'14 hours of Eyes Wide Shut-inspired sex scenes'.
As global banking 1% install DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE STANFORD TOTAL PRISON MODEL of complete surveillance inside and outside ----whether a person consents or not----HIT THAT FAMILY----HIT HER---HIT HIM----
Doesn't make for a happy time for US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white,and brown.
Here we see yet another CIVILIZING PORNOGRAPHY brought to the extreme------AMERICAN SATAN---is CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and the 5% freemason/Greek players who are using SEX and SEXUAL ASSAULT as a WAR TOOL.
Is this an AMERICAN SATAN? No, it is global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA---TRIBE OF JUDAH who of course pushed this HOLLYWOOD FILM.
'American Satan is about a rock band that makes a deal with the devil, who also claims he founded Apple
This movie has it all: cocaine, terrible acting, tons of nudity, the guy who plays Sam on Game of Thrones
By Kaitlyn Tiffany@kait_tiffany Oct 24, 2017,11:22am EDT '
When global banking 1% use OPIUM WARS and SEXUAL DECADENCE to bring down civil society people eventually get literally SICK OF IT....PORN MULES are simply PORN ADDICTS.
But, of course FORTUNE wouldn't talk about THAT-----instead we are all unhappy because we all need BASIC INCOME and people in FINLAND are happy. Basic Income is the step towards US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE wage structures taking Western nations and developed income down to third world extreme poverty.
THE US DOES NOT AND NEVER HAD A REAL FREE MARKET ECONOMY THESE FEW DECADES OF CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA-----
The U.S. Is the Unhappiest It’s Ever Been
By Grace Dobush
March 20, 2019
The United States is the unhappiest it’s ever been.
The 2019 World Happiness Report says that Finland remains the happiest country on Earth for the second year in the row, while the U.S. drops to No. 19, its worst ranking ever (it was No. 18 in 2018 and No. 14 in 2017).
The global report on 156 countries released Wednesday placed five Nordic countries in the top 10, with the Netherlands (5), Switzerland (6), New Zealand (7), Canada (9), and Austria (10) filling out the other top spots.
At No.15., even the Brexit-divided United Kingdom ranked higher than the U.S.
Researchers with the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network have been creating the annual happiness report since 2012, based on global data from Gallup. Countries’ happiness scores are determined by six main variables on a three-year average:
- GDP per capita
- Healthy life expectancy at birth
- Social support from friends and family
- Freedom to make life choices
- Generosity in the form of donations to charity
- Perceptions of government corruption
In the U.S., where prosperity is on the rise, researchers pin the blame on declines in social capital and social support and increases in obesity and substance abuse. Author Jean M. Twenge believes fundamental changes in how Americans spend their leisure time are also to blame, pointing a finger at the rise of digital media and the decline of face-to-face interactions.
Report co-author Jeffrey Sachs calls the United States a “mass-addiction society.” The prevalence of addictions — including gambling, social media use, video gaming, shopping, consuming unhealthy foods, exercising, and engaging in extreme sports or risky sexual behaviors — in American society seems to be on the rise, perhaps dramatically, he writes.
“The free-market theory taught in our universities holds that consumers know what’s best for them, with businesses efficiently and appropriately catering to those desires,” Sachs wrote.
“The prevalence of addiction suggests a very different picture: that individuals may be lured into self-destructive behaviors, notably by businesses keen on boosting sales of their goods and services.”
____________________________________________
We want to segue from our discussion on economic public policy looking at HYPER-INFLATION brought to us by US FED and WORLD BANK and those far-right wing CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ----to a simple discussion of PHYSICS public policy which without coincidence MIRRORED these financial economic tools throughout NEO-LIBERALISM these few decades.
In the 1960s NATIONAL MEDIA and ACADEMICS started to use terms like CHAOS THEORY and INFLATIONARY MODEL in PHYSICS which is when NEO-LIBERAL economics started to replace REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE I AM MAN economic policies. These PHYSICS theories killed what was called a STEADY STATE theory of the universe just as NEO-LIBERAL ECONOMICs killed what was a STEADY STATE of social capitalism bringing the most successful IN WORLD HISTORY distribution of wealth to 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.
youtube.com
Steady State Theory
-- Created using Powtoon -- Free sign up at http://www.powtoon.com/youtube/ -- Create animated videos and animated presentations for free. PowToon…
STEADY STATE in economics was the CORPORATE CULTURE of slow and steady corporate growth minimizing RISK and avoidance of criminal/corruption causing instability in that corporate culture. This STEADY STATE of left social progressive economics gave us several centuries of healthy economic growth.
Below we see the same model used to describe our UNIVERSE as STEADY STATE. This model existed from NEWTON to EINSTEIN-----basically said our universe existed in a very controlled expansion of physical MASS dying and remaking itself. This theory as all scientific theory became outdated but was not UPDATED---it was discarded.
The same thing happened during these same decades to a highly functioning LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE STEADY STATE corporate economic model.
