Crisis At The Edge of Physics

[Dryson]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/o...f-physics.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

This is a very good article to read. One part of the article that caught my attention is this:

I"f a theory successfully explains what we can detect but does so by positing entities that we can’t detect (like other universes or the hyperdimensional superstrings of string theory) then what is the status of these posited entities? Should we consider them as real as the verified particles of the standard model? How are scientific claims about them any different from any other untestable — but useful — explanations of reality?"

Before Alchemy came along and began to discover the various traits of the chemical nature of the environment no one really know for certain how why things happened. All they knew is that when fire was added to certain objects the object would catch on fire when other objects did not catch on fire.

The same is true with physics. Before physicists understood how the apple fell from the tree they attributed the act to the unseen hand of a God playing a joke on the person or some other reason that was taken as truth based on superstitions.

Physics has come to a wall again because Einstein's theories all revolve around a Universe that exists where gravity was created after the Bi Bang occurred and is produced by suns, planets, black holes and other celestial bodies.

How do you explain the Universe before the Big Bang occurred when the celestial bodies that created the gravity Einstein based his theories on did not even exist?

You can't say that the Big Bang never occurred either, you can based on your own mouth breathing of saying that you can say what ever you want but are you correct?

If the Big Bang never occurred then why does everything in the Universe have a measurable age?

So what type of gravity would have been present prior to the Big Bang?

Here is a short video I made - I call it the Universe In A Bottle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mBfiyt5Wxw&feature=youtu.be

 

[sojourner]

Why do you keep insisting that gravity existed before the universe and if it didn't it proves the big bang never occurred?

 

[USS Triumphant]

"If a theory successfully explains what we can detect but does so by positing entities that we can’t detect (like other universes or the hyperdimensional superstrings of string theory) then what is the status of these posited entities? Should we consider them as real as the verified particles of the standard model?"

Whether or not to address something - anything - as real or not depends on what mode you're operating in.

In the ethical mode, you should ALWAYS treat anything you're uncertain of the reality of as real because if you treat something badly that turns out to be real, then you've been morally wrong, but if you treat something well that turns out to not be real, then at worst you've been silly.

In the mathematical mode, though - which is more closely related to what I believe you're asking - you should treat such mathematical models as models ONLY until you have verification of their reality beyond math, because to do otherwise is to create an improper resistance to throwing out that model in favor of another that may fit just as well or better.

 

[scotthm]

So what type of gravity would have been present prior to the Big Bang?

Non-Einsteinian gravity.

---------------

 

[Robert Maxwell]

In terms of explaining how the universe works now, why does it matter how physics worked before the Big Bang?

It would certainly be interesting to know, but "things worked differently before the universe existed" hardly means "the way we think the universe works now is wrong," which seems to be what you're always driving at.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

In "A Brief History of Time," Stephen Hawking essentially proposed that things didn't work differently before the Big Bang, by postulating that the Big Bang is not a singularity. Understanding the Big Bang will no doubt increase our understanding of the here and now, but a comparison to alchemy in a BBS science forum isn't likely to get us anywhere in that respect in our lifetimes.

 

[Dryson]

"If a theory successfully explains what we can detect but does so by positing entities that we can’t detect (like other universes or the hyperdimensional superstrings of string theory) then what is the status of these posited entities? Should we consider them as real as the verified particles of the standard model?"

Whether or not to address something - anything - as real or not depends on what mode you're operating in.

In the ethical mode, you should ALWAYS treat anything you're uncertain of the reality of as real because if you treat something badly that turns out to be real, then you've been morally wrong, but if you treat something well that turns out to not be real, then at worst you've been silly.

In the mathematical mode, though - which is more closely related to what I believe you're asking - you should treat such mathematical models as models ONLY until you have verification of their reality beyond math, because to do otherwise is to create an improper resistance to throwing out that model in favor of another that may fit just as well or better.

But how can one prove mathematically a reality that does not exist in the mathematical mode of what is excepted and verified as mathematically correct?

 

[Gov Kodos]

"If a theory successfully explains what we can detect but does so by positing entities that we can’t detect (like other universes or the hyperdimensional superstrings of string theory) then what is the status of these posited entities? Should we consider them as real as the verified particles of the standard model?"

Whether or not to address something - anything - as real or not depends on what mode you're operating in.

In the ethical mode, you should ALWAYS treat anything you're uncertain of the reality of as real because if you treat something badly that turns out to be real, then you've been morally wrong, but if you treat something well that turns out to not be real, then at worst you've been silly.

In the mathematical mode, though - which is more closely related to what I believe you're asking - you should treat such mathematical models as models ONLY until you have verification of their reality beyond math, because to do otherwise is to create an improper resistance to throwing out that model in favor of another that may fit just as well or better.

But how can one prove mathematically a reality that does not exist in the mathematical mode of what is excepted and verified as mathematically correct?

