Topic: "Facts" are relative.

Post #1Randy Dryburgh wroteon January 3, 2010 at 11:38am
I've recently found myself questioning the rules I've held in postulate for so long.

For instance, Hawking and others claim that the universe begin in a big bang, from a singularity of infinite density. When it couldn't hold together any longer, an explosion of infinite magnitude sent an infinite amount of matter and energy into the void we now call space.

Okay. I can accept that the universe may be expanding, but from OUR perspective.

I can also accept that we are able to measure the (apparently) growing distance between star clusters, and even between other stars or celestial bodies and ourselves simply by measuring the radiation we receive (and presume is) from them, from OUR perspective.

However, there's no way to know that there was a singularity. In fact, the presumption of one invalidates any resulting findings, no matter how immense they may be.

We would never accept scientific absolutes from any of the other sciences when there is only one data point, why do we do so from Hawking et al?

IMHO, it's just as plausible that the universe was never a singularity, but is rather more like a Moebius strip, where matter travels along a river of unknown width, and over time comes back together at a pinch point and collides, then separates again.

Not only *could* this cause a recurring "big bang", but it could explain increasing distances between celestial bodies, *and* it would give the appearance of never ending expansion, as we have no markers, no point of reference that we could use to say "Hey, we've been here before."

Oddly enough, in "Masters of the Universe", which was on last night, the depiction of the "known universe", utilizing radioactive back-scatter maps and the less-distant heat maps generated by various solar and extrasolar satellite projects, shows the universe as a sphere.

The odds that the universe is spherical, or that we are anywhere near the origin point are so, pardon the pun, astronomical, that I can't help but laugh when I see such nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

Anyone who has seen a spherical object explode knows that the matter is not distributed evenly, as different size "chunks" move at different speeds, depending on the amount of energy transferred to them, the density of the matter between them and the source of the outward force, and the amount of resistance it experiences as it travels.

Assuming that the advisers behind the video "presumed" people would know that it was a time-dilated depiction from our relaltive perspective, and that the "sphere" represented the boundary of our ability to collect information, it provides a poor representation of the way things really are.

Being spoon fed the *fact* that "we know the universe is 13.7 billion years old" in conjunction with that sort of imagery, and without clarifying how "we know" the old maid's age, and by not providing the obvious caveat that this depiction is "subject to what we don't know, and what we don't know we don't know", this type of popular presentation of science is an affront to anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of the universe.

When I read them or hear these people speak, I feel as though I am standing in front of a 13th century royal cartographer, clad in period dress, what we would now call "clown garb", as he tells me with absolute certainty and abject disdain that the world is indeed flat, and had I the mind of an Ocelot or better, I'd know this.

I have ultimate respect for many members of the RP/QP community, but what happens to the fundamentals of science and the ability of these apostles to convince us they are still correct when one of these absolute certainties becomes a variable certainty?

Cheers
RReport
Post #2Scott Miller wroteon January 3, 2010 at 1:04pm
You're made lots of false assumptions, Randy.

For example, the big bang was NOT an explosion (there was no outward force, as you put it), and any comparison to an explosion will only lead you to false predictions and premises. (The mis-named Big Bang was actually an *expansion*, not an explosion.) Also, I suspect there are numerous aspects of the Big Bang that you need to read more about, like the "inflationary stage". BTW, the distribution of matter within the known universe is anything but even -- it is quite lumpy, which is why we have super-clusters, normal clusters, and even galaxies.

Another rookie assumption you've made is that we are perhaps near the origin point. In fact, there is no single origin point for the Big Bang -- or, more accurately, every single point in the universe IS the origin point. Difficult concept to grasp, I know. But then, so is quantum physics, relatively, dark energy, string theory, and so much more. Our universe is nothing if not cleverly illusionary.

I could point out a few other errors, but I'll leave some for others to pick at.

That video was quite excellent, IMO. It revealed exactly what we currently know of our known universe, in terms of scale and general large scale contents.Report
Post #3Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon January 3, 2010 at 1:15pm
"For instance, Hawking and others claim that the universe begin in a big bang, from a singularity of infinite density. When it couldn't hold together any longer, an explosion of infinite magnitude sent an infinite amount of matter and energy into the void we now call space."

Umm...No?
If Hawking said that, remind me to bitch slap him next time I'm in Cambridge.

"Okay. I can accept that the universe may be expanding, but from OUR perspective. "

I think that you just realized what many of us scientists realize as kids, that everything is relative. It's a cool realization, but you really didn't need to post about it.

"We would never accept scientific absolutes from any of the other sciences when there is only one data point, why do we do so from Hawking et al?"