Steady-state model
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In cosmology, the steady state model is an alternative to the Big Bang theory of the evolution of the universe. In the steady state model, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle, a principle that asserts that the observable universe is basically the same at any time as well as at any place.
Cosmological expansion was originally discovered through observations by Edwin Hubble. Theoretical calculations also showed that the static universe as modeled by Einstein (1917) was unstable. The modern Big Bang theory is one in which the universe has a finite age and has evolved over time through cooling, expansion, and the formation of structures through gravitational collapse.
The steady state model asserts that although the universe is expanding, it nevertheless does not change its appearance over time (the perfect cosmological principle); the universe has no beginning and no end. This requires that matter be continually created in order to keep the universe's density from decreasing. Influential papers on steady state cosmologies were published by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle in 1948.[3][4]
It is now known that Albert Einstein considered a steady state model of the expanding universe, as indicated in a 1931 manuscript, many years before Hoyle, Bondi and Gold.
STEADY STATE in 20th century economics simply means REAL FREE MARKET where opportunity and access and level playing fields for small, regional, and corporate business structures THRIVED because US RULE OF LAW AND ETHICS were enforced with regulations.
Below we see one view on STEADY STATE simply saying the goals in 20th century corporate culture was to maintain healthy growth tied to PUBLIC INTEREST-----maintaining PROFITS while maintaining civic well-being. This is what ANTI-TRUST ANTI-MONOPOLY policies did in keeping corporations from growing too much. This gave the US a THRIVING DOMESTIC FREE MARKET ECONOMIC----STEADY STATE.
MythA
steady state economy is the same thing as a depression or recession (the result of a failed growth economy).
RealityA
steady state economy is not a failed growth economy. An airplane is designed for forward motion. If it tries to hover, it crashes. It is not fruitful to conceive of a helicopter as an airplane that fails to move forward. It is a different thing designed to hover.
Likewise a steady state economy is not designed to grow. Stability in a steady state economy is a healthy condition, a condition that allows people to meet their needs without undermining the life-support systems of the planet.
________________________________________
The STEADY STATE MODEL OF UNIVERSE was given a hit by what was BIG BANG-----leading to the total exclusion of STEADY STATE in 1960s as BIG BANG was the only game in town in PHYSICS. Without coincidence it was in 1960s that NEO-LIBERALISM as economic model was completely replacing our STEADY STATE REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE economics.
The elements of BIG BANG THEORY are relevant in many cases. What it did was say STEADY STATE MODEL is not the FINAL SOLUTION------the universe did not always exist-----the universe does change------it was the BIG BANG theory which made those CHANGES too extreme to fall inside STEADY STATE.
Can the idea of a POINT OF BEGINNING of universe fit into STEADY STATE? Of course. Can expansion of universe explained by this BANG fit into STEADY STATE? Of course.
What happened in 1960s was a complete transition of focus in physics from being BASIC SCIENCE to being APPLIED SCIENCE. APPLIED SCIENCE means products with patents are goals of research. All the development telescopes, optics, space rockets etc were all very fine additions to PHYSICS. The problem comes when global banking wanting NEW STUFF uses SCIENCE to create markets.
Again, in 1960s with NEO-LIBERALISM economics the same terms from PHYSICS BIG BANG entered economics----so, we had CHAOS THEORY in financial markets -----with had INFLATIONARY economics bringing BOOMS AND BUSTS----all very ANTI-STEADY STATE.
*************************
The Meaning of Chaos Theory
- The meaning of the word “chaos" as it is generally used today is: a state of confusion lacking any order.
- The term “chaos theory” used in physics refers to: an apparent lack of order in a system that nevertheless obeys particular laws and rules.
- It is also described as an apparent randomness that results from complex systems and their interactions with other systems.
- This condition (an inherent lack of predictability in some physical systems) was discovered by physicist Henri Poincare in the early twentieth century.
- Certain patterns exist within chaos that can be found and therefore analyzed.
- Certain features (generators) of a system seem to be able to create chaotic behaviour.
- Very small differences in a generator can result in very large differences in a system further on in time (the butterfly effect).
- Elements (attractors) in chaotic behaviour sometimes settle down to form predictable behaviour in a more understandable pattern.
Chaotic inflation theory suggests the universe is expanding.
Chaotic Inflation theory is a variety of the inflationary universe model. Chaotic Inflation theory is itself an outgrowth (or extension) of the Big Bang theory. Chaotic Inflation, proposed by physicist Andrei Linde, models our universe as one of many that grew as part of a multiverse owing to a vacuum that had not decayed to its ground state. In this theory, the peaks in the evolution of a scalar field (determining the energy of the vacuum) correspond to regions of rapid inflation which dominate, creating "bubble universes," making the structure of space fractal on the very largest scales, likely at scales larger than the observable universe. Chaotic Inflation (along with some other types of inflation) is usually a sub-class of eternal inflation, since the expansion of the inflationary peaks exhibit positive feedback and come to dominate the large scale dynamics of the universe. Alan Guth's 2007 paper, Eternal inflation and its implications details what is now known on the subject, and demonstrates that this particular flavour of Inflationary universe theory is relatively current, or is still considered viable, more than 20 years after its inception.
