The End of Time

John,

I don't know where you got your idea of what science is, but the model -- that is, the correspondence between theory and result -- is what we objectively know of phenomena under investigation. Where the model fails, our objective knowledge fails.

You've got it exactly backwards. Belief in reality outside the objective model is religion (or philosophy), not science. Science is an entirely rationalist enterprise, and belief plays no role.

Tom

Tom,

How can the model ever fail when every time there is a lack of correspondence between theory and observation, a new patch gets added; Inflation, dark energy, multiverses, multiworlds, etc.

One of the advantages of fantastical belief systems, Virgin birth, miracles, etc, is that it separates the true believers from the uninitiated. Either one accepts the model in whole, or one is excluded from the community.

Consider this article:

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/9/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale

The final page:

Where Do We Stand Today?

Big Bang cosmology is not a single theory; rather, it is five separate theories constructed on top of one another. The ground floor is a theory, historically but not fundamentally rooted in general relativity, to explain the redshifts--this is Expansion, which happily also accounts for the cosmic background radiation. The second floor is Inflation--needed to solve the horizon and "flatness" problems of the Big Bang. The third floor is the Dark Matter hypothesis required to explain the existence of contemporary visible structures, such as galaxies and clusters, which otherwise would never condense within the expanding fireball. The fourth floor is some kind of description for the "seeds" from which such structure is to grow. And the fifth and topmost floor is the mysterious Dark Energy, needed to allow for the recent acceleration of cosmic expansion indicated by the supernova observations. Thus Dark Energy could crumble, leaving the rest of the building intact. But if the Expansion floor collapsed, the entire edifice above it would come crashing down. Expansion is a moderately well-supported hypothesis, consistent with the cosmic background radiation, with the helium abundance and with the ages inferred for the oldest stars and star clusters in our neighborhood. However, finding more direct evidence for Expansion must be of paramount importance.

In the 1930s, Richard Tolman proposed such a test, really good data for which are only now becoming available. Tolman calculated that the surface brightness (the apparent brightness per unit area) of receding galaxies should fall off in a particularly dramatic way with redshift--indeed, so dramatically that those of us building the first cameras for the Hubble Space Telescope in the 1980s were told by cosmologists not to worry about distant galaxies, because we simply wouldn't see them. Imagine our surprise therefore when every deep Hubble image turned out to have hundreds of apparently distant galaxies scattered all over it (as seen in the first image in this piece). Contemporary cosmologists mutter about "galaxy evolution," but the omens do not necessarily look good for the Tolman test of Expansion at high redshift.

In its original form, an expanding Einstein model had an attractive, economic elegance. Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems; overwhelming amounts of dark matter to provide internal structure; and dark energy, whatever that might be, to explain the seemingly recent acceleration. A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations.

The historian of science Daniel Boorstin once remarked: "The great obstacle to discovering the shape of the Earth, the continents and the oceans was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments and contradictory witnesses." Acceptance of the current myth, if myth it is, could likewise hold up progress in cosmology for generations to come."

It is interesting that there is no mention in any mainstream text of the problem with Tolman's test. Yet it would seem to be a rather significant theoretical miss. Was it simply swept under the rug, because no one came up with a marginally acceptable patch? How does this qualify as good science and not just another form of conceptual absolutism?

"Hasn't anyone studied the history of theory evolution enough to realize that when the extrapolations get ever more bizarre, it's time to review the assumptions. One more patch on an outdated program doesn't cure the cause of the confusion, only some of the symptoms."

Very well put. There are two ways to do physics. Assume a theory to be essentially right and make provisions or corrections to account for inconsistencies between its predictions and observations, or reexamine the axioms of said theory to find the root of the problems. I chose the latter for my own work.

DLB,

The irony here is that physics considers itself to be the leading edge of intellectual progress. In which case, it should consider every premise open to reconsideration in light of further observation. Instead, it exhibits characteristics of an entrenched bureaucracy, in which defense of the central canon is paramount.

Truth be told, physicists are human.

DLB,

Many here choose to reexamine the axioms. This seems even more necessary when the two major models, general relativity and quantum mechanics have incompatible axioms. Clearly something new is needed, rather than slavish devotion to models that work fairly well in their areas of application, but not at all in other areas.

John,

You are correct to say:

"We obviously need models to work from, but we still need to recognize they are models. You get lost in the territory without a good map, but you still recognize it as a map. If the map and the territory start to diverge [an anomaly], it is frankly delusional to say it is the territory which is wrong."

The response was: we have no "Theory of anomalies" so can say nothing about them.

You hit the nail on the head with: "...the model is the enunciation of our knowledge, but science is about pushing, testing and expanding knowledge and thus the model. If it's all about the model and not what is being modeled, then it's religion, not science."