Umm...We don't.
First of all, there is no such thing as a scientific absolute.
Second of all, we have many other bodies of evidence to support the BBT:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

"IMHO, it's just as plausible that the universe was never a singularity, but is rather more like a Moebius strip, where matter travels along a river of unknown width, and over time comes back together at a pinch point and collides, then separates again."
Umm... Bad analogy for something that doesn't really make any sense.
Cyclic universes transfer entropy, and are generally not accepted in the scientific community, although a lot of non-scientists think they've come up with this totally original idea, when actually it's been thought of and debunked numerous times.

"Oddly enough, in "Masters of the Universe", which was on last night, the depiction of the "known universe", utilizing radioactive back-scatter maps and the less-distant heat maps generated by various solar and extrasolar satellite projects, shows the universe as a sphere."

Again, this is faulty.
We don't know the shape of the universe.
We don't even know if it has a shape, so saying that we know it to be a sphere is completely wrong.
What you're thinking of is the observable universe, which will obviously appear as a sphere in any mock-up.

"Being spoon fed the *fact* that "we know the universe is 13.7 billion years old" in conjunction with that sort of imagery, and without clarifying how "we know" the old maid's age, and by not providing the obvious caveat that this depiction is "subject to what we don't know, and what we don't know we don't know", this type of popular presentation of science is an affront to anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of the universe."

So you're saying that you are too smart for the show?
In my opinion you have shown your knowledge to be less than rudimentary, but if you believe it to be light years ahead of the show's intended audience, then don't watch the show. Most people don't know anything about the big bang, so a basic explanation is preferable to a more complex one.

"When I read them or hear these people speak, I feel as though I am standing in front of a 13th century royal cartographer, clad in period dress, what we would now call "clown garb", as he tells me with absolute certainty and abject disdain that the world is indeed flat, and had I the mind of an Ocelot or better, I'd know this."

Again, this shows that you have no understanding of the scientific method. There is no absolute certainty, and if you believe science claims that, you should go back to the basics before learning about Big Bang Cosmology.

I'd suggest reading up on what science actually is before responding.Report
Post #4Jake Murray wroteon January 3, 2010 at 1:34pm
>I think that you just realized what many of us scientists realize as kids, that everything is relative. It's a cool realization, but you really didn't need to post about it.<

This is good to hear, Samm. Not all scientists I have dealt with would agree with you. Someone like Mr Dawkins, for instance, doesn't believe there is anything relative about anything.

Question re Inflation - I have read about this discussed in slightly dismissive, although necessary terms. By this I mean that although Inflation almost certainly happened, we don't understand the physics of it yet (or at all). I have heard it described by some reputable scientists (no, I can't tell you who they were because I am stuck in the country without any of my books) as 'bolted on' to Big Bang Theory so as to account for something which can't be accounted for yet. NB I am not saying Inflation is a load of crap, only that I am interested in what the state of play is with it, what we know about it etc.

Further, as far as I know, there are several theories about the Big Bang (a name coined by someone who hated the idea, Fred Hoyle. He came up with the phrase to mock Gamow's theory and it stuck) and its cause. One theory is it emerged from a black hole in another universe, another that there was a collision of branes or other universes (again, I'm in the country so don't have my references), another that it was caused by the contraction of a previous universe (I think this is the Big Crunch Theory), another that it was one of a series of cyclic universes which come into being, die and then a new one emerges (the Big Bounce Theory I think). A singularity doesn't have to be the starting point, as far as I understand. Can you elaborate?
Report
Post #5Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon January 3, 2010 at 1:59pm
Dawkins is an agnostic though, and believes that you can't make distinctions 99.9% sure and 100%.

Keep in mind that this is his RELIGIOUS opinion, and not his scientific opinion, by the way.

I've talked to Guth one-on-one, and he admits that if he won the Nobel prize for it, he would feel as if the Nobel commission failed to do their jobs in terms of necessary evidence backing up the theory being provided. I am not a Cosmologist, I must admit, and I am mainly familiar with the mathematical aspects of Inflation; my scientific interpretations are hazy, and causes me to find analogues in QFT to understand his work.

You should check this out, as it's written by smarter people than me.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=261161Report
Post #6Bealachboymamores Mamores wroteon January 3, 2010 at 2:01pm
Some interesting post on this . From what I know , space - time is expanding everywhere and always has been. That is , there was no singularity but space - time was created everywhere simultaneously .To my mind the concept of a singularity at the beginning of time transcends physics . Please commentReport
Post #7Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon January 3, 2010 at 2:06pm
Don't talk about singularities, and your comment is correct.Report
Post #8Jake Murray wroteon January 3, 2010 at 2:54pm
>Dawkins is an agnostic though, and believes that you can't make distinctions 99.9% sure and 100%.<

Dawkins, in a rare moment of humility, admits that it is impossible to prove or disprove God and, on an Atheism Scale of 1 to 7, describes himself as a 6. This is as far as his Agnosticism goes. Everywhere else he is very clear that he is an Atheist, sponsors buses encouraging people to be so, calling himself an Atheist, deriding anyone who isn't an Atheist as 'logically speaking, a fool' and attacks Agnostics for 'fence sitting'.

