think enough people - especially academics - truly appreciate the substantial asymmetry of the scientific method. It only disproves, it never proves for all time. Whenever I see a 'scientific' or other article saying that some set of observations "proves" a theory, I immediately know I am in the literary presence of morons. Due to the asymmetry, theoretical knowledge is clearly very fragile since it must stand up to every observation, not just a subset of them. Given such fragility, true scientists should be prepared and even excited to constantly be overturning theories, but it's a mindset that's not well-suited to academic careerism.

In any case, if you want more observations contradicting the accelerating expanding universe theory, you should really check into Halton Arp's work as Haidut suggested. Arp was one of the few academics who truly was a scientist and understood the asymmetry of the scientific method, and his writing reflects it.
Too much pride exists within the scientific community. Scientists careers and reputation are heavily invested in their theories and when their work is overturned it is devastating to them. Scientists must never promote their ideas in a persuasive fashion or even have any investment in such ideas. A scientists must be humble and observe the world through the eyes of a child, no assumptions can be made, no theory or reasoning can be deemed absolute, and everything must be questioned all the time. A scientist must know that he knows nothing, he can only ever guess at the truth.
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
The medieval religious idea of "corruption of the body" was the primary motivation behind the second law of thermodynamics, decaying matter, etc which then led to the idea of inherent randomness even though most of the evidence now points to the Universe being an open system, and as such entropy always non-decreasing is only relevant to artificially isolated systems. I think we don't have a solid idea yet of what matter is and how it evolves. I don't think we have a solid idea of space either. The space as flexible rubber sheet which bends under the influence of gravity is a very poor idea and no physicist has been able to explain why the bending would not create an opposing force of equal magnitude due to the third Newtonian law, which will equalize the "pressure" from gravity. I am not saying there is no evidence for any of the current theories, I just think they are a very poor explanation of reality and require exorbitant amount of "normalizations" (as in Feynman's QED) to make them work. I think Milo Wolff's ideas have a lot more merit then mainstream press likes to ascribe to them.
Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) - Articles - The Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) and the Origin of the Natural Laws
And the guy is not some wacko self-taught herbalist that came up with a TOE in one of his tonic-infused deliriums. He is physicist and has a legitimate and testable explanation of how reality truly works. Not saying he is completely correct either, but he is definitely on more correct path (IMO) than most of the physics people I have ever talked to. String theorists are the worst (no offense meant to anybody here who may be one). Everybody who claims that reality is unfathomable and unknowable should not be allowed to call themselves physicist. Sounds like something a medieval monk would say.
Anyways, enough of my rant. Hopefully with the recent confirmations of Bohm's theory predictions (which are surprisingly close to Wolff's above) physics can resume on the more sensible path.

Thanks for the reply. What is some of the evidence of the Universe being an open system and entropy not always increasing?

With regards to relativity, the analogy of space being a rubber sheet always comes with the caveat that it is an oversimplified analogy because a better one doesn't exist. Hasn't the theory been predicatively accurate everywhere we've looked? Can you point me to your best sources of concerns about it lacking an equal and opposite reaction?

I still haven't had a chance to read through that Milo Wolff's link you provided, but like I mentioned in another thread, the skim + conclusions were very interesting and I look forward to reading the rest.

I agree about string theories. Theories that can explain anything and predict nothing are pretty meaningless. Though maybe that will change.

I like the pilot wave theory more than the Copenhagen interpretation, and less than Many Worlds. Not because I have a deep understanding of physics, but because prominent physicists who criticize pilot wave theory invoke Occam's Razor when comparing it to MW and say it's just MW in disguise.

De Broglie–Bohm theory - Wikipedia


Oh BTW, this probably belongs in the conscious matter thread, but physicists have recently found a structural similarity between neutron stars and human cells. I think this can be explained by matter tending to arrange itself in efficient structures, but I admit it's a bit of evidence in favour of your view.

Phys. Rev. C 94, 055801 (2016) - ``Parking-garage'' structures in nuclear astrophysics and cellular biophysics
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
Interestingly enough, that's exactly how science works: one observation contradictory to a theory is indeed enough to disprove it. Of course one has to take care that the observation is legitimate and that there isn't another explanation. And, sure, we'd always feel better about having more contradicting observations. But at the end of the day, it only takes a single observation of a black swan to disprove the claim that all swans are white.

