Scientists: Earth May Exist in Giant Cosmic Bubble

[s_lone]

"....the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning."

It's important to keep in mind the ''seems to me'' part of this quotation. While Einstein didn't see any possible meaning in the concept of a soul without a body, there are many who can. There lies the conundrum. The concept of ''soul'' is so vague and slippery that pretty much any statement made by anybody becomes irrelevant when one tries to have an ''objective'' understanding of reality (if such a thing is even possible)...

For example, if we are to take this definition of the word ''soul'': the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life

What does ''immaterial'' mean??? Is it ''immaterial'' in the sense that it is 'outside' of nature as we know it and thus 'supernatural'... or is it immaterial in the sense that it's not matter but could be a locus of energy?... There's enough haziness here to start a philosophical debate of its own.

The concept of ''soul'' must be very clearly defined in order to have a constructive debate on the possibility of afterlife.

Science, while offering some very useful insights, isn't anywhere near answering such questions as, ''is there an afterlife''. I believe science most definitely has its place in the debate, but in the end, it's an essentially philosophical one, where even our perception of reality and ''a prioris'' must be challenged.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

If energy is constant, then that still holds true to my personal belief.... which was the main focal point of where I was going.

Yes, I did understand that, but Einstein is so often hauled into conversations like this one and his views misrepresented, I like to keep the record straight whenever I can. He was an atheist by any reasonable definition and was always perfectly clear about that.

The laws of thermodynamics pretty much require the total energy in the universe to be constant unless someone can demonstrate a violation of the conservation laws at its beginning. It's by definition a closed system in most understandings, and as I said in some other thread here recently, a good case can be made that its net energy content is zero. In very oversimplified terms, all the available energy is gradually being converted into gravitational potential energy with expansion, and there doesn't appear to be enough gravitating material to bring it all back together in a big crunch to start it over again. This looks like a one-way trip that'll end with a universe containing burned out cinders bathed in a sea of very low temperature background radiation. But nobody really knows, quantum theory and general relativity are fundamentally inconsistent and don't really give us useful answers in such extremes.

 

[Praxius]

Yes, I did understand that, but Einstein is so often hauled into conversations like this one and his views misrepresented, I like to keep the record straight whenever I can. He was an atheist by any reasonable definition and was always perfectly clear about that.

Fair enough.... I'm just trying to clarify that I wasn't trying to imply that he was a religious follower in any sense, as I heard plenty about him not liking "traditional religions" but perhaps my wording with "Afterlife" threw it all off. My mistake.

The laws of thermodynamics pretty much require the total energy in the universe to be constant unless someone can demonstrate a violation of the conservation laws at its beginning. It's by definition a closed system in most understandings, and as I said in some other thread here recently, a good case can be made that its net energy content is zero. In very oversimplified terms, all the available energy is gradually being converted into gravitational potential energy with expansion, and there doesn't appear to be enough gravitating material to bring it all back together in a big crunch to start it over again. This looks like a one-way trip that'll end with a universe containing burned out cinders bathed in a sea of very low temperature background radiation. But nobody really knows, quantum theory and general relativity are fundamentally inconsistent and don't really give us useful answers in such extremes.

Fair enough.

 

[coldstream]

I mean so what. This type of grandiose speculation is what characterises modern Cosmology now. The current theory of the earth's origin and physics, superstrings, surmises that there are any number of new dimensions, above the 3 for space and 1 for time we now recognize. Since our senses are incapable of empirically apprehending them that will remain as mathematical abstractions with absolutely no practical utility.

In fact the most notable observation about modern Cosmology you can make is that it has produced absolutely NOTHING in terms of useful technology since the Second World War, when it separated itself from empirical physics and experiment, and got lost in mathematical cryptology. You can be assured that nothing useful will ever come from this, or from its spawn at CERN in Europe. It's all now a form of mysticism, which no one but a priestly Iluminati of universtity vetted 'doctors' can understand and will never be of any use to anyone, except in their own karma.

Without invention science loses its fundamental inspiration... and devolves into nonsense like this.

 

[GreenFish66]

Bubbles in bubbles?...in liquid,gas or solid?....I 'll take the bubble over the hole at the end of the pin please!...Hope no one pulls the plug! lol

 

[Zzarchov]

I mean so what. This type of grandiose speculation is what characterises modern Cosmology now. The current theory of the earth's origin and physics, superstrings, surmises that there are any number of new dimensions, above the 3 for space and 1 for time we now recognize. Since our senses are incapable of empirically apprehending them that will remain as mathematical abstraction with absolutely no practical utility.

In fact the most notable observation about modern Cosmology you can make is that it has produced absolutely NOTHING in term of useful technology since the Second World War, when it separated itself from empirical physics and experiment, and got lost in mathematical cryptology. You can be assured that nothing useful will ever come from this, or from its spawn at CERN in Europe. It's all now a form of mysticism, which no one but a priestly Iluminati of universtity vetted 'doctors' can understand and will never be of any use to anyone, except in their own karma.

