My gGlobe(tm): Intelligent Design in a Nutshell
by Mike LaSalle
On Thursday, physicist Stephen Hawking fulfilled a life-long dream of flying weightless in space.
The modified jet carrying Hawking, a handful of his physicians and nurses, and dozens of others first flew up to 24,000 feet over the Atlantic Ocean off Florida. Nurses lifted Hawking and carried him to the front of the jet, where they placed him on his back atop a special foam pillow.
The jet then climbed to around 32,000 feet and made a parabolic dive back to 24,000 feet, allowing Hawking and the other passengers to experience weightlessness for about 25 seconds.
Mr. Hawking’s excellent adventure must have been a rare treat indeed!
The renowned physicist has enjoyed previous bouts of free fall: just last year he told a packed audience at Hong Kong’s University of Science and Technology that the late Pope John Paul II once discouraged him from asking too many questions about the origins of the universe.
It’s a pity we can’t hear the Pope’s side of the story – but maybe someday science will develop a method for squeezing a NEW interview out of the currently deceased Holy Father.
Sensible people laughed just then, because they understood that a new interview with Pope John Paul II, rest his soul, is just about as likely as hearing a new Lennon-McCartney hit performed by the original Fab Four.
But the joke, I’m afraid, is on you smug chucklers, because according to many renowned physicists – the late Richard Feynman among them – the universe may indeed contain alternate histories in which the Beatles recorded songs that no one in our Time Line has ever heard!
This is all covered under the Many Worlds interpretation of the universe, where each particle in the universe simultaneously follows every possible path from the moment of its inception at the Big Bang to the moment of its dissipation at the Heat Death.
Thus somewhere embedded and preserved in the fabric of SpaceTime – some “new” Beatles recordings must exist.
Anyway, with all the media hub-hub over “Intelligent Design” these past few years, I wondered if Hawking’s public remarks had been timed thoughtfully in order to elicit a rise from media outlets quick to capitalize on gossipy tales of friction between Science and Religion in the public square. Sure enough – on the day I checked (6/18 – Father’s Day – 2006) a search of Google News showed 141 results for the term “stephen hawking, pope“.
Well, cluck, cluck, cluck.
Speaking at the same lecture in Hong Kong, Hawking also said that The Final Theory – the TOE – the Theory of Everything – is close to being solved.
As a media critic and publisher of this website, I thus grant myself the privilege of analyzing Hawking’s remarks in light of available knowledge – and by referencing Hawking’s own wildly bestselling book, The Universe in a Nutshell.
The Unified Field Theory: A Final Theory of Everything
It’s a funny thing, but one might here beg the Full Anthropic Principle and wonder if the much-heralded Theory of Everything (TOE) is really such a difficult problem to solve in the first place?
Remember – the Final TOE is supposed to be elegant and simple. Rather like Einstein’s equations, but I suppose simpler still.
For argument’s sake – and because I personally think it’s the case – let’s suppose the formula for the Final Theory – whatever it may be – proves that Information is never lost?
Under such a scientific finding, the implications for developing a mathematical description of God become awesome.
Maybe the Pope – God rest his Soul – had an informed opinion after all!
Potentially, the TOE may, for scientists and theologians alike, offer the ability to scientifically infer God’s Existence, and perhaps even His Expectations.
Hypothetically, let’s say that M-Theory (see Professor Hawking’s Universe in a Nutshell) shows that God Exists by inference, and that this theory is SO SIMPLE that even a child could understand the basic concept.
In that case, one wonders if even a respected scientist like Stephen Hawking – assuming he recognized the Divine implications of such a TOE – could ever bring himself to spill the beans and let everyone else in on the Big Secret.
Recall that professor Hawking last year announced to the world that we are on the verge of discovering the Final Theory of Everything. Such a Theory – if it strongly inferred God – would be so frightful in its career-killing implications that no sensible scientist with any reputation to protect – not even Hawking – would want to be the first to advance it!
Two generations may pass before practical science could catch up with such a Theory were it to be announced today. (It was nearly half a century between Einstein’s theory and the creation of the first atomic bomb.) But career scientists in the here-and-now may be unwilling to advance the simplest solution for the TOE because – in the here-and-now – any reputable scientist who asserted a TOE that strongly implied the Existence of God would likely suffer a catastrophic end to an otherwise promising career. (Sure – vindication is sweet, but often time consuming.)
REVIEWING THE TOE
Let’s review a few key points that are necessary to the formulation of the final TOE:
- The Theory of Everything must unite the Theory for Gravity with the Theories of Electro-Magnetism, and of the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces.