On this one, I probably know more than you, Samm, His benign quasi-Agnostic stance doesn't tend to take a front seat in front of his aggressive Atheism. He isn't known as 'Dawkins the fair-minded Agnostic' but 'Dawkins the Atheist, Hero to Many'.

Actually, my intention here was to bring up Dawkins' view on science being the only arbiter of Truth (quote: 'Other than scientific truth, what other truth is there?'), by which he means that classical sciences - biology, classical physics, chemistry, evolutionary theory - are the truth. In THE GOD DELUSION he describes Quantum Science as 'must be true in some sense' because its predictive qualities are second to none, but then goes on to deride all the different interpretations as 'shatteringly paradoxical' (fair enough), 'counter-intuitive' and 'violating common sense'. He refers to Bohr, Everett et al as 'resorting' to various desperate explanations to paper over the cracks and whenever anyone brings up the puzzles of QM, he shoots them down with what he sees as the silver bullet of Feynman: 'If you think you have understood Quantum Mechanicss, you haven't understood Quantum Mechanics.'

Truth be told, he doesn't understand your discipline and he doesn't really rate it. In fact I would go so far as to say he was deeply suspicious of it. As for Relativity & Cosmoloy, if you look at his recent anthology of science writings, he can't help shoving the knife into Einstein either, suggesting that he might have spent more time looking for experimental proof of his theories than just equations.

In fact the thing that annoys me the most about Dawkins is his replacement of what is really going on in scientific circles with what HE thinks science says. The best thing about science are the raging debates, but he presents it as a monothemed, unified centre of orthodoxy with his particular discipline at the centre, and his own interpretation of his particular discipline at that. Religion aside, he essentially rejects anything which challenges his take on Darwinism, including Gould, Margulis and anyone who disagrees.

Again, I refer you to his anthology book. In it he remoulds the history of science and the contributions people have made around him. So Gould is respected for his writing skills but dismissed for his idea of NOMA and his differing view of Evolution. The most important thing he has to say about Fred Hoyle is the pity that such a good scientist should spend the end of his life in a misguided attack on Darwin and Darwinism etc etc.

Sorry, but Dawkins is NOT impartial and rejects or ignores all the questions and viewpoints within the scientific world which are not his own. In terms of religion, he even misrepresents the views of other scientists on this subject from Mendel and Einstein to people like Rees, Dyson et al.

So no, I don't agree with your take on Dawkins and his views on religion OR science. Calling him an Agnostic is like calling Hitler a Multiculturalist because he made an alliance with the Italians and Japanese.

Having said all that, thank you for your help with my other questions.Report
Post #9Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon January 3, 2010 at 3:44pm
Well, I'm not a complete idiot when it comes to Dawkins- I knew a lot of the stuff in your post.

I do realize fully that he refers to himself as an Atheist almost always. My point was that he was, in the most general sense, an agnostic, whether he admits it or not. The Hitler thing is a great comparison, and I totally agree. The thing is that I didn't fully express my opinions on Dawkins. I know there is a huge difference between him and, say, Sagen (Agnostic).

I think that you're focusing in on what he says, and not his official stance on things. Sometimes when I write I call people idiots, and call them various other mean things, but I still preach that we should all be nice to each other. That is my official stance, although I do deviate from it at times.

Atheists are pretty much the worst group to reason with scientifically, no offense. In general, they are dogmatic, yes. I agree with a lot of what you have said, and believe that I must have represented myself improperly.

Dyson had religious opinions?
Never thought he was a big physicist, actually, he is one of the most obscure ones I can think of.Report
Post #10Jake Murray wroteon January 3, 2010 at 4:18pm
Yes, Dyson is big on the religious thing. In fact he is very critical of Dawkins for doing science a disservice by making it look as if one has to be an atheist if one is interested in it. He argues that by insisting upon a battle line between belief in God and science, he is putting a lot of people off science who would otherwise be interested in it. Here he is in his own words:

"I think it's only a small fraction of people who think that science and religion are at odds. Perhaps they have louder voices than the others. I think Richard Dawkins is doing a lot of damage. I disagree very strongly with the way he's going about it. I don't deny his right to be an atheist, but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist. That simply turns young people away from science. He's convinced a lot of young people not to be scientists because they don't want to be atheists. I'm strongly against him on that question. It's simply not true what he's saying, and it's not only not true but also harmful. The fact is that many of my friends are much more religious than I am and are first-rate scientists. There's absolutely nothing that stops you from being both."

