The End of Time

John,

Have you considered that what you believe and what science has actually discovered are quite at odds, when you reference nothing outside your own skull?

Tom

Tom,

I'm not an academic, so I have to reference a reality outside the collective skull everyday. For me, even math is emergent, not platonic.

Science frequently discovers evidence not covered by theory. It is what you refer to as "anomalies."

Tom,

One more anomaly:

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/110629_quasar.htm

June 29, 2011

World Science staff

Astronomers have found a mammoth object that smashes records for distance and brightness and could shed light on a never-seen early stage of cosmic history. But it also deepens a conundrum.

Current physical theories don't account for such huge objects appearing as early in the history of the universe as this one is. The time of its appearance can be estimated by its distance.

"This gives astronomers a head足ache," said Daniel Mortlock of Imperial College London, one of the discoverers and lead author of a paper report ing the find in the June 30 issue of the research journal Na足ture.

"It's difficult to understand," he ex足plained, how some thing "a billion times more massive than the Sun can have grown so early in the his足tory of the universe. It's like rolling a snowball down the hill and sud足denly you find that it's 20 feet across."

This isn't the first time that prob足lem has come up; astronomers have been working on theories to address it. But the new object, the brightest known by far so early in the history of the universe, is per足haps the most dramatic example of the problem.

"Science frequently discovers evidence not covered by theory. It is what you refer to as 'anomalies.'"

If it weren't for the theory, one wouldn't even have a word for 'anomaly.' Assign more reality to the anomaly than to the theory, and one ends up with belief -- not science. Better to study and understand the theory first, and then deal with the anomaly.

Tom

John you are very likely correct when you state, "when the extrapolations get ever more bizarre, it's time to review the assumptions."

The statement: "Assign more reality to the anomaly than to the theory, and one ends up with belief" is nonsense. And the advice, "Better to study and understand the theory first, and then deal with the anomaly" is simply a put-down. If one can read English, as you clearly can, then one can reference the anomalies that are recognized by "experts" in the field. These experts certainly understand the theories and are unambiguous in their recognition of the existence of anomalies--physical facts that do not fit the theory.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

It isn't a putdown. It's the way science works. There is no such thing as a "theory of anomalies" -- and if there were, it would be unfalsifiable in principle. Not distinguishable from any other personal belief.

Everything we objectively know, we know only by correspondence to what is in a theory, not what isn't.

Tom

Tom,

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, it is frankly delusional to say it is the territory which is wrong.

Think in terms of paradigm shift: The paradigm is the theory. Occasionally what we assume to be foundational turns out to be subjective interpretation and our horizons expand a little further, as we start to create an expanded and updated map.

A paradigm is not a theory. A model is all the "reality" that science can describe, and what is captured by the model is all the reality that we objectively know. What one merely assumes or believes to be "reality" has nothing to do with science.

Tom

Tom,

Yes, 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.

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