What is "space" consisted of?

[Beercules]

Originally posted by Canute
Beercules - You took what I said to be trivial - which it certainly is in a way. But it certainly isn't when looked at in another way. Either way I was suggesting that a true ToE, or rather any ToE that we fully accept to be true, would have to be unfalsifiable in principle and this still seems true to me.

That is the crux of it though - science isn't about having absolute proof. A viable TOE is not going to be absolutely proven, ever. Even if it successfully makes predictions about the quantum nature of spacetime, it will always be vulernable to experiment. There is no such thing as proof, at least as far as science goes.

I agree if you link these two things together. But plenty of other cosmologies explain the universe as well if not better. Our current scientific cosmological models don't even explain why it's here, and some do (or purport to).

Name some, I'm curious to know.

When it comes to the details science is brilliant at making scientific predictions. It's the tool for the job. But most other cosmologies aren't concerned with the details and are not designed to deal with them.

Great, but I'm only talking about cosmology based on science. This isn't the thread to discuss other philosophical ontologies, though it might make for a worthwhile topic in the appropriate forum.

Let's keep this forum about science.

 

[grimreaper]

Beercules explain the big bang?

Obviously my teachers and PBS have mislead me or I have a wrong impression of their version.

Also can any one point me to text that discuss the possibility that the universe was created by the implosion or conversion of energy into matter.

with respect

 

[thinker]

Try The History of the Universe by Stephen Hawking. Great book .

 

[Red Devil]

Thinker: Dont you mean A Brief History of Time???

 

[Peter2003]

Attn: Beercules

What we see as energy is created from unfolding of larger sources of interaction to smaller ones. For example, the release of light from disturbed atoms. We can unfold light from atoms but we cannot make atoms from light or from other seen as "elementary" particles. This makes the big bang theory hanging on nothing but a popular belief, more precisely it is a set of wierd believes. You should keep this in mind if you are looking for the true universe unfolding.

There is no such thing as an "elementary" particle. Every body has an origin (structure). It is our ignorance that coins "elementar" to what is unknown.

I would greatly appreciate the great big bang believers like Beercules to coment this post.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Beercules
That is the crux of it though - science isn't about having absolute proof. A viable TOE is not going to be absolutely proven, ever. Even if it successfully makes predictions about the quantum nature of spacetime, it will always be vulernable to experiment. There is no such thing as proof, at least as far as science goes.

I think we are slightly at cross purposes. I appreciate that science cannot ultimately prove its theories, that is old news and I'm not suggesting that it invalidates scienctific enquiry in any way. I mean something a little different, namely that the limit case for true ToEs, as they approach the truth, is a scientifically meaningless proposition, since it would be unfalsifiable by any test, hypothetical or actual. Therefore the failure of a new theory to make predictions usually counts against it, but is not in itself evidence of falsity, and could in some special case be evidence of truth. If we are to ever KNOW that a cosmological theory is true it would not be enough that it did not contradict science, it would have to be provably (thus a priori) unfalsified by any test, thus scientifically trivial.

[Name some, I'm curious to know.[/B]

All the major religions and philosophies have cosmologies that explain some of the things that science does not, not that makes them right of course.

[Great, but I'm only talking about cosmology based on science. This isn't the thread to discuss other philosophical ontologies, though it might make for a worthwhile topic in the appropriate forum. Let's keep this forum about science. [/B]

You make the assumption that science can provide the ultimate answers. Perhaps this is true, perhaps not.

I appreciate that this is a science site, and perhaps I should take more account of that, but personally I'm more intersted in what is true than what is or is not scientific. Of course science should be practised with rigour according to its rules. However that does not mean that we must assume that science is the only way to understand the universe, or even that it is the best way. To do this is to place arbitrary limit on our investigation, our thinking, and quite probably our understanding. It may well be that science can never explain more than a part of the truth.

 

[Red Devil]

Peter: A few years ago there were two schools of thought, that of the "Steady State" theory and that of the "Big Bang" theory. Over the past three of four decades, Science has discovered much more about the Universe and the contents of the Universe and this is pointing definitely towards the "Big Bang" as residue from the occasion is in the Universe today. I am not a scientist so cannot explain the physics involved but if the vast majority of the scientific comunity is convinced, then I shall go along with that.

 

[Beercules]

Originally posted by Canute
I think we are slightly at cross purposes. I appreciate that science cannot ultimately prove its theories, that is old news and I'm not suggesting that it invalidates scienctific enquiry in any way. I mean something a little different, namely that the limit case for true ToEs, as they approach the truth, is a scientifically meaningless proposition, since it would be unfalsifiable by any test, hypothetical or actual.

I don't see how this is so. As I said, a theory doesn't ever have to be proven. Even if we ran out of experiments to do, a TOE that had made several testible predictions and could explain natural phenomena would be very useful.

Therefore the failure of a new theory to make predictions usually counts against it, but is not in itself evidence of falsity, and could in some special case be evidence of truth. If we are to ever KNOW that a cosmological theory is true it would not be enough that it did not contradict science, it would have to be provably (thus a priori) unfalsified by any test, thus scientifically trivial.