Of course I know you knew more about Dawks. Forgive me if I seemed aggressive. I know a lot about Dawks simply because the guy annoys the hell out of me, although I have to admit that I owe him a fair amount, as all my efforts to understand as much as I can about science (albeit from a layman's POV) has stemmed from a desire to argue with him and his acolytes on their own terms. I am not religious in any conventional way, but I don't like ignorance and intellectual snobbery, which I tend to find marks out Dawkinsians. But you don't beat them by quoting great mystics or philosophers (although the latter tends to make them retreat as they can't deny that philosophers are brainy and are linked with Reason), you beat them by exposing their lack of knowledge about science.

So weirdly, although I can't bear Dawkins, seeking to burst his balloon has made me realise how fascinating science is, which is why I keep showing up here and - admittedly cack-handedly sometimes - trying to enlarge my knowledge.

I am very struck by what you say about atheists being 'pretty much the worst group to reason with scientifically'. That really interests me. Would you expand on this a little? In my experience - and intense frustration - Evolutionary Theory is always forced into the centre point as the main pillar of science with everything else having to fit in around it, which seems to me to be a supreme piece of sleight of hand. More than that, it seems to me that the really exciting stuff is happening in all the fields being discussed here - cosmology, relativity, quantum theory - all of which tend to expand the mind rather than close it down, which so much Evolutionary Theory seems to want to do (don't even get me onto Evolutionary Psychology). I am struck by how many scientists in these fields often talk about the awe and wonder they feel about the astonishing mysteries of the universe they are unravelling while so many Evolutionary Theorists seem intensely cynical and superior to most of the human race. Similarly, while people like Dawkins seem to think that science is pretty close to solving everything and trumping everything else in terms of getting to 'the Truth', cosmologists and quantum theorists tend to speak openly about how the problems of the universe are probably too big for us to understand. As I say, you wouldn't get someone like Dawkins saying anything like what you say Guth told you, or even your own statement about everything being relative. I could quote you a recent article in the Times where he expresses intense irritation with anyone - philosophers of science included - who questions science's ability to get to the truth about things in this way.

Good talking, Samm. Kudos.
Report
Post #11Jake Murray wroteon January 3, 2010 at 4:20pm
Actually, if you want a light-hearted giggle, check out this photo array:

http://www.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=94292891808&view=all

Its on an anti-Dawkins site, but in fact the aim of the site is to put all sorts of different perspectives on. Dawkins & Dennett appear sympathetically alongside all sorts of other people arguing from different perspectives. Its quite fun to see what different bigwig scientists say about these issues. Poor Dawks himself might be surprised.Report
Post #12Scott Miller wroteon January 3, 2010 at 4:25pm
Crap. Once religion enters the discussion, might as well pull the ripcord and find another thread to join.Report
Post #13Jake Murray wroteon January 3, 2010 at 4:29pm
Actually Sagan is an interesting comparison. Although I would say he was primarily a sceptic about these things, he was way ahead of Dawkins in the fact that he informed himself about what the different religions said about things (his awareness of the interesting parallels between Hindu scripture and modern science was very intriguing for instance) and was aware that they were an important part of human culture historically and so worthy of that respect, even if they had been superceded. This is a very different perspective to Dawkins who just thinks they were all crap and had no positive contribution to make to anything.

Sagan was also a keen believer in the possibility of other forms of intelligent life in the universe, which is quite interesting considering the Dawkinsian list of irrational beliefs include, alongside God, fairies, unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, belief in UFOs. And Sagan is also in record as believing that ESP and reincarnation were worthy of serious scientific study because of evidence pointing to their existence, even though in almost every other field of the so- called 'paranormal' he was a sceptic. Report
Post #14Jake Murray wroteon January 3, 2010 at 4:30pm
>Crap. Once religion enters the discussion, might as well pull the ripcord and find another thread to join.<

Oops! There we go! Censorship again! Can't people have a discussion in peace?

For your information, Scott, I have no religion, so what's the problem? No-one is pushing religion here, we are just having a discussion about some of things which have come up.Report
Post #15Randy Dryburgh wroteon January 4, 2010 at 7:03am
>>>>>>
"Umm... Bad analogy for something that doesn't really make any sense. Cyclic universes transfer entropy, and are generally not accepted in the scientific community, although a lot of non-scientists think they've come up with this totally original idea, when actually it's been thought of and debunked numerous times."
>>>>>>>

Umm.. WHAT??? Have you been to a cyclical universe with an entropy measurement device? No, you haven't. Just as you may show me math to support your argument, I can show you math to support mine.

