Cosmology

Sponsored Links

1. What is the best college that i can major in cosmology/astronomy?

No accredited university will teach that...

If you're asking why quantum fluctuations don't affect the visible characteristics it's because they are too small to be observed. We only see the average.

3. Where can I go to college for Extragalactic Astronomy and Cosmology?

Princeton. Just look at some of it's past alumni. Even me! But if you don't want it to be in the USA, Cambridge University in UK is one of the top overseas seats of learning. You could also try the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark. Practically all developed countries have first class facilities for study.

4. Why was Nicolas Cusa was not condemed for his belief in a radical Neoplatonic cosmology?

From my point of view, everything that is radical and even if it have sense is not supported by hard defined organizations such is the catholic church, so every point of view that have to destabilize in a way something rigid like the church doctrine is treated like something negative. The reason is that, because the church is an immense organisation can't be flexible, if it do so (to became flexible) it instantly loses its credibility and soon stop to act like a base (terra firma) for belivers, so it start like a domino effect one trouble start another, felxibility runs to loosing credibility, losing credibility runs to losing believers, with a million of side effects, more or less important. Nicolas of Cusa didn't want to remove the base, his essential feeling was to put together euclidean geometry (figurative speaking) with philosophy, he was so much a believer that is possible to reach his feelings easily trough his docta ignorantia when he he speaks about the universal truth, maybe just this sentence catch fully his thinking.. when he speaks about the circle and the polyandrous object... the basic difference between Copernicus and nicolas of cusa is that cusa used God as a point of view, but copernicus used him (Nicolas Cusanus).

5. What are the objections to plasma cosmology?

Firstly, I would point out that the websites you linked to seem fairly antagonistic towards the mainstream of astronomy. While not in and of itself a disqualifying property, it does get things off to a bad start. One particular statement that I have to point out is wrong about astrophysicists is from your third link, under the heading Chapter 1, the seventh paragraph of the section Questions and Answers which says, Astrophysicists do not study experimental plasma research in graduate school. They rarely take any courses that discuss Maxwell’s equations and electromagnetic field theory. As a first year graduate student heading towards working in astrophysics and cosmology, I can attest heartily and strongly that at least the second sentence is patently untrue (as I have an exam on advanced electromagnetism this coming Monday... :) ). Again, not disqualifying, but Secondly, there's a lot of exposition, but not a lot of numbers/equations. Maybe it's that these are intended for a popular audience, but it may be a more general issue. Moreover, whenever I read things that claim to have discovered something radically new and different from the mainstream, when they do give numbers, they usually eschew mentioning estimated errors (go to http://xxx.arxiv.org/list/astro-ph/new and pick a paper at random, and look for numbers... they should have a +/- such and such to represent an error. I'd beware ones that don't give an error estimate). They often times presnt results without giving reasoning. Thirdly, mainstream cosmology is dismissed as too theoretical while plasma cosmology explains observations as they exist. The issue here is that there is some value in having an explanation which is a bit ahead of observations as it gives observers something specific to look for which can help prove or disprove the said theory. So a theory which sticks its head out a little bit is desirable. One which sticks its head out too much is probably just asking for trouble, admittedly. Fourthly, reading some of what is on Arp's website (he's spoken of highly in the second link, as the Galileo of the 20th Century), it seems somewhat silly. Under http://www.haltonarp.com/articles, the article Faint Quasars Give Conclusive Evidence for Non-Velocity Redshifts, apart from being devoid of any equations or numbers of basically any kind (see point number two), his argument seems to be that among several objects obersved in a survey of the sky were close together, including two of high redshift (quasars) and two of one of low redshift and that this is somehow evidence that quasars are high redshift ejecta of low redshift objects (where high redshift is generally taken [in mainstream cosmology] to mean greater distance, though I don't remember what Arp thinks). He furthermore says (with no math or citations in support) that the odds of this being a chance alignment (which would be the mainstream explanation) is 3.5 chances in 10 million (or, about one in three million). Granted that the survey (according to Arp) only catalogued 243 objects, still in astronomical terms those aren't bad odds. Moreover, one is tempted to ask why, if this is something we should expect, don't we see it *more* often? Why was there apparently only an alignment of these three objects out of all the 243 catalogued in that survey? Wouldn't one think that there should be stronger relationships? Of course, without a firmer (and preferably somewhat mathematical) explanation of any expected relationship, I have little to say. Fifth, as to the explanation that stars are nexuses of galactic currents, this it seems to me would be readily testable, even with data that we should already have. After all, let's say you have two lines of current crossing each other at the position of the Sun. Wouldn't a space probe, while travelling around the Sun (or even the Earth) pass through varying electric and magnetic fields, something which is potentially readily detactable? And we have been sending out lots of probes across the Solar System, so that we haven't heard of such things from all that travelling seems disappointing, though admittedly it's not conclusive. And again, without knowing the mathematical details, I can't say anything more concrete, though I would ask the question, Where is the energy which these currents are pumping into stars coming from? Or if it's always been around, where did it come from, or how did it assume the observed form over possible alternative forms? If the answer violates the principle of conservation of energy, then all bets are off and we can't say anything about the rest of the universe (after all, if the laws of physics as we know them on Earth don't apply across space, whatever's happening in the universe might as well be magic for what we know; this of course, isn't ruled out by mainstream cosmology, but it's the only reasonable assumption to make, as without that we have nothing to base any astrophysics of any kind on...). These are questions that are asked in mainstream cosmology and theoretical physics. I think I'll stop there before my fingers fall off. I could spend more time, but I have other things to do (remember that exam... :) ). To make a long story short, these theories do seem to be pseudo-scientific and not very rigorous. That's not to say mainstream cosmology should be treated as sacred: it's just the best set of answers we have so far. There are problems (not leastwise, what are Dark Matter and Dark Energy), problems which could potentially lead to answers which would flip cosmology on its head (the discovery of Dark Energy being an example; we really don't know what it is, or why it's there, and we certainly didn't think ten or twelve years ago that it would be there...).