- E=MC2 is a formula that describes the theoretical escape velocity of matter. The formula also describes TIME as a dimension akin to the 3 dimensions of space.
- Hubble’s Law describes the apparent expansion of the universe, and shows that the farther galaxies are FROM us, the faster they are moving AWAY from us. Thus the universe is (or appears to be) expanding at a rate that is equal to or greater than the escape velocity of matter.
- The Big Bang Theory explains this by saying the universe began in a titanic explosion that occurred in the finite past, some 14 billion years ago. The explosion accelerated ALL matter in the universe to a rate that is greater than or equal to c2. This is consistent with the observation that the rate of inflation increases with distance.
- The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle shows that it is impossible to precisely measure BOTH the position and velocity of a single particle AT THE SAME TIME. (Also note Schroedinger Equation.)
- Black Holes are gravity wells in which the speed of light is not fast enough to escape the Event Horizon of an imploding mass. (Hawking Radiation also shows that black holes appear to EMIT quantum particles.)
VISUALIZING THE TOE in TWO and THREE DIMENSIONS
The universe is a multidimensional object that exists in its own space-time, and within its own event horizon. There are no other similar sized “objects” within its proximity.
If I had to make a two-dimensional representation of the universe, I might use an asterisk in the center of a circle suggested by parentheses:
( * )
The * in the center is the Big Bang – radiating from the center to the perimeter with a force equal to (or greater than) the escape velocity of matter (c2). Time begins in the center of the asterisk and ends at the perimeter.
The perimeter ( ) is the border of the universe: an event horizon that describes the universe at its fullest expansion – the moment in time in which all legacy particulate matter has become separated by at least 1 event horizon. It is also the first moment of 100% entropy. This is the Heat Death of the universe.
Now let’s add a third dimension to the (*) two dimensional model…
Introducing My gGlobe(TM)
FADE IN (harp music): The year is 2107AD. The place: my desk. But let’s not talk about my desk. What you are really interested is in is what’s on my desk, to whit, the 2107 AD edition of Google’s Desktop Globe of the Universe – My gGlobe(tm).
My gGlobe(tm) is a beachball-sized object that is actually a complete map of SpaceTime for the entire universe – from its inception at the Big Bang to its dissipation at the Heat Death. In short, it’s a 3-dimensional map of 4-dimensional space. It’s called My gGlobe(tm) because – of course – each map is slightly different for the individual who uses it.
Peering into My gGlobe(tm), I see lines radiating from the center of the sphere to its surface. These lines represent the track of particles from the moment of their creation at the Big Bang to the moment of their obliteration at the Heat Death.
In its default setting, My gGlobe(tm) displays the entire universe from the outside looking in. At this orientation, the Big Bang is located at the very center of the globe, and the Heat Death is represented as a ring-shape on the surface of the sphere. The cone shape between the center of the vortex and its perimeter represents the passage of time from beginning to end. Everything that ever happened (or will ever happen) is displayed on the walls of this vortex in chronological order. In this scene, I am thus looking at a three dimensional “picture” of the entire space-time continuum of our universe.
I gaze deeply into My gGlobe(tm) and say a few magic words… I have told the beach ball that I wish to find… myself – wherever my body is located in the fabric of spacetime.
The beachball processes my request, and allows me to view myself as I lived during my time here on the good green Earth.
But as I look into the beachball, all I can see is a blur of shifting mass in the shape of a funnel, with the vortex at the center and the mouth a ring on the surface.
My origin (my conception) now appears as a knot at the center of the sphere, and my termination (death) as a ring-shape merging with its surface. If I zoom in a little farther…. I can begin to get a picture of the specific time-space coordinates that correspond to my life on earth, laid out in causal chronology. Using this device, I could even zoom in to the moment in my life that I think of as the present – to witness myself from the outside as I sat peering into the globular vortex like Faust at a crystal ball.
My gGlobe(tm) allows me to view my entire life in toto, but it also allows me view the individual histories of any particle that intersected with my body from the moment of my conception to the moment of my death.
My gGlobe(tm) allows me to view both the individual and the cumulative lightcones of all the particles (and groups of particles) that made up my body during the course of my life. (I could add parenthetically that my magic gGlobe also lets me view alternate outcomes for my life by switching to MultiVerse mode – patent pending, of course.)
I tell My gGlobe(tm) to zoom into a particular moment in my life…. and there to zoom in far enough to identify a particular carbon atom that once existed in my right earlobe.
Now I can follow that carbon atom back in time to the moment of its creation in a supernova, and then through successive generations of particles back to moment of first creation – the first appearance in spacetime of a Plank-length sized particle as it first emerged from the Big Bang.
