The Nature of the Universe, Time Travel and More...

[Will The Serious]

This is episode 3 of my fan fic series, The Vulcan, in which the crew of the Vulcan are pulled 200 years ahead in time. https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-vulcan-episode-3-t-minus-negative.312683/

There are a couple of brief conversations with Prof. Kazzak and his assistant, Dr. Gödel, about the possibilities of traveling through time. The end of post #4 https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-vulcan-episode-3-t-minus-negative.312683/#post-14318515, has the professor discussing whether or not we would even know if any effect of the space/time continuum could ever be known.

The other discussion was at the end of the episode, around a pool table. https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-vulcan-episode-3-t-minus-negative.312683/#post-14318530

Epistemology is probably the most significant branch of philosophy. Without knowing if we can actually know what we think we know, how can we understand anything else?

-Will

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

"The ancient Oracle said that I was the wisest of all the Greeks. It is because I alone, of all the Greeks, know that I know nothing." - Socrates

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Regarding epistemology, I only know about Popperian empirical falsification for the scientific method and it's decades since I studied that. I have wondered if the technique is applicable to itself but I don't know if that's possible or even makes any sense - possibly not. It seems to work pretty well even though there are scientific fields in which its validity is suspect due to the irreproducibility of events about which we have limited data.

 

[publiusr]

In terms of time travel, I have heard it said that two cosmic strings swishing past one another will do the trick…but I would think it would have to do it twice…the earlier event the past’s exist…and the future passing the present’s entrance.

I don’t see anything but that kind of brute force getting you back in time. To go forward…just get on a fast spaceship…‘easy.’

On merit
https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/1/236

 

[Will The Serious]

I have wondered if the technique is applicable to itself but I don't know if that's possible or even makes any sense - possibly not.

For falsification to work on itself, it must make a claim that allows for a false outcome.

Popper's axiom would state something like, for all hypotheses that make claims of inductive or statistical proof, to verify its truth no false instances can be proven true.

To apply Popper's falsification test to itself, we must look for a hypothesis such as, all men are mortal, and find an instant of an immortal man that does not disprove the hypothesis that all men are mortal. This would falsify the falsification axiom.

Popper's falsification axiom is a logic based test. However, there may be cases where the falsification is just as difficult to prove as the truthfulness of the hypothesis. There is nothing about falsification that provides for deductive proof of a positive. For example: to prove that for every polynomial equation there is an equal non-polynomial equation, you could test every polynomial equation to prove the statement empirically, but how would you go about falsifying that statement without testing every polynomial equation? It is possible that, if there was a false example, it could be the very last one, if such an exhaustive list could actually be made. To prove P vs NP true or false, a different form of test, logic, or definition needs to be applied. Take a look at the history of the 3n+1 problem. Proof by exhaustion doesn't always lead to a productive conclusion.

-Will

 

[Will The Serious]

To go forward…just get on a fast spaceship…‘easy.’

I should think cryogenic sleep would do the trick for going forward.

Imagine what it would look like to an outside observer if you built a time machine that could go forward in time. Would the time traveler disappear from the time machine only to reappear in the future, or would the time traveler appear to be in stasis, immobile, until the time, the machine was set for, was reached? Maybe the time traveler would appear as a statue inside the time machine until the target age was reached. In the mean time, all the scientists might have to find a new lab to continue refining their experiments in, because there would be a big bloody time machine frozen in the middle of their old lab just taking up space and time.

-Will

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

For falsification to work on itself, it must make a claim that allows for a false outcome.

Popper's axiom would state something like, for all hypotheses that make claims of inductive or statistical proof, to verify its truth no false instances can be proven true.

To apply Popper's falsification test to itself, we must look for a hypothesis such as, all men are mortal, and find an instant of an immortal man that does not disprove the hypothesis that all men are mortal. This would falsify the falsification axiom.

Popper's falsification axiom is a logic based test. However, there may be cases where the falsification is just as difficult to prove as the truthfulness of the hypothesis. There is nothing about falsification that provides for deductive proof of a positive. For example: to prove that for every polynomial equation there is an equal non-polynomial equation, you could test every polynomial equation to prove the statement empirically, but how would you go about falsifying that statement without testing every polynomial equation? It is possible that, if there was a false example, it could be the very last one, if such an exhaustive list could actually be made. To prove P vs NP true or false, a different form of test, logic, or definition needs to be applied. Take a look at the history of the 3n+1 problem. Proof by exhaustion doesn't always lead to a productive conclusion.