History of the Chaotic Inflation theory.
Chaotic Inflation theory.
The physical size of the Hubble radius (solid line) as a function of the linear expansion (scale factor) of the universe.Inflation, or the inflationary universe theory, was developed as a way to overcome the few remaining problems with what was otherwise considered a successful theory of cosmology, the Big Bang model. It is now known that Alexei Starobinsky, at the L.D. Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics in Moscow developed the first realistic Inflation theory in 1979 but failed to articulate its relevance to modern cosmological problems. Due to political difficulties in the former Soviet Union, regarding the free exchange of scientific knowledge, most scientists outside the USSR remained ignorant about Starobinsky’s work until years later. Starobinsky's model was relatively complicated, however, and said little about how the inflation process could start.
In 1979 Alan Guth of the United States developed an inflationary model independently, which did offer a mechanism for inflation to begin, the decay of a so-called false vacuum into 'bubbles' of 'true vacuum' that expanded at the speed of light. Guth coined the term, "inflation," and he was the first to discuss the theory with other scientists worldwide. But this formulation was problematic, as there was no consistent way to bring an end to the inflationary epoch and end up with the isotropic, homogeneous Universe observed today. See:- Developments of theory. In 1982, this "graceful exit problem" was solved by Andreas Albrecht and Paul J. Steinhardt and also independently by Andrei Linde.
In 1986, Linde published an alternative model of inflation that also reproduced the same successes of new inflation entitled "Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe," which provides a detailed description of what has become known as the Chaotic Inflation theory or eternal inflation. The Chaotic Inflation theory is in some ways similar to Fred Hoyle’s Steady state theory, as it employs the metaphor of a universe that is eternally existing, and thus does not require a unique beginning or an ultimate end of the cosmos.
Quantum fluctuations in the Chaotic Inflation theory.
Chaotic Inflation theory models quantum fluctuations in the rate of inflation. Those regions with a higher rate of inflation expand faster and dominate the universe, despite the natural tendency of inflation to end in other regions. This allows inflation to continue forever, to produce future-eternal inflation.
Within the framework of established knowledge of physics and cosmology, our universe could be one of many in a super-universe or multiverse. Linde (1990, 1994) has proposed that a background space-time "foam" empty of matter and radiation will experience local quantum fluctuations in curvature, forming many bubbles of false vacuum that individually inflate into mini-universes with random characteristics. Each universe within the multiverse can have a different set of constants and physical laws. Some might have life of a form different from ours; others might have no life at all or something even more complex or so different that we cannot even imagine it. Obviously we are in one of those universes with life.
-Victor J. Stenger, Is The Universe Fine-Tuned for us?
Due to quantum uncertainty energy fluctuations such as electron and its anti-particle a positron can arise spontaneously out of nothing but must disappear rapidly. The lower the energy of the bubble is the longer it can exist. A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The 2 figures cancel out provided the universe is completely flat. In that case the universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever.
More recently past-eternal models have been proposed which adhere to the perfect cosmological principle and have features of the steady state cosmos. The universe may also decay.
Differential decay with the Chaotic Inflation theory.
In standard inflation, inflationary expansion occurred while the universe was in a false vacuum state, halting when the universe decayed to a true vacuum state becoming a general and inclusive phenomenon with homogeneity throughout, yielding a single expanding universe which is "our general reality" wherein the laws of physics are consistent throughout. In this case, the physical laws "just happen" to be compatible with the evolution of life.
The bubble universe model proposes that different regions of this inflationary universe (termed a multiverse) decayed to a true vacuum state at different times, with decaying regions corresponding to "sub"- universes not in causal contact with each other and resulting in different physical laws in different regions which are then subject to "selection" which determine each region’s components based upon (dependent on) the survivability of the quantum components within that region. The end result will be a finite number of universes with physical laws consistent within each region of spacetime.
False vacuum and true vacuum in the Chaotic Inflation theory.
Variants of the bubble universe model postulate multiple false vacuum states, which result in lower-energy false-vacuum "progeny" universes spawned, which in turn produce true vacuum state progeny universes within themselves.
__________________________________________
Today, some major flaws in BIG BANG THEORY are causing it to be DEBUNKED ------INFLATIONARY MODEL does not work------BIG BANG elements of theory cannot be FOUND----science and math models can build models to prove much of a theory, but when scientists then try to bring all those separate concepts into one working THEORY and it doesn't work----THINGS FALL APART.
'Cosmic Inflation Theory Faces Challenges
The latest astrophysical measurements, combined with theoretical problems, cast doubt on the long-cherished inflationary theory of the early cosmos and suggest we need new ideas
By Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb'
Below we see the FINANCIAL MARKET TERMS----chaos -----and inflation with the PHYSICS theory of BIG BANG.