You're arguing about facts not in evidence, and that's the whole point behind my post.

The scientific community is becoming less fact based, where the argument here should be "we just have no clue", and more faith based, "We have it reliable sources..."

The problem is that defining the unprovable sells books, and saying "we just don't know" doesn't earn tenure.

Just because Hawking, Green, Feynman, or anybody else from Cambridge says *anything* doesn't make it so. Einstein's ideas weren't accepted by the "scientific community" until years later. To argue against something because the "community" doesn't agree with it is among the least scientific things you could do.

Seriously, anyone with any real experience knows that until you prove or disprove something, you really only have a possibility or probability that it is or isn't true. Math doesn't prove things, it merely confirms the possibility or defines the range of probability.

And Scott, where do you get your information about an "outward expansion"? There's no facts to support this, or any "origin from a singularity", except where science has stated it "must be".

But, okay.. let's run with that. If there was an outward "push" without a catalyst, this disproves the law of inertia. The only argument I've heard that I could believe (and that I could see supported, but still never proven) is that the expansion from a singularity started with the collapse INTO a singularity from a universe (or something) on the other side; along the lines of a supernova type event where the collapse of the entity causes a "bounce" outward of stellar mass.

My position stands, and is just as viable, that any suggestion at this point is possible, and just as probable as the suggestions we have in place, and arguing definitively for a one-shot-solves-all solution is anti-scientific, not just bad science.

Cheers,
R
Report
Post #16Scott Miller wroteon January 4, 2010 at 8:20am
Randy, if you're arguing that the Big Bang Theory may be wrong, that's fine. But right now, ALL the evidence fits this theory.

There are plenty of other suggestions in play, involving quantum gravity, a holographic universe, m-branes, and several others. But, for anything to catch hold, it needs to explain all the current evidence we have.

You really are arguing from a tenth-grader viewpoint, but until you learn more about this subject, it's impossible for you to realize this. Have you ever read any of Feynman's lectures? Or any science book with a little more depth that Greene's or Hawking's?

The Big Bang is pretty darn solid, one of the best proven theories ever created because it models the current universe so well, in the same way that the Standard Model (quantum physics) so perfectly models and predicts atomic-level particles. Both of these theories are still incomplete, but this doesn't invalidate them in any way.

>>> But, okay.. let's run with that. If there was an outward "push" without a catalyst, this disproves the law of inertia.<<<

It's statements like this that reveal just how little you know about this subject. I may have been too generous giving you tenth-grader credit.Report
Post #17Scott Miller wroteon January 4, 2010 at 9:03am
Pretty darn good overview of the Big Bang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_BangReport
Post #18Randy Dryburgh wroteon January 4, 2010 at 9:14am
I'm not arguing that Big Bang is wrong. Rather, I'm stating that just because the evidence fits that model, doesn't mean it's the right model, or that there aren't two billion other models it also fits, that we just haven't identified.

However, not surprisingly, you fell right into the trap I was hoping you would.

You see, instead of explaining your position, you immediately denigrate and attempt to dilute the discussion with name calling.

I know a few other guys that do this too. Jim. George.... less so George...

I understand P-branes and how they relate to M-theory just fine, thanks.

What I don't understand is why guys like you feel a need to call people names to make yourselves look smarter than you might be.

I do, however, remember that you have a tendency to exaggerate... I recall you telling me how badly I was going to get whipped at Texas Hold 'Em once... Seems I also remember taking all of your money that night. You talk a good game, but your cards don't beat mine ;-) That's a whole 'nuther story though.. but the evidence does relate..

As a software developer, you should know that just because you have evidence, and just because it fits, doesn't make it right, and it doesn't prove that the evidence you have actually proves anything more than the fact that you have evidence.

An example:
Last century, we understood the molecule.
Last century, we truly understood the atom.
Last century, we discovered the quark, though we still don't fully grok it.
Last century, we discovered the muon (formerly mesotron), weak and strong forces, and how they work, , though we still don't fully grok them.
Last decade, we discovered that muons live just 2.2 microseconds, unless they are travelling at the speed of light, then they live 700 microseconds.. We have NO clue why this happens. We have a theory, but since we don't understand what "time" is, we can postulate WHY it happens all day long, but not even Hawkins has an idea of how time really works, and at least he's smart enough to say so.

For all time before the discovery of the atom, NOTHING could be that small, and you were ostracized by the scientific community if you suggested otherwise. They have a nasty habit of doing that.

