Stephen Hawking's New Book, The Grand Design "is a Great Read"
Hawking's book is out and from what I've heard it's a great book sure to be talked about in the coming months and years ahead. Dan Barker said,
...this morning I finished Hawking's newest book, The Grand Design (while others were in church), and he makes the case even stronger than before. Since time is a dimension, it no more needs a "beginning" than any other dimension . . . what is the "beginning" of any of the three spatial dimensions? Ancients would have thought that the earth was flat and had an edge, so what kept the water from falling off? But we now see things better than that, through better models . . . and it all comes down to mental models.
The Grand Designis a great read!
94 comments:
Since time is a dimension, it no more needs a "beginning" than any other dimension . . . what is the "beginning" of any of the three spatial dimensions?
I was never a fan of this "time had to have a beginning, idea. Perhaps physical time and physical space had a beginning, but I'm not confident that the physical discussions on both really dictates the possible ways in which those concepts can be instantiated.
It still begs the question of how space/time came into existence. I've heard that "The Grand Design" relies on M-theory. Well, that's nice, but if so then it is just a theory. One for which there is no experimental evidence as of yet.
Besides, string theory (on which M-theory is based) is unfalsifiable.
I can haz scientism?
I agree that it's a great read. His idea that our universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation isn't anything new though and has been debunked many times. I'm also glad to see that he thinks M-theory is the finial theory. I'm glad to hear that M-theory is the ONLY canidate for a complete theory to the universe.
what is the "beginning" of any of the three spatial dimensions?
The point from where it all exploded and expanded... obviously.
Anyways, the absurd truth is that there was indeed a "time" when there was no time.
"Stephen Hawking's New Book, The Grand Design "is a Great Read""
That's about the understatement od the year. :-)
One of the things I also like about the book is that he uses the multiverse to explain the fine- tuning in our universe. He obviously believes the fine-tuning is real. He never answers Roger Penrose's objection to the multiverse though. Just as he never discusses the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorems.
The Big Bang doesn't even imply that there was a beginning. If you go back far enough, you reach a singularity -- a point where our equations break down, because you start dividing by zero (and getting infinities) and stuff like that. But we don't know what happened before Planck time, at least not yet. It could very well be that the singularity that defines the limits of our present model of the universe (Big Bang cosmology) was not "the beginning", just a major transition point.
Lvka said: "Anyways, the absurd truth is that there was indeed a "time" when there was no time."
Actually, no. Nothing in our current best model of the universe suggests this. There is only a time when the model breaks down and we simply do not know what happened.
To claim that it was the beginning of time is merely your speculation.
I think Hawking believes that time had a begining:
It the early universe - when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory - there were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time. This means that when we speak of the "beginning" of the universe, we are skirting the subtle issue that as we look backward toward the very early universe, time as we know it does not exist!
We must accept that our usual ideas of space and time do not apply to the very early universe. That is beyond our experience but not our imagination, or our mathematics. P 134
Cole, the most important words there are time as we know it. As we approach the singularity, the universe appears to become infinitely hot, infinitely dense, and infinitely curved.
Consider this: gravity dilates time. A clock on the surface of the earth (which is in a gravity well) ticks off slower than a clock in the vacuum of space. One of the interesting consequences of this is that as an object approaches a black hole, which is also a sort of singularity with infinite density and gravity, time slows down until it becomes "infinitely slow". An external observer would never see someone cross the Schwartzchild radius (event horizon) of a black hole, because their time would slow to an infinite degree. From the perspective of the person approaching the event horizon, the rest of the universe would speed up until it was progressing infinitely fast (of course, the observer himself would always only experience "proper time" and would actually cross the event horizon at some point).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Event_horizon
In that sense, every black hole exists "at the end of time", and yet there they are. Black holes still exist right "now" along with us.
These are weird properties of the universe that are absolutely real, and it's difficult for us to think about them because our brains are adapted to understand the meso-scale physics of the earth.
The Big Bang singularity is probably just as weird, but still a straightforward natural phenomenon.
Martin,
Good points. Hawking does seem to be saying that there are 4 dimensions of space and none of time though. Time (at the early stages of the universe) behaves like a dimension of space:
The realization that time can behave like another direction of space means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. P. 134
Again above:
In the early universe - when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory - there were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time. This means that when we speak of the "beginning" of the universe, we are skirting the subtle issue that as we look backward toward the very early universe, time as we know it does not exist!
The realization that time behaves like space presents a new alternative.
There are several reasonable world views that Hawking doesn't know.For instance, the universe as a genetic production as predict by The Universal Matrix/DNA Theory.The real new data, real facts, that we are discovering day by day is the final judge.
posting at physicsworld.com
Hawking explained that M-theory allows the existence of a “multiverse” of different universes, each with different values of the physical constants. We exist in our universe not by the grace of God, according to Hawking, but simply because the physics in this particular universe is just right for stars, planets and humans to form.
There is just one tiny problem with all this — there is currently little experimental evidence to back up M-theory. In other words, a leading scientist is making a sweeping public statement on the existence of God based on his faith in an unsubstantiated theory…
All that Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have done is to replace one god with another. Hawking has given up on doing real science and is "hawking" metaphysical gibberish like this:
We seem to be at a critical point in the history of science, in which we must alter our conception of goals and of what makes a physical theory acceptable. It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle. The parameters are free to take on many values and the laws to take on any form that leads to a self-consistent mathematical theory, and they do take on different values and different forms in different universes.
Dwight Garner's review at the NYTimes
"The real news about “The Grand Design” is how disappointingly tinny and inelegant it is. The spare and earnest voice that Mr. Hawking employed with such appeal in “A Brief History of Time” has been replaced here by one that is alternately condescending, as if he were Mr. Rogers explaining rain clouds to toddlers, and impenetrable."
String theory is unfalsifiable.
String theory may have found its first real solid evidence in the are of quibit entanglement and black holes.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/03/string-theory-finds-an-elegant-use-for-itself-with-qubit-entangl/
The reason it may turn out to be 'real' evidence is that Quantum theory is established science, if string theory can be use accurately with Quantum theory it will be strong evidence to suggest it is not simply a useless theory-- it may be practical.
@Brenda-
Scientism isn't a word. Moreover, it is self negating terminology. As for M-theory, see above link.
Follow link.
Read physics article.
I do agree with you, Tristan D. Vick, that "scient-ism" is a made up term. "ISM" is a noun refering to a distinctive system of political or philosophical ideology.
Brenda:
String theory is falsifiable in principle. We just can't perform the experiments yet. What you're saying is akin to arguing that because I didn't receive a grant this year for my research on the mating habits of fish, any theory regarding the mating habits of fish is unfalsifiable.
You should probably do a little googling, as "experiments that falsify string theory" brings up the WP article, which states:
"[T]o falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, Lorentz invariance, or general relativity.[46] Hence string theory is falsifiable and meets the definition of scientific theory according to the Popperian criterion. However to constitute a convincing potential verification of string theory, a prediction should be specific to it, not shared by any quantum field theory model or by General Relativity.
"One such unique prediction is string harmonics: at sufficiently high energies—probably near the quantum gravity scale—the string-like nature of particles would become obvious."
Tristan:
Interesting article, thanks for the heads up.
Scientism isn't a word.
I do agree with you, Tristan D. Vick, that "scient-ism" is a made up term.
Hilarious!
Too bad John Loftus didn't ask you to edit his book!
Fellas, don't give up your day jobs to become lexicographers.
2nd post
if string theory can be use accurately with Quantum theory it will be strong evidence to suggest it is not simply a useless theory-- it may be practical.
practical doesn't get you true. Reletivity was and still practical (and still may be true) though it is replaced by string theory (if string theory stands the test of time). Newtonian physics was and still is still practical though it has been replaced by QM and Reletivity.
Christian theism is practical in ways that none of those can ever be practical, and is not truely replaced by any of them (though it underdetermines and may eliminate a few reasons why God is viewed as necessary). And just like the formerly untestable M-theory (and still to be the case) will require faith of varying degrees, especially if one wants to believe it to be a thoroughly true description of reality! NOT just a practical theory (like a lot of those other scientific practical theories that aren't true at the most basic level)
@Tristan D. Vick -- Sorry, I don't get my quantum physics from a TV and stereo site. I get it from real practicing physicists. In this case Peter Woit
It is a striking fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this complex and unattractive conjectural theory. There is not even a serious proposal for what the dynamics of the fundamental ‘M-theory’ is supposed to be or any reason at all to believe that its dynamics would produce a vacuum state with the desired properties. The sole argument generally given to justify this picture of the world is that perturbative string theories have a massless spin two mode and thus could provide an explanation of gravity, if one ever managed to find an underlying theory for which perturbative string theory is the perturbative expansion.