That sentence is nonsense. Try again.

 

[Dryson]

"If a theory successfully explains what we can detect but does so by positing entities that we can’t detect (like other universes or the hyperdimensional superstrings of string theory) then what is the status of these posited entities? Should we consider them as real as the verified particles of the standard model?"

Whether or not to address something - anything - as real or not depends on what mode you're operating in.

In the ethical mode, you should ALWAYS treat anything you're uncertain of the reality of as real because if you treat something badly that turns out to be real, then you've been morally wrong, but if you treat something well that turns out to not be real, then at worst you've been silly.

In the mathematical mode, though - which is more closely related to what I believe you're asking - you should treat such mathematical models as models ONLY until you have verification of their reality beyond math, because to do otherwise is to create an improper resistance to throwing out that model in favor of another that may fit just as well or better.

In the Universe that we live in we can prove the mathematical mode based on the theories of Einstein to be correct. But how do prove a mathematical mode of existence that does indeed exist but is not a provable mathematical mode because the theories do not exist within the mode that Einsteins math would prove correcta

Basically we know that our universe and the forces of nature are proven to exist based on Einsteins mathematical modes. We also know that space time prior to Einsteins mathematical mode existed and most likely still does exist because Einsteins mode has proven that the universe has an age to it.

An age that would prove that Universe had beginning like all life does and would have come from another age of the universe where the mathematical mode of Einstein had not been born yet because the modes that govern his theories of gravity, suns, moons, planets and black holes had not yet been created but still existed in a mathematical mode that would not have fit into his mathematical mode but would still otherwise have existed.

 

[Gov Kodos]

"If a theory successfully explains what we can detect but does so by positing entities that we can’t detect (like other universes or the hyperdimensional superstrings of string theory) then what is the status of these posited entities? Should we consider them as real as the verified particles of the standard model?"

Whether or not to address something - anything - as real or not depends on what mode you're operating in.

In the ethical mode, you should ALWAYS treat anything you're uncertain of the reality of as real because if you treat something badly that turns out to be real, then you've been morally wrong, but if you treat something well that turns out to not be real, then at worst you've been silly.

In the mathematical mode, though - which is more closely related to what I believe you're asking - you should treat such mathematical models as models ONLY until you have verification of their reality beyond math, because to do otherwise is to create an improper resistance to throwing out that model in favor of another that may fit just as well or better.

In the Universe that we live in we can prove the mathematical mode based on the theories of Einstein to be correct. But how do prove a mathematical mode of existence that does indeed exist but is not a provable mathematical mode because the theories do not exist within the mode that Einsteins math would prove correcta

There is no need to prove what doesn't exist.

Basically we know that our universe and the forces of nature are proven to exist based on Einsteins mathematical modes. We also know that space time prior to Einsteins mathematical mode existed and most likely still does exist because Einsteins mode has proven that the universe has an age to it.

No. Einstein's theories have nothing to do with proving the existence of the universe. They describe how it operates.

An age that would prove that Universe had beginning like all life does and would have come from another age of the universe where the mathematical mode of Einstein had not been born yet because the modes that govern his theories of gravity, suns, moons, planets and black holes had not yet been created but still existed in a mathematical mode that would not have fit into his mathematical mode but would still otherwise have existed.

This is nonsensical poppycock. To return to what Robert Maxwell mentioned above...

In terms of explaining how the universe works now, why does it matter how physics worked before the Big Bang?

It would certainly be interesting to know, but "things worked differently before the universe existed" hardly means "the way we think the universe works now is wrong," which seems to be what you're always driving at.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Gibberish.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Gibberish.

No.... maybe I'm losing MY mind, but I think I grok what he's saying.

In response, I would say that, yes, we can demonstrate Einstein's math in reality, and anyone who has ever worked in nuclear power can vouch for that.

As far as anything beyond that, the rest of what you're talking about, well, it's all nice math. It may even be accurate math, but we can't really know that and it still seems best to treat it as a model only until we have some way of verifying it with a real world phenomenon - and until we do, it doesn't matter anyway, because it isn't really influencing us in any way that matters at the level of perception we are operating at. The universe might all be a hologram, but the IRS won't accept that as a reason that you should be able to pay them by shining a flashlight on and off at them.

I think your problem, and the reason you catch so much flack here, is that you're trying to build your picture of how everything works by working from the outer fringe of what we think we might know, and heading inward by building from there. I'm not going to badmouth that too much - sometimes that can lead to some very interesting ideas. But to build something real or at least really useful, most of the time, you have to start with the known building blocks and work outward from there. The actual mass of my butt may be sparse particles with tons and tons of relative space in between them - but until you can either show me how to tighten up that space to get a firmer butt, or use all that space for storage somehow, that's really just a nice thing to know, but not incredibly useful in the real world as most people know it.

 

[scotthm]

No.... maybe I'm losing MY mind, but I think I grok what he's saying.