Belief in a model as the only 'reality' *is* religion. It is a religion of maps, ignorant of real territory. The nature of religion is possession of truth, and any disagreement with the possessor is labeled 'personal opinion'. As you quote, "belief systems ... separate the true believers from the uninitiated. Either one accepts the model in whole, or one is excluded from the community."

Personally I believe that what is being demonstrated is the difference between mathematicians and physicists. In math the model is everything, in physics the model is merely a map.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

The problem seems to be that models can be manipulated by omission, in ways which reality doesn't allow, because models are by definition reductionistic, but reality is not.

Dear All,

The winning essay of this contest concludes that nature is digital (discrete).

And now, I wonder following;

Isnt the photon the Nature most elementary particle, and the Light its Gravitational interaction?

Hasnt the nature same fundamentals?. Particles?

I have tried to explore a broad area in physical science in different aspect and compare to existing known scientific theories. There are no remarkable contradictions with accepted theories (except the term of mass-less Particle). I have tried to interpret a better Unified theory.

Gravity is the basic interaction (force).

Photon is the ultimate elementary particle that every thing is made of.

Sphere/cal shape is dominating shape of the Nature.

In my opinion toward particle theory in both astrophysical and subatomic particles including even the Dark matter (WIMPs and MACHOs), are based on the quantum (quantity) of the most elementary particles.

The characteristics of the Natures Elementary charge is significant in the charged subatomic particles , such as Proton, Electrons, while it is trivial in the other Neutral particles, such as Neutron, Neutrino, and Neutron star, this phenomena is seemingly based on quantum of what may called ultimate elementary particles.

It is about ODD and EVEN numbers. Our conclusion of particle system hierarchy is that there are two main categories due to quantity of Photons.

For more explanation see my essay;

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/794

So far, I noticed many confirmations with this simple Idea, but more complex and advanced explanations (partial view), while loosing the main picture.

I dont really understand why most people try most complex and abstract way to explain a simple question/s.

Nevertheless our physical reality has a limit that depends on validity of unit measurements (Mass, Space and Time). How far these three (minimum requirement) most fundamental unit are valid we may discuss the reality, other wise not.

If my interpretation is wrong I could suspect the information I received (current Physics).

I dont feel funny repeating the terms of I, My, the same time we trying some universal things and the other hand cant be happy seeing the people ignoring what I think to be more important truth without any satisfactory answer.

Collective thinking is very important for tracing the reality. Therefore I think that the best way is to gather all new real things in all essays and to integrate in a overall and more profound edition to ensure that we don%u2019t miss any truth. The Reality is more worth than what we can pay for it, In other words we should not only think about prize and who wins but also think what is there.

I also believe that there is enough information regarding the question toward physical reality but our view (imagination) is important to compile (integrate our information). Our decision is based on discrete information (data) that we integrate.

Here are some of my favorite quotes from Richard P. Feynman;

"I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something."

"Well, Mr. Frankel, who started this program, began to suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you *play* with them. They are so wonderful. You have these switches - if it's an even number you do this, if it's an odd number you do that - and pretty soon you can do more and more elaborate things if you are clever enough, on one machine"

Best wishes

Bashir

DLB,

"... find the root of the problems. I chose the latter for my own work."

What truly foundational questions do you deal with? Are you aware of NPA?

Eckard

There is an intereting article from Nature(adress below)

Physics of life: The dawn of quantum biology

"The key to practical quantum computing and high-efficiency solar cells may lie in the messy green world outside the physics lab" Philip Ball

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110615/full/474272a.html

Dear Tom,

I have just downloaded your preprint "time Barrier", It seems thoughtful, although I am still reading it.

I also think that it relates to may essay, and would like that you check it, since I think you may probably understand the most.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/794

Best wishes,

Bashir

Dear John, dear physicists,

I am a bit disappointed because I cannot see how the discussion relates to the article. Also, I did not get responses to my direct questions e.g. to DLB, RLO and concerning Hubble.

In principle, I share your critical view. What about particles and waves, I would like like to know from physicists to what extent my naive engineer's wave view needs corrections.

May I translate spin-up and spin-down into the two opposed to each other polarization or circular polarization with left and right chirality? If so then how.

Doesn't a field similar to the the transversal field of a dipole antenna extend symmetrical or anti-symmetrical to the left and the right half-sphere? May I imagine these two halves entangled? May I consider PET based on such pairs?

Couldn't I conclude from such coherence that decoherence is a phenomenon that cannot be ascribed to the single pair of particles but to interaction with its surrounding molecules?

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

I'm not the best qualified to answer. I do think the conceptual structure will have to change though. I think the idea of coherence vs. decoherence might also be considered in terms of linearity, vs non-linearity. Linearity is energy in the sense that lines of force/coherence line up, while decoherence is mass, where they all lock up and stabilize.

Hello dear friends.

