The world will end in 2060, according to Sir Isaac Newton

[gc]

gc

The notion of "going back in time"....how does one do that? If we entertain the idea that H.G. Wells and many others have explored...that we can squirt ourselves ...our consciousness back through time... doesn't that notion presume that we would have some sense of pre-time? If indeed the radioactive decay or other methods used for dating substances is more than (or could be more than) a window into the past...does that mean that "time" isn't actually a human construct...a concept that marks the passages of "things" from one state condition to a different state condition....

I don't think actually going back in time is possible, but that doesn't matter in my thought experiment. We can still imagine going back in time to the year "negative infinity", and then my thought experiment works. I could have said to you back in the year negative infinity that I will post this message in infinity years (which would be today). But as I mentioned before, if I said it would happen in infinity years it would never happen (ie I would never be able to post this message). Yet, here I am posting it.

I know my explanation isn't the greatest...

If "time" isn't a notional construct developed by humankind...and thus relative to the "now"...and we find some way of moving backward through it....would you expect that at some "point in time" you'd be limited by a wall of ..."non-time"? That we wouldn't be able to penetrate that barrier?

Yes, and that point is the beginning of the Universe, which would also be the beginning of time. If you want an easy way to think of how the beginning of time must have also been the beginning of the Universe, ask yourself all the different ways you could possibly measure time. Then ask yourself how you would measure time if there were no Universe.

 

[gc]

String theory seems to be suggesting that there isn't one universe, there's at least 10^500 of them in a much larger multiverse, as he calls it, they pop into existence as random quantum fluctuations all over the place, the laws of physics vary among them and we just happen to be in one that's appropriately set up for life like us to appear. That's a pretty lame summary of a 400-page book, but it is the gist of it. Looks like the Buddhists might have it right, at least in principle... ;-)

This is probably a matter of semantics, but by definition, each of those 10^500 Universes would actually only be small components of one Universe (as opposed to a multiverse).

This is using this definition of Universe: "[SIZE=-1]everything that exists anywhere"[/SIZE]

Either way, I don't think those "Universes" could have been popping in and out of space forever. Unless there was a "beginning" to these quantum fluctuations, I'm inclined to believe this would violate my earlier paradox.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Well, I told you it was a lame summary I gave... The argument's a little more subtle than that. What we're accustomed to thinking of as the universe, which is everything that we in principle will ever be able to detect, is really just a pocket universe in a much larger agglomeration. It's a different version of the parallel universes idea. You'd have to read the book to really get it in detail, but the essence of it is that the equations of string theory, insofar as they've been developed to this point, admit of some 10^500 solutions, and possibly more, and all the possible universes they define exist as subsets of what mathematicians call a manifold. The math is way beyond my fossilized old brain, though there was a time in my youth when I could deal with the equations of General Relativity. This is a young person's game. We're not getting the single solution the physicists have been searching for as the so-called Unified Field Theory or Grand Unified Theory for over a century, we're getting equations with multiple solutions and no reason to think any of them aren't physically realizable.

 

[gc]

Well, I told you it was a lame summary I gave... The argument's a little more subtle than that. What we're accustomed to thinking of as the universe, which is everything that we in principle will ever be able to detect, is really just a pocket universe in a much larger agglomeration. It's a different version of the parallel universes idea. You'd have to read the book to really get it in detail, but the essence of it is that the equations of string theory, insofar as they've been developed to this point, admit of some 10^500 solutions, and possibly more, and all the possible universes they define exist as subsets of what mathematicians call a manifold. The math is way beyond my fossilized old brain, though there was a time in my youth when I could deal with the equations of General Relativity. This is a young person's game. We're not getting the single solution the physicists have been searching for as the so-called Unified Field Theory or Grand Unified Theory for over a century, we're getting equations with multiple solutions and no reason to think any of them aren't physically realizable.

Interesting. I'll definately have to give that a read. Incidentally, I've been looking for books about cosmology, relativity etc. that are for someone between a layman and an expert...an "intermediate's guide to the Universe" so to speak. Sounds like that book might be just what I'm looking for.

I'm not sure that there could ever be parallel Universes. Presumably, each of these Universes contain light and/or matter. And, I could argue that the total volue of all these "Universes" is less than infinity, and thus the distance from one Universe to another is less than infinity. So, that would mean that light (and therefore information) could, in principle, travel from one Universe to another. But chances are I am interpreting this concept of multiple Universes all wrong and I"m way off. I'll have to read this book and get back to you before I can really debate this intelligently ;-)

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Always happy to promote science and reason. ;-)

Some other things that might interest you:

Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos
David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality
Robert Oerter, The Theory of Almost Everything
Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality and Faster Than Light
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time
John Barrow and Joseph Silk, The Left Hand of Creation

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... you read or see the movie "What the Bleep do we know"?