I stare at this particle displayed in the magic beach-ball/vortex on my desk.
Its lightcone is too small to be of much use in identifying its exact position and velocity relative to any other particle in the Big Bang explosion. In fact, even the magic beachball is restricted by the Uncertainty Principle and cannot identify any particle’s actual orientation at the moment of its creation.
Stepping away from my magical gGlobe, I ponder for a moment the implications such a device has for the minds of men? What would men do with such a power as the gGlobe? And from which resource of Nature did this particular well spring?
Fading back to today… While Dr. Hawking has returned safely to the comforting pull of earth’s gravity, it is unclear if man will ever be able to resurrect Pope John Paul II long enough for me to do a follow-up interview. Relying then on my own opinion, John Paul II’s apparent warning to Stephen Hawking was prescient, for in unlocking the fantastic mysteries of quantum mechanics and all of its wonders, God may yet call upon us to face a civilization-shattering encounter with ourselves.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_sc/john_paul_hawking_3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_anthropic_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_constant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrodinger_equation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_holes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
Note also Steve Farrell’s recent post, Which are you: Son of God or paltry flesh?.
email: editor -@- mensnews daily.com | More from Mike LaSalle
Stumble It!
October 14th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Mike La Salle,
Since science is not my forte, last night after atempting to understand your “bicameral universe”, I began counting sheeps to get to sleep.
Do you think if Leonado Da Vinci, Einstein,Moses. Conficius and discoverers of DNA and nuclear bomb etc would be alive and get together, they could decipher the “La Salle Code”?
May 7th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Mike posited:
“… I have said elsewhere that I think the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are one and the same event … I have come to the conclusion that the beginning and the end of our universe occur at the same space/time location, and only differ depending on point of view….”
I believe we are headed toward an eventual big crunch, not a heat death. And, it’s interesting you came to the conclusion you describe.
Using the model of the universe that I described earlier, a similar conclusion must be drawn which is implicit in the model itself. Remember that I model the totality of the universe as comprising the surface of a globe … with anything in the middle as lying outside the universe. In this model, any point on the globe can be construed as being the center of the universe. Therefore, at the point of the big crunch (pick anywhere on the globe), that point by definition must be the center of the universe. Furthermore, since space and time are inseparable that point must also represent the same “place” in time as well.
However, I wouldn’t go so far as to say the events of the big bang and big crunch are one and the same event. But, I have no problem saying that they’re one and the same process.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:38 am
All I know is the lilies of the field or birds in flight need no equations or erudite examinations of what plainly matters and what is functionally pointless. Is their god any different from ours? If none know the hour or the day, then why do men still seek it and proclaim it as such?…
May 7th, 2007 at 9:23 am
When I was a kid, a remember a parable – maybe it was a cartoon on Sunday morning TV – in which a little humming bird was enabled to soar into the stratosphere farther than any bird had ever flown.
Red Pill might find this an impossible story to believe – at least until he learned that the mere hummingbird journeyed to this height while nestled in feathers of eagles.
May 6th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Mike – I feel that you do indeed deserve high praise for your theories. Although, as a pure layman I’m really not the one to be critiquing your work, plus you know much more about this stuff than I do. I only know a bit about a few things in this realm. That said, there really is nothing fatally flawed in your work that I can see, and I know you have spent a lot of time thinking about and developing this … not an easy thing for a non-physicist to do.
You’ve really done a nice job, perhaps you should submit your theories to those who may be in a much better position to evaluate than I.
I forgot to do so, but in post #35 you asked me to refer you to diagrams regarding observers’ spacetime coordinate systems that I wrote about in post #34.
Being the dum-dum that I am, I had to search far and wide for material that explains relativity and QM in a way that I can understand … yet detailed enough to be a valuable learning tool.
The spacetime diagrams you asked for can be found within this document:
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_intro.html
This is a neat FAQ written for the startrek newsgroup regarding FTL travel. However, there is an excellent discussion about SR (and GR) that you may find interesting, and may strengthen your understanding depending on what you know or may not know. Worth reading in its’ entirety. The diagram you want is diagram 2-9 and it’s discussion.
Oh, by the way if you want a great read explaining QM, but without any of the math. Pick up a copy of “QED – The Strange Theory of Light and Matter”. It explains quantum electrodynamics in a very simple easy to understand way WITHOUT any math, but yet is a complete description , accurate in every detail of a framework onto which more advanced concepts can be attached without modification!
The author is Richard Feynman.
