Is Particle Physics About to Crack Wide Open?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-particle-physics-about-to-crack-wide-open/ ^ | June 13, 2016 | Michele Redi

[samtheman]

If you were to move to another star 10 billion light years away, you would still be the center of your own, significantly different observable universe.

editor-surveyor, this kind of comment is so common in these discussions that the person declaring otherwise (aka, you) is the person who must provide evidence to the contrary, not the person agreeing with the cosmological framework as it exists today (aka, me).

[betty boop]

Hi TXnMA! Long time no see!!!

Sparklite2 wrote: On a related note, wouldn’t it be nice if we could append the [caucus] designation on some physics threads to forestall the pumping of Jesus and Creationism where they are not wanted?

To which you replied: Actually, as a physical scientist, I find zero conflict between science and belief in the Creator and His works -- or in His Son, as well.... Therefore, I'm perfectly comfortable discussing matters of science (cosmology, in this instance) completely independent of matters of faith.

Just some observations. Science cannot be done without faith, though not necessarily of the specifically religious type. (Take away all the religions in the world, and God is still there.) The faith of many scientists today is that one can explain universal reality completely without reference to God, divine creator, in any way. The scientific method alone suffices to explicate nature and its workings: "We don't need God."

I'm reading an interesting book -- The Theory of Nothing, by Russell K. Standish, 2006 -- that perfectly illustrates my point. This book purports to be an explication of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In it, Standish attempts to refute biblical scripture to "clear the decks" so his complete faith in the omnicompetence of science can dominate. He opens some chapters of his book with direct quotes from scripture, only to denigrate them. Two examples:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. -- John, 1:1.

To which Standish retorts,

In the beginning, there was Nothing, not even a beginning. From out of this Nothing, emerged everything we see around us today.

To me, this statement is tantamount to declaring that the universe had no cause. This is a notable departure from standard scientific practice, in which it is assumed that all existing things have causes. They don't just simply appear out of thin air, out of Nothing at all. Plus there is the question: How can something "emerge" when the alleged emergence is out of a state of Nothing? What physical principle, what law of logic can account for this?

A second example:

And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. -- Genesis 1:3-5.

To which Standish writes:

In this book we examine a truly preposterous theory, a theory that all of the reality we see around us, the animals, plants, rocks and seas that make up our planet Earth; the stars and galaxies that make up the entire visible universe; is but a speck in a truly vaster realm. A realm of parallel realities, in which you and I exist, but chance events have different outcomes, and indeed others in which you and I were never born.... I shall argue that the burden of proof is actually with the singular view of reality. For there to be a unique strand of reality with but a unique strand of history is actually less plausible than for all possible histories to exist side-by-side, and of our only being aware of the one history that we each experience.

As observers, we each of us can see only what is visible from our POV. Thus I find it odd that Standish claims to "see" multiwords which, by definition, are never direct observables for observers on our "world line."

TXnMA, I agree with your statement, "the view of our universe from this third-rate ball of mud is infinitely far from the only one" in principle. Anyhow, in the original creation event, God made everything that exists, not just our planet Earth, but the entire universe, including any multiworlds it may contain. Without a beginning, nothing comes into existence. Nothing happens without a cause. Or at least, this has been a long-held belief of physical scientists down the ages.

As to whether the universe is bounded or unbounded, it seems to stand to reason that it must be the former. An "unbounded" universe is said to be "infinite." But infinity is a mathematical concept that does not "construct well" in physics. What notion do we have in our minds that could describe infinity? We humans have absolutely zero experience of infinity. Plus the Logos -- which is eternal, not infinite, of the beginning (think of this in the Greek sense if you prefer to avoid the religious one) is a kind of specification or blueprint for all things "visible and invisible" that come into existence in time.

In short, Standish argues that our cosmology or description of the universe and its evolution is merely one "description" among an infinite number of other possible descriptions. He seems to think all are equally valid, sight unseen. One does not know on what basis he knows this. It looks like an act of faith to me. In his book, Standish proposes

...a Plenitude of all descriptions, containing at least one that is a conscious observer. At first blush this seems strange, it looks like a category error -- confusing mere description of the real thing, confusing the map with the territory. However, this is the only way of closing the ontology, otherwise there is forever something else breathing "fire into our equations" as Stephen Hawking put it. It should be treated as a working hypothesis until either it is demonstrated as clearly false, or a more detailed theory of conscious[ness] tells us how consciousness comes about....