I don't think enough people - especially academics - truly appreciate the substantial asymmetry of the scientific method. It only disproves, it never proves for all time. Whenever I see a 'scientific' or other article saying that some set of observations "proves" a theory, I immediately know I am in the literary presence of morons. Due to the asymmetry, theoretical knowledge is clearly very fragile since it must stand up to every observation, not just a subset of them. Given such fragility, true scientists should be prepared and even excited to constantly be overturning theories, but it's a mindset that's not well-suited to academic careerism.

In any case, if you want more observations contradicting the accelerating expanding universe theory, you should really check into Halton Arp's work as Haidut suggested. Arp was one of the few academics who truly was a scientist and understood the asymmetry of the scientific method, and his writing reflects it.

I agree with this with the important caveat that it can take one observation. The strength of the observation has to be proportional to the strength of the theory to drop it from the top spot. Based on what physicists are saying about this observation, it's not nearly strong enough evidence to over ride the existing evidence that lifts the accelerating expanding universe theory above alternatives.

So in the examples of swans, yeah, you just need one black swan to disprove the all swans are white theory. But if someone shows you a black feather that looks like a swan feather, that just reduces the likelihood of the all swans are white theory a little bit. It does adjust it down, and (correspondingly pushes other theories up), but it isn't enough to knock it off the top spot. There could be other explanations for the observation.
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
These type of statistics are very misleading. The calculations they do to come up with such numbers relys on many assumptions that further lower the odds (by a lot). Never trust a scientific work that pushes an idea in a persuasive fashion(though I did not read the whole article so this might be fine), and never ever trust "chances this is true" statistics in physics.

Ok, but they could be off by orders of magnitude and still be correct. I look at this more as a gauge of "What physicists believe and how much confidence do they have in those beliefs". I am not a physicist, so the consensus of people working in the field is the best thing I can go on. And until someone can show me that those numbers are off, way off, there's no reason for me to believe otherwise.

I get that it's fun to believe in non-conventional theories. And they are worthy of exploration and could turn out to be true. But if you want to believe them, you need to have very good reasons. i.e. you need to be able to show exactly why the consensus view is wrong and how the observed evidence supports your non-conventional theory more than the conventional one. And if you can't do that, you can still hold out hope that your theory is correct, but you should know what future results you expect to see that will either sink your theory or rise it above the conventional one.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Thanks for the reply. What is some of the evidence of the Universe being an open system and entropy not always increasing?

With regards to relativity, the analogy of space being a rubber sheet always comes with the caveat that it is an oversimplified analogy because a better one doesn't exist. Hasn't the theory been predicatively accurate everywhere we've looked? Can you point me to your best sources of concerns about it lacking an equal and opposite reaction?

I still haven't had a chance to read through that Milo Wolff's link you provided, but like I mentioned in another thread, the skim + conclusions were very interesting and I look forward to reading the rest.

I agree about string theories. Theories that can explain anything and predict nothing are pretty meaningless. Though maybe that will change.

I like the pilot wave theory more than the Copenhagen interpretation, and less than Many Worlds. Not because I have a deep understanding of physics, but because prominent physicists who criticize pilot wave theory invoke Occam's Razor when comparing it to MW and say it's just MW in disguise.

De Broglie–Bohm theory - Wikipedia


Oh BTW, this probably belongs in the conscious matter thread, but physicists have recently found a structural similarity between neutron stars and human cells. I think this can be explained by matter tending to arrange itself in efficient structures, but I admit it's a bit of evidence in favour of your view.

Phys. Rev. C 94, 055801 (2016) - ``Parking-garage'' structures in nuclear astrophysics and cellular biophysics

The Universe is likely infinite, according to the latest evidence, and as such we cannot talk about heat death and ever increasing entropy.
Astrophysicists create the first accurate map of the universe: It's very flat, and probably infinite - ExtremeTech