Your emperor is naked as a Jaybird.
Martin - "String theory is falsifiable in principle." No, According to critics it is so bad it isn't even wrong.
"Scientism isn't a word."
"Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life [...] whereby the study and methods of natural science have risen to the level of ideology"
Who says the universe had to have a beginning?
I mean...you christians believe that your God is eternal and has always existed.....so it is just as plausible to think that the mass energy and the raw materials contained in the universe may have always existed in one form or another!
shane said...
"Who says the universe had to have a beginning?"
The big bang suggests all the mass of the universe as once compacted into a space one trillionth the diameter of a proton. We have no conceptual framework for what precedes that but it does suggest to many that there was something like a "beginning".
'I mean...you christians believe that your God is eternal and has always existed.."
I'm agnostic but this kind of accusation is very typical coming from dogmatic atheist ideologues.
"the raw materials contained in the universe may have always existed in one form or another"
Prove it.
Attempts by physicists to eliminate
four of the string theories--leaving only one--no doubt can be questioned given its current incompleteness and limited predictive power. Mr. Witten has suggested that M-theory will probably require the development of
"new mathematical language." But does that mean that they should just throw their hands in the air and say: "Oh well, why not a god, hunh? To claim "God did it" does not answer the complexity of what we are trying to unwind--it simply adds more questions as well. "God did it" does not explain anything.
Rob R...." And just like the formerly untestable M-theory (and still to be the case) will require faith of varying degrees, especially if one wants to believe it to be a thoroughly true description of reality! NOT just a practical theory (like a lot of those other scientific practical theories that aren't true at the most basic level)"
Sure its a theory .And if its still believed in "thousands upon thousands of years" time from now, without even one iota of decent verifiable evidence coming forth to help prove it.As well as in face of plenty of new evidence coming forth over this time, that seems to work as being more evidence against reason for continued belief in it.Just like seems has been the case, with the theorys of the very many Gods.
Then sure yes that would seem to take some "faith" of highest degree, to still have firm belief.
But Hawkings theory still has at least a few thousand years grace left yet, to find evidence for his claim.Before his claim is become anything like as much faith as God theorys.
And id hazard a guess, that unlike the faithful god theorists, in future if more evidence seems to arrive, that seems against this theory. Hawkings is "not so faithful" that he wont be fully prepared, to simply change his mind and reevaluate his reasoning and conclusions.
In my opinion, thats the biggest difference between whats about theory and whats about faith.
Tristan D. Vick said... "@Brenda-
Scientism isn't a word. Moreover, it is self negating terminology."
Yeah i agree Tristan, it is kind of self negating if some theists like Rob R, try and use it as something to smirk about.
Most theists these days dont rely on prayer for healing ,its science and the new medication science provides they rely on.Theists dont rely on Gods to provide fast travel around the world ,they rely on science and new technology sciences helps provide us all with.
If this scientism exists .Most theists are involved in it about as much as anyone else is.
@ Rob R said,
"...practical doesn't get you true. Reletivity was and still practical (and still may be true) though it is replaced by string theory (if string theory stands the test of time). Newtonian physics was and still is still practical though it has been replaced by QM and Reletivity."
This is chock full of dumb.
(1) If something is capable of practical applications, then it is true enough to be called a "fact".
(2) Relativity didn't "replace" Newtonian physics. It is a realization that at extremes of speed, energy, gravity etc., there are corrective factors that are all but insignificant (but still present nonetheless) at the scale of everyday experience.
(3) Similarly, string theory will not "replace" earlier science, it will add to it. As Martin said (although he didn't attribute the quote), "[T]o falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, Lorentz invariance, or general relativity. Hence string theory is falsifiable and meets the definition of scientific theory according to the Popperian criterion."
If string theory "replaced Einsteinian relativity, it would thereby falsify itself, by your reasoning.
Brenda, quoting Shane: "the raw materials contained in the universe may have always existed in one form or another"
Brenda's response: "Prove it."
Brenda, from earlier in the same comment:
"The big bang suggests all the mass of the universe as once compacted into a space one trillionth the diameter of a proton."
I presume this was "before" it exploded?...
Your slip is showing...
Hi Rob R
You say, .... "And just like the formerly untestable M-theory (and still to be the case) will require faith of varying degrees, especially if one wants to believe it to be a thoroughly true description of reality! NOT just a practical theory (like a lot of those other scientific practical theories that aren't true at the most basic level)."
Papalinton
Your use of the word faith in this context is disingenuous. Those propounding M-theory don't rely on 'faith'. They 'trust' the methodology under which they propose M-Theory as a falsifiable hypothesis, based rightly, on inferring from known data and extrapolating that data to the very edge of our scientific knowledge. If indeed M-theory is found wanting, the whole of QM doesn't fall into a useless heap, as would religion, the QM physicists would simply dust themselves off and continue their work. No apologetics needed, thank you very much.
You say, ... "(like a lot of those other scientific practical theories that aren't true at the most basic level)"
Tell me about the 'practical' scientific theories that aren't true at the most basic level. Now you REALLY have my attention.
Cheers
Hi Shane
Whoa!
You say, ..."Who says the universe had to have a beginning?
I mean...you christians believe that your God is eternal and has always existed.....so it is just as plausible to think that the mass energy and the raw materials contained in the universe may have always existed in one form or another!"
I say Whoa!, Shane. Don't give the faithheads any more info along this line. Otherwise they will inevitably begin to use this argument against us in the near future. Don't give them any more information. Let them find their own gaps in the science record for their god-of-the-gaps strategy. It's hard enough now to deal with religious factoids.
Cheers
"This is chock full of dumb.
(1) If something is capable of practical applications, then it is true enough to be called a "fact"."
I suspect you don't really believe this. Take the practical applications religious belief is capable of, which many anthropologists, historians, sociologists and psychologists readily attest to.
That aside, if we accept (1), it follows that Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe was at one time "true enough to be called a fact," but I think most would agree that this is an odd usage of the words "true" and "fact," to say the least.
"(2) Relativity didn't "replace" Newtonian physics. It is a realization that at extremes of speed, energy, gravity etc., there are corrective factors that are all but insignificant (but still present nonetheless) at the scale of everyday experience."
Please. Hawking himself uses the very same language in "A Brief History of Time":
"This [notion that each observer has his or her own measure of time] has been well tested by experiment and is likely to remain a feature even if we find a more advanced theory to replace relativity."
"Actually, no. Nothing in our current best model of the universe suggests this. There is only a time when the model breaks down and we simply do not know what happened.
To claim that it was the beginning of time is merely your speculation."
Here's Paul Davies (from 9/4/10):
"Cosmologists are agreed that the universe began with a big bang 13.7 billion years ago. People naturally want to know what caused it. A simple answer is nothing: not because there was a mysterious state of nothing before the big bang, but because time itself began then – that is, there was no time "before" the big bang."
Re: scientism, the issue isn't whether it's a neologism, but whether it accurately describes someone's metaphysical and epistemological tendencies. Sadly, there are all sorts of people who say (in so many words) that science is the only way of knowing, or that science can in principle provide us with a complete understanding of the world, or that all claims to knowledge ultimately reduce to scientific claims, etc. (A weaker type of scientism only claims science's superiority over all other ways of gaining knowledge, but it too is problematic for the very same reasons scientism proper is.)
Hey, Eric,
Long time, no type...
I was talking about practical applications of string theory per Tristan's original comment, which Rob was responding to. I should have been more precise in my language, but I think you are already aware what I was saying.
And what I said in (2) is true. Einstein didn't "replace" Newton, he just modified Newton's theories with corrective factors.
Oh.
And Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe WAS accepted as fact for over 1,000 years, until better science was introduced. And you know this, too.
AND...
"A Brief History of Time" was written for a popular audience.
From my copy:
"Someone told me that each equation I included in the book would halve the sales. I therefore resolved not to have any equations at all. In the end, however, I DID put in one equation, Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2. I hope this will not scare off half of my potential readers."
The stuff I was talking about (Einstein vs. Newton) will likely only appear in a calculus-based physics course.
I want to poke at this Ptolemy thing a little more...
Even though it was considered "true" for over 1,000 years, just precicely what were the practical applications of Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe?
The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that it supported a view of the universe that was consistent with Roman Catholic dogma.
Which, incidentally that bit was proven wrong almost 400 years ago, but it took untill the 1990's for the Pope to admit it.
...over 400, if you count Copernicus...
post 1 of 2
Geerhed
(I wrote some of these before Eric responded to you with similar points and you responded back. nevertheless, I made some additional points in light of the further conversation)
(1) If something is capable of practical applications, then it is true enough to be called a "fact".