In fact, up until about 10 years ago, string theory was considered pop science, until one day Michael Green told Hawkins, "Hey... string theory can solve this gravitational deficiency you're finding..", and so it was blessed.

Great. A theory supports a theory, and that becomes scientific fact. More textbooks sold!! Cha-Ching!

How is it that, without a clear and fundamental understanding of how things really, REALLY work locally, here on earth, at the subatomic level, YOU are so completely, absolutely certain that we can tell how things worked "13.7 billion years ago", or even today, billions of light years away?

Science has a habit of making bold claims only to undo itself later on with nary a footnote, never mind a post-mortem to find out why the supposition was "generally accepted".

In his book, "The universe in a nutshell", and several times on TV, Hawkins has stated that the universe is 5 billion years old, then 15 billion, now 13 billion, each time as a matter of fact without supporting evidence or data about the correction.

If your mechanic made massive, sweeping changes like that, you'd find a new mechanic pretty quickly. Well, you might not... but I sure would.

Cheers,
RReport
Post #19Scott Miller wroteon January 4, 2010 at 9:49am
Randy, I think there's still a great deal to be discovered, that will rewrite much of what we currently believe to be true. In fact, I predict that time is not a fundamental feature of nature -- merely a human concept but without a physical reality. (What we call time, is actually change, but as far as the universe is concerned, time doesn't exist--only change.)

But,your initial post and follow-up post contained odd statements, like calling the Big Bang an explosion. You painted yourself as someone not very well versed on this topic.

Reciting mistakes throughout history does not strengthen your case. This is merely the process of science, always honing in on the truth given the state of current tools and data. As I said, there's much left to discover about the Big bang, and all reasonable scientists leave open the door for the possibility that the Big Bang will be completely overthrown. But, for now, its the best we've got, and shows no cracks.Report
Post #20Jake Murray wroteon January 4, 2010 at 9:54am
I was going to say, doesn't Stephen Hawking changing his position on the age of the universe stem from new evidence emerging? I don't think he just plucks ideas out of the air.

That's where scientists are lucky. Unlike every other discipline in the world, they are allowed to change their minds, so they can be wrong, admit it and no-one minds. In every other walk of life this is regarded as a weakness or a sign of incompetence, but within science, it is regarded as a strength. Lucky guys!Report
Post #21Jake Murray wroteon January 4, 2010 at 9:54am
Oh and before anyone misconstrues that last post as a criticism of scientists, it wasn't. I was expressing envy.Report
Post #22Randy Dryburgh wroteon January 4, 2010 at 1:09pm
Scott,

Okay, I like where you're going with the time discussion... but wait..

Are you serious? "Reciting mistakes throughout history does not strengthen your case"? Seriously?

My point was exactly that. That we don't really know any of this, that we the "facts" that are constantly be presented, then changed, and presented again, are just different levels of ignorance portrayed as, how did you say it, "honing in on the truth."

But as for "reciting mistakes throughout history"... I presume then, that the next time you endeavor into a game development contract, you'll forget everything you learned during the Duke Nukem decade? I suspect you'll internally "recite mistakes throughout history", planning around them this time, before you sign the contract.

We learn not just by looking ahead, but rather by applying what we already know *from the past* to the reality we perceive as the present, questioning what doesn't make sense, and allowing our minds to extrapolate those unknowns into a future possibility... NOT the other way around.

If you're suggesting that science doesn't or shouldn't consider past errors or misjudgments when creating or investigating new theories, then we are indeed back in the middle ages.

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' - Scribners, 1905.

As a developer, I understand that Hawking hasn't been to the origin point of the universe, but for in his mind. I can see how he can move around it, applying the rules we know about, but he's still not going to be able to provide anything more than an incomprehensibly shallow and error-riddled analysis, because he doesn't know what he doesn't know, and he's limited to the tiny bits of information we can glean from our reality.

We assume everything we see or experience is all that happens. What should be being said is, "we're guessing, but here's what we think", not "The universe IS 13.7 billion years old", and yes Hawking "said" that via his speech synthesizer on "Masters of the Universe".

Sure, he can make things up that nobody could prove didn't exist, or that some colleague or TA would spend decades proving or disproving to make a name and tenure for themselves, but in reality, what's the point?

Will knowing that the universe is 13.6527628 billion years old make your car safer? Your kids smarter? Your spouse happier?

No. It won't.

Will it then matter if 100 years from now, someone "proves" that a rock they found in their back yard is 15.2 billion years old through some arcane form of then-present testing?

No. It won't. Someone will simply say that Hawking forgot to take "the then current item we know about and he didn't" into account, but he was basically correct.