That isn't what science is about.

All the major religions and philosophies have cosmologies that explain some of the things that science does not, not that makes them right of course.

And they don't have the slightest shred of evidence to support them. Nor do they explain how quantum gravity or anything else about the natural world works. But if you disagree, take this to the philosophy or religion form. I don't think a discussion about space should become a debate about the uselessness of religion in explaining natural phenomena.

You make the assumption that science can provide the ultimate answers. Perhaps this is true, perhaps not.

Only the questions we ask about nature. That's all we're looking at here.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Beercules
I don't see how this is so. As I said, a theory doesn't ever have to be proven. Even if we ran out of experiments to do, a TOE that had made several testible predictions and could explain natural phenomena would be very useful.

I think if you conduct the experiment of imagining for a moment that you had a theory of any kind that explained everything, that was completely true, and then tried to figure out what falsifiable predictions it might make, you'd see what I mean. There aren't any.

I'm not saying that this is all that deep in meaning. It just means that as our prefered theory, whatever it is, gets ever closer to explaining everything then all the alternative explanations get progressively less falsifiable. They must do. They are the ones that have not yet been falsified and the tests are getting tougher. By natural selection only the very unfalsifiable ones are left by the time your own theory is nearly completion.

I was just arguuing that we should be careful, when we're dismissing alternative or crackpot theories, as I think you we're at the time, that we don't unthinkingly throw out one that is even more right, and that the chances of doing this increase the more we think we know.

[hat isn't what science is about. [/B]

Right or wrong I was proposing a fact about the physical world. How can a fact about the physical not be what science is about? I may have been wrong of course, but it was supposed to be relevant right.

[And they don't have the slightest shred of evidence to support them. Nor do they explain how quantum gravity or anything else about the natural world works. But if you disagree, take this to the philosophy or religion form. I don't think a discussion about space should become a debate about the uselessness of religion in explaining natural phenomena.[/B]

They have the same evidence as everyone does, namely what we can observe or deduce. As long as they don't disgree with that then how can you tell them apart except on logical grounds?

[Only the questions we ask about nature. That's all we're looking at here. [/B]

Agreed. But is it capable of answering them in the same terms that they are asked, or in other words are they asked in such terms as to make them ultimately unanswerable? We don't yet know and can't be dogmatic about it.

 

[Beercules]

Originally posted by Canute
I think if you conduct the experiment of imagining for a moment that you had a theory of any kind that explained everything, that was completely true, and then tried to figure out what falsifiable predictions it might make, you'd see what I mean. There aren't any.

But you see, science doesn't prove theories, it disproves them. Any theory could possibly be true, but we can never know for sure. Instead, we can only ever find experimental evidence that contradicts a certain theory. A TOE, if false, would always have the potential to be falsified. If absolutely true, we could never prove it.

I see what you're saying, but I don't see how that lends credibiity to crackpots. See below:

I was just arguuing that we should be careful, when we're dismissing alternative or crackpot theories, as I think you we're at the time, that we don't unthinkingly throw out one that is even more right, and that the chances of doing this increase the more we think we know.

I think it's important to note that the label crackpot is often well earned. As I said, it's not that crackpot models make no testible predictions alone. They also often contradict experimental evidence with no explanation offered. A perfect example of this is aether theorists. You really need to visit some of the newsgroups (or websites) to see what I mean. Did you view the crackpot index?

Right or wrong I was proposing a fact about the physical world. How can a fact about the physical not be what science is about? I may have been wrong of course, but it was supposed to be relevant right.

The point is that it's not about absolute proof or absolute knowledge. It's about developing mathematical models to explain known observation and experimental evidence. Sure, giant living pumpkins could be the real cause of gravity, but science deals with models that are actually useful, and hopefully make additional predictions about physical phenomena. But even without demanding absolute proof or knowledge, you can see that science works very well for us.

They have the same evidence as everyone does, namely what we can observe or deduce. As long as they don't disgree with that then how can you tell them apart except on logical grounds?

Really? And how is the cosmic background radiation evidence for a person named God? There is a world of difference between being consistent with evidence, and actual evidence for a proposed theory itself. But this is again getting way off topic.

 

[AntonK]

My theory on crackpots and their theories

I've been here for quite sometime, and no matter what we do, we will probably always have "crackpot" theories. There has also, for quite some time, been an on going argument against such ideas. I, for one, have never had this hatred of "crackpots". Here's my idea on why.

I am a computer scientists, well technically just a student, but my research is doctorate level work (ask for more info, I love talking about it ). In computer science, a big field of study right now is genetic algorithms and neuroemulation (neural nets). To me, THIS is why crackpots are important. Genetic algorithms solve problems that are much harder to solve by themselves, because the algorithm simply uses randomness (mutation) and some way of evaluation the "fitness" of an answer. In the neuroemulation sciences, we try to emulate in whatever way possible the way the human brain works. The hypertext transfer protocol (http) was invented to do just this. It was created to follow the brain's pattern of jumping from one related though to another (train of though).