May 6th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I can’t speak to dust or clay, but how about this: BOWLING STRIKE VIDEO
In my view, God is the bowler, the bowling ball is the Big Bang, and the pins are causality.
According to atheists, since there is no God, their conclusion is that the bowling ball just “happened” to get a strike all on its own.
Therefore, when religious Conservative takes sides against Darwin and the well-documented process of evolution, they are effectively reinforcing the arguments of the atheists by denying the ability of the Holy Bowler to make full use of His Own bowling lane.
As a matter of fact, in this case, the Holy Bowler also happens to Own the whole bowling alley, and occupies all the seats at the Universe-Wide Bowling Federation.
A lesson for atheists and Darwin-bashers alike: you just can’t fight City Hall.
May 6th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Ok riddle me this (because the intelligence of the proposed designs proffered heretofore are above my understanding):
If Darwinian genesis is evil because the suggestion of being made from slime or monkeys, why is it better that we be made from dust or clay as in the genesis story? What was the dust made from? And if a soul can be breathed into dust or clay and provided grace why not so breathed into an australopithicus? Who would have made the australopithicus? Is one design no less intelligent than another? Could not the deity in his amusements intellegently designed an evolutionalry process just to pass time? After all he’d control that anyway.
Oh and please use small easily definable words for me…
May 6th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Hey spectre – I took a minute to re-read some of your posts above. Two things jumped out at me:
That’s very high praise, and I appreciate it. Thank you for your interest.
Secondly, when you said in post 23 that the entire universe could be viewed as a two-dimensional skin enfolding three dimensions.
This is literally my view of our (+) chamber in the bicameral universe: we see the universe just as you say, but in our case, the observer occupies both the center of the globe as well as its two-dimensional surface. (In other words, think of what the skin of an orange would look like to an observer if the orange were inside out).
In order to add the (-) chamber to the mix, the entire surface of the inside of the orange would have to converge to a singularity on the theoretical “opposite” side of the orange.
In the same way that our universe contains a minority of “anti-matter” particles, I suspect that the (-) majority chamber would somehow contain a (+) minority component, and this would function as a conduit to a (-) minority component within the (+) majority chamber.
Again, I know this is wild speculation. I’m just trying to figure out how the 0,0 point of the bicameral universe model unites the (+) universe with the (-) universe.
BTW – please note that the twin chambers I have just described look like two inside-out oranges united at the navel.
Symbolically, it’s the number “8″ – the sign of infinity.
(ooohhh weeeee oooohh…)
I have said elsewhere that I think the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are one and the same event. I will clarify this by stating that the “Big Crunch” represents something of the flip side of the Heat Death. In other words, over many years of thinking about this issue I have come to the conclusion that the beginning and the end of our universe occur at the same space/time location, and only differ depending on point of view.
Last year I posited that any object in our universe smaller than a Planck’s Length contained at least one black hole. To clarify, I think it’s all the same black hole – but one that can be located through a virtual infinity of Planck’s Length sized passages.
Speculation: this black hole is a passage that leads to the surface described by our own visible universe – the full globe of the universe articulated by the curving plane of the radius. (In other words, the inside surface of the orange, where the radius is the distance between the observer and the edge of the visible universe.)
I know that these are old symbols: the hour glass, the figure-8, the Holy Grail, even the Moebius strip. These symbols have been around almost as long as civilization and always in someway identified with mathematics, architecture and religion. (No coincidence that Christ himself was a carpenter: an intelligent trade of creation and construction.) I think people have known the Final Theory for thousands of years. It’s only now we’re able to put the pieces together into a coherent whole that is supremely acceptable both to man’s spirit as well as his intellect.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Mike – I don’t think we’re in any disagreement that distant galaxies may be receeding from us FTL. The distance between two objects can be increasing faster than light because of the expansion of the universe. This does not violate SR because SR is a local theory, globally FTL speeds may indeed occur. However, it is meaningless to say that the universe is expanding faster than light because the rate of the expansion is measured by Hubble’s constant alone which does not even have the units of speed.
That said, I would still contend that those receeding galaxies are still entirely within our universe, and hence, are still subject to the exact same physical laws including the light speed barrier … but again locally as SR is a local theory.
However, the area within the Schwartzchild radius of a black hole, although within our universe … may indeed contain physics beyond our ken.
May 4th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Perhaps it would be helpful for us to define terms a bit. As a layman, I’m not entirely well versed on all “terms of art”, so I may be assigning faulty meanings to terms you use.
The only distinction I draw between the terms “universe” and “visible universe” is that the latter refers to parts of our universe that we presently see. The universe itself comprised of that which we see and perhaps cannot see.