6. How does quantum gravity explain cosmology events prior to “10[-43]” seconds after the start of the universe?

Well, first of all, I really don't think this question belongs in the physics section. It should be place under religion or theology. But here is some food for thought related to your question: 1. Space and time are also quantized, and the smallest unit of time happens to be...you guessed it...10^-43 seconds. So it may not make any sense to ask: what happened before 10^-43 seconds? because there was NO time before that, and NO space, and NO existence of any kind. You say that there cannot be spontaneous existence. Why not? You say that there is no known laws of physics able to create information from nothing. But the problem is that: 2. Laws of physics may NOT be absolute: (a) there may NOT just one set of THE laws of physics, and (b) these laws may change over time. So to argue for the existence of God, I think it is best NOT to invoke logic or reason, or laws of physics. Faith alone should be enough.

7. What's the difference between MULTIVERSE theory in cosmology and MODAL REALISM in metaphysics?

they are different. in modal realism the six central doctrines about possible worlds are: 1. Possible worlds exist — they are just as real as our world; 2. Possible worlds are the same sort of things as our world — they differ in content, not in kind; 3. Possible worlds cannot be reduced to something more basic — they are irreducible entities in their own right. 4. Actual is indexical. When we distinguish our world from others by claiming that it alone is actual, we mean only that it is ours — we live here. 5. Possible worlds are unified by the spatiotemporal interrelations of their parts; possible worlds are spatiotemporally isolated from each other. 6. Possible worlds are causally isolated from each other. but in multiverse theory in physics, quantum mechanics or M-theory the parallel universes are not seperate and independent from each other but just a result of infinitely many possibilities of things in each universe. in modal reality they differ in content but in multiverse theory they don't and.....

8. How can I get a cosmology student to do my nails?

9. What is the relationship between Hindu cosmology and the String theory?

Its an unreasonable question.Religious people believe Om is the only sound in the world INCLUDING strings and wont hear anything else.It would be unsuccesful to mix them and compare them both.No relationships as i said :string sound is a by-product of om.Complicated,but over a thousand years of belief.

10. What college has the best cosmology program (graduate)?

I'm not that familiar with the breakdown between different areas of physics, but you have your usual suspects (Princeton, MIT, Harvard, CalTech) and some schools that have particularly good physics/astrophysics programs (University of Colorado-Boulder and University of Wisconsin-Madison). You'll find cutting edge researches, lots of funding, and good equipment at any of these schools.