Without invention science loses its fundamental inspiration... and devolves into nonsense like this.

Those exact same things were said about many of the experiments that lead to modern technology.

Understanding how matter and energy behave to a greater degree almost certainly will have vast practical applications in the decades to come.

What that entails, who knows?

 

[coldstream]

Those exact same things were said about many of the experiments that lead to modern technology.

Understanding how matter and energy behave to a greater degree almost certainly will have vast practical applications in the decades to come.

What that entails, who knows?

In fact there is great difference between what is happening in modern Cosmology and what had happened in the practical physics of the past. There are certainly branches of physics that are producing useful technology in the sphere's of lasers, communications and energy.. but that is not what is happening with Cosmology. The latter can be better equated with Astrology and Alchemy, as forms of psuedo spiritualism

 

[GreenFish66]

Along for the ride!

From infinity to beyond the infintesimal!...That's where we're going....Gonna be a hell of a trip !....yeeeeeeehaaaaaaa......God speed to all!....lol

 

[Zzarchov]

In fact there is great difference between what is happening in modern Cosmology and what had happened in the practical physics of the past. There are certainly branches of physics that are producing useful technology in the sphere's of lasers, communications and energy.. but that is not what is happening with Cosmology. The latter can be better equated with Astrology and Alchemy, as forms of psuedo spiritualism

Uh huh, and how so?

The "practical physics of the past" were not considered practical. They were considered useless trivia because they had no practical uses.

Oh, so you can bend an electron beam, *clap clap*, what will that do? And no one had an answer other than "show you can".

The ability to slow light, Quantum pairing... all of these things are only now having people go "Hey..that "useless" physics..I might be able to find a practical use for that".


There is a large amount of lead time on these things, decades or more. But its there, all knoweldge has use eventually.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I mean so what...

Somehow I doubt you have the knowledge or understanding to justify those opinions, mostly because if you did your opinions would be different. Nobody foresaw any practical utility for Maxwell's unification of electricity and magnetism in the 19th century, but that theoretical understanding turned out to be the basis of many things we now take for granted, from the power grid that distributes electricity to us all to these handy little computers we're using to have this conversation. Quantum theory and relativity similarly had no obvious practical utility when they first showed up and they both contain many things our senses are incapable of empirically apprehending, that's no criterion for judging them. Just two examples: every electronic device in your life ultimately depends on a theoretical understanding of quantum theory for its design and operation, and GPS satellites require relativistic corrections to their clocks to maintain accuracy.

Others have said before pretty much exactly what you said about various things on the cutting edge of scientific discovery, and history has proven them all wrong. Odds are it'll prove you wrong too. If science is limited to exploring only things of immediate practical utility, it's effectively dead.

 

[darkbeaver]

Somehow I doubt you have the knowledge or understanding to justify those opinions, mostly because if you did your opinions would be different. Nobody foresaw any practical utility for Maxwell's unification of electricity and magnetism in the 19th century, but that theoretical understanding turned out to be the basis of many things we now take for granted, from the power grid that distributes electricity to us all to these handy little computers we're using to have this conversation. Quantum theory and relativity similarly had no obvious practical utility when they first showed up and they both contain many things our senses are incapable of empirically apprehending, that's no criterion for judging them. Just two examples: every electronic device in your life ultimately depends on a theoretical understanding of quantum theory for its design and operation, and GPS satellites require relativistic corrections to their clocks to maintain accuracy.

Others have said before pretty much exactly what you said about various things on the cutting edge of scientific discovery, and history has proven them all wrong. Odds are it'll prove you wrong too. If science is limited to exploring only things of immediate practical utility, it's effectively dead.

One of those immediate practicle utilities is capital growth so science will eventually be worked to death anyway.

 

[coldstream]

Somehow I doubt you have the knowledge or understanding to justify those opinions, mostly because if you did your opinions would be different. Nobody foresaw any practical utility for Maxwell's unification of electricity and magnetism in the 19th century, but that theoretical understanding turned out to be the basis of many things we now take for granted, from the power grid that distributes electricity to us all to these handy little computers we're using to have this conversation. Quantum theory and relativity similarly had no obvious practical utility when they first showed up and they both contain many things our senses are incapable of empirically apprehending, that's no criterion for judging them. Just two examples: every electronic device in your life ultimately depends on a theoretical understanding of quantum theory for its design and operation, and GPS satellites require relativistic corrections to their clocks to maintain accuracy.

Others have said before pretty much exactly what you said about various things on the cutting edge of scientific discovery, and history has proven them all wrong. Odds are it'll prove you wrong too. If science is limited to exploring only things of immediate practical utility, it's effectively dead.