Like Christian theism? It has plenty of applications for life.
geocentrism was very practical for most of the history of human astronomy. We just got too good at observing the stars, and it became less and less useful. But the fact is it is STILL useful to have a geocentric model if you want to shoot a rocket into space. And that's the way it is with newtonian physics and possibly relativity (jury is still out on that one though as string theory may be wrong).
(2) Relativity didn't "replace" Newtonian physics. It is a realization that at extremes of speed, energy, gravity etc., there are corrective factors that are all but insignificant (but still present nonetheless) at the scale of everyday experience.
Sorry, but if your numbers are too big, too small or too precise, then newtonian physics doesn't work. In other words, it is too crude, accept to give a practical ball park estimate (which is enough for most engineering). We could use pure relativity or pure quantum mechanics for all of those applications, then they'd be much closer to the truth (or dead on, since the jury is still out on which is right and which (unless both) need to be compromised. But if we did use those equations, they'd be more complicated than is practically useful. But they'd be a heck of a lot closer to the truth.
The equations of newtonian physics and relativity (or QM) are not consistent with each other. They just get really really close when plugging certain ranges of numbers of a limited precision. (well, they'd be).
Again, let me emphasize, this is the same relationship that a geocentric cosmology has to a modern one. They can be close, as long as your observations and caculations aren't too precise. And the geocentric one is MORE useful in some circumstance JUST like newtonian physics is in physics.
"[T]o falsify string theory, it would suffice to falsify quantum mechanics, Lorentz invariance, or general relativity.
As I am not qualified to judge this statement, nor do I know that martin is, I will take Roger Penrose's word over his who noted that while string theory favors QM over relativity, He favors relativity over QM.
And what I said in (2) is true. Einstein didn't "replace" Newton, he just modified Newton's theories with corrective factors.
A modified equation with differing mathematical outcomes is no longer the same equation. Anything less is a big mathematical no no.
"A Brief History of Time" was written for a popular audience.
So it was technically wrong? And what do you think this blog is? A scientific journal?
just precicely what were the practical applications of Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe?
The same practical applications of modern cosmology! It predicted the movements of the stars and planets.
post 2 of 2
Pap,
Your use of the word faith in this context is disingenuous. Those propounding M-theory don't rely on 'faith'. They 'trust' the methodology under which they propose M-Theory as a falsifiable hypothesis,
No, they believed in it in spite of the fact that it wasn't testable/falsifiable. It was mathematical model that not all physicists agreed with Like Roger Smolin (who criticisized it for not being testable(again, not clearly the case anymore) and Hawking's collaborator Rober Penrose. It is only recently that it has been conceivably testable.
Just google "string theory testable" and you'll see tons of articles written only recently on how this decades old model is finally viewed as potentially testable.
As for my alleged disingenuousness, I am quite serious though I frequently hearing atheists level similar accusations when they can't imagine that others don't think the way they do and are quite sincere about it. But that is an insular belief.
What I have said here though is along the lines that the broader project of all of science itself takes levels of faith no less than religion. That is, just as our religious faith, we have confidence in what we believe even though there is a concievable possibility that we could be wrong. Science is not different. You cannot observe everything for yourself, you cannot see evidence for every principal, thus a scientist let alone everyone else must depend upon the integrity of the community and the narratives they construct to make the best sense of a huge number of experiences. And we individually don't even have the potential to see it all first hand. I will probably never go to the moon or to mars, I will most likely never go into the large hadron collider to observe first hand the experiments going on, let alone any other major particle accelerator, It's not in the cards for me to get a bachelors let alone a masters, let alone a PHd to even understand what is going on in there enough to make sense of why the conclusions follow that they do.
And even if one does all that, there is still a heck of a lot of science that there finite life will still never let them observe first hand. So again, there has to be faith, ie confidence in many of the conclusions that are drawn or even just the data itself (for those with more technical knowledge) in spite of the real even if in some cases, extremely small possibility that one could be wrong on this or that aspect.
And that's just the science, itself, not the major philosophical underpinnings of science, many of which cannot be established by science.
based rightly, on inferring from known data and extrapolating that data to the very edge of our scientific knowledge.
Which can and has been extrapolated in other ways by other physicists.
Tell me about the 'practical' scientific theories that aren't true at the most basic level. Now you REALLY have my attention.
See what I said immeadiately above to geerheded. I would add to that that most of the history of science involves rejecting one useful theory for one that is more useful and truer at a more basic level.
I think as others have tried to point out, that the talk about practicality in this discussion is too simplified.
Just because a system contains practical truths, doesn't mean the system as a whole is true.
For example, I think there are many good practical truths to be found in the bible, particularly books like Proverbs. Also, Jesus' exhortation to following the golden rule, and not judging others, etc are good practical truths that are beneficial to society. That doesn't mean though that therefore christianity as a whole is true, or judaism for that matter. The same applies to Newton, Relativity, etc..
It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
I have a practical theory that if I flap my arms I can fly about the room. This would be very practical for and everyone and save a lot on gas. My theory is practical therefore it must be true.
Right?
Googling for "string theory testable" yields for the top return Peter Woit's blog and this:
"My conclusion, as you’d expect, is that string theory is not testable in any conventional scientific use of the term. The fundamental problem is that simple versions of the string theory unification idea, the ones often sold as “beautiful”, disagree with experiment for some basic reasons. Getting around these problems requires working with much more complicated versions, which have become so complicated that the framework becomes untestable as it can be made to agree with virtually anything one is likely to experimentally measure. This is a classic failure mode of a speculative framework: the rigid initial version doesn’t agree with experiment, making it less rigid to avoid this kills off its predictivity."
String theory as originally proposed disagreed with experiment but unwilling to give it up they kept it and tried to fiddle with the theory but all they succeeded in doing was making string theory so vague that just about any experimental result would confirm it.
That isn't science, that's theology.
Brenda,
If you wish for us to believe you are agnostic then provide access to your blogger profile.
Too many xtian apologists come on here with a masked profile and claim agnosticism while they spout off about things like "scientism" (a term usually reserved for those asserting some form of supernatural dualism).
A Christian answer to Dr. Hawking's new book.
Brenda, I hope you are simply trying to be rhetorically effective, as string theory cannot be theology. It is not the studies of deities, faith, or spitituality. At best, you can call string theory pseudoscience.
Also, would you not agree that Christians (most) believe their God is a necessary being (Therefore eternal)? I would think the accusation is not done without good reason, and is not at all associated with some sort of atheist dogma.
Rob.
STFU about Newton and Einstein. You know nothing. Your reply 1 of 2 was another huge load of stupid.
It's utterly obvious that from statements like this:
"The equations of newtonian physics and relativity (or QM) are not consistent with each other. They just get really really close when plugging certain ranges of numbers of a limited precision. (well, they'd be)."
that you indeed know nothing about any of this, and you're blathering on at length for the christians in the audience. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about physics will tell you that what I said is correct, and what you said is gibberish.
A lengthy post with zero content is still a big fat ZERO.
More stoopid:
"...geocentrism was very practical for most of the history of human astronomy."
Nope. It was practical for ASTROLOGY, not astronomy. When folks started doing ASTRONOMY, they noticed that Ptolemy's model didn't work.
Let's see...
Historical arguments? Wrong!
Scientific arguments? Wrong!
You should give up while you're behind, Rob.
More stoopid:
Me: "(1) If something is capable of practical applications, then it is true enough to be called a "fact".
Rob: "Like Christian theism? It has plenty of applications for life."
Everything useful in Christianity can be reduced to "The Golden Rule", which is NOT unique or even novel to Christianity.
And this:
"Again, let me emphasize, this is the same relationship that a geocentric cosmology has to a modern one. They can be close, as long as your observations and caculations aren't too precise. And the geocentric one is MORE useful in some circumstance JUST like newtonian physics is in physics."
is so dumb I don't even know where to start.
"A modified equation with differing mathematical outcomes is no longer the same equation. Anything less is a big mathematical no no."
You obviously don't know dick about mathematics, either, so there's no point in explaining it to you.
Me: "A Brief History of Time" was written for a popular audience.
Rob: "So it was technically wrong? And what do you think this blog is? A scientific journal?"
"Written for a popular audience" doesn't make it technically wrong; what it does is give dumbasses without a decent mathematical/scientific background room to disagree without knowing the arguments FOR what he's saying, which you have done. Pick up a physics, chemistry, biology and math books, learn what's in them and get back with us in seven or eight years when you've learned something.
Nice job cherry-picking Penrose to back your non-argument; he and Hawking are on the same team (which incidentally isn't YOUR team). Penrose is doing SCIENCE when he disagrees with another scientist, not supporting your idiotic religion.
"What I have said here though is along the lines that the broader project of all of science itself takes levels of faith no less than religion."
This is utter bullshit.