NOW...pretend that the crackpots are the genetic algorithm which follows a neurological system. Crackpots come up with seemingly random ideas (most of which have no value) and other people read them to determine their "fitness" (not true peer review...but they are read). Once this theory has run its course, no doubt some other "crackpot" will find value in it and modify it somehow and state it fits his own to some degree (think MacM's theory as of late). This is the mutation process. The end result of this after a great deal of time may lead to NOTHING...in which case, nothing is lost. HOWEVER, as genetic algorithms prove, perhaps someone may chance upon a true solution. You never know.

-AntonK

 

[Red Devil]

A so called "crackpot" has his (or her) place in our lives. How many crackpots in the past have later to be come realised as genius incarnate? Galileo? Da Vinci? Copernicus, Baird? Edison? The list goes on - todays bright idea from a "crackpot" opens up a whole new world tomorrow!!

 

[Canute]

Anton K - that seems an important point.

Originally posted by Beercules
But you see, science doesn't prove theories, it disproves them. Any theory could possibly be true, but we can never know for sure. Instead, we can only ever find experimental evidence that contradicts a certain theory. A TOE, if false, would always have the potential to be falsified. If absolutely true, we could never prove it.

I understand and agree with all that, but it is slightly at an angle to my point.

[I think it's important to note that the label crackpot is often well earned. As I said, it's not that crackpot models make no testible predictions alone. They also often contradict experimental evidence with no explanation offered. A perfect example of this is aether theorists. You really need to visit some of the newsgroups (or websites) to see what I mean. Did you view the crackpot index? [/B]

I also agree with all that.

[The point is that it's not about absolute proof or absolute knowledge. It's about developing mathematical models to explain known observation and experimental evidence. Sure, giant living pumpkins could be the real cause of gravity, but science deals with models that are actually useful, and hopefully make additional predictions about physical phenomena. But even without demanding absolute proof or knowledge, you can see that science works very well for us.[/B]

Also agreed. But I suspect most people (including scientists) hope for more than this from science. In any case it is always useful to study the limit case, as I was tring to do in the case of a true ToE.

[Really? And how is the cosmic background radiation evidence for a person named God? [/B]

In itself it isn't. Neither, in itself, is happiness evidence for the BB. Unfair example I think.

There is a world of difference between being consistent with evidence, and actual evidence for a proposed theory itself. [/B]

Very true - but this does not affect the issue here.

PS - I am not trying to propose any crackpot theories - just suggesting that they come in two varieties - those that contradict the evidence and those that might contain some truth. I find people here a bit quick to apply the C word. when what they really mean is just that the idea is unorthodox or not useful.

Agree also that we've strayed too far.

 

[Peter2003]

quote
____________________________________
Agree also that we've strayed too far.
____________________________________


The problem with modern physics is that it strayed too far from the self-consistent structure of reality into the land of paradoxes, e.g. quantum cats, relativity twins, etc. The only attempt for a scale invariant modeling of this underlying structure, known to me, is Eugene Savov's theory of interaction.

 

[Canute]

I don't know what you mean by that. I would argue that the paradoxes uncovered by science are evidence that it is actually on the right track. It's what the paradoxes MEAN that seems to get too little attention. We assume that they are errors of understanding - I suspect they are the best evidence we have of the way reality really is and that science (and also metaphysics) should be valued precisely for their ability to continually discover more of them.

 

[Beercules]

Originally posted by Canute
In itself it isn't. Neither, in itself, is happiness evidence for the BB. Unfair example I think.

It isn't unfair, because we were talking specifically about cosmology. That is the field of large scale evolution of the cosmos. So you can see my point about something like God really has nothing to do with science.

Very true - but this does not affect the issue here.

It certainly does, if we're talking about why big bang cosmology explains the evidence better than other cosmologies.

PS - I am not trying to propose any crackpot theories - just suggesting that they come in two varieties - those that contradict the evidence and those that might contain some truth. I find people here a bit quick to apply the C word.

It's past experience dealing with crackpots that makes them easy to smell out.

 

[Peter2003]

Quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what you mean by that. I would argue that the paradoxes uncovered by science are evidence that it is actually on the right track. It's what the paradoxes MEAN that seems to get too little attention. We assume that they are errors of understanding - I suspect they are the best evidence we have of the way reality really is and that science (and also metaphysics) should be valued precisely for their ability to continually discover more of them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then science will end confused by paradoxes. Confused cosmologies may be OK but confused surgeons and doctors may not do so well. Nature is unlikely to be paradoxical although it may show poorly understood paradoxical behavior in our minds. Perception integrates finite interactions like movie frames as shown in Savov's theory of interaction and this creates our appeal for continuity and infinity and the associated paradoxes.

 

[Red Devil]

Paradox may be eliminated by searching - the truth is out there - to coin a phrase!!

 

[Canute]

Beercules - Having checked my dictionary I think we're both talking cosmology. But I'm focusing meaning on origins and I think you're talking structure and dynamics. I agree with you that science is best at dynamics, but I'm not so sure about structure, and think science is very poor at origins.

 

[Beercules]

Yes, they are different topics. One is philosophy (origins, existence) and the other (cosmology, spacetime) is science.