You should be very worried.

---------------

 

[Avon]

where's the crisis?

 

[YellowSubmarine]

where's the crisis?

Turns out, physics isn't round, in fact, it's perfectly flat. When physicists move over the edge they fall.

Do you know how many serious injuries are caused by an infinite hits into turtle shells after higher and higher falls?

 

[Avon]

thats the most sensible thing anyones said so far.

 

[HIjol]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/o...f-physics.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

This is a very good article to read. One part of the article that caught my attention is this:

I"f a theory successfully explains what we can detect but does so by positing entities that we can’t detect (like other universes or the hyperdimensional superstrings of string theory) then what is the status of these posited entities? Should we consider them as real as the verified particles of the standard model? How are scientific claims about them any different from any other untestable — but useful — explanations of reality?"

Before Alchemy came along and began to discover the various traits of the chemical nature of the environment no one really know for certain how why things happened. All they knew is that when fire was added to certain objects the object would catch on fire when other objects did not catch on fire.

The same is true with physics. Before physicists understood how the apple fell from the tree they attributed the act to the unseen hand of a God playing a joke on the person or some other reason that was taken as truth based on superstitions.

Physics has come to a wall again because Einstein's theories all revolve around a Universe that exists where gravity was created after the Bi Bang occurred and is produced by suns, planets, black holes and other celestial bodies.

How do you explain the Universe before the Big Bang occurred when the celestial bodies that created the gravity Einstein based his theories on did not even exist?

You can't say that the Big Bang never occurred either, you can based on your own mouth breathing of saying that you can say what ever you want but are you correct?

If the Big Bang never occurred then why does everything in the Universe have a measurable age?

So what type of gravity would have been present prior to the Big Bang?

Here is a short video I made - I call it the Universe In A Bottle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mBfiyt5Wxw&feature=youtu.be

Dryson, you and I have had "conversations" in the past (no, not that far back) that were...interesting. As an accomplished Educator, I beseech you; read your Posts out loud to yourself, before you Post. Truly. You are bursting and exploding with ideas and questions. I guarantee your Post Quality Coherence will improve. Read your Posts out loud to yourself before you Post them.

For Science. For 'Bonz. For All.

"You'd do it for Stephen W. Hawking!"

 

[HIjol]

where's the crisis?

Turns out, physics isn't round, in fact, it's perfectly flat. When physicists move over the edge they fall.

Do you know how many serious injuries are caused by an infinite hits into turtle shells after higher and higher falls?

A Problem completely ignored by Society. I could not find ONE listing for it!

You know, I remember a Simpler Time, before the Big Bang, when people, especially Physicists, were more careful...

 

[Dryson]

Gibberish.

No.... maybe I'm losing MY mind, but I think I grok what he's saying.

In response, I would say that, yes, we can demonstrate Einstein's math in reality, and anyone who has ever worked in nuclear power can vouch for that.

As far as anything beyond that, the rest of what you're talking about, well, it's all nice math. It may even be accurate math, but we can't really know that and it still seems best to treat it as a model only until we have some way of verifying it with a real world phenomenon - and until we do, it doesn't matter anyway, because it isn't really influencing us in any way that matters at the level of perception we are operating at. The universe might all be a hologram, but the IRS won't accept that as a reason that you should be able to pay them by shining a flashlight on and off at them.

I think your problem, and the reason you catch so much flack here, is that you're trying to build your picture of how everything works by working from the outer fringe of what we think we might know, and heading inward by building from there. I'm not going to badmouth that too much - sometimes that can lead to some very interesting ideas. But to build something real or at least really useful, most of the time, you have to start with the known building blocks and work outward from there. The actual mass of my butt may be sparse particles with tons and tons of relative space in between them - but until you can either show me how to tighten up that space to get a firmer butt, or use all that space for storage somehow, that's really just a nice thing to know, but not incredibly useful in the real world as most people know it.

Not from the outer fringe of what we know but from the center of what we don't know.

Maybe the model of how the Universe existed could be modeled after the center of black hole where the entire center of the black works in opposite of how a normal black hole would. That would build some interesting mathematical models based on Einsteins theories.

 

[HIjol]

<respectful snip>

Not from the outer fringe of what we know but from the center of what we don't know.

Maybe the model of how the Universe existed could be modeled after the center of black hole where the entire center of the black works in opposite of how a normal black hole would. That would build some interesting mathematical models based on Einsteins theories.

Please, I will try one more time!

Dryson, you and I have had "conversations" in the past (no, not that far back) that were...interesting. As an accomplished Educator, I beseech you; read your Posts out loud to yourself, before you Post. Truly. You are bursting and exploding with ideas and questions. I guarantee your Post Quality Coherence will improve. Read your Posts out loud to yourself before you Post them.

For Science. For 'Bonz. For All.

"You'd do it for Stephen W. Hawking!"