Religious faith requires one to ignore the FACT that there's virtually no evidence backing up it's claims, except circumstantial evidence, hearsay, and apologetics.
Science is repeatable, or it's not accepted as science. Science makes testable predictions based on mathematical models (see the observational verification of relativity's prediction that gravity would bend light rays, and note the PRECISION with which the predictions matched the observed values here).
Brenda said,
"I have a practical theory that if I flap my arms I can fly about the room. This would be very practical for everyone and save a lot on gas. My theory is practical therefore it must be true."
You're an idiot, too.
Read the comment again, or let me enlighten you so you don't have to strain yourself looking for it:
If a 'theory' (hypothesis, law, etc.) is true, THEN practical applications result or are possible, NOT the other way around as in your dumb comment. And I wasn't talking about Christianity being true; neither was Tristan, and neither was Rob when he first replied to Tristan. It was about whether string theory is correct or not , which you'll note I never weighed in on.
I don't know enough about it to have an opinion; but Hawking DOES.
STFU about Newton and Einstein. You know nothing.
More stoopid:
This is utter bullshit.
Geerhed, I don't put up with those sorts of shenanigans for long.
I value my time and I don't see that this kind of attitude is consistent with real honest discussion.
Good day, God bless, and may the scales fall off of your eyes!
Rob,
If you value your time, then stop wasting ours.
@Brenda-
The articles was linked through Engadget, a tech sight yes, reporting on an article in Wired.
But the string theory article itself is the original PDF from Physical Review Letters.
You may just choose to go directly to the source here:
http://prl.aps.org/
But if it's too much work to read a real physics article... then why talk like you understand anything about physics? I mean, if it's too much trouble... just don't bother. Or... and this is just what I'd do... I'd read the article and see if there was any merit to it.
Here's a new word for you... Laslopitism, i.e. people who are too lazy to do any amount of research because it would challenge their views and therefore their arguments become sloppy. Sounds just as good as scientism if you ask me. ;)
From the article "Four-qubit entanglement from string theory" the authors state:
“Falsifiable predictions in the fields of high-energy physics or cosmology are hard to come by, especially for ambitious attempts, such as string/M-theory, to accommodate all the fundamental interactions. In the field of quantum information theory, however, previous work has shown that the stringy black hole/qubit correspondence can reproduce well-known results in the classification of two and three qubit entanglement. In this paper this correspondence has been taken one step further to predict new results in the less well-understood case of four-qubit entanglement that can in principle be tested in the laboratory.”
Both testable and falsifiable. So my question to the M-Theory doubters would be this, once tested, if verified to be true, would you correct your mistakes with the properly updated information? I’m not saying this alone would definitively prove M-Theory… it would just be strong evidence for its feasibility.
I know that if it is falsified, this discussion can go on. If not... then the chaps at Imperial have done us all a favor.
So my question to the M-Theory doubters would be this, once tested, if verified to be true, would you correct your mistakes with the properly updated information?
You make it sound like some of us are against M-theory.
I have no clue whether it is true or not and I have no clue whether if it is true at all that it also makes God unnecessary on the physical considerations or if this is merely another untestable potenetial of it.
once tested, if verified to be true, would you correct your mistakes
Again, how many false physical theories have had tons and tons and tons of successful experiments but no longer hold? As already was mentioned, this is the way of Newtonian physics, and if M theory is embraced, it will be the case with relativity. (yes, there were Gearheded's objections which he couldn't maintain and reduced his part of the discussion to insult and unsupported claims which amount to "nah ah!").
But I have never put all my eggs in the basket of cosmological arguments anyway. And while this may continue to be a less (but still) tentative answer to the kalaam cosmological argument, I don't know that it effects the more classical version which I believe depends upon the status of all things in our immeadiate experience as contingent, and not on a the impossibility of of an infinite past (which I deny anyhow).
My whole contention is not that M-thoery is false, but that it probably is no more tentative than so much else in science and it currently isn't agreed upon by all of the authorities who are qualified to really deal with these things.
Rob R said,
"Again, how many false physical theories have had tons and tons and tons of successful experiments but no longer hold?"
Name ONE.
I've discussed it with you. You had your chance. Bye bye.
You're still a dumbass, Rob.
Newtonian physics is still as valid as it ever was. I have an engineering degree, and you admitted that you DON'T have a degree.
I have studied calculus based physics at the college level, and what you say about Newton being tossed in the dustbin of failed "theories" is completely WRONG.
Please STOP spewing the nonsense that you think you know about physics and science.
From the link I posted yesterday that you OBVIOUSLY didn't read:
"Newton's theory of gravitation was soon accepted without question, and it remained unquestioned until the beginning of this century. Then Albert Einstein shook the foundations of physics with the introduction of his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, and his General Theory of Relativity in 1915 (Here is an example of a thought experiment in special relativity). The first showed that Newton's Three Laws of Motion were only approximately correct, breaking down when velocities approached that of light. The second showed that Newton's Law of Gravitation was also only approximately correct, breaking down in the presence of very strong gravitational fields."
If you had studied physics, you'd know that at the extremes, the corrections become large enough to matter, but under modest, everyday conditions, the corrections amount to adding "zero" to the results.
If you can't accept that I'm right about this, investigate it for yourself, but what you've been saying is totally wrong.
You discuussed nothing.
And you're still wrong.
You won't name a single theory that has had tons and tons and tons of successful experiments but no longer hold, because there AREN'T any.
Any scientific theory (look up the definition of "scientific theory", I believe you're misusing the term 'theory' to mean equivalent to 'speculation' which scientific "theories" aren't) that has had "tons and tons and tons of successful experiments" has been CONFIRMED, even though it's still called a theory.
Where do you get your scientific information from the Discovery Institute? They're a bunch of morons, too.
Rob R said,
"I've discussed it with you. You had your chance. Bye bye."
You quit, I win.
Be a man.
I challenged you incorrect appraisal of science, and you don't have a response. Your conception of what science is, what it does, why it works, how it advances--literally everything you said about it is wrong.
I refuse to play nice with you just because you say you're a Christian, and that it somehow means that I have to "respect your views".
I DON'T respect
WRONG.
And neither should you.
Rob R said...
I've discussed it with you. You had your chance. Bye bye."
Drops bottom lip...Stomps off muttering im EXCOMUINICATING YOU! .How dare you! play badly ..Only folks of faith have the right to play badly !.. with twisting matters and use of word games and cherry picking ....Boo Hoo Boo hoo ..im telling mummy
Dont bother talking Rob R .But that WONT silence us .
Tristan said.."But if it's too much work to read a real physics article... then why talk like you understand anything about physics? I mean, if it's too much trouble... just don't bother. Or... and this is just what I'd do... I'd read the article and see if there was any merit to it.
Here's a new word for you... Laslopitism, i.e. people who are too lazy to do any amount of research because it would challenge their views and therefore their arguments become sloppy. Sounds just as good as scientism if you ask me. ;)
I know that if it is falsified, this discussion can go on. If not... then the chaps at Imperial have done us all a favor."
Tristan ,but thats the problem, many faithful folks dont even want these other theorys even presented to us .In my opinion Brenda strangly all of a sudden only seems to arrive on the scene when Hawking presents this theory.(I could be wrong) but that seems a little strange.
Why arrive and become so pro active with regards to Hawkings?.Is it theist dsguised as agnostic?,skipping from forum to forum with a special agenda to make this presentation of another theory seem highly unscientific etc.Is it even someone with a personal grudge match? against Hawking or something.
Omly theory.Unscientific.But still never the less,its food for thought as we wonder whats really the rub.
Even if Hawkings theory is wrong .Its food to help more people start to realize, simply having theory of God does not do anything to make God anymore obvious .God theory is no more cut and dry theory, than is many other theorys either.
And yet folk try using it as manipulation and bully tactics and suggesting such silly unproven theorys could honestly be used to convict people to their eternal damnation in some "place theorized" as being hell.
What kind? of God and father figure would ever be so very unkind as to do such a thing.We see humans themselves will go out of their way, to specially try to be kind enough, to at least make rules and laws and boundarys and everything as obvious and clear cut for all to understand as possible.Even though we are not! even omnipotent divine beings.
So are we supposedly created in Gods image?, or is that only another unproven theory.Do we only look like him?,or are we supposed to follow in his footsteps ?
If so should we hide the laws and boundarys and make so much seem very unobvious.Would that be moral?.Could we still convict people and danm them to jails?.
Theorys.
Logic.Common sense.
Possibilitys.
Eucation.Knowledge.Technology.
Intelligence.Reasoning.
Stupidity.Arrogance,Ignorance
Sometimes the best we human can do is use theory and thought process.
Gandolf said,
"...Rob R said...
I've discussed it with you. You had your chance. Bye bye."