Yes. Not recommended. It grotesquely misrepresents quantum theory in support of New Age mystic nonsense. Its premise is that quantum theory proves that a conscious observer is required to create reality, and concludes that we create reality with our thoughts. Quantum theory says no such thing, and the film is crap from beginning to end.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Yes. Not recommended. It grotesquely misrepresents quantum theory in support of New Age mystic nonsense. Its premise is that quantum theory proves that a conscious observer is required to create reality, and concludes that we create reality with our thoughts. Quantum theory says no such thing, and the film is crap from beginning to end.

Ya think :roll:

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Dex, I think what they were trying to prove was that we can effect our reality and in fact do effect our reality .
The Quantum field has brought to light that matter is more like thought than hard particle science we were brought up on.
I can see where one can focus on the new age mystic aspect of the movie but actually I never really got that from it.
You do realize Quantum physics is still theory, in fact everything we base our science on is almost all theory. Which doesn't mean that there is no quantum field , just debate goes on.

Just curious, what did you think about the water based expierements where projected emotion onto a jar of water , was frozen and the water crystals compared to other jars of the same water with different emotion projected unto them....In each case the water crystals looked differant to the other jars of the same water , with only projected emotion as a control.

 

[gc]

Always happy to promote science and reason. ;-)

Some other things that might interest you:

Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos
David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality
Robert Oerter, The Theory of Almost Everything
Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality and Faster Than Light
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time
John Barrow and Joseph Silk, The Left Hand of Creation

I've read "a brief history of time" several times, as well as the universe in a nutshell and several others. The left hand of creation was one I was interested in, but I can't seem to find it at the library as it always seems to be checked out. I'll look into the others. Like I said, I'm looking for something a little more advanced than a brief history of time, something with some equations in it. My math is a bit rusty, but I used to be pretty good at it ;-)

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You do realize Quantum physics is still theory,...

Yes, but that doesn't mean what you're implying it means. A theory in the scientific sense is not just random hypothesizing and idle speculation, it's a well-tested body of ideas, data, analyses, and successful predictions that serve to accurately describe and explain a range of phenomena. Quantum theory is one of the three best attested, most accurate, widest-ranging theories we have. (The other two are general relativity and evolution.) And it works in real life too: every electronic device in your life works because of quantum theory's understanding of how things are. Many components depend on quantum effects in operation, like tunnel diodes and field-effect transistors.

Just curious, what did you think about the water based expierements ...

You mean the guy who taped words to jars of water then froze them, and claimed ugly words produced ugly ice crystals and nice words produced nice ones? Invalidated by bad experimental design. He knew the words used in every case, and looked for crystals that matched them. It's called confirmation bias, and it means the test is completely uncontrolled. If that test were done double blind, I'd predict his results would be null.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... I'm looking for something a little more advanced than a brief history of time, something with some equations in it. My math is a bit rusty, but I used to be pretty good at it ;-)

Ah, then maybe you want Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality. It's not the kind of thing you're likely to find in a library though, except a specialized one like the Physics Dept. library at your nearest university. it's a big, fat (1094 pages), expensive ($85 in hardcover) book subtitled, "A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe."

 

[#juan]

"A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe." with a 1094 pages would end up being a door stop at my house..... On the other hand, it would take a cosmic accident for it to arrive at my house in the first place.

 

[gc]

Ah, then maybe you want Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality. It's not the kind of thing you're likely to find in a library though, except a specialized one like the Physics Dept. library at your nearest university. it's a big, fat (1094 pages), expensive ($85 in hardcover) book subtitled, "A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe."

Thanks! Turns out the library at my University has it (although it's checked out at the moment). Now, if only I can find time to read 1094 pages :lol:

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Yes, but that doesn't mean what you're implying it means. A theory in the scientific sense is not just random hypothesizing and idle speculation, it's a well-tested body of ideas, data, analyses, and successful predictions that serve to accurately describe and explain a range of phenomena. Quantum theory is one of the three best attested, most accurate, widest-ranging theories we have. (The other two are general relativity and evolution.) And it works in real life too: every electronic device in your life works because of quantum theory's understanding of how things are. Many components depend on quantum effects in operation, like tunnel diodes and field-effect transistors.

You mean the guy who taped words to jars of water then froze them, and claimed ugly words produced ugly ice crystals and nice words produced nice ones? Invalidated by bad experimental design. He knew the words used in every case, and looked for crystals that matched them. It's called confirmation bias, and it means the test is completely uncontrolled. If that test were done double blind, I'd predict his results would be null.

1st paragraph:

what am i implying it means dex?