Standish really lets the cat out of the bag in this statement. This scientist is attempting to explain the universe (including the hypothetical multiverse) using scientific means alone. God is ushered out of his reasoning altogether. But in order to do this, he has to commit what Whitehead called the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness: This fallacy precisely describes a situation where one has sacrificed any notion of actual "territory", and is raising the "map" of it to the status of truth. The map eclipses the real, which is made unreal in the process.

However, it seems clear to me that the denial of God does not eliminate God. You can deny Him all day long, but He IS, with or without your recognition of Him. And to the extent that science supposedly deals with direct observables, God does not lie within its field of competence anyway. Science is the wrong tool for understanding God. But God is implicit, behind everything science does. Unless one is prepared to believe that human consciousness and reason itself are the result of a "random" evolutionary process initiated in the Nothing at all. Which strikes me as completely nonsensical, implausible.

Well, must run for now, off to a PT appointment. But I hope to return to this fascinating subject later today.

Thanks so much for writing, dear TXnMA!

[LibWhacker]

We need a trillion more dollars to fund a whole decade of new bullshit research that has produced not a single thing for humanity in the last 50 years.

Obviously, you have never heard of George Foreman's Lean Mean Fat-Reducing Grilling Machine.

[Pelham]

“We need a trillion more dollars to fund a whole decade of new bullshit research that has produced not a single thing for humanity in the last 50 years.”

Hey!! Think of it as midnight basketball for Caltech nerds.

It keeps them off the streets and committing crimes.

[TXnMA]

Samtheman, you are "hung up on" the question of the "center" of the universe -- but, you don't have to convince me! Obviously, from my comments, we agree that there is none.

Meanwhile, I'm offline im my HTML editor, addressing (with multiple photos) that issue -- and the larger one, "Is there a bound to the universe -- and can we ever see it?

I'll (afterward) address the root cause of editor-surveyor's willful ignorance -- but, at that point, I will have to step outside science and into analyzing the realm of willful, self-imposed ignorance -- aka "dogma", which deals directly with one's personal relationship to their Creator -- and conflicts with sparklite's desired conditions in his #52...

Meanwhile, I am DARING editor-surveyor to view the video (and, confidently expecting that s/he/it is literally afraid to do so).

Nous verrons...

[MHGinTN]

Even the Bible speaks of realities outside of our sensing equipment [see Daniel Chptr Five].

[TXnMA]

"Infinity is a logical and quantitative place keeper, not a reality.

~~~

Is your version of your God not "infinite"?

And -- is S/He/It not "a reality"?

[GOPJ]

On one hand, the discovery of the Higgs boson was an enormous success, identifying the SM’s last, and arguably most important, building block. On the other, the fact that the Higgs has just the mass and all the properties everyone expected generated a widespread pessimism about new discoveries. The search for a more fundamental theory might drag on indefinitely.

LOL well, that fear has been shot down... it's gonna get interesting and fast...

[TXnMA]

In astronomical terms, "deep" simply means,"long exposure". The longer the exposure, the "deeper" the image.

The intensity of light from a light source is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. (That's why you need multiple lamps in a large room...) And, it is why light sources at a distance appear exponentially dimmer. AND, it is why long ("deep") time exposures are required to record faint and distant light sources.

(Clicking on the following images will take you to the excellent "APOD" [Astronomy Picture Of the Day] page (with professional explanation) -- links to which are provided to FReepers by Sunken Civ via his "APOD LIST"...)

In the movie, the first "deep" Hubble image, the "HDF" or "Hubble Deep Field" image was a ten (10) day exposure:

Hubble Deep Field

The "HUDF" or "Hubble Ultra Deep Field" image was an eleven (11) day exposure -- made with a much more sensitive detector and with filters that admit far more light. Among other things, it was an attempt to "reach the end of the universe" -- if there is one:

Hubble Ultra Deep Field

---

The above two images are discussed in the video -- But, they were not the last attempt to "look for the end of the Universe"!!

Here is the "HXDF" or Hubble EXTREME Deep Field" image :

The Hubble EXTREME Deep Field

The HXDF was compiled over ten years of observations - and includes data from HUDF plus the Hubble INFRARED Deep Field (which I won't bother to post here...)

BTW, there are only two (2) (local galaxy) STARS in that image. Every other object is an entire, multi-billion-star GALAXY!

BOTTOM LINE: Astronomers (limited by information transport at the rate of C -- and the Inverse Square law) have made repeated, extensive, intensive and seriously expensive attempts "to see the end of the universe" AND -- IT IS NOT TO BE SEEN.

---

OK, editor-surveyor -- Your turn:
Prove a negative!

(Use evidence -- not dogma...)

[TXnMA]

Thank you for "playing straight person) for me! As you very well know, my faith is at the very foundation of everything I do. That doesn't mean that (unlike many religious believers) I cannot discuss the evidence and facts of science without "falling back on religious explanations". That's what I've been doing on this thread -- so far...

Just because I accept the trusted "laws of science" to be "design functions of God our Creator" doesn't mean that I cannot (or should not) be able to apply them just effectively as any of my scientific colleagues.

Of course, I find my experience of exploring the wonders of God's creation (using the toosl of my science) to be far more rewarding -- than if I had merely "done science", alone.

Upon a new discovery or insight, the scientist in me shouts, "AHA!!. And the Believer in me shouts, AHA!!! Praise GOD!!!!"