Drops bottom lip...Stomps off muttering im EXCOMUINICATING YOU! .How dare you! play badly ..Only folks of faith have the right to play badly !.. with twisting matters and use of word games and cherry picking ....Boo Hoo Boo hoo ..im telling mummy!"
ROFL!
If he had any chance at arguing in favor of his dumbness, he gave it up...
Not a single supporting viewpoint, even from the idiots at the Discovery Institute, or the Creation Museum...
because NOBODY believes the things he said. There ARE no sympathetic apologetics to what he said.
Wrapping up a few things....
Chuck O'Connor said...
"provide access to your blogger profile."
I don't have a blog.
""scientism" (a term usually reserved for those asserting some form of supernatural dualism)."
No, that's not what it is. The logical positivists were guilty of scientism. Which is the view that all meaningful questions can be answered by the methods of science.
Ryan M said...
"I hope you are simply trying to be rhetorically effective"
You catch on really fast don't you?
GearHedEd said...
"You're an idiot, too."
Fourteen year old Internet Tough Guy is tough.
"I don't know enough about it to have an opinion; but Hawking DOES."
Argument from authority FAIL.
Tristan D. Vick said...
"But if it's too much work to read a real physics article... then why talk like you understand anything about physics?"
Moar tough guy talk from tough guys who are tough. Does your ESL certificate entitle you to authoritatively discuss quantum theory? No? Me neither. What I can do however is I can evaluate arguments for validity and coherence. Reading around in the popular lit I find that there are critics out there who have strong opinions that current trends in research are giving too much credence to a theory they feel has few merits. It seems to me they have a good argument.
"Both testable and falsifiable. So my question to the M-Theory doubters would be this, once tested, if verified to be true, would you correct your mistakes with the properly updated information? "
The complaint by critics such as Woit is that M-Theory is not even mathematically coherent. Peter Woit is a mathematical physicist so what he says does carry some weight. Another complaint is that the theory has been so watered down that it is meaningless. A third complaint is that the need to publish and for funding has taken on a life of it's own and is distorting to pursuit of real science.
Does the Google not work for you? I mean, it would be pretty easy to take your vast knowledge of quantum and string theory directly to Peter on his blog. It isn't hard to find. There you could show him just how much smarter you are. But you're not going to do that are you? I think we both know why too. ESL certificate holder vs post doc in advanced theoretical physics equal massive fail for you doesn't it.
Wrapping up a few things....
Chuck O'Connor said...
"provide access to your blogger profile."
I don't have a blog.
""scientism" (a term usually reserved for those asserting some form of supernatural dualism)."
No, that's not what it is. The logical positivists were guilty of scientism. Which is the view that all meaningful questions can be answered by the methods of science.
Ryan M said...
"I hope you are simply trying to be rhetorically effective"
You catch on really fast don't you?
GearHedEd said...
"You're an idiot, too."
Fourteen year old Internet Tough Guy is tough.
"I don't know enough about it to have an opinion; but Hawking DOES."
Argument from authority FAIL.
Tristan D. Vick said...
"But if it's too much work to read a real physics article... then why talk like you understand anything about physics?"
Moar tough guy talk from tough guys who are tough. Does your ESL certificate entitle you to authoritatively discuss quantum theory? No? Me neither. What I can do however is I can evaluate arguments for validity and coherence. Reading around in the popular lit I find that there are critics out there who have strong opinions that current trends in research are giving too much credence to a theory they feel has few merits. It seems to me they have a good argument.
"Both testable and falsifiable. So my question to the M-Theory doubters would be this, once tested, if verified to be true, would you correct your mistakes with the properly updated information? "
The complaint by critics such as Woit is that M-Theory is not even mathematically coherent. Peter Woit is a mathematical physicist so what he says does carry some weight. Another complaint is that the theory has been so watered down that it is meaningless. A third complaint is that the need to publish and for funding has taken on a life of it's own and is distorting to pursuit of real science.
Does the Google not work for you? I mean, it would be pretty easy to take your vast knowledge of quantum and string theory directly to Peter on his blog. It isn't hard to find. There you could show him just how much smarter you are. But you're not going to do that are you? I think we both know why too. ESL certificate holder vs post doc in advanced theoretical physics equal massive fail for you doesn't it.
@Brenda
Here's a direct link to the physics articles in Physical Review Letters with the full papers on String Theory and Quantum Mechanics I was referring to (and from which the original PDF was linked).
Since it's an academic archive of the physics articles themselves you should have no problems getting the information you're looking for, depending on what you're most interested in.
Mine happens to be cosmology, but I do try and keep up on the latest quantum and M-theory papers as well.
Happy hunting!
@Brenda-
I don't know what you're talking about with the ESL thing.
That's not what my multiple degrees are in... but yes, I do teach English in Japan.
As for an academic archive vs. some physicists blog... well... I bet you can find some of his papers on the site as well.
If you stick to one source your information will be limited. Just saying.
Also I'm not contending what physicists say... I'm contenting what YOU say... because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
I never claimed to be an expert in the area of physics, but it sounds like you are. So I don't quite understand your defensiveness.
By the way... just for your information... my degrees are in Advanced English Theory and Criticism and Japanese Womens History, so I do know a thing or two about the historical method, researching, and offering a proper critique when need be.
The reason I don't need to offer a proper critique with you is because it's clear you have no clue what you're talking about.
That's not tough guy talk.... I'm sorry you are so insecure that you feel like you need to get all defensive. That's just a general criticism which goes for everyone who speaks outside of their field of expertise. Me included.
But you don't see me whining like the schoolyard bully when somebody complains about my methods. I mean, other than offering a bit of hyperbole to show the weakness of your research, at least I haven't resorted to ad hominems.
So I guess at the end of the day your the "tough gal" ain't you? Well good for you. Hope it works out for you. It won't mean you're right... but then... you (being so smart and all) probably already knew that.
Have a good one!
@ Brenda.
I'll be 49 next month, and have a bachelor of science degree in Civil Engineering, and I hold professional licences in two states.
You purposely twisted what I said:
"I have a practical theory that if I flap my arms I can fly about the room. This would be very practical for everyone and save a lot on gas. My theory is practical therefore it must be true."
If your reading comprehension is that poor, then you ARE an idiot
Brenda,
Would you not agree that the points I made were in fact correct? And in addition to this, you are merely attempting to be rhetorically effective in this dialogue?
Gearhed, it doesn't surprise me at all that you are an engineer. I have found several engineers who's confidence well exceeds their training, which has become very clear to me is not in these nuances of physics, the history of science and the nature of truth including mathematical truth even if they do know plenty of formulas to design some widgets and whatnots. But I do believe you are very brilliant. I base this on a similar conclusion that Brenda arrived at on your maturity level as you discuss like a spoiled teenager. As it is at the level of a 14 year old, I must say, I am impressed that you got your engineering degree at so young of an age!
And yes, you win that conversation that I left. You seem to need that victory in that one man conversation very much. And it was a one man conversation before I quit because even when I did reply to you, you weren't really always engaged in what I said.
And I have no interest to excel in quarreling. You are very welcome to win on those terms.
My last post should have read "are you merely attempting..." not "you are".
Rob R,
I was also once upon a time a Physics major at Michigan State University on a full four-year scholarship.
I moved to engineering because I felt it's more practical, and I could contribute more to the condition of my fellow humans.
Don't forget that some of those "widgets and whatnots" you seem to think are of litle consequence include such things as roads, bridges, water systems, sewer systems, and storm drainage systems...the things that CIVIL engineers do...
...without which YOUR life would resemble recent flood victims' lives in Pakistan.
I hear too often the complaint from religious folks like yourself that we (humans) can't really "know" anything...
This is completely disingenuous, because if it were true that empiricism has no worth, then everything in the "designed" (by engineers!) environment would have been impossible BEFORE it was built, and could not have been designed in the first place!
What do you know about the REAL WORLD applications of physics? How about fluid dynamics, or strength of materials? How about understanding the characteristics of soils necessary to make the informed decisions needed to go about designing a foundation for a four-story building that will support the weight without failing? How do you determine the diameter of a storm drain necessary to effectively handle storm runoff while at the same time keeping cost of pipe materials to a minimum? How do you design a sanitary landfill to accomodate all the waste of a wasteful society, while at the same time ensuring that all the poisons and filth that people throw in their trash without a second thought DON'T leach into the environment and comtaminate people's wells in nearby homes and communities?
ALL of us stood about a 50-50 chance of surviving into adulthood before those "widgets and whatnots" were designed by engineers.
What has philosophy and religion done for mankind?
I have seven years of college (cumulative GPA of ~3.8), mainly because I changed my major and had to suffer loss of some credits to do so.