Below we share an article tied to CHAOS THEORY AND INFLATIONARY THEORY in neo-liberal economics. As we see these neo-liberal economic structures which brought our sovereign US economy and corporate business structure to its KNEES------is now being called ---maybe global banking 1% say this was not GOOD economic policy ------so CHAOS and INFLATIONARY THEORY in economics is coming to an end with A BIG BANG-------the total collapse of our US economic, governance, and corporate structure.
Without coincidence, the PHYSICS MODEL of BIG BANG, CHAOS THEORY, AND INFLATIONARY MODEL is also being marginalized as FAILED physics theory.
How did global banking 1% sell to US 99% WE THE PEOPLE that moving from a STEADY STATE REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE ECONOMY where growing STABILITY and shared WEALTH was creating unprecedented quality life for more and more people-------to NEO-LIBERALISM where global banking 1% could do anything it wanted to accumulate wealth-----AKA sack and loot our sovereign US nation and people's pockets using inflation and chaos.
MAKE ALL THESE ECONOMIC TERMS FOR NEO-LIBERALISM COOL BY TYING THEM TO STEM ONLY APPROACH TO BIG BANG PHYSICS.
Everything became STEM-oriented as HOLLYWOOD created FADS surrounding these policies----
BIG BANG IS COOL SCIENCE----
NEO-LIBERAL LAISSEZ-FAIRE CHAOS IS COOL 'FREE MARKET'
Chaos Theory, Financial Markets, and Global Weirding
Tom Konrad
Contributor
I write about peak oil and climate change as investment themes.
In my bio, I usually state
My study of chaos theory led to my conviction that knowing the limits of our ability to predict is much more important than the predictions themselves, a lesson I apply to both climate science and the financial markets.
Despite having written about financial markets and clean energy stocks regularly since 2006, I have never before explained in print what I meant by that. This summer's heat wave and stock market turbulence illustrate how my intuition about chaos theory informs both my understanding of the climate and the stock market.
Image via Wikipedia
Chaotic Systems and Feedback
The definition of a chaotic system I use is any system in which a tiny change in initial conditions can lead to a large change in results. Most chaotic systems are chaotic because they contain positive feedback. Positive feedback tends to amplify trends over time, while negative feedback tends to reduce trends over time. Complex systems such as climate and the financial markets have both positive and negative feedback.
In the weather, we can see positive feedback when a series of hot, sunny days create a static high pressure system which keeps storms from moving in to cool things off. When a storm does move in, you can get positive feedbacks cooling things off. National Weather Service forecaster Daryl Williams said the following about a storm which broke the summer heat wave in Oklahoma: “It's kind of feeding on itself, cloud cover and rainfall cools the air and the ground.” (italics mine.)
In stock markets, financial bubbles grow with the help of several types of positive feedback. One such is "The specious association of money with intelligence," as John Kenneth Galbraith described it in his short and very readable book on bubbles, A Short History of Financial Euphoria: Financial Genius is Before the Fall. When we see others make money in a stock market rise, we tend to think they must have been smart to have known when to get in. If we made money recently by buying stocks, we tend to think we are smart for having done so. In both cases, we're more likely to think that buying stocks is a smart thing to do, even if the profits were just dumb luck. Collectively, this leads to more buying, which further raises prices.
Even if those price rises are justified in the beginning, the positive feedback can carry them up far beyond any level justifiable by the value of the underlying companies. Many other positive feedbacks such as the wealth effect, relative valuation methods, and the increased ability to borrow against inflated asset prices operate in financial bubbles and bull markets. In contrast, fundamental and value investors produce negative feedbacks by buying when prices have fallen and selling when prices have risen.
As with weather, external shocks to the system can reverse even these self-reinforcing trends, as we recently saw when the US's political paralysis around the debt ceiling debate and Europe's inability to effectively deal with their debt crisis recently ended the two year bull market in July.
Strange Attractors and Regime Change
Highly complex systems which have both positive and negative feedbacks tend not to be chaotic all the time, but rather exhibit chaotic behavior only some of the time. The system will behave quite predictably in a deceptively regular fashion for a while, but then shift with little warning into another mode of behavior that is also regular and predictable, but seems to follow a different set of rules.
Such behavior can be mapped with simple chaotic systems and often exhibits a pattern called a Strange Attractor, two of which are depicted above. As the system moves through such a strange attractor, it will often stay in one set of the rings curves shown for an extended period, before jumping to another set after an unpredictable period.
In the weather, we see this sort of behavior with extended heat waves, cold spells, or periods when it is hot in the morning followed by an afternoon thunderstorm. Such patterns persist for days or weeks, but then quickly end to be replaced by a new pattern or a period of less predictable weather.