-Will

Only a single counter example would be required to falsify the Popperian methodology. This example would be a falsified theory that was later demonstrated to be true anyway. However, Popperian epistemology doesn't allow one to show that a proposition is true by experiment; only to falsify it. Therefore it is not possible to falsify Popperian epistemology without invoking an epistemology that encompasses it. I'm pretty certain Popper must have considered whether his methodology is falsifiable, but I don't feel motivated to investigate it. Intuitively, this feels like it's in the same territory as Russell's paradox and Gödel's completeness theorem. The latter has been summarised as "Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory".

Now, while one can demonstrate truth in mathematics given a set of axioms, arithmetic system (there is more than one), and logical system (there is more than one), although this is not always possible as Gödel proved, Popperian epistemology doesn't claim that theories of the physical world can be demonstrated to be true; only that they stand as long as their predictions are not demolished by experiment. If a theory offers few empirically testable predictions, it does not make sense to give much credence to it likely being correct. Theories that are not empirically falsifiable should be given no credence at all. ***cough*** string theory ***cough*** That doesn't mean that no-one should work on them - they just need to acknowledge their shortcomings.

 

[Will The Serious]

Theories that are not empirically falsifiable should be given no credence at all. ***cough*** string theory ***cough*** That doesn't mean that no-one should work on them - they just need to acknowledge their shortcomings.

-Will

 

[Will The Serious]

Only a single counter example would be required to falsify the Popperian methodology.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-electron-is-so-round-that-its-ruling-out-new-particles-20230410/
"
Given the stakes, a small community of physicists has been doggedly hunting for any asymmetry in the shape of the electron for the past few decades. The experiments are now so sensitive that if an electron were the size of Earth, they could detect a bump on the North Pole the height of a single sugar molecule.

The latest results are in: The electron is rounder than that.

The updated measurement disappoints anyone hoping for signs of new physics. But it still helps theorists to constrain their models for what unknown particles and forces may be missing from the current picture."
Just one electron that shows an anomaly of symmetry would change their models. Would that be good or bad? Interesting, but what will we find if we could keep drilling down forever? Will there eventually be gaps? Will we prove that the roundness of the electrical field is not continuous, contiguous, or a perfect continuum? What is we never discover an interruption to the "perfection" of this state? We can never be sure that the next new level of measurements won't reveal an imperfection, but as our certainty increases, what does it say about the medium in which this field exists? Or are we certain there is no underlying medium? Such a condition, a field of energy without a medium should logically suggest an even smaller particle, but...?

-Will

 

[Will The Serious]

Only a single counter example would be required to falsify the Popperian methodology.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-electron-is-so-round-that-its-ruling-out-new-particles-20230410/
"
Given the stakes, a small community of physicists has been doggedly hunting for any asymmetry in the shape of the electron for the past few decades. The experiments are now so sensitive that if an electron were the size of Earth, they could detect a bump on the North Pole the height of a single sugar molecule.

The latest results are in: The electron is rounder than that.

The updated measurement disappoints anyone hoping for signs of new physics. But it still helps theorists to constrain their models for what unknown particles and forces may be missing from the current picture."
Just one electron that shows an anomaly of symmetry would change their models. Would that be good or bad? Interesting, but what will we find if we could keep drilling down forever? Will there eventually be gaps? Will we prove that the roundness of the electrical field is not continuous, contiguous, or a perfect continuum? What is we never discover an interruption to the "perfection" of this state? We can never be sure that the next new level of measurements won't reveal an imperfection, but as our certainty increases, what does it say about the medium in which this field exists? Or are we certain there is no underlying medium? Such a condition, a field of energy without a medium should logically suggest an even smaller particle, but...?

-Will

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Quantum entities such as electrons can be made to behave in strange ways, for example, by separating aspects such as spin and charge:

The electron is a fundamental building block of nature and is indivisible in isolation, yet we have performed an experiment that shows that electrons in narrow wires can appear to split apart. The experiment was performed in the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory with the theoretical support coming from University of Birmingham physicists.