My contention is that parts of our universe that we cannot see are still within our universe and subject to the same physical laws.
May 4th, 2007 at 6:53 am
spectre – I agree that space is defined by matter in as much as matter defines space. But this goes to my point: space and the speed of light is only subject to physical rules within the bounds of the visible universe. Outside the “border” of our visible universe, we can make good predictions about what may happen (eg., a hypothetical particle located outside of our visible universe can travel FTL relative to us), but we can never OBSERVE it to be true.
In short, I don’t think we are in any fundamental disagreement.
Interestingly, both spectre and mr_null targeted my contention that FTL is theoretically possible, provided that matter can pass around (not through) the SOL.
In my view this is a disagreement in perspective on the problem, not a fundamental disagreement over the science of GR/SR.
Obviously I have to figure out a better way of expressing myself. But then, that is part of the purpose of this very discussion.
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Mike:
Fair enough. Let us know how your god feels about pointless dissipation. Mine hates it but thankfully there’s grace. We will one day find what the exact and specific truth is regardless our primitive assumptions but for me the impact is naught whether god gave his grace to mud or a monkey. Fretting about pointless details is, I think, the devils work and takes away from the objective tasks at hand and whatever supernatural aspects there may be in it. I’m not attempting to tell you what not to write or support, my feeble admonishments are intended as rhetorical only, and represent my observations and musings only. Maybe it’s just selfishness on my part as I get dizzy trying to ponder assumptions based on allusions derived from allegations steeped in fervent hopes and pious interpretations of the undefinable. The basis of any psuedo-objectivist theologist is the assumption that somewhere and somehow the supernatural can be rationally defined and proven by the natural. My point somewhere lost within is that when one forces a square peg into a round hole of equal size, either the peg, the hole or both are spoiled and at very least the result is less than ideal, unless it was by design….
Wise words; A mans gotta know his limitations…
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
And may the Force be with you…
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
red pill – the purpose of this thread is to explore media descriptions of scientific and technological topics.
I have been discussing these issues on MND on and off for several years, so this is certainly not something new. Also, this thread is in the context of a recent news item, so again it’s fair game for discussion.
MND has – as you know – a very liberal publishing policy in which authors are allowed to opine on any topic remotely of interest to men. This topic is well covered by that policy.
In any case, I’m glad you enjoy the site. Please enjoy your g(G)od(s) in peace…
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Red Pill Wrote:
“Mike … please don’t over-reach and attempt to describe the supernatural with quasi-sophisticated derivations of the natural world ….”
I can appreciate your skepticism Red Pill, but, it has also been my experience that my belief in God has been solidified by the actual, observable, and verifiable results of experiments in QM and Relativity.
For me, the revelations implicit, observed, and discovered experimentally, lead me to conclude that a God must exist.
I don’t think Mike is trying to act as God’s spokesman. I believe he’s merely trying to explain and put forth a model of perhaps how our universe, created by God, works … using the established immutable principles of physics already established. I don’t think Mike is proclaiming that his model is absolutely how the universe works to the exclusion of other hypotheses, but that he’s merely producing a model to explain it’s workings consistent with known physical laws … a model internally consistent and good as any other.
What I’m doing here is engaging Mike in a conceptual discussion in order to test whether his models are internally consistent, and whether his ideas/models comport with observable, verifiable, solid physical principles. I’m sure he enjoys the challenge and discussion … I do!
BTW, this is not what women and lib’s do …. it’s actually what men do, or at least used to do before their attentions and concerns morphed into who’ll play quarterback on Sunday.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Mike Thanks as alwalys for the site. It keeps the few of us fairly occupied. In any respect if there is the intent to provide here a fairly rare outlet for rational and objective thought, that’s fine but please don’t over-reach and attempt to describe the supernatural with quasi-sophisticated derivations of the natural world. This is what females and libs do, and not to their edification. While I have beliefs in the supernatural, I hold those to myself as articles of faith without earthly correlates. There is not good prosletizing accomplished by proving.. ummm, a lack of facility and grounding in the obvious laws of the physical world. One shouldn’t, I believe, try to fool others into a faith by intellectual prestidigitation. If one is indeed saved through grace, leave it at that. All else is peripheral and anything else is insincere and will be seen as such eventually.