Not that it matters, right?Report
Post #23Scott Miller wroteon January 4, 2010 at 2:15pm
A very similar discussion:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=12269&post=52579&uid=2208782959#/topic.php?uid=2208782959&topic=11988

My major point, Randy, is that if you're going to make statements that are meant to get people thinking, you become too easily dismissed when you make grade school level mistakes, like the Big Bang is an explosion. You made several such mistakes in your original, and first follow-up post.

My comment about history is that at any time, we go by the best evidence we have, and model the best theory we can to fit the data. Currently, that's the Big Bang.

I strongly suspect the Big Bang is essentially correct, but there's so much more to learn within the scope of this massive theory. I think we'll have all the answers this century, likely within 50 years.

The issue, IMO, is that we exist within a facet of a much greater reality, and like images within a picture, we cannot see or properly imagine the reality outside of that picture. The picture-verse is all we know.Report
Post #24John Johnson wroteon January 4, 2010 at 7:52pm
Randy, one thing to avoid is discussing the Big Bang as an explosion "in" space. There is no "origin point", all of space-time was compact and underwent rapid inflation and that set the stage for much of why the universe is the way it is today. Everyplace in the universe WAS at the origin, at the Planck Time. There is some good evidence that backs up the Big Bang theory, which is covered pretty well in Intro astronomy books (I just mention that because I teach the subject.)

Theories are the best we can do at the time, as Scott points out. Often times, a very good approximation of nature, which explains our observations and makes testable predictions. In any scientific endeavor, there are error bars, and we shouldn't feel negative about science because we don't know it all. Knowing that we can improve our understanding of nature, and seeing how much we HAVE improved it in recent years, motivates and excites the scientist.

Anyhow, without absolute knowledge, we will never know something 100%. The general public seems to think that theories are just guesses and not very meaningful. They are wrong. The scientific method is beautiful, because it allows us to develop theories, and compare them to evidence, and they can quickly be disproven if contrary evidence arises. Over time, our knowledge of how things work improves. Right now, we have a pretty good idea how the universe developed over the past 13.7 billion years. These theories or models will stand, until someone proposes a theory that better fits the facts, but even so, all signs point to the Big Bang theory being correct.

Confirmation of the Big Bang model, or finding a consistent well-defined age of the universe DOES help us, because it means that our understanding of how nature behaves is improving. We cannot know what advances will come from our knowing better how nature works, even though this fact may seem esoteric to most at present.

I'm not trying to be negative at all here. Just add some of my perspective. It is great to see that people are trying to make sense of all these concepts, which under the hood are pretty complex. We shouldn't feel bad that science can't prove things perfectly or that we don't understand everything. Like QM, which we know very well but still don't rationally understand. QM makes excellent predictions. It works all the time. We will probably understand the "why" better in the future, but we shouldn't get hung up on not being there yet.Report
Post #25Randy Dryburgh wroteon January 5, 2010 at 10:44am
Scott,

We are in basic agreement.

John,

Thanks for chiming in!

You make my point better than Scott did. We should stop using factual statements like "All of space-time was compact and underwent..."

"Confirmation of the big bang model..." It can't be confirmed. Only evidence supporting the model can be confirmed, unless you can somehow travel back in time and record the occurrence.

Why is this such a hard thing for you guys to understand? It's a theory, it's not fact.
Report
Post #26Jake Murray wroteon January 5, 2010 at 10:59am
@Randy

>Why is this such a hard thing for you guys to understand? It's a theory, it's not fact.<

It may soon not be. If I am right, a telescope even stronger than the Hubble is soon to be deployed which should enable us to see almost as far the Bang itself.

I also don't think anyone presents the Big Bang as fact yet. Its still very much spoken of as unproven, although all the evidence we have points towards it having happened.

@ John

> Everyplace in the universe WAS at the origin, at the Planck Time.<

Excuse me for being stupid here, John, but is there an argument to be made that the Big Bang never really 'happened' in the sense that we mean. By this I mean that, in a sense, viewed from the impersonal perspective of the Universe, nothing has changed - there is still the same amount of energy as there was at the start. All that has happened is that it appears to have become more differentiated - ie energy has formed into different kinds of matter.

If every point in the Universe was the Big Bang, the 'point of origin' as it were, does this not mean that, conceptually at least, in one sense it never happened as we talk about it?

I know this sounds ridiculous, but think about it for a second from a shift in perspective.