I also have 30 years of field experience (in other words, I'm not an academic; I dig in and get my hands dirty).
What have you got?
Here's the problem I have with your "style", Rob:
You throw a bunch of stuff out there, much of which is NOT true, but having SAID that it's true somehow means to your mind that it IS true, and when others disagree (not just me, you do this to everyone who engages the things you say), you provide nothing to back up what you've said (not even links to Wikipedia!), beyond the occasional name-dropped favorite expert.
This statement:
"I was never a fan of this "time had to have a beginning, idea. Perhaps physical time and physical space had a beginning, but I'm not confident that the physical discussions on both really dictates the possible ways in which those concepts can be instantiated."
Says nothing more than you find something about the concept less than convincing.
So what? You never followed up on it, and no one really cares what YOU think about it ("I was never a fan of this...").
...And then, when pressed to the point where you either MUST admit that you were wrong or abandon the argument, you bail:
"I've discussed it with you. You had your chance. Bye bye."
September 15, 2010 6:04 PM
That is not discussion, it is you attempting to instruct others who already know better, and it's arrogant for you to think this way.
You might call me arrogant in return, but you'd be wrong. I have done the science, I have done the math, and I know what the hell I'm talking about.
Oh, and I've read the history, too. And the ethics. And the Bible, many times over.
I don't limit myself to one side of the aisle.
Rob R said,
"...And yes, you win that conversation that I left. You seem to need that victory in that one man conversation very much. And it was a one man conversation before I quit because even when I did reply to you, you weren't really always engaged in what I said."
Again, for emphasis:
"...you weren't really always engaged in what I said."
Trying to instruct.
I don't NEED to be the victor. But I can't abide arguments that have no merit. When you DID reply to me, every instance (look back through the posts for yourself if you think I'm making this stuff up) was either shooting a question back at me (which isn't an answer-- it's just another attempt to instruct), or a denial without any supporting material to give weight to your denial.
I raised specific objections to the things you said, and while I didn't often provide links to supporting material, it exists, and is easily found should one take a couple of minutes to look.
post 1 of 3
Well, since you dispensed with most of the gratuitous insults, perhaps a second chance is in order.
I also have 30 years of field experience (in other words, I'm not an academic; I dig in and get my hands dirty)... Don't forget that some of those "widgets and whatnots" you seem to think are of litle consequence
such is of great consequence. But much of this is possible without nuances of physics. Newtonian mathematics is good enough to design a great deal of technology and is the immeadiate primary concern of most engineering. that doesn't mean that it truely describes reality, of the motion of objects where another theory can do more. (you don't need to answer this comment, I will support it further down).
I raised specific objections to the things you said
Like "You obviously don't know dick about mathematics, either, so there's no point in explaining it to you." in response too:
"A modified equation with differing mathematical outcomes is no longer the same equation. Anything less is a big mathematical no no."
This was key. You want to say that I need to go get a masters to understand why this is wrong. Well, that's not a practical objection. And having been through plenty of math classes, I don't believe that I'm going to take enough and discover that this is wrong.
Your unsupported assertion does not defeat my properly basic assertion.
But it's a word game. A modification IS a replacement (especially when different outcomes come about because of those modifications, of course you can change an equation around so it still does the same thing, this is not so from newtonian equations to Relativistic ones). That is not a mathematical matter. This is about the english language. This is about articulation and coneptualization. You complain that I don't back things up. Telling me to go get a masters in something mathematical really really doesn't do that.
Another one:
In response too:
"if your numbers are too big, too small or too precise, then newtonian physics doesn't work. "
You're immeadiate response? "is so dumb I don't even know where to start."
great objection.
post 2 of 3
Then you revisit it with this:
"Newton's theory of gravitation was soon accepted without question, and it remained unquestioned until the beginning of this century. Then Albert Einstein shook the foundations of physics with the introduction of his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, and his General Theory of Relativity in 1915 (Here is an example of a thought experiment in special relativity). The first showed that Newton's Three Laws of Motion were only approximately correct, breaking down when velocities approached that of light. The second showed that Newton's Law of Gravitation was also only approximately correct, breaking down in the presence of very strong gravitational fields."
In other words, if the numbers are too big, we see the problem of newtonian physics. But relativity doesn't have this problem with the same measurements of newtonian physics. It still holds.
I wouldn't think I'd have to support this to someone aquainted with physics, but if you don't believe me, go look up the Hafele–Keating, experiment on wikipedia. At very small fraction of the speed of light, relativistic effects are STILL there. It's not the newtonian equations that describe this. They are too crude. They have been replaced in terms of accurately describing reality. But we still use them because relatively crude measurements are enough for most applications of daily life and engineering.
as to this follow up,
If you had studied physics, you'd know that at the extremes, the corrections become large enough to matter, but under modest, everyday conditions, the corrections amount to adding "zero" to the results.
If you studied metaphysics and the correspondence theory of truth, you'd know that those corrections that aren't large enough to "matter" (that is to be observed) still matter in terms of what we want to know if we think we can understand reality... even from a scientific perspective.
I hear too often the complaint from religious folks like yourself that we (humans) can't really "know" anything...
I hear scientists and engineers say things that aren't true as well. At any rate, I don't believe that. there is much we can know about the world and God considering we are created in the image of God.
This is completely disingenuous, because if it were true that empiricism has no worth,
Empiricism, the idea that all of our knowledge comes through the senses to our blank slate minds has no worth. Empirical data however is essential for an adequate understanding of anything, be it God, scripture, humanity or nature and science. And to suggest that everything must come through empirical knowledge? that's just contradictory since no empirical observation can establish the claim that "all knowledge must come through the empirical".
What has philosophy and religion done for mankind?
It provided the groundwork that lead to the natural sciences for one. It helps with moral knowledge which science cannot provide (Science can at best tell us what IS the case, but you cannot derive an "ought" purely from what is as the atheist David Hume has demonstrated). It helps with human significance and worth which is foundational for morality.
post 3 of 3
you provide nothing to back up what you've said (not even links to Wikipedia!), beyond the occasional name-dropped favorite expert.
those are called non-fallacious appeals to authority. When you hold yourself up as an authority with just an engineering degree, that is a fallacious appeal to authority since from Eric and I, it was evident that what you said disagrees with both Hawking (on one matter) and Penrose.
You did make that very strange claim that I cherry picked penrose and said he didn't support my "idiotic religion" as if that mattered to the points I was making. Penrose and Hawking are on the same page in this. They believe that old physics theories like newtonianism has been superseeded. And Penrose has stated that there is a difference between most physicists and himself in how to deal with quantum gravity in terms of which needs to be modified, relativity (favored by string theorists) or quantum mechanics.
From the "Emporer's New Mind" in his chapter on quantum gravity from the '91 Penguin books edition:
Most physicists do not believe that quantum theory needs to change when united with general relativity. (349)
...My own viewpoint is almost the opposite. I believe that the problems within quantum theory are of a fundamental character. Recall the incompatibility of U and R of quantum mechanics... In my view, this incompatibility cannot be adequately resolved merely by the adoption of a suitable 'interpretation' of quantum mechanics but only by some radicle new theory..."(349)
So qm is under attack by Penrose and since the short text I surveyed today doesn't explicitely say that the other physicists want to see relativity replaced instead, I will let NASA say it. In light of the problems between qm and relativity their website notes
...scientists today have reason to think that even Einstein's theory isn't the whole story; another revolution seems inevitable.
...When will the first shots of this physics revolution ring out? Perhaps when Einstein, like Newton before him, is proven wrong--or at least not quite right.
source
the article also goes on to explain how they are "hunting for flaws" in Einstein's theory.
one more, post 4
"I was never a fan of this "time had to have a beginning, idea. Perhaps physical time and physical space had a beginning, but I'm not confident that the physical discussions on both really dictates the possible ways in which those concepts can be instantiated."
Says nothing more than you find something about the concept less than convincing.
I don't think you even know the point of that. Basically, I don't put any eggs in the basket of the kalaam cosmological argument which Hawkings discussion on M theory answers. I don't believe time had a beginning. It might've. But I don't think it did and don't know why it should.
You said,
"I wouldn't think I'd have to support this to someone aquainted with physics, but if you don't believe me, go look up the Hafele–Keating, experiment on wikipedia. At very small fraction of the speed of light, relativistic effects are STILL there. It's not the newtonian equations that describe this. They are too crude. They have been replaced in terms of accurately describing reality. But we still use them because relatively crude measurements are enough for most applications of daily life and engineering."
This is what I've been saying all along, just from the other end!
Newton formulated his laws from the everyday experiences folks had in the 17th century, and what he wrote down works for modest velocities and in the presence of modest gravity fields. The relativistic corrections were ALWAYS there, but under normal conditions they either amount to adding zero, or more often multiplying the result by 1. As I said, Newton was right, just not in extreme situations.