The Heat death idea:
Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia
"...Max Planck wrote that the phrase 'entropy of the universe' has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition.[18][19] More recently, Grandy writes: "It is rather presumptuous to speak of the entropy of a universe about which we still understand so little, and we wonder how one might define thermodynamic entropy for a universe and its major constituents that have never been in equilibrium in their entire existence."[20] According to Tisza: "If an isolated system is not in equilibrium, we cannot associate an entropy with it."[21] Buchdahl writes of "the entirely unjustifiable assumption that the universe can be treated as a closed thermodynamic system".[22] According to Gallavotti: "... there is no universally accepted notion of entropy for systems out of equilibrium, even when in a stationary state."[23] Discussing the question of entropy for non-equilibrium states in general, Lieb and Yngvason express their opinion as follows: "Despite the fact that most physicists believe in such a nonequilibrium entropy, it has so far proved impossible to define it in a clearly satisfactory way."[24] In the opinion of Čápek and Sheehan, "no known formulation [of entropy] applies to all possible thermodynamic regimes."[25] In Landsberg's opinion, "The third misconception is that thermodynamics, and in particular, the concept of entropy, can without further enquiry be applied to the whole universe. ... These questions have a certain fascination, but the answers are speculations, and lie beyond the scope of this book."[26]
A recent analysis of entropy states that "The entropy of a general gravitational field is still not known," and that "gravitational entropy is difficult to quantify." The analysis considers several possible assumptions that would be needed for estimates, and suggests that the visible universe has more entropy than previously thought. This is because the analysis concludes that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor.[27] Another writer goes further; "It has long been known that gravity is important for keeping the universe out of thermal equilibrium. Gravitationally bound systems have negative specific heat—that is, the velocities of their components increase when energy is removed. ... Such a system does not evolve toward a homogeneous equilibrium state. Instead it becomes increasingly structured and heterogeneous as it fragments into subsystems."[28]"

Thanks for the link on neutron star structure. I'll read later today.
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
The Universe is likely infinite, according to the latest evidence, and as such we cannot talk about heat death and ever increasing entropy.
Astrophysicists create the first accurate map of the universe: It's very flat, and probably infinite - ExtremeTech

There is a big difference between the universe being much larger than the observable universe (probably true) and infinite. I don't think infinite exists in nature. I think it's just a mathematical construct that make calculations easier. But that could be my human brain bias.

I thought the universe had to have negative curvature to be infinite? Right now it seems like the curvature is close to zero, with an error margin that could make it negative or positive. Given my could be wrong prior that infinite likely isn't a concept that maps to reality, I think there's still a decent chance it's finite, though also a decent chance it's infinite. ***t.
 

EndAllDisease

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
195
Without trying to hijack this post in any way, here's one more round of responses, asking questions that I think need to be asked.

On point 1 ,humans with their experience have created cameras that we send into space and send back video images.
What makes you believe these alleged camera's and satellites exist?
Take a look on google images for 'satellite', you'll notice every single one is a computer graphic and not an actual image.
If there's a real photo, please post it and it will be taken as evidence of the possible existence of satellites orbiting earth.

On point 2 ,the sun moving across the sky suggest otherwise.
Regarding the sun, here's a good video for you. If this video is legit, then it's obvious the sun is hovering just above the clouds.


Point 4 requires your to read a bit more or in the spirit of Blake buy a telescope for experiencing the tiny orbs through a lense.

Looking at stars through a telescope you get virtually the same orb of light but slightly bigger.
Nothing about that experience suggests to me it was a planetary body. What you're doing is called believing, not thinking for yourself.
 

Ideonaut

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
499
Location
Seattle
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
There is a big difference between the universe being much larger than the observable universe (probably true) and infinite. I don't think infinite exists in nature. I think it's just a mathematical construct that make calculations easier. But that could be my human brain bias.

I thought the universe had to have negative curvature to be infinite? Right now it seems like the curvature is close to zero, with an error margin that could make it negative or positive. Given my could be wrong prior that infinite likely isn't a concept that maps to reality, I think there's still a decent chance it's finite, though also a decent chance it's infinite. ***t.

On a related but a bit tangential topic, Peat seems to endorse Milo Wollf's and Bohm's description of reality:
Biochemical Health Reduction And Oxidation, Politics And Science, 2015
"...RP: Since you can't explain many events in terms of particles, it becomes sort of mathematical magic to try to make up theories to explain results like Polanyi 's or Schwarz's. And Albert Szent-Györgyi used conventional quantum thinking about electrons, and went a long way towards explaining some of the biological phenomena that the people hadn't been able to even perceive. But that doesn't mean that it necessarily validates the particulate electron, just because you can explain some important phenomena. I think it should mean that the whole idea of what matter is, how an electron works, whether it might be that there is an electrical ether-like material which breaks up in different ways into apparently discrete electrons. But that rather than being an internally discrete particle (like a proton is supposed to be), the electron might be sort of an ad-hoc division, which the wave interpretation is approaching that idea. And some of the sub-atomic thinkers are saying that maybe this great variety of sub-atomic particles being seen with high energy research, maybe these are just sort of an ad-hoc response of matter to a particular context, or environment, or stimulation."

"...RP: Yah. And that's one of the complexities of the living state: If you kill it, it doesn't work the same. So you have to think of it always in a certain environment. You have to really think of it as a flow from the environment, in and out; and the rate of flow, and intensity of flow, and so on."