Spin-charge separation in quantum wires | Semiconductor Physics Group (cam.ac.uk)

In condensed matter physics, spin–charge separation is an unusual behavior of electrons in some materials in which they 'split' into three independent particles, the spinon, the orbiton and the holon (or chargon). The electron can always be theoretically considered as a bound state of the three, with the spinon carrying the spin of the electron, the orbiton carrying the orbital degree of freedom and the chargon carrying the charge, but in certain conditions they can behave as independent quasiparticles.

Spin–charge separation - Wikipedia

The electron is otherwise thought to be a fundamental particle with no size, components, or substructure.

The issue of the radius of the electron is a challenging problem of modern theoretical physics. The admission of the hypothesis of a finite radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of relativity. On the other hand, a point-like electron (zero radius) generates serious mathematical difficulties due to the self-energy of the electron tending to infinity. Observation of a single electron in a Penning trap suggests the upper limit of the particle's radius to be 10^−22 meters. The upper bound of the electron radius of 10^−18 meters can be derived using the uncertainty relation in energy. There is also a physical constant called the "classical electron radius", with the much larger value of 2.8179×10^−15 m, greater than the radius of the proton. However, the terminology comes from a simplistic calculation that ignores the effects of quantum mechanics; in reality, the so-called classical electron radius has little to do with the true fundamental structure of the electron.

Electron - Wikipedia

With quantum mechanics, it's probably best to check in one's common-sense expectations at the door.

 

[publiusr]

New image of the visible universe released
https://www.livescience.com/space/e...tter-massive-new-map-of-the-universe-suggests

This contradicts earlier dark matter maps.

Black Hole Bomb

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0404096.pdf
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/07/black-hole-starships-energy-and-weapons.html

Eclipses
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/...jects_to_study_2024_US_solar_eclipse_999.html

 

[Will The Serious]

Then, according to the rules set out by Einstein's theory of relativity, gravity compressed and heated these plasma pockets so that sound waves — called baryon acoustic oscillations — rippled outward from the clumps at half the speed of light. These gigantic waves pushed out matter that hadn't already been sucked in on itself, creating the infant cosmic web: a series of thin films surrounding countless cosmic voids, like a nest of soap bubbles in a sink.

Once this matter cooled, it coalesced into the first stars, which pooled into matter-rich galaxies at the meeting points of the web's tangled strands.

Looking at the very specific two armed formations created by galaxies and their planer orientation, it looks like galaxies are spewing out stars, matter, not pooling them. A spinning center of massive proportions looks like it is ejecting matter from two opposite sides and the individual arms are created as a trail of stars move directly away from the center. The spiral shape illustrates the rotation.

On another forum, having nothing to do with cosmology, a member started a thread called, What Holds Galaxies Together. There was lots of talk about Dark Matter. But, what says anything holds galaxies together? Maybe we are looking at these massive formations as they fall apart on a cosmic scale. It just takes time. No mysterious dark matter necessary. Of course there would be a certain amount of non-light emitting mass, just as the planet's, moons, and asteroids in our own solar system don't radiate a significant amount of light compared to our Sun. But do we really need the extra mass of dark matter if galaxies are exploding instead of holding together?

-Will

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Turns out that genetics explains everything:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Will The Serious]

https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/modified-theory-of-gravity-eliminates-the-need-for-dark-energy/
Gravity, the universe and space-time without dark matter.

In case you want a little math, here's a note that clarifies what non-metric gravity is.
https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/papers/gr-qc/0703114/

which is defined by one free function of two variables—should be closed under renormalization [2]. Indeed the construction is interesting already on the classical level, since it does not introduce any new degrees of freedom, as compared to GR (which is a member of the class); moreover the construction is intrinsically four dimensional (arguably a good thing), and is based on a clean split between conformal structure and conformal factor of the metric.

-Will

 

[StarCruiser]

^ Unfortunately - the presentation of the maths in the second link is pretty much 'crushed, folded and spindled' - most formulae are compressed but...since I'm not into the math..?

 

[Will The Serious]

but...since I'm not into the math..?

Yeah. If it can't be described without the math, how does that tell us what it's really doing? So the math works. What does that mean?