11. What mathematics should I know to study cosmology?

You were probably inundated by the Christoffel symbols. They can look pretty intimidating the first time you encounter them. To start you'll need a strong foundation in calculus, differential equations and linear algebra. Normally those are the basics taught the first two years in any undergraduate science or engineering curriculum. Then, as has already been pointed out, you'll need a great deal of differential geometry (as usually taught in advanced calculus courses) plus lots of vector and tensor calculus. A solid grounding in mechanics (e.g. Goldstein's 'Classical Mechanics') and electrodynamics (e.g. Jackson's 'Classical Electrodynamics') is not only essential to understanding Special and General relativity but will also give you much needed practice applying Hamilton's principle, partial differential equations, differential geometry, integral theorems and vector identities. I would recommend taking graduate level classes in these two topics. By this point you would be ready to start learning tensors. My favorite source is Robert C. Wrede's 'Introduction to Vector and Tensor Analysis' published by Dover Publications. The last chapter gives a good introduction to General Relativity, too, but to follow it you will need to supplement Wrede's text with additional reading on that topic. Though most books on Relativity might do I'd recommend going directly to Einstein's original papers and books for that. However even Einstein made some mistakes now and then so you should supplement his writings with some more modern treatments on the topic. Wheeler's big, thick heavy text 'Gravitation' is one of the best sources. That should get you started. Good luck.

12. How did New Zealander Beatrice Tinsley contribute to cosmology?

A start for you

13. why is an organic cosmology compatible with a pantheistic cosmology, and the ontological explanations of human

I wrote a book on the subject of cosmology. Your question sounds like giberish to me, an attempt to thwart rational thinking by making something gibberish sound intelligent.

14. Would you give me your opinion on my cosmology?

You have to get out of this vicious circle of life and death.Please approach a 'real guru' and get out from this cycle of suffering/destruction.Best wishes

15. Can you describe the interconnection between the cosmology and the philosophical realms of the Mesoamerican ci

The aztecs and the mayans both believe that the heavens and the earth are divided in to four relms and are subjected to death and rebirth. That said, the Mesoamerican attitude about life is that one must make the most of life before he/she dies and life can not exist without death. As such every thing have its place according to them.

16. Do or did U know mereology is a branch of metaphysics which,like the branches ofontology cosmology R branch?

ask on yahoo answers somebody will know

17. Describe how the Big Bang cosmology accounts for the presence of hydrogen and helium and tiny amounts of?

So basically you want someone to explain cosmology and the big bang which are not the same thing on a message board? Here read.

18. Can you suggest some good books to start learning physical cosmology?

The two standard graduate cosmology texts are written by: Kolb and Turner Dodelson I like the classic KT better, but cosmology is an actively moving field, so the more recent book (Dodelson) is needed as well. You will need to thoroughly understand classical mechanics, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and introductory astronomy to follow them. Are you looking more for an introductory astronomy text to get you started? Or perhaps a book about cosmology for laymen? (like Hawking's books) Stephen Weinberg's First Three Minutes is a bit dated, but is a nice summary that smart laymen can pick up and read. Edit--okay, you probably aren't looking for the cosmology text then. I would read Carl Sagan's Cosmos if you haven't already. It's extremely dated and a very soft read--you might not get too much from it except some of Carl's philosophy (which is worth it alone). Then Weinberg's First Three minutes. That has some sections that are a little mathier, although you certainly don't need to be an expert to read it. Here's a nice reading list: http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/people/faculty/tenn/CosmologyBooksAndLinks.html

19. What are the basic observations about the universe that any theory of cosmology must explain?

The existence of matter and energy. The existence of the laws of thermodynamics. The existence of the forces of nature. (Interactions or fields.) The increasing recession of galaxies with distance. (Expansion, red shift.) The existence of cosmic rays. The observation that space is black. And the temperature of cosmic background radiation.

20. Do you see any similarities between hindu cosmology and hegel philosophy?

There are some. Hegel viewed history as cutting board and thought that the spirit had its own will and moved independently through people and the world. Hindus recognize a similar motif to the cutting board of history with the dance of shiva and kali. I don't think Brahman is quite comparable with Hegel's spirit though. This is an interesting question. E-mail me if you'd like more detail in my answer. Why do you ask this question?