Report
Post #27Scott Miller wroteon January 5, 2010 at 11:39am
Jake, I originally made the comment in my first post that "every single point in the universe IS the origin point [of the Big Bang]". What is meant by this is that all points in the universe where essentially at the same point when the Big Bang (hate that phrase) happened. So, there is no magical single origin point within the universe where the Big Bang took place. If we could instantly move Earth 10 billion light years to the left of us, we'd still see the universe in much the same way as the video in Randy's initial post.

At the moment of the Big Bang, all points in the universe were compressed together. After the Big Bang, all points expanded away from every other existing point. No single point expanded faster than the speed of light -- in fact, from any single point's perspective, it was not moving, and if it could think, it would have considered itself at that magical origin.Report
Post #28John Johnson wroteon January 5, 2010 at 11:42am
Randy, you are correct, and I tried to acknowledge that. Theories are never 100% proveable. They are in many cases very close to what we feel very sure happened, but that's it. It's an approximation that agrees with other models/approximations, with error bars. So, anytime a scientists says that QM or the Big Bang or Evolution is "proven" they are saying that the confidence is getting close to 100%, and so far there are no counterdictions that we find with other theories. Typically, these models end up being a very good approximation of nature. No, they will never explain exactly what happened, we will never have that complete knowledge (even if we could travel back to "near" the Big Bang" event.)

Even a larger telescope would be limited to seeing no further back than we see now with probes like WMAP, to the point 380,000 years after the Big Bang when the universe became transparent. Before that, light could not travel great distances without being scattered, as it was too hot for electrons to be bound to atoms. We have seen back to early galaxies/quasars, at about 600,000,000 years after the Big Bang. There are many things that can be inferred from WMAP results, etc. Some scientists even feel that the shape of the universe, what was "before" the Big Bang and evidence of other dimensions could be inferred from various observations (where the direct evidence wouldn't be available).

There is a competing theory that claims the Big Bang didn't occur, and perhaps it just appears that way due to variation in basic constants over time. Some of these theories will be disproven in time, and we'll have to see what remains. From a larger POV, it is very likely some sort of multiverse, or meta-universe exists and has always existed, that is, if time is not unique to our universe. ;) With accelerating expansion of space-time in our observable universe, the cosmological horizon shrinks every year, and we may eventually see a mostly empty universe before things get to a Big Rip. We are still very uncertain of the eventual fate of the universe, but it seems we are heading that way.

The universe could have always existed. Sure. Or, broken off as a bubble in a multiverse. In any case, the Big Bang describes that point at which the universe underwent rapid expansion and got very large. It is difficult to imagine that it could have remained compact very long before undergoing some phase change and "doing something" however. I think it's useful to think about these possibilities, and as in a recent Scientific American, you end up with several likely alternatives, and may be able to eliminate the less likely ones over time.Report
Post #29Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon January 5, 2010 at 2:28pm
Jesus, Randy, this is such a childish argument.

First of all, you're not even epistemologically right, which you could be at least if you were attacking the scientific method.

Second of all, you show that you comprehend neither the method nor the theories of science.

Come back when you go to high school.

Report
Post #30Randy Dryburgh wroteon January 5, 2010 at 5:18pm
MIT.. Impressive. I know *I* am impressed. Scott? You?

Well, then Sammuel, how about you grace us with some of your evidently higher intellect and 'splain us' your position, rather than stomping off in a huff without adding anything useful to the discussion.

How interesting though... To get a better idea of your background, I checked the student and (just in case) faculty rosters. I didn't see your name on them. This year, or last...

Hmm.. Could '13 be 1913? Darn. Those records aren't online. That would make you some kind of ol' timer indeed!!

Very Odd. Probably a clerical oversight.

Cheers,
EventsNotesLinksPop In ChatPop Out ChatNotificationsNotifications
See All
Chat (0)Chat
Friend Lists
Options

0
0 0
0
HomeProfileFriendsRecently Added
All Friends
Invite Friends
Find FriendsInbox 2 View Message Inbox (2)
Compose New Message LogoutSettings Account Settings
Privacy Settings
Application Settings
HelpVladimir Shelkoper
"Facts" are relative.Back to Quantum Physics
Discussion BoardTopic ViewTopic: "Facts" are relative.
Displaying posts 31 - 60 out of 72.Prev123Next

EventsNotesLinksPop In ChatPop Out ChatNotificationsNotifications
See All
Chat (0)Chat
Friend Lists
Options

0
0 0
0
HomeProfileFriendsRecently Added
All Friends
Invite Friends
Find FriendsInbox 2 View Message Inbox (2)
Compose New Message LogoutSettings Account Settings
Privacy Settings
Application Settings
HelpVladimir Shelkoper
"Facts" are relative.Back to Quantum Physics
Discussion BoardTopic ViewTopic: "Facts" are relative.