In the stock market, we have bull and bear markets. In bull markets, good news is greeted with euphoria and strong stock buying, while bad news is discounted or ignored. In bear markets, the opposite is true: good news is often ignored, while bad news leads to repeated bouts of selling. In his excellent but somewhat inaccessible book, The Alchemy of Finance, George Soros describes how he tries to spot such tipping points or regime changes as they happen. Much theoretical work has been done to understand and model such changes, but the lesson I draw from chaos theory is that recognizing such changes in hindsight may be simple, but predicting them in advance is and will continue to be extremely difficult. That's probably why Soros did a much better job describing market regimes than explaining how to spot them.
Nassim Taleb also addresses regime change in chaotic systems in his book The Black Swan. His Black Swans are events which cannot be predicted solely by studying the past. Such events occur, he says, because the rules we infer from the observation of events never contain the full range of possibilities. He applies this lesson to societal events, personal experiences, and financial markets-- all of which are chaotic systems. There are also climatic Black Swans.
Global Weirding
If you accept that the world's climate is a chaotic system characterized by a strange attractor and a large number of climate regimes such as ice ages and warm periods, you should also accept that the relatively small changes we are making to the atmosphere have the potential to shift the world's climate into a new regime where the weather patterns humanity is familiar with are replaced with a new set of patterns that we've never seen before in human history.
We are already aware of a few positive feedback mechanisms with the potential to amplify the effects of climate change, such as the ability of a release of methane from arctic permafrost and clathrates to rapidly accelerate global warming, or the disruption of the North Atlantic current due to melting polar glaciers. Such scenarios are chilling enough, but the knowledge that climate and weather are a chaotic system raises the possibility of yet unknown mechanisms that might create rapid climactic shifts. In a chaotic system, the past is not always a reliable guide to the future. Climactic past performance is no guarantee of future climactic results.
"Global Warming" can sound somewhat comforting.
"Climate Change" can sound clinical and distant. A better description is "Global Weirding:" the climate is not becoming a warmer version of what we're used to, it's becoming an entirely new system, with a new set of patterns that will surprise anyone expecting a version of the old climate regime.
Conclusion
There is only one climate, while there are hundreds if not thousands of financial markets operating at any one time. Financial markets also operate on a much more compressed time scale, with bubbles and busts compressed into a few short years or decades. Ice Ages, on the other hand, last tens of millions of years.
This difference financial markets and climate in number and scale means that we know much more about the chaos of financial markets than the chaos of climate. We've probably already seen most possible financial market regimes in at least one of the thousands of financial markets, from tulip bulbs to CDOs, that have operated over the course of human history. Although the rules of markets change with new technology and communication, the basic rules of human psychology which govern these regimes have not. To paraphrase Mark Twain, financial history may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
Climactic history may also rhyme, but we've not yet read a full line of the poem: We don't know what it will rhyme with. Ice ages and warm periods often last tens of millions of years. Given the infrequency of shifts between one climactic regime and another, it's quite likely that the new climactic regime we are heading into will be unlike anything that has prevailed during human history, and possibly unlike anything in the geologic record.
The benefit of the slow pace of climactic history is that we do have a few years or decades during which we will be able to influence the path of global weirding.
In a chaotic system, a tiny change today can lead to a large change in future outcomes.
What tiny change are you making?
_____________________________________
It was the INFLATIONARY MODEL and CHAOS THEORY expanded in BIG BANG which relegated STEADY STATE to history because STEADY STATE would not allow these models in its system. STEADY STATE can allow BANGS-----maybe not BIG-------so, what we have today is a return in interest to STANDARD STEADY STATE vs INFLATIONARY MODELS.
Think of all the US FEDERAL FUNDING which went into space research involving the building of EVER-BIGGER AND BETTER telescopes/cameras/optics looking for those EARLIEST singularity events of BIG BANG. Think of goals of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE also hitting hard during 1960s-70s ---remember NIXON'S FIAT MONEY was INFLATIONARY AND CHAOS economics.
If goals of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE was DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE far-right wing authoritarian global corporate FASCISM-----SURVEILLANCE society---then having PHYSICS RESEARCH focused upon building just those structures WAS VERY CONVENIENT.
HOW WOULD NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG BE ABLE TO HIDE CAMERAS INSIDE WALLS THAT CAN PENETRATE PARTICLE BOARD WALLS FOR ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE?
The WALL STREET term for BOOM AND BUST?
LIVING IN A BUBBLE------inflationary theory for PHYSICS----LIVING IN A BUBBLE.
This video is VERY FUNNY----it is a light-hearted look at the debate with the total confidence in BIG BANG meeting skepticism ending in embracing of STEADY STATE.