I can understand a description of the Earth rotating on an axis to affect a setting and rising Sun. I don't care if the math works, if someone can't just say, "It looks like the Sun is going around the Earth because that's how it would look if the Earth rotates on an axis. The Sun rises because we turn towards the Sun. The Sun sets when the Earth turns away from the Sun." You can give me a math formula that says, the Sun orbits the Earth (that's been done), but without a literal description of what that means, how does the math show anything?

Where is the literal description of why the expanding universe needs or doesn't need dark matter? What is it about mass that distorts space-time? How does acceleration occur without a force?

Newton's formula had the benefit of being easily written in words. Two body's exert a force of attraction upon each other according to their respective masses and move according to the inertia dictated by those masses. The math just gives a precise model of that dynamic.

Where is the why in the math?

-Will

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

There is no reason to believe that the Universe must be explicable as a one-dimensional string of symbols, be it English text, computer code, or mathematics rendered badly in LaTeX. This is just our conceit based on the Church-Turing thesis and a Hilbertian systematised axiomatic approach. However, Gödel demonstrated the inadequacies inherent in such a viewpoint. There are always things beyond the horizon of our experience and knowledge that we can neither predict nor measure using the tools that are currently available.

We observe and measure and devise abstracted schemes that attempt to replicate the characteristics of our observations and measurements. That doesn't mean that there is identity between our schemes and what they attempt to describe, nor can such schemes explain why the Universe is as it is in preference to any other possible arrangement.

There is an element of propagandising in the most influential scientific papers that the linked paper lacks. This was something that my PhD supervisor taught me. Even expects in the field need to have their attention grabbed. A badly formatted paper suggests that the author was too introverted to care about communicating their message to others in their field*.

There are many, and I mean many, non-metric theories of gravitation, beyond those described on the Wikipedia page. Unfortunately, discriminating between them can be very difficult given the relative paucity and inaccuracy of data pertaining to our Universe. As I stated previously, such endeavours serve the useful purpose of keeping physicists off the streets.

Alternatives to general relativity - Wikipedia

*If we are still allowed to use the term "field", thanks to USC.
A USC office removes 'field' from its curriculum because of racist connotations : NPR

 

[Will The Serious]

*If we are still allowed to use the term "field", thanks to USC.
A USC office removes 'field' from its curriculum because of racist connotations : NPR

I think we can all agree that what physicist mean when they talk about gravity fields, is gravity meadows. The science of meadow mechanics or meadow propulsion will benefit with the advancement of the more correct terminology.

We will never be able to achieve time travel if we spend our lives burying our heads in the sand instead of looking bravely upon and learning from an opened eyed view of our past.

In the Never Ending Story, Micheal Ende described a mountain that was only ever climbed by the first one to climb it, because no one ever climbed the mountain again. Once the first climber reached the top, the next to climb out would be until all memory of an earlier climb had been lost. Thus, everyone who climbed that mountain was always the first.

If we change our language and remove our history until nothing atrocious ever happened from the past, we can always repeat such atrocities as though they had never been done before.

It doesn't really matter. What needs to be done will be done whether we call it Quantum Meadow, Gravity Plain, Electromagnetic Moore (oops, scratch that one) Veld, or something else. People will only be momentarily confused, then, what was scientifically labeled a 'moron' will be abused and turned into a derogatory slight, until the term is relabeled, 'stupid,' then, when that term is hijacked as an insult, it can be renamed, 'retarded,' and when that term becomes demeaning, we'll start using a word like 'slow,' and once everyone understands how negative that word has become, we can change it to, 'special,' but when kids on the playground start teasing each other about being "special", what's the next official word for low intelligence? Maybe we shouldn't be identifying low IQ to begin with. Let it stand, ignore it, don't study the phenomenon or learn how to improve it, because that just legitimizes the perception that some people have benefits over others. We wouldn't want to recognize something as inequitable as that.

https://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

-Will

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I'm not going to comment in depth on whether the application of culture wars to common English words is nonsense or not. It's a sigmoidal, bifurcated or perhaps a catastrophe curve transition rather than a binary choice in many cases. Back in the 90s, was told by my US employer not to use the phrase "master-slave relationship" in regard to the established computing paradigm. That seemed like a reasonable request, but nowadays it feels like political correctness often strays into ridiculousness.