The difference between Maxwell and what is happening at CERN is that Maxwell rigorously subjected his conjecture and theory to empirical experiment. When you deal with conjectures that hypothesize multiple dimensions beyond the comprehension of humans, or postulate multiple universes that will never be able to be confirmed, you are dealing with something that is no longer science.. but a meditation.. it's intent is not useful technology but a sense of bliss. NOTHING useful has been produced by modern Cosmology since the Second World War.. nothing. Science loses its fundamental inspiration when it loses its sense of invention and practicality. Cosmology has become a closed system, its 'experiments' are produced as a self fulfiling prophesy, rather than harnessing the forces of nature for the common good. Nothing useful will ever come of it.

I remember Oswald Spengler's 'Decline of the West' where he predicted science in a civilization in decline, would cast aside it's utilities, experiment and manifest boundless belief systems in their place. That is one prophesy that is being realized in 'superstrings' and the mystical culture we are seeing in CERN and virtually every major university Physics department. No nay sayers of this type of useless egotism are allowed in the inner sanctum. Dissenters will be denied doctorates and tenure.

I am not a Physicist, but i would be very careful of movements that perceive themselves as an illuminati, with a closely held script that they can't explain to anyone who is not 'invested' with 'secrets of the rite'. This is a religion, not a science. In fact it is a cult.

Lee Smolin is a dissenter, and Ivy League Physics Doctor, who has been largely excluded from the Temple, because of his book 'The Trouble with Physics', which lays bare the disastrous, credulity infested culture that pervades modern Physics. Mark his prediction, and that of many other outsiders, that absolutely nothing useful will come from CERN or any of the other institutes of the the Cosmology cult. They are money pits without a purpose except feeding its priesthood and massaging their professsional egos.

 

[Zzarchov]

Uh huh, so when we test these String theories with Empirical research like CERN thats a waste?

Meditation means we don't test it, CERN proves your whole statement wrong. And no, much of the electrical theories of the 19th century were not to invent something. Quite frankly people thought it was useless because you can't do anything with electricity (until the theories behind it were tested and devices made to do useful things)

How can you know what will be possible with what we discover at CERN? Maybe we disover how to theoretically open pocket dimensions, maybe after 150 years that leads to major breakthroughs?


The last major cosmology breakthroughs didn't have real implications for a century, you think stuff post WWII will break the trend?

Tell ya what, lets wait and see, IF Im wrong, I'll buy you a coke.

 

[s_lone]

The difference between Maxwell and what is happening at CERN is that Maxwell rigorously subjected his conjecture and theory to empirical experiment. When you deal with conjectures that hypothesize multiple dimensions beyond the comprehension of humans, or postulate multiple universes that will never be able to be confirmed, you are dealing with something that is no longer science.. but a meditation.. it's intent is not useful technology but a sense of bliss. NOTHING useful has been produced by modern Cosmology since the Second World War.. nothing. Science loses its fundamental inspiration when it loses its sense of invention and practicality. Cosmology has become a closed system, its 'experiments' are produced as a self fulfiling prophesy, rather than harnessing the forces of nature for the common good. Nothing useful will ever come of it.

Are you really so short-sighted as to being unable to imagine what could be the implications of cosmological research? Maybe a little science-fiction could stimulate your imagination...

As Dexter already said in other words, science should as well be dead if it is to be considered a servant to day to day practicality. Science in its truest sense is the quest for knowledge and a better understanding of reality. The desire to understand our world is noble and I really don't see why we should stop trying to improve our knowledge.

 

[GreenFish66]

Everything is energy and information realized!..- the waste!...lol...Body mind and transfer of energy! soul!

 

[scratch]

Everything is energy and information realized!..- the waste!...lol...Body mind and transfer of energy! soul!

Admirable aspirations indeed, but what do they do for others who do not see it in your perspective.

 

[Zzarchov]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7661311.stm


One of the grandees of quantum science, Vienna University's Anton Zeilinger, used the occasion to argue for continued funding of fundamental science in these increasingly application-focused days.
"Real breakthroughs are not found because you want to develop some new technology, but because you are curious and want to find out how the world is," Dr Zeilinger said.
"It may not have surprised the founding fathers of quantum science that technology has advanced so that you can play with individual quantum systems, in great detail. "Maybe this would not surprise, but what could surprise them is that people are thinking and doing practical applications."


check and mate

 

[coldstream]

Are you really so short-sighted as to being unable to imagine what could be the implications of cosmological research? Maybe a little science-fiction could stimulate your imagination...

As Dexter already said in other words, science should as well be dead if it is to be considered a servant to day to day practicality. Science in its truest sense is the quest for knowledge and a better understanding of reality. The desire to understand our world is noble and I really don't see why we should stop trying to improve our knowledge.