Cosmic Inflation Theory Faces Challenges
The latest astrophysical measurements, combined with theoretical problems, cast doubt on the long-cherished inflationary theory of the early cosmos and suggest we need new ideas
On March 21, 2013, the European Space Agency held an international press conference to announce new results from a satellite called Planck. The spacecraft had mapped the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, light emitted more than 13 billion years ago just after the big bang, in better detail than ever before. The new map, scientists told the audience of journalists, confirms a theory that cosmologists have held dear for 35 years: that the universe began with a bang followed by a brief period of hyperaccelerated expansion known as inflation. This expansion smoothed the universe to such an extent that, billions of years later, it remains nearly uniform all over space and in every direction and “flat,”
.
daviddarling.info
inflationary model
The inflationary model is a modified version of the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe that allows for a brief period in which the expansion of spacetime took place at a vastly accelerated rate.
It was the INFLATIONARY MODEL and CHAOS THEORY expanded in BIG BANG which relegated STEADY STATE to history because STEADY STATE would not allow these models in its system. STEADY STATE can allow BANGS-----maybe not BIG-------so, what we have today is a return in interest to STANDARD STEADY STATE vs INFLATIONARY MODELS.
Think of all the US FEDERAL FUNDING which went into space research involving the building of EVER-BIGGER AND BETTER telescopes/cameras/optics looking for those EARLIEST singularity events of BIG BANG. Think of goals of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE also hitting hard during 1960s-70s ---remember NIXON'S FIAT MONEY was INFLATIONARY AND CHAOS economics.
If goals of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE was DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE far-right wing authoritarian global corporate FASCISM-----SURVEILLANCE society---then having PHYSICS RESEARCH focused upon building just those structures WAS VERY CONVENIENT.
HOW WOULD NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG BE ABLE TO HIDE CAMERAS INSIDE WALLS THAT CAN PENETRATE PARTICLE BOARD WALLS FOR ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE?
The WALL STREET term for BOOM AND BUST?
LIVING IN A BUBBLE------inflationary theory for PHYSICS----LIVING IN A BUBBLE.
Friday, October 13, 2017
Is the inflationary universe a scientific theory? Not anymore.
Living in a Bubble?
[Image: YouTube]
We are made from stretched quantum fluctuations. At least that’s cosmologists’ currently most popular explanation. According to their theory, the history of our existence began some billion years ago with a – now absent – field that propelled the universe into a phase of rapid expansion called “inflation.” When inflation ended, the field decayed and its energy was converted into radiation and particles which are still around today.
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics. In a recent article in Scientific American, Steinhardt together with Anna Ijjas and Avi Loeb, don’t hold back. Most cosmologists, they claim, are uncritical believers:
“[T]he cosmology community has not taken a cold, honest look at the big bang inflationary theory or paid significant attention to critics who question whether inflation happened. Rather cosmologists appear to accept at face value the proponents’ assertion that we must believe the inflationary theory because it offers the only simple explanation of the observed features of the universe.”
And it's even worse, they argue, inflation is not even a scientific theory:
“[I]nflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”
As alternative to inflation, Steinhardt et al promote a “big bounce” in which the universe’s expansion was preceded by a phase of contraction, yielding similar benefits to inflation.
The group’s fight against inflation isn’t news. They laid out their arguments in a series of papers during the last years (on which I previously commented here). But the recent SciAm piece called The Defenders Of Inflation onto stage. Lead by David Kaiser, they signed a letter to Scientific American in which they complained that the magazine gave space to the inflationary criticism.
The letter’s list of undersigned is an odd selection of researchers who themselves work on inflation and of physics luminaries who have little if anything to do with inflation. Interestingly, Slava Mukhanov – one of the first to derive predictions from inflation – did not sign. And it’s not because he wasn’t asked. In an energetic talk delivered at Stephen Hawking’s birthday conference two months ago, Mukhanov made it pretty clear that he thinks most of the inflationary model building is but a waste of time.
I agree with Muhkanov’s assessment. The Steinhardt et al article isn’t exactly a masterwork of science writing. It’s also unfortunate they’re using SciAm to promote some other theory of how the universe began rather than sticking to their criticism of inflation. But some criticism is overdue.
The problem with inflation isn’t the idea per se, but the overproduction of useless inflationary models. There are literally hundreds of these models, and they are – as the philosophers say – severely underdetermined. This means if one extrapolates any models that fits current data to a regime which is still untested, the result is ambiguous. Different models lead to very different predictions for not-yet made observations. Presently, is therefore utterly pointless to twiddle with the details of inflation because there are literally infinitely many models one can think up.
Rather than taking on this overproduction problem, however, Steinhardt et al in their SciAm piece focus on inflation’s failure to solve the problems it was meant to solve. But that’s an idiotic criticism because the problems that inflation was meant to solve aren’t problems to begin with. I’m serious. Let’s look at those one by one:
1. The Monopole Problem
Guth invented inflation to solve the “monopole problem.” If the early universe underwent a phase-transition, for example because the symmetry of grand unification was broken – then topological defects, like monopoles, should have been produced abundantly. We do not, however, see any of them. Inflation dilutes the density of monopoles (and other worries) so that it’s unlikely we’ll ever encounter one.