If god wants us all to become one on a spiritual plane, I doubt one will get a science quiz which needs passing beforehand. In fact much of the argued details harken back to discussion of pointless details of celestial minutiae which have nothing to do to achieving whichever plan your god has for you. One thing I don’t need is someone else acting as gods unimpeachable spokesman, a job that any self-respecting god can do well enough himself should he wish to eschew obfuscation…
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Mike – I think you need to make a distinction between objects that are not visible that lie well within our universe, and theoretical objects that purportedly lie outside our know dimensions. I cannot say one way or the other whether anything exists outside our universe … there would be no way for me to know. I understand that anything sucked into a black hole, for instance, is squelched out of existence in this universe. Whether, it continues to exist or not in another universe is not known.
However, the receeding galaxies you speak of are bound by same laws of relativity that we are. Locally, they cannot accelerate to a speed faster than light(FTL) to any observer. Globally, they may appear to do so. However, that does not imply that they are leaving the universe at all … and I believe GR applied correctly also discounts actual FLT for these objects.
The theory goes that globally, deep inthe empty voids of space, new space is continually being created, and this creation (expansion) of space is what accounts for the seemingly greater distances between galaxies. Not that the galaxies are undergoing any further acceleration … but that the newly created space in between them and us make it only appear so.
Therefore, these objects never violate SR. Just as importantly, they need not be viewed as leaving the event horizon because their light will ultimately reach us. They never physically leave the known universe nor travel FTL.
The universe is indeed comprised of objects that we cannot see or observe. For instance, right now there may be a supernova explosion going on somewhere a billion light years away. We cannot now see it, observe it, or have any other way of knowing it exists. Not because it lies outside the universe, but because of signal delay …. it will take a billion years from now for the information to reach us.
**********************************************
You assert that in the first moments of the big bang matter was ejected at speeds greater than light. On what basis do you make this claim?
A couple of observations:
1) We know nothing about what the speed of light may have been at this time in our early universe, it may have been different than what it is today. Plus, time as we now understand/measure it, may have had an entirely different meaning at this very early stage in the evolution of our universe. Therefore, what you assert is only speculation and conjecture.
2) Where would the matter be ejected to? Remember that the big bang was the event that created space itself. Therefore, the matter could not have been ejected any further than tiny spatial dimension of the universe existing at that time. It seems you view the big bang as an explosion that hurled newly created mass into the void of space that already existed.
Also, on one hand you state that it is not realistic to suppose that a potential object could travel faster than light (FTL). However, a few paragraphs, and posts, above suppose just that …you state that there are receeding galaxies that are expected to, and even now, are receeding FTL.
Both viewpoints cannot be held simultaneously.
I want to present a demonstration regarding observed events, and the importance of interpreting phenomena correctly.
Say for instance, Adam sets off in a rocketship at 6/10 light speed while Bob stays home on Earth. Relativity can be applied by both the observer whom we call stationary (Bob), and by the observer whom we call moving (Adam). The moving observer, Adam, could say he is the one who is stationary, and that Bob home on Earth is really the one who is moving away.
Both observers consider themselves at rest, and the other as the one who is moving. Both observers would measure the others’ clock as running slowly, and observe the others’ yardsticks shorten.
Adam says Bob’s clock is running slow, but Bob say’s that it Adam’s clock that is running slow?
Who is correct?
What happens if Adam turns around and reverses course in space and returns to earth, do Adam’s and Bob’s clock read the same? Are they the same age? Why?
Now, suppose you are on the beach looking out into the ocean and see the moon rise over the horizon. Then you twirl and all the while observe the moon spin around you doing a 360 and then back to its’ original vantage point. From your perspective the moon did a 360 around you, traversing a circle over a billion miles in less than half a second. Relativity can be applied by both observers(you and the moon), so has the moon infact, relatively speaking or otherwise, travelled FTL? Why or why not?
We both agree that the speed of light is a constant for any observer. Now, given that agreement … we must by necessity also agree that nothing can travel faster then light (FTL).
Why?
Because, if FTL travel is permitted … 1) it violates SR, and, 2) FTL travel implies, by necessity, backwards in time … leading to the creation of very troubling unsolvable paradoxes and the obliteration of cause and effect.
I don’t believe you are trying to imply that SR, where it applies, is wrong.
There are some particle physicists who claim, when applying QM, that due to inherent uncertainty, massive subatomic particles under certain conditions may travel FTL for very brief periods. However, claim so only with trepidation … and make clear this state is extremely temporal and make provision so that causality is not violated. The radically different theories of realtivity and QM produce such ingruences, however, no credible physicist to my knowledge has ever claimed SR is wrong where it applies.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:47 am
spectre – is there a diagram you can make or have a reference to? I have to give your example a bit of a think before I can visualize it…. but I think I have the basic concept, and yes, it is in line with my idea of an ordered multiverse.