I'm shortsighted enough to see that the 8 billion dollars being spent on CERN will produce nothing useful because it is chasing a phantom, and original particle or its residue that caused the Big Bang, something the scientists will claim casts shadows, but they would have no idea how to interpret one if they saw it. Much of the verbiage and rationale for CERN and Cosmology, which appropriates the lion's share of Physics grants these days, doles out the same amorphous, mystical phrases that you use. I heard one state that this might allow people to be transported through space, like in Star Trek. These people are besotted with science fiction and psuedo religious rapture. This doesn't meet the definition of pure science, that which deals with understanding the forces of nature through hypothesis and testable experiment, because the big bang is a religious concept, not a scientific one. It is thus immune to experiment, which is why it has become so entrenched and closed off to real science. It's no surprise that the best, brightest, the most honest and insightful young scientists today are giving wide berth to the Cosmology cult, which leaves the field to the vanity of self absorbed bureacrats. But there is a steady insurgency against the fraudulent framework that has overtaken modern Physics.

 

[Scott Free]

Broken symmetry: Answering the solace of quantum

So it comes as a bit of a shocker when physicists say the Universe is built on broken symmetry.

Creation was not a soothing, balanced event, they say. It was, essentially, a lopsided affair.

Had things been symmetrical in the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been formed, rather like the hole you dig in the ground is equal to the mound of earth that comes from the hole.

The problem is that matter and antimatter are deadly rivals.

When a matter particle collides with its opposite-charged foe, the two annihilate each other in a puff of energy. To use the image of the hole, the mound will fill the hole you have dug.

But something happened in the seething soup of primal particles in the instant after the Bang. Matter gained the upper hand over antimatter.

Thanks to this excess of matter, we have the galaxies, the stars, Earth and all the life on it. Without this mysterious victory, we wouldn't be here.

How to explain the enigma lies at the heart of work that earned two Japanese and an American the 2008 Nobel Physics Prize on Tuesday.

Their achievement, in exploring the violation of symmetry, strengthened and widened the conceptual model of fundamental particles and forces, the Nobel Prize committee said.

"Every particle of matter has an opposite number, the antimatter particle," Etienne Auge, deputy director of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics and Particle Physics (IN2P3), told AFP.

"What is strange, though, is that we are living in a world that consists almost entirely of matter."

Yoichiro Nambu of the United States earned half of the award for theories developed in the 1960s about "spontaneous symmetry breaking."


This underpins the notion that shortly as the Universe started to cool after the Big Bang, a single superforce ripped apart and formed three of the four known forces of nature today.

These are the strong force, the weak force and the electromagnetic force, which act, through messenger particles, on the bestiary of indivisible particles that make up matter.

The other two laureates, Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa of Japan, showed that in certain conditions, antimatter does not obey the same rules as matter.

Spotting the anomaly "is a bit like holding up a book and looking in a mirror, and then realising that instead of seeing reverse writing, you see proper writing," said Philip Diamond of Britain's Institute of Physics.

This symmetry break could only be explained by the presence of three families of particles known as quarks, Kobayashi and Maskawa suggested. Nearly three years later, their hunch was confirmed in experiments.

Two big things are still missing from the Standard Model, the conceptual vehicle of particle physics today.

One is an explanation as to how particles acquire mass, and the other is an explanation for the force of gravity.

The leading contender for mass is the Higgs Boson, proposed as a ubiquitous, syrupy field that interacts with other particles.

The "Higgs" is famously being hunted at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the massive particle smasher that was unveiled in Geneva last month.

As for gravity, one idea is that there is a particle called a graviton which conveys the force.

What causes gravity "poses a colossal challenge for physicists today," the Nobel committee said on Tuesday.

Source

IMHO the underlying froth of space-time itself has a different symmetry and how the universe looks to an observer, where a things place in it is, how a piece of matter behaves, indeed whether we can even know it exists, all depends on how it interacts with that symmetry and the one we can perceive. We impose a certain narrative on the universe we learnt from the Greeks of beginning, middle and end. We also tend to think of time in a linear fashion because that is how we perceive it, which is again, is an imposition. So too is the notion of an expanding universe. Any direction we look the universe will seem to go on endlessly and indeed it does, because it must, any talk of boarders beyond an event horizon implies another universe which there are but not in that way IMO. We are surrounded by other universes which we cannot see.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...the 8 billion dollars being spent on CERN will produce nothing useful because it is chasing a phantom...

Nothing like a little intellectual arrogance. You can't possibly know that. It's chasing the Higgs boson essentially, which, if it's found, will go a long way toward confirming certain things about the so-called Standard Model. If it's not found at the energies the LHC can produce, it means we understand less than we thought we did and it'll lead to some new physics. In any event, physicists are bound to see things they've never seen before, one of which may or may not be the Higgs boson; either way it's a step forward in our attempts to understand the cosmos. You sound like a bitter graduate student whose thesis proposal was rejected.