But a plausible explanation for why we don’t see any monopoles is that there aren’t any. We don’t know there is any grand symmetry that was broken in the early universe, or if there is, we don’t know when it was broken, or if the breaking produced any defects. Indeed, all searchers for evidence of grand symmetry – mostly via proton decay – turned out negative. This motivation is interesting today merely for historical reasons.
2. The Flatness Problem
The flatness problem is a finetuning problem. The universe currently seems to be almost flat, or if it has curvature, then that curvature must be very small. The contribution of curvature to the dynamics of the universe however increases in relevance relative to that of matter. This means if the curvature density parameter is small today, it must have been even smaller in the past. Inflation serves to make any initial curvature contribution smaller by something like 100 orders of magnitude or so.
This is supposed to be an explanation, but it doesn’t explain anything, for now you can ask, well, why wasn’t the original curvature larger than some other number? The reason that some physicists believe something is being explained here is that numbers close to 1 are pretty according to current beauty-standards, while numbers much smaller than 1 numbers aren’t. The flatness problem, therefore, is an aesthetic problem, and I don’t think it’s an argument any scientist should take seriously.
3. The Horizon Problem
The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has almost at the same temperature in all directions. Problem is, if you trace back the origin the background radiation without inflation, then you find that the radiation that reached us from different directions was never in causal contact with each other. Why then does it have the same temperature in all directions?
To see why this problem isn’t a problem, you have to know how the theories that we currently use in physics work. We have an equation – a “differential equation” – that tells us how a system (eg, the universe) changes from one place to another and one moment to another. To make any use of this equation, however, we also need starting values or “initial conditions.”*
The horizon problem asks “why this initial condition” for the universe. This question is justified if an initial condition is complicated in the sense of requiring a lot of information. But a homogeneous temperature isn’t complicated. It’s dramatically easy. And not only isn’t there much to explain, inflation moreover doesn’t even answer the question “why this initial condition” because it still needs an initial condition. It’s just a different initial condition. It’s not any simpler and it doesn’t explain anything.
Another way to see that this is a non-problem: If you’d go back in time far enough without inflation, you’d eventually get to a period when matter was so dense and curvature so high that quantum gravity was important. And what do we know about the likelihood of initial conditions in a theory of quantum gravity? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
That we’d need quantum gravity to explain the initial condition for the universe, however, is an exceedingly unpopular point of view because nothing can be calculated and no predictions can be made.
Inflation, on the other hand, is a wonderfully productive model that allows cosmologists to churn out papers.
You will find the above three problems religiously repeated as a motivation for inflation, in lectures and textbooks and popular science pages all over the place. But these problems aren’t problems, never were problems, and never required a solution.
Even though inflation was ill-motivated when conceived, however, it later turned out to actually solve some real problems. Yes, sometimes physicists work on the wrong things for the right reasons, and sometimes they work on the right things for the wrong reasons. Inflation is an example for the latter.
The reasons why many physicists today think something like inflation must have happened are not that it supposedly solve the three above problems. It’s that some features of the CMB have correlations (the “TE power spectrum”) which depend on the size of the fluctuations, and implies a dependence on the size of the universe. This correlation, therefore, cannot be easily explained by just choosing an initial condition, since it is data that goes back to different times. It really tells us something about how the universe changed with time, not just where it started from.**
Two more convincing features of inflation are that, under fairly general circumstances, the model also explains the absence of certain correlations in the CMB (the “non-Gaussianities”) and how many CMB fluctuations there are of any size, quantified by what is known as the “scale factor.”
But here is the rub. To make predictions with inflation one cannot just say “there once was exponential expansion and it ended somehow.” No, to be able to calculate something, one needs a mathematical model. The current models for inflation work by introducing a new field – the “inflaton” – and give this field a potential energy. The potential energy depends on various parameters. And these parameters can then be related to observations.
The scientific approach to the situation would be to choose a model, determine the parameters that best fit observations, and then revise the model as necessary – ie, as new data comes in. But that’s not what cosmologists presently do. Instead, they have produced so many variants of models that they can now “predict” pretty much anything that might be measured in the foreseeable future.
It is this abundance of useless models that gives rise to the criticism that inflation is not a scientific theory. And on that account, the criticism is justified. It’s not good scientific practice. It is a practice that, to say it bluntly, has become commonplace because it results in papers, not because it advances science.
I was therefore dismayed to see that the criticism by Steinhardt, Ijas, and Loeb was dismissed so quickly by a community which has become too comfortable with itself. Inflation is useful because it relates existing observations to an underlying mathematical model, yes. But we don’t yet have enough data to make reliable predictions from it. We don’t even have enough data to convincingly rule out alternatives.
There hasn’t been a Nobelprize for inflation, and I think the Nobel committee did well in that decision.
There’s no warning sign you when you cross the border between science and blabla-land. But inflationary model building left behind reasonable scientific speculation long ago. I, for one, am glad that at least some people are speaking out about it. And that’s why I approve of the Steinhardt et al criticism.