Also, you have taken issue with my proposal that matter can move at relative rates that are “faster” than the speed of light.
First, the speed of light is a constant for any observer. Therefore, My gGlobe(tm), as a model for the lightcone of the universe from beginning to end – does not depend on the speed of anything. My gGlobe is simply a map of space/time – it makes no considerations as to rate of travel between any two points within space/time.
Secondly, as I understand it, the visible universe (that which is bounded by the speed of light) is not inclusive of the ENTIRE universe, which is actually much larger than we are able to observe. In the first moments of the big bang, relative matter was ejected at speeds exceeding the speed of light. Therefore, we must assume that matter exists outside the event horizon of our visible universe. (This makes perfect sense – since the Hubble Expansion shows galaxies rushing away from us at speeds approaching the speed of light relative to us. At some point in the finite future, those galaxies are predicted to pass outside of the event horizon and will be traveling, according to our prediction, at speeds that are faster than the speed of light relative to us. (These galaxies will no longer be visible because their matter is now receding faster than its light can radiate from it, relative to us. From their point of view, we are also PREDICTED TO BE traveling faster than the SOL relative to them. The important thing to note here is that this “observation” of a faster-than-light object is strictly IMAGINARY, because once an object passes outside of our event horizon, it can no longer be directly observed, but only inferred.)
The speed of light is the carrot: a hypothetical condition that can never actually be observed.
I like the idea of a horse straining for an unreachable carrot because to me it epitomizes what I might call an “anthropic impulse.” I might describe this as a set of commonly held ideas that unfold in a narrative arc over generations. These are narrative tales that describe analog events… simple events from the Big Bang to the birth of Khaos and her offspring, Eros. (Even mathematics can be described as a narrative… a mathematical formula is a process that describes a conclusive result.)
I hope this metaphor helps to illustrate the quantum problem of c2 (as well as the Melioritive Utility of the bicameral model).
As to the question of faster than light travel: I think this might be a red herring, because, outside of the event horizon described by the edge of our universe (the heat death), no other object can exist, and therefore it is not realistic to suppose that a POTENTIAL (or imaginary) object could be traveling faster than light, much less that it is there at all – no matter its “speed” relative to a hypothetical observer.
This was a question posed by Hawking: Do Event Horizons actually ever close? The answer, as I said earlier, is that it depends on your point of view as to whether you fancy yourself inside or outside of said Event Horizon.
–> note Meliorism.
Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Mike, I find it interesting that your model postulates that all events have already occured.
As you wrote:
” … the model here assumes that all possible events have already occurred …. ”
I’ve come to the same revelation, but in a different way … thru SR but equally valid employing GR. Now, I hope you can follow me here as I am unable to post any diagrams:
When I studied SR, I employed the use of cartesian grids to map out a ’stationary’ observer’s spacetime coordinate system. The x coordinate representing a spatial dimension, the y coordinate representing time.
Now, when you superimpose on this grid the “skewed” spacetime coordinate system of another observer travelling relative to the first ’stationary’ observer at the moment when/where the second ‘moving’ observer passes the first, and then superimpose their lightcones (identical because at the moment of passing they occupy the same place in spacetime) … a particularly startling revelation appears …
An event which is above the line of present simultaniety (the ‘x’ axis) for the stationary observer , may fall below the line of present simultaniety ( the ‘x*’ axis) for the ‘moving’ observer.
This means that an event that is in the ’stationary’ observer’s future, may have already occured in the ‘moving’ observer’s past, at the moment when they pass each other.
However, taking this to its’ logical conclusion this means that all events in the universe have already happened in some frame of reference. And if an event happened for one observer it must ultimately happen for all observers.
Therefore, everything has been predetermined!!!
This event(s) are indeed outside the light cone. Because of this, even though the event is in one observer’s past at the time in question (t = t*= 0), he cannot know about the event at the time. Also, even though the event is in the other observer’s future at the time, he can never have an effect on the event after. In essence, the event (when it happens, where it happens, how it happens, etc.) is of absolutely no consequence for these two observers at the time in question. As it turns out, anytime you find two observers who are passing by one another and an event which one observer’s coordinate system places in the past and the other observer’s coordinate system places in the future, then the event will always be outside of the light cone centered at the point where the observers pass.
This relativistic picture of the universe presents an ambiguity in the concepts of past and future philosophically … but not physically. You see, the only time you can see these ambiguities is when you are looking at the whole space-time picture at once. If you were one of the observers who is actually viewing space and time, then as the other observer passes by you, your whole picture of space and time can only be constructed from events that are inside the lower half of the light cone. If you wait for a while, then eventually you can get all of the information from all of the events that were happening around the time you were passing the other observer. From this information, you can draw the whole space-time diagram, and then you can see the ambiguity. But by that time, the ambiguity that you are considering no longer exists. So the ambiguity can never actually play a part in any physical situation.
Finally, remember that this is only true if nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Thank you for your very kind remarks. I honestly believe I have re-discovered something that has been discovered before many times in human history. And I don’t think it’s coincidence that the bicameral universe can be construed as the ‘Holy Grail’ – for I think that this model is indeed the simplest key to understanding how God’s universe works.
I’m not sure that’s true. How is the universe expanding, if not that someone is actively observing the process? Nor can you wait for the universe to finish its expansion before you can say, “there, the universe has finished expanding.”
This is a problem is quantum uncertainty applied to the entire universe. I hold that the question is legitimate if you assume that all event horizons must eventually close. (For my money, I think the answer is both yes and no, depending on your point of view. For instance, if you are inside an event horizon that appears to be receding from you, then you could credibly say that the event horizon will never close. On the other hand, if you are outside of an event horizon that is receding from you, then you could say that event horizons do close, because you observed one doing just that in the form of a black hole.)
As I understand causality, it works equally well irrespective of whether you are moving forward or backwards in time. My point is that, as human beings, we are oriented toward understanding causality from a remembered past to an uncertain future, with an experiential “present” in the middle.
Thus, we can only comprehend causality (and make use of it) when it is pointed from the big bang to the heat death and not vice versa.
Also, I think it might help here to realize that TIME and SPACE are entirely accounted for in the My gGlobe model: outside of the lightcone of the universe, nothing else exists. So, from that point of view, it doesn’t really make much sense to talk about the unpredictable outcomes of time, when the model here assumes that all possible events have already occurred.
I am accounting for these variables in my assumption that the Multiverse in fact does produce every possible outcome for every possible universe. All I am saying here that that the Multiverse must be Organized in like-pairs where variability between iterations are marginal for “nearby” objects. (eg., the bicameral pairs are never exactly aligned.) So when the opposite pairs complete their mutual annihilation, any “inexactness” between the paired opposites will result in an incomplete destruction. So, I speculate that some residual evidence of the universes will be leftover after they do their mutual annihilation. That residue might then impact the particulars of the next Big Bang explosion of paired opposites. (I know I am way out on a limb here – but I think it must be something along these lines.)
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Hey Mike,
I re-read your blogs regarding this topic, and I must say that there is nothing I can say to refute your primary theses. I’m certainly no expert, but your theorizations/applications of the various accepted principles in physics reveals no obvious flaws to me.
You obviously have put a lot of thought and work into this and have come to some provocative conclusions, as valid as any other hypothesis I know of. Although your work suffers from the same maladies that effect all theories in the same vein, ie. the blending of the two radically different theories of GR and QM, and although I question some of your assertions, eg. objects travelling FTL … lockstep parallel universes … and others; your work reflects a well thought out scheme with no obvious fundamental flaws in its’ application of accepted principles.
Well done!
I do have some questions about some of your assertions, perhaps you can clarify or explain further:
You say inflation is observer dependent. But why? Simply applying Schroedinger’s Cat is troubling. There is nothing to indicate QM applies in the macro world. The universe is either expanding or it is not …. correct?
If gravity wins out and the universe contracts, why does this necessarily imply a violation of causality? Simply asserting that time flows one way if the universe expands, and another way if it contracts is merely theoretical speculation unsupported by … anything. Couldn’t the universe contract and the flow of time remain the same? This would be more plausible than postulating that the arrow of time reverses.
Why couldn’t the opposite universe be entirely physically real? Couldn’t the big bang have produced several entirely real universes forever separated by different dimensions?
Why must the alternate universe in the southern portion move lockstep with the northern? Existing in another dimension apart from our own would physically preclude any interaction whatsoever.
Why would it necessarily have the same physics as our own? Given that our premordial universe in its early moments was not smooth and homogenous as evidenced by ripples observed in the microwave background radiation, wouldn’t it be more likely that the alternate universe would likewise have been created neither smooth nor homogenous … and that its’ assymetry would be slightly different than our own; hence giving rise to a universe destined to unfold differently than our own.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I have also tried to explain that the concepts of “inflation” and “deflation” are anthropic in nature, and are dependent on an observed flow of causes. (The universe does not inflate or contract unless you look.)
The observed universe will never “contract” – it will always expand. This is because, in normal causality, effect will always follow cause. Since the normal flow of time is dependent on this principle, the universe will never