In fact, I think he goes a step further to say that "space" (as defined in Milo's work), which Peat calls ether-like, has electrical properties. This means both information and energy can be stored, extracted, and exchanged with that ether/space.
 
Last edited:
L

lollipop

Guest
Interestingly enough, that's exactly how science works: one observation contradictory to a theory is indeed enough to disprove it. Of course one has to take care that the observation is legitimate and that there isn't another explanation. And, sure, we'd always feel better about having more contradicting observations. But at the end of the day, it only takes a single observation of a black swan to disprove the claim that all swans are white.

I don't think enough people - especially academics - truly appreciate the substantial asymmetry of the scientific method. It only disproves, it never proves for all time. Whenever I see a 'scientific' or other article saying that some set of observations "proves" a theory, I immediately know I am in the literary presence of morons. Due to the asymmetry, theoretical knowledge is clearly very fragile since it must stand up to every observation, not just a subset of them. Given such fragility, true scientists should be prepared and even excited to constantly be overturning theories, but it's a mindset that's not well-suited to academic careerism.

In any case, if you want more observations contradicting the accelerating expanding universe theory, you should really check into Halton Arp's work as Haidut suggested. Arp was one of the few academics who truly was a scientist and understood the asymmetry of the scientific method, and his writing reflects it.
Agree with your thoughts here.

Arp's work is amazing. Also check out Ben's work at Suspicious0bservers - Space Weather | Solar Activity | Weather | Earthquakes

Also you sound a bit like Nassim Taleb - love his perspective always provocative.
 
L

lollipop

Guest
The medieval religious idea of "corruption of the body" was the primary motivation behind the second law of thermodynamics, decaying matter, etc which then led to the idea of inherent randomness even though most of the evidence now points to the Universe being an open system, and as such entropy always non-decreasing is only relevant to artificially isolated systems. I think we don't have a solid idea yet of what matter is and how it evolves. I don't think we have a solid idea of space either. The space as flexible rubber sheet which bends under the influence of gravity is a very poor idea and no physicist has been able to explain why the bending would not create an opposing force of equal magnitude due to the third Newtonian law, which will equalize the "pressure" from gravity. I am not saying there is no evidence for any of the current theories, I just think they are a very poor explanation of reality and require exorbitant amount of "normalizations" (as in Feynman's QED) to make them work. I think Milo Wolff's ideas have a lot more merit then mainstream press likes to ascribe to them.
Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) - Articles - The Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) and the Origin of the Natural Laws
And the guy is not some wacko self-taught herbalist that came up with a TOE in one of his tonic-infused deliriums. He is physicist and has a legitimate and testable explanation of how reality truly works. Not saying he is completely correct either, but he is definitely on more correct path (IMO) than most of the physics people I have ever talked to. String theorists are the worst (no offense meant to anybody here who may be one). Everybody who claims that reality is unfathomable and unknowable should not be allowed to call themselves physicist. Sounds like something a medieval monk would say.
Anyways, enough of my rant. Hopefully with the recent confirmations of Bohm's theory predictions (which are surprisingly close to Wolff's above) physics can resume on the more sensible path.
Great stuff this Milo Wolff's wave theory. This is precisely where I have been headed in my own thinking. Thanks for sharing @haidut.
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
On a related but a bit tangential topic, Peat seems to endorse Milo Wollf's and Bohm's description of reality:
Biochemical Health Reduction And Oxidation, Politics And Science, 2015
"...RP: Since you can't explain many events in terms of particles, it becomes sort of mathematical magic to try to make up theories to explain results like Polanyi 's or Schwarz's. And Albert Szent-Györgyi used conventional quantum thinking about electrons, and went a long way towards explaining some of the biological phenomena that the people hadn't been able to even perceive. But that doesn't mean that it necessarily validates the particulate electron, just because you can explain some important phenomena. I think it should mean that the whole idea of what matter is, how an electron works, whether it might be that there is an electrical ether-like material which breaks up in different ways into apparently discrete electrons. But that rather than being an internally discrete particle (like a proton is supposed to be), the electron might be sort of an ad-hoc division, which the wave interpretation is approaching that idea. And some of the sub-atomic thinkers are saying that maybe this great variety of sub-atomic particles being seen with high energy research, maybe these are just sort of an ad-hoc response of matter to a particular context, or environment, or stimulation."

"...RP: Yah. And that's one of the complexities of the living state: If you kill it, it doesn't work the same. So you have to think of it always in a certain environment. You have to really think of it as a flow from the environment, in and out; and the rate of flow, and intensity of flow, and so on."