John, you see he doesn't change, "Science is an entirely rationalist enterprise" you are surprising Tom, but don't change ,Lol he rebegins Tom, John you see he rebegins :)

re :)

Friendly

Steve and SPHERICALLY YOURS OF COURSE

Hi all,

Dear Eckard, Happy to see your posts. I speak a little on APS linkedin, there are several interstings articles. With a person I discussed about the climat. Could you come on Aps please or could you say me why the simulations utilize a system incompressible as liquid and the mathematical serie is correlated at this incompressiblility. It's not possible in this line of reasoning to simulate correctly the chaotics parameters. I have some ideas but that seems so difficult and complexs for the encoding of mass and then the encoding of all rotations.But in logic we can predict but we are youngs also at the universal scale,I said on APS it's for the future.

"May I translate spin-up and spin-down into the two opposed to each other polarization or circular polarization with left and right chirality? If so then how." SPINING SPHERES ALWAYS dear Eckard lol

It could be cool if you come on APS linkedin also.

Regards

Steve

Dear John, Eckard, and Steve

A photon is a particle elementary of the Nature. The Photon is the lightest/smallest particle type, which every thing (whole universe matter) is made of. And the Light is its effect (gravitational force interaction).

Terminology confusion;

The term "Atom" which we still use, had meaning of the Natures fundamental particle as the word origin was 'indivisible" and latter became divisible for several time and still seems to be

The term of "elementary particles", is still in a situation of undetermined stage, which may give bit confusing meanings.

I have been facing problem with terms, and realized that, we should be always aware with the change of term, time to time and its usage in different fields (even the native one).

What I means is that from the beginning (just after Big Bang moment) there was only extremely large number free photons (elementary particles) latter they clustered into bigger spheres due to gravitational force, and these resulted bigger spheres clustered also into bigger spheres and .... The phenomenon of the Gravitational force at this chain of clusters seems now to be scalar. In other words photons Gravitational force (influence) is what we know as Light and it is the smallest scale of the G force, and its also a mirror image the effect that a photon may have

There is something like "kissing spheres" at initial moment of each spherical clustering. One may also think that this spherical Lattice-like may be two forms, namely "Body Centered" (BC) and "Face Centered" (FC) due the quantity of sphere kissing initial moment. Note that some numerical characteristics here such us Odd and Even numbers of spheres, Charged and Neutral because of number of clustered photons.

The elementary particle is that which responses the elementary charge and that is the photon. Since Light is (Gravitational) wave the photons/particle can interact by influencing. In general the overall particles interactions in both statically and dynamically creates complex systems

I think the best way to get a good insight is to ask; What combinations/sequence are possible if one throw large number spherical and homogeneous balls that have attracting force at empty free space?.

Eckard

the attachment is some previous question I have tried. I think there is something relevant to your question think your question under the title "charge and the Nature of Gravity" If not, we will take a closer look and descuss.

best wishes

BashirAttachment #1: 1_Bashir_Quantum_Mech_and_Relativity_Theory.pdf

Steve,

Tom does have a tendency to reset, but at least he is willing to walk up to the edge. He may not want to take off the blinkers, but he does have heart.

Lol I am laughing of course, I like them you know, Lawrence, Tom and Ray even if I don't agree with some of their conclusions. I recognize that they are simply skillings and that they like sciences and that they like what they do simply,I respect that, I am just a little baby sometimes :)

Surprising this platform, surprising.

Steve

John,

Regarding the question particle and the duality, there also an ariticle that is realated this case,(attached file) and entitled;

"Einstein's Hidden Variables: Part A - The Elementary Quantum of Light and Quantum Chemistry" J. Brooks

In page 3 the following statement;

E = hv where Planck's proportionality constant "h" is equal to 6.626 X 10-34 J sec. This fundamental formula is the foundational basis for all of quantum theory. Interestingly, Planck simply assumed this formula and did not derive or prove it. His arbitrary quantum formula yielded a proportionality constant ("h") equal to the product of energy and time, which Planck referred to as the ultimate "quantum of action".

."I see no reason why energy shouldn't also be regarded as divided atomically." L. Boltzmann, 1891,

"it is quite conceivable...that the [wave] theory of light...leads to contradictions when applied to the phenomena of emission and transformation of light". He proposed that the interactions of light and matter "appear more readily understood if one assumes that the energy of light is discontinuously distributed in space [in particles]". Albert Einstein.

In page 4...

In 1922, Louis-Victor de Broglie proposed that light waves possess momentum (just like particles), and that particles are "waves" with measurable wavelengths.

What I wonder is the conceptual meaning of which De Broglie proposed, in Physical Reality, How particles can be Wave? could one explain such terminology,in a better form?

Best wishes

Bashir

John,

Here is the attachment.

Have a fun,

Bashir