______________________________________
The movement away from an INFLATIONARY universe does not mean a BANG beginning is dead although a BIG BANG theory may be. The debunking of inflationary theory and chaos theory does allow a QUASI-STEADY STATE THEORY to make a comeback.
QUASI STEADY STATE simply addresses all those QUANTUM PHYSICS----BANG UNIVERSE elements into an existing STEADY STATE MODEL.
What do REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES want in POLITICS AND ECONOMICS----we want to return to REAL steady state corporate responsibility structures.
THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF GLOBAL BANKING 1% UNITED NATIONS CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY POLICIES----the next generation of LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING our 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown FUTURE.
What is the difference between DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE STANFORD TOTAL PRISON model being CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY----and our 20th century STEADY STATE?
STEADY STATE as a PHYSICS term or an ECONOMIC term was a LIVING STATE with quality of life-----DEEP STATE as a FINAL SOLUTION may create a steady state of living but it will not be 20th century STEADY STATE---
No 20th century CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY happening in MOVING FORWARD 21st century goals.
CHAMBLISS KAREN – SLOT
KIN MICHAEL H. –
VAMOSI ALEXANDER R.
*
Enhancive sustainability, steady-state sustainability,
and the structured ecotourist
Here again, global banking 1% co-op THEORY in advancing what is the total opposite of 20th century steady state corporate responsibility models. These models are TOTALITARIAN giving corporations COMPLETE CONTROL while 20th century STEADY STATE gave broad healthy free market opportunities and access.
Here we have global banking 1% calling STEADY STATE economics CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY....corrupting again the goals of PHYSIC STEADY STATE model.
ASEAN youth follow sufficiency economy philosophy
NBT WORLD
Published on Jan 14, 2019
70 children from 12 different countries have joined the “3rd ASEAN Youth Representatives in Experiencing the Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy” (AY-REPSE) in Thailand.
Of course these youth will be told to use all those secret handshakes and signs -----they will be WINNERS------in DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE STANFORD TOTAL PRISON MODEL----AKA------corporate sustainability.
The proximity of nations to a socially sustainable steady-state economy
Author links open overlay panel
Daniel W.O'Neillab
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.116Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open accessHighlights
•Indicators are developed to show how close countries are to a steady-state economy.
•These are used to test the relationship between resource use and social performance.
•Social performance is highest in countries with large but stable resource use.
•There are no countries that achieve a true steady-state economy.
•A steady-state economy can be socially sustainable but resource use must be reduced.
Abstract
There has been increasing interest in new economic models that aim to improve quality of life without increasing consumption. This article provides the first empirical analysis of how close modern-day economies are to the concept of a “steady-state economy”, and explores whether there is any relationship between a country's proximity to such an economy and its social performance. The analysis is carried out using the Degrowth Accounts, a set of 16 biophysical and social indicators that are derived from Herman Daly's definition of a steady-state economy and the social goals of the degrowth movement. These indicators are applied to ∼180 countries over a 10-year period. The analysis reveals that the majority of countries in the world are biophysical growth economies. There are only a small number of countries where resource use is relatively constant from year to year (e.g. Denmark, France, Japan, Poland, Romania, and the US), and only four countries experiencing biophysical degrowth (Germany, Guyana, Moldova, and Zimbabwe). There are no countries that achieve a true steady-state economy, defined as an economy with a stable level of resource use maintained within ecological limits. However, a few countries come relatively close, including Colombia, Cuba, Kyrgyzstan, Romania, and South Africa. In general, countries with stable resource use perform better on many social indicators than countries with either increasing or decreasing resource use. This finding runs contrary to conventional economic thought. However, social performance is also higher in countries with greater per capita resource use. Overall, these findings suggest that a steady-state economy can be socially sustainable, but countries need to become much more efficient at transforming natural resources into human well-being if all seven billion people on Earth are to lead a good life within ecological limits.
____________________
OH NO! You mean the demise of PHYSIC'S BIG BANG/INFLATIONARY MODEL is bringing the demise of this TV SERIES!
Sheldon just couldn't stand NOT BEING RIGHT.
We loved the series but we always knew it was a global banking 1% FREEMASON STAR FAD------
cbsnews.com
How to watch "The Big Bang Theory" finale, "Young Sheldon" and "A Big Bang Farewell"
We don't necessarily embrace this one theory but it shows how global banking 1% SILENCE critical thinking and broad thought ------into what we call GROUP THINK.
PLEASE=====do not allow global banking 1% to take this REAL PHYSICS theory of STEADY STATE UPGRADED =====and equate it to UNITED NATIONS ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID-------corporate sustainability saying it is 20th century corporate responsibility ----you know, all that far-right wing FAKE GREEN REVOLUTION ----GREEN NEW DEAL. That is NOT the economic version of this PHYSIC'S model STEADY STATE.
youtube.com
Animoto Quasi-Steady State Theory
Sarah
RSS Feed