The time dilation factor associated with extreme velocities is exemplary:
T' = T/(1-(v^2/c^2))^-2
where T' is dilated time, v is velocity in the same units as 'c', and c is the speed of light.
read out loud in english, it says that
Dilated time is equal to the stationary observer's time multiplied by the quantity 1 over the square root of 1 minus the quantity 'v' squared over 'c' squared.
The effect is that when velocities are small, v^2/c^2 is effectively zero, yielding
T' = T/(1-(~0))^-2
which equals
T' = T/(1)^-2
which equals
T' = T
Anyone with a moderate background (it doesn't require a master's degree, nor did I ever imply that it DID) in mathematics can easily see that when the velocity of the moving observer (the one subject to the time dilation) approaches the speed of light, v^2/c^2 approaches 1, and the correction approaches infinity. This is why faster than light travel is impossible under relativistic physics.
It's also why I didn't go into detail earlier; mathematics is cumbersome and easily misunderstood given the limited format in which we can express equations.
Let me qualify:
"It's also why I didn't go into detail earlier; mathematics is cumbersome and easily misunderstood given the limited format in which we can express equations."
I mean here, in a blog comment.
You said,
"I will let NASA say it. In light of the problems between qm and relativity their website notes
"...scientists today have reason to think that even Einstein's theory isn't the whole story; another revolution seems inevitable.
...When will the first shots of this physics revolution ring out? Perhaps when Einstein, like Newton before him, is proven wrong--or at least not quite right."
the article also goes on to explain how they are "hunting for flaws" in Einstein's theory.
Of course they're hunting for flaws; but they probably won't find any. They may find incremental corrective factors, but a wholesale replacement is very unlikely.
So why are they hunting for "flaws"?
They want to break out of the relativistic speed limit, of course.
Oh, and I was aware of the Hafele–Keating experiment LOOONG before you thought you were bringing it to my attention.
You said,
"If you studied metaphysics and the correspondence theory of truth, you'd know that those corrections that aren't large enough to "matter" (that is to be observed) still matter in terms of what we want to know if we think we can understand reality... even from a scientific perspective."
I never said the corrections don't matter; I said they were too small to notice in moderate circumstances. You seem to think there's vastly more here than there is.
Look at the equation directly above the heading reading
"Time dilation due to relative velocity symmetric between observers" in this article. It's the exact same equation I spelled out earlier.
I'll say it once again:
Newton's physics are still valid, and the equations still hold under moderate conditions.
The SAME equations need to be modified for corrective factors at extremes of velocity, gravity, etc., where the corrections make a difference to the results.
Ed, I see what you are saying. The equations do indeed show that for all practical puruposes, time dilation is zero.
What you don't understand is that, I know this. This is nothing new. For all practical purposes, it is zero, but the reality is our practical purposes, our crude ability to measure, our needs from the mathematics means that we can ignore the physical reality that what is practically zero isn't really zero. An infinitesimally small degree of time dilation is still there. It's still in the mathematics if we choose not to go with ~0. The mathematical reality is just more precise than our actual measurements can go.
The world we perceive at slow speeds looks like the world of Newton. The world we can measure fits his equations. It's not that the world changes at the fringes of high speed. It's that the reality that we can't perceive and can't measure (except with exceptional experiments such as the atomic clock on airplane experiement) at slower speeds becomes detectable once we start looking at higher speeds.
Are Newton's equations still valid? For describing ultimate reality? no. for designing most sophisticated technologies and for operating in the world under the crude conditions, for describing our perceptively slow speed world of our daily experience, it is what is pragmatic.
I said they were too small to notice in moderate circumstances. You seem to think there's vastly more here than there is.
No, not at all. I agree that they are too small to notice. Too small to notice is not synonomous with not there.
Earlier, I mentioned to someone that we have theories with tons of successful experimental data even though they aren't true. To me, Newtonian physics is an obvious example. And so you don't agree. But surely now you can see that NASA believes that relativity just might be such a theory because they are looking for it's flaws. Why? You were wrong on that, it's about what we've been talking about since the beginning, to find a theory of quantum gravity. But that doesn't matter, from their own lips, they are looking for reasons why relativity is wrong (even though we can all agree that it has experimental data behind it).
And as we have seen, the science is up in the air for that project of quantum gravity. Penrose thinks that we should stick with relativity and rework quantum mechanics.
That's great. It's how science progresses.
Still, Newton wasn't WRONG; he was just imprecise. And considering that the sharpest instrument he was working with was arguably his own brain, I think he did a tremendous job.
And when you say that his imprecision casts doubt on the reality he described, well, I disagree. As I said earlier amd again just now, it's how science works.
Nobody scrapped Newton outright when relativity came along; even you said just now:
"The world we perceive at slow speeds looks like the world of Newton. The world we can measure fits his equations."
Einstein's relativity has been confirmed to about 8 or 10 decimal places. If a new theory comes along that goes beyond relativity, it will have to fit in the cracks left behind by what's already been experimentally confirmed.
Or define new (areas? volumes? there isn't a word for it yet) places for the new paradigm to reside. This is one reason why there ARE string theorists and 11-D braneworld theorists; because the new 'dimensions' will have to be unknowable to previous science, and unexpressed in everyday experience.
I'm not advocating either of those hypotheses, BTW. I'm just pointing out why they exist.
post 1 of 3
Still, Newton wasn't WRONG; he was just imprecise. And considering that the sharpest instrument he was working with was arguably his own brain, I think he did a tremendous job.
Well, I'm hoping, and it seems to me that perhaps we have made progress. Let me suggest here is that our disagreement here isn't most directly on the physics itself. It is how to articulate the relationship of the physical theories of relativity, newtonianism and qm and the history of the development of these ideas. It is about the nature of truth itself.
As I said, when I speak to engineers on this sort of thing, they insist as you have that Newtonian physics is still true, that it is just true within limits. But with physicists, I find them articulating things both ways. Why? Well, it is a matter of practicalities and the context of discourse. So I'll explore both ways of articulating it in the following paragraphs. And in light of this thinking, I have had to rethink some of the things I have said which will follow after I explore further the side that I have advanced.
A really successful theory not only fits the evidence, but it predicts outcomes of future observations. Newtonian physics did both for a long time. But then the predictions failed when we started to measure the speed of light. The Newtonian equations would predict if you shined a light ahead of a moving vehicle, the light should increase it's speed according to the speed of the vehicle. But that doesn't happen, the speed remains the same. So the Newtonian predictions fail. And for physics, those formulas cannot do what we expect scientific theories to do, to be extrapolated indefinitely beyond what was currently observed to explain the relationships between physical entities (such extrapolation can be in terms of prediction, but in the past for string theory, extrapolation was done without clear routes for experimentation for those extrapolations). If we are going to understand the deep most basic relationships, we need theories that can explain both what Newtonian physics explained as well as what it couldn't. Relativity has that ability though it doesn't for much of what qm covers (which I haven't been focusing on for simplicities sake).
To make matters worse, Karl Popper (IIRC a favored philosopher of science for John Loftus, but I side with Kuhn), who is the one who introduced the idea of "falsfiability" into scientific vocabulary has the view that we can never actually know for sure that any scientific theory is true because of the problem of induction. No number of succesful predictions can thoroughly prove a scientific theory because there is always a possible future exception, yet we can know what is false because it takes only one failed prediction to prove a theory, a general statement for physics, wrong. The transition from Newtonian physics to Relativity really fits this picture (and probably is what inspired Popper). And the current debate on quantum gravity fits it as well considering relativity or qm (or both) will have to be altered to resolve the conflict between the two. So for Popper, the key to whether some claim was scientific or not was whether it was conceivable, prior to an experiment to be proven false. According to Popper, falsfication was much more powerful and much more certain than verification since it didn't have the problem of induction. So on these demanding terms, Newtonian physics didn't just fail one prediction, it failed many and hard in light of such a strong emphasis on falsification
post 2 of 3
On the side, even though falsification is very strong in light of this, Thomas Kuhn demonstrated that in the way that science actually works, it takes far more than just one experiment to falsify a theory. Theories (actually, megatheories, or paradigms in Kuhn's terms) in fact persist with contrary data also called anamolies. Much of this data though may become resolved within the terms of the theory (relativity though is not in terms of Newtonianism) through further advances, or else it is ignored until such can be done. but If anomalies build up too much or are very consistent, and another model presents itself, then a scientific revolution may occur(Kuhn is not friendlier to Newtonianism than Popper as this is his narrative of the transition from Newtonian Physics to relativity and qm).