~~~~~~~~~~~

As an aside, my "A Scientist looks at Genesis" presentation/movie is on hold for now, because my graphics creation/presentation software won't run on my new machine/OS. Literally this week, there is supposed to be a new version of the software out -- but my expectations are not high,,, '-(

It's great to "see" you again, Dear Sister! May you be richly blessed!

[editor-surveyor]

All you have produced is some photos.

Nothing!

As expected.

There is nothing to produce; there is no basis for assertion of an unbounded universe. Infinity is an imaginary concept, not to be observed nor anticipated in reality.

[samtheman]

Samtheman, you are “hung up on” the question of the “center” of the universe — but, you don’t have to convince me! Obviously, from my comments, we agree that there is none.

---

Yes, you and I agree on this. I know that.

I was addressing editor and copying you.

But you seem angry. Are you angry?

[TXnMA]

Have you watched the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg?

Until you can confirm to us that you have done so, don't flaunt your willfully-maintained ignorance with your "just photos" silliness...

And, I ask again, re your stand on "infinity": " Infinity is an imaginary concept, not to be observed nor anticipated in reality."

Is your version of your God not "infinite"?

And -- is S/He/It not "a reality"?

[TXnMA]

"Angry"? Nope, just concentrating on making the case for a universe whose bounds (if any) are forever beyond the reach of photon-limited information acquisition.

BUT, I was anticipating an empty non-answer as in #91...

[samtheman]

“Angry”? Nope, just concentrating on making the case for a universe whose bounds (if any) are forever beyond the reach of photon-limited information acquisition.

---

I agree with you on either unbounded or bounded-forever-beyond-reach, but I also have to agree with editor-surveyor in that neither you nor I, in this short discussion here, has “made the case” for anything.

We are just saying what we think. I happen to agree with you and disagree with editor-surveyor, but I don’t imagine that I’m “making the case”.

This isn’t the venue for “making the case”.

I respect editor-surveyor’s point of view on this question, I just don’t agree with it.

[editor-surveyor]

Tex, please back off of the false pedantry.

You’re not presenting empirically developed theory, the copernican thing is emotional opinion, and nothing more.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> Is your version of your God not “infinite”?

And — is S/He/It not “a reality”? <<
.

Would I be correct in guessing that you know well where the following words are found and that there would be little reason for stating chapters or verses?

“...in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”

“...from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.”

Do they sound like anything that need be "infinite?"

The word of Yehova is a work of great purpose, precision, and specificity.

[bigtoona]

LOL, I bet there are some particle physics in the Ronco bald spot spray too!

[TXnMA]

I see -- and appreciate -- your "please"! It is my hope that we can convert this from a confrontation into a sharing between believers in fellowship!

However, I will not hijack this thread further into discussion of religion. Please give me a bit of time to figure out how and where to best continue our discussion -- in grace -- elsewhere.

Meanwhile, for study and consideration, I leave you with a verse directly following your citation:

II Peter 3:13: "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness."

[TXnMA]

Apologies! Been addressing things to the wrong “Sparklite”...