In fact, I think he goes a step further to say that "space" (as defined in Milo's work), which Peat calls ether-like, has electrical properties. This means both information and energy can be stored, extracted, and exchanged with that ether/space.

I finally got around to reading the full text in the link on WSM you provided. Pretty interesting stuff. It has moved to my preferred theory of the universe, though I can't find enough discussion about it to move it to the most plausible theory of the universe.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
I finally got around to reading the full text in the link on WSM you provided. Pretty interesting stuff. It has moved to my preferred theory of the universe, though I can't find enough discussion about it to move it to the most plausible theory of the universe.

I think many physicists agree with it, but the main problem they have with it is the "in-wave" the elementary "particles" apparently receive as a cumulative response from the entire Universe. The combination of in/out wave suggests, as one biochemist said, that your ears needs to send signal as well as receive in order to be able to hear, and your eyes need to radiate light as well as receive light in order to be able to see. Now, what does that mean for consciousness - i.e. your brain may need to send waves out to the Universe as well as receive them in order for consciousness to function.
http://frohmedizin.ch/dnl/NES2.pdf

"...But wait a minute! In Wolff's quantum mechanics theory, he says that there is an "inwave" that brings a message to the brain about a local or distant holographic arrangement. The question is, does the brain create a resonator that has a phase gate to send as well as to receive signals about what lies outside the body? Mitchell says it does. This idea, if true, essentially turns modern psychology, not to mention physiology and neurology, on its head. It means that the ears must be sending out a signal in order to hear, the eyes must radiate a signal in order to see, and so on."
 
Last edited:

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
I think many physicists agree with it

What are you basing that on? I'm having trouble finding much of any discussion about it online, and the few places I do have as many critics as proponents.

That could be attributable to the theory not being well known, and maybe physicists had a full understanding of this theory and the competition, they would deem it most likely, but that's a pretty big leap from the current situation.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
What are you basing that on? I'm having trouble finding much of any discussion about it online, and the few places I do have as many critics as proponents.

That could be attributable to the theory not being well known, and maybe physicists had a full understanding of this theory and the competition, they would deem it most likely, but that's a pretty big leap from the current situation.

I have talked to a few of them. They are all university physicists. It is not really anything new to suggest that a particle has an "outwave". This is basically the same as the pilot wave in Bohm's theory and several variations of it. The quantum camp is about equally split into groups who treat reality as wave-based or particle-based and try to explain the other manifestation as an emergent property or interference of some sorts. So, to propose that the electron is a small, dense core that has an out-wave is not going to cause a riot. But every physicist I talked to balked at the idea of an in-wave. Neither the outwave nor the inwave has been confirmed as a physical entity yet but there is some evidence for the outwave and none such for the inwave.
Quantum Physicists Catch a Pilot Wave - The Nature of Reality — The Nature of Reality | PBS
Bohmian Mechanics Validated Once Again

So, until we have some evidence about an inwave Wolff's theory is simply seen as one of the many wave-based interpetations and is usually placed in the De Broglie - Bohm camp.
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
I have talked to a few of them. They are all university physicists. It is not really anything new to suggest that a particle has an "outwave". This is basically the same as the pilot wave in Bohm's theory and several variations of it. The quantum camp is about equally split into groups who treat reality as wave-based or particle-based and try to explain the other manifestation as an emergent property or interference of some sorts. So, to propose that the electron is a small, dense core that has an out-wave is not going to cause a riot. But every physicist I talked to balked at the idea of an in-wave. Neither the outwave nor the inwave has been confirmed as a physical entity yet but there is some evidence for the outwave and none such for the inwave.
Quantum Physicists Catch a Pilot Wave - The Nature of Reality — The Nature of Reality | PBS
Bohmian Mechanics Validated Once Again

So, until we have some evidence about an inwave Wolff's theory is simply seen as one of the many wave-based interpetations and is usually placed in the De Broglie - Bohm camp.

Oh cool, maybe it's an old idea that's blossoming with new physicists. Hopefully it picks up some steam, it would be fun to watch that play out.
 

Mr Joe

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2019
Messages
303
I see the whole reason for big pharma duping, what serious money is there to be made with theories on the universe?
Because elites wants to use the term "infinite universe". By reading the word "infinite" you just close the book, and go enjoy life saying that all religion are for idiots, it's time to "free ourselves" and "enjoy life". Thus you end with cocaine, SSRI, drunk and proud of preaching the Nihilism theory. If we are "in a non-expending" world, the rise of the "who put us INSIDE" becomes important and capitalism is in threat.
 
Back
Top Bottom