Now falsification, even if one isn't a Popperian is still useful in the language of science for a very practical reason. A major engine of science is experimentation, so how can one test hypotheses and theories if the outcome isn't meaningful if, one cannot conceive of how the experiment might demonstrate that the theory/hypothesis is false let alone true. And even if Popper isn't exactly right about the power of falsification, the concern about induction, that you can have tons of experiments support a theory yet it can still be false remains and it remains that further experiments can falsify it.
One last set of considerations that I haven't even mentioned in favor of considering Newtonian physics as false is the more metaphysical aspects of it, such as treating space and time as if they are absolute and not malleable. (and on the qm side, it wrongfully assumes determinism)
Yet it does remain that for a consistent range of calculations Newtonian physics will be very close to the truth. And yet, again, for the purpose of the advancement of physics, of understanding the universe to the best of our ability, close to the truth is not the truth. Close to the truth yields something that ignores phenomena that is imperceptible, but still very much there. Relatively speaking, for our day to day, we don't need the exact truth.
On the other hand this does fly in the face of common sense to suggest when I am going down the highway and my speedometer and see that I am going 55 mph, I am probably am wrong to believe that just because I don't know the speed down to the last decimal. and that's an inaccuracy that is well within the region where Newtonian physics is practical let alone the issue that might be made about the lack of calculation of time dilation.
And even where far more precise calculations are involved such as in designing an engine, calculating the frequency and timing of an engine or a motor, it would be absurd for the lead engineer to reject someone's calculations just because he didn't make the extremely small adjustments for time dilation even though, relative to most human endevors, this is a highly precise practice. For our day to day experiences and activities and even more technologically refined ones, what is aproximate, what is not absolutely exact but close enough is indeed considered the truth.
post 3 of 3
And Ironically, this "wrong" theory still have much potential to guide future technological advancement and scientific research especially where a more accurate use of relativity would be more cumbersome and unhelpful and just won't match much of our data that in many cases just can't be measured to the degree where our circumstantially limiting significant digits allow.
Clearly, here between these two approaches to describing the status of Newtons laws, we have the difference in the usage on the very term "truth". They aren't necessarily radically different. It does make sense to say that the sense of truth with the description of Newtonian physics as false is an example of the correspondence theory of truth and that the version of truth in mind for our day to day experiences, and for even much else that involves engineers and physicists where the truth of Newtonian calculations is taken for granted is a pragmatic theory of truth (which is truth as defined as that which is useful).
But this distinction isn't strictly true either. It itself is useful, but it's due to the lack of usefulness of Newtonian physics to do what Newton thought it did, explain the basic way in which the universe works that is part of the reason for considering it false. And for what is described as the more pragmatic view of Newtonian physics, it isn't insignificant that it it highly corresponds to reality at a certain range even if it isn't exact.
For this topic though, I insist that it was appropriate to refer to Newtonian physics as false. The context of our discussion is Steven Hawkings discussion on M-theory. And here, for decades, the string theories involved in that were purely a matter of extrapolation. Well, for the purposes of extrapolating what we know into knew territories, my discussions of scientific theories which were successful but are now considered false including Newtonian physics are spot on as this is the context.
And to return to the topic, Hawking may be justified to suggest that God isn't necessary to explain the physical universe on some considerations, but to hinge one's belief upon it is still a matter of faith given what may be reasonably extrapolated today may be found lacking tomorrow in the progress of physics.
Rob said,
(part 1)
"...Let me suggest here is that our disagreement here isn't most directly on the physics itself. It is how to articulate the relationship of the physical theories of relativity, newtonianism and qm and the history of the development of these ideas. It is about the nature of truth itself."
I think that pursuing "truth", as you've demonstrated in this thread is, at least to your way of thinking, a primarily philosophical pursuit.
No problem with that.
You may notice also that I never voiced (typed?) an opinion on whether Hawking is onto something reliable here.
I don't have "faith" that he's right. I'm waiting for the experimental confirmation (or refutation, if it goes that way) of his claims.
You said,
"...For this topic though, I insist that it was appropriate to refer to Newtonian physics as false. The context of our discussion is Steven Hawking’s discussion on M-theory. And here, for decades, the string theories involved in that were purely a matter of extrapolation. Well, for the purposes of extrapolating what we know into new territories, my discussions of scientific theories which were successful but are now considered false including Newtonian physics are spot on as this is the context."
No one but philosophers consider Newton to have been "wrong", and only in the sense that he didn't have ultimate 'truth' backing him up.
When orbits are calculated by NASA, they start with Newton's laws of gravitation. That they apply relativistic corrections to those equations when necessary doesn't change the fact that Newton is the foundation of what they're doing.
Newton isn't false; he's just not "absolutely true in all cases".
The corrections were always there, even if Newton didn't recognize it due to being inside the everyday world he described.
(part 2)
One of the things that was instrumental in making Einstein realize that there were things in Newton's equations that might need relativistic tweaking was the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Furthermore, there are real-world applications of relativity (not sure if you already mentioned this, but...). The GPS systems of satellites broadcast signals with orbital ephemeris data along with code and carrier wave signals that passive receivers on earth (from hand-held GPS trackers to sub-centimeter surveying grade receivers) pick up and run through built-in algorithms to generate surface positional coordinates. One of the primary reasons this is possible at all is because of the recognition that relativistic effects (due to speed and gravity differentials between the satellites and the observers) must be accounted for or the position data comes out wrong.
Now, the basic equations that determine position on the earth's surface are essentially three-dimensional inverse Pythagorean solutions, combined with the same from at least three other satellites simultaneously. The relativistic corrections are additive factors, NOT wholesale rewritings of the foundational equations.
And it's similar with Newton's equations.
So how do the "corrected" signals provide such "ultimate truth" about one's position on the earth (after all, it's duplicatable!)? Surveying grade GPS results are systems of redundant observations, the same quantity being measured numerous times to develop a statistical population of data that can then be adjusted through a least-squares algorithm to derive a "best answer", which will approach the "true" value (but never reach it, and we all know this!) with the addition of even more measurements of the quantity in question.
There is no "ultimate truth" as philosophers have defined it. But scientists and mathematicians HAVE figured out how to approach the truth through statistical analysis of measured data sets.
And that's as close as it needs to be. You'll find, if you care to look at the data, that all modern physics depends on this empirical approach.
You may notice also that I never voiced (typed?) an opinion on whether Hawking is onto something reliable here.
fair enough. But I am defending the line of thought in responding to Hawking that you criticisized.
No one but philosophers consider Newton to have been "wrong", and only in the sense that he didn't have ultimate 'truth' backing him up.
The NASA article I quoted and Linked to said that Newton was wrong. I recall the first time I heard my nuclear physicist high school teacher (he was a physicist for the NAVY) say prior to teaching relativity and after teaching Newtonian physics "all that stuff I just taught you, you're going to learn that it was wrong". I thought to myself pretty much what you had articulated here, silly teacher, Newton's physics isn't wrong, just not right in all places but wrong for others." But I kept learning and studying these things at the undergrad level including the history of science and I find his articulation just fine. A top organization in physics said Newton was wrong. My highschool teacher said it's wrong. Thomas Kuhn who I referred to earlier who was a harvard trained physicist would articulate it this way. This is not an uncommon articulation restricted to philosophers.
I don't know what you mean by ultimate truth. I'm just talking about the correspondence theory of truth (if you are interested in suggesting that science describes reality) and the pragmatic theory of truth.
I don't have "faith" that he's right. I'm waiting for the experimental confirmation (or refutation, if it goes that way) of his claims.
How much experimental confirmation do we have for qm and relativity, yet for the next step in determining quantum gravity, one of them has to be replaced.
When orbits are calculated by NASA, they start with Newton's laws of gravitation. That they apply relativistic corrections to those equations when necessary doesn't change the fact that Newton is the foundation of what they're doing.
Yes, there is an appropriate articulation for calling Newton's formulas true just as there is an appropriate articulation for calling it false. I described both contexts. Giving further examples of the second context doesn't really advance the discussion.
Newton isn't false; he's just not "absolutely true in all cases".
yes, I spoke to this context. But that is not the context for our discussion that began with regard to Hawking's book.
And that's as close as it needs to be.
yes, in some contexts, Newton is close enough. In some contexts it is appropriate to call it true, that is until we start asking more basic questions, until we start doing what one is supposed to be able to do with these theories: extrapolate. Once we go into that context, it is no longer useful to consider much of Newton's picture true.
this is not primarily a philosophical issue (though it certainly is relevant). It is a physical one. It is a physical concern that we should be able to extrapolate our physical models and understandings to attempt to answer more and more questions.
You'll find, if you care to look at the data, that all modern physics depends on this empirical approach.
Physicists were speaking of string theory for decades before it was concievable that it could be tested. Empirical data is important, but evidently it isn't absolute for science.
Post a Comment