Uh ya ... dexter but i don't find where you get to say this cause of what i posted or the movie and book for that matter. Are you upset for they are playing with the idea that our neural nets are in fact connected to the quantum field. And we keep expierencing same life situations for our nerual nets bring this about. Change your nerual net , or program it in another way to see different effects...Is this what has you upset.

quantum theory wasn't even near a thought process when Edison and others first started to invent electrical devices...Now your telling me that it is because of the quantum field that they work...cool ...i'm not up on that but hey to the Quantum physist every aspect of our existance is a playing field to explain and prove the theory...

2nd paragraph:
He only taped the words to the jars , useing chinnese characters, to identify what each contained.
That being : a) all the same water source in each jar.
b) a jar that had been placed in a room with a person who was told to focus on a certain emotion. then try to generate that emotion in front of the jar of water
His theroy was that human emotion effected our enviroment. So various jars were subjected to a human being faceing it and concentrating on a particular emotion.
Each jar of water was frozen and a picutre was taken of the ice crystals from each jar.
He noticed that each jar that a different emotion had been subjected to had a different ice structure.Same water, different emotion, different ice crystal structure
He further speculated that humans, being mostly water, could be effected on not so subtle levels from others emotion, just by being in the proximity of.

Maybe a second viewing you might see something you missed dex.

 

[Toro]

Always happy to promote science and reason. ;-)

Some other things that might interest you:

Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos
David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality
Robert Oerter, The Theory of Almost Everything
Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality and Faster Than Light
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time
John Barrow and Joseph Silk, The Left Hand of Creation

Oh, pffft!

You don't need this crap.

All you need is Fox News, and everything will be fine!

 

[Pangloss]

Dex:

Great reading list, and I agree with all you've written on this subject - but for one quibble. Can we please call it the string conjecture? Theory is far too grand for a so far untestable idea; yes the math is great, but all the predictions are a posteriori (sp?). As far as my reading goes, I have yet to find one prediction in the string field that was tested and proven either true or false.

Mind you, just the idea that string stuff is true gives me a major case of the heebie-jeebies. Cool stuff.

Just not much more than a really well fleshed out conjecture.

Pangloss

 

[Pangloss]

Just to jump in:

Quantum theory has been tested over and over again. I don't know of a single substantial prediction it has made that has not borne fruit.

Perhaps just below evolution in terms of support from empirical evidence.

Quantum, evolution - now those are theories.

Pangloss

 

[Deafening Silence]

Dex:

Great reading list, and I agree with all you've written on this subject - but for one quibble. Can we please call it the string conjecture? Theory is far too grand for a so far untestable idea; yes the math is great, but all the predictions are a posteriori (sp?). As far as my reading goes, I have yet to find one prediction in the string field that was tested and proven either true or false.

Mind you, just the idea that string stuff is true gives me a major case of the heebie-jeebies. Cool stuff.

Just not much more than a really well fleshed out conjecture.

Pangloss

I google the internet and find that Universities such as Oxford, Stanford, Harvard, etc. call it "String Theory" are you really smarter than these academics? Or are you just more arrogant? Why should we change the language for you? Please tell me...

 

[Pangloss]

Deafening:

The Queen could call a bag of marbles a peanut butter sandwich; it would still not nourish you and you'd look pretty silly with a mouthful of broken teeth.

No less a mind than Brian Greene (whom I greatly admire) calls it a theory. You are totally correct - a great many folks (perhaps the majority) call it a theory. They are all incorrect.

The mistake here is one of classification; the mistake you make is using an appeal to authority to buttress your argument.

We would not be changing language for me; we would use correct scientific nomenclature for our ideas.

Yes this does matter; especially in the sciences, we must call things what they are or the words used to describe them lose their meaning. Then science loses its meaning, and knowledge is lost.

Any of the other posters here that actually work as researchers (I suspect there are a few), could better explain the dangers of classification errors. I am merely a stagehand.

I trust this was a complete and comprehensible explanation for you, Deafening.

I live but to serve.

Pangloss

 

[gc]

I tried googling the definition of "theory" and this is what came up:

[SIZE=-1]1. "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world"

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]2. "hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena"

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]3. "A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven"

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]4. "a general principle that explains or predicts facts or events"

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]5. "a statement or set of statements used to explain a phenomena. A theory is generally accepted as valid due to having survived repeated testing"

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]6. "A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world"

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]7. "An extremely well-substantiated explanation of some aspects of the natural world that incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses"

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]8. "is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]9. "a step in the scientific method in which a statement is generated on the basis of highly confirmed hypotheses and is used to generalize about conditions not yet tested"

and quite a few others...

From my very, very limited knowledge (and I could be wrong on this) of string theory, it would appear that calling it a theory would fit with defintions 1, 2, 4, (and perhaps 8 ). But it doesn't seem to fit with 3, 5, 6, 7 or 9. (at least from my very limited knowledge, as far as I know string theory does not make any "new" predictions that have been verified...but again I could be wrong on that). So, it would appear that you are both correct to some degree. So please, can we not argue about something as silly as the meaning of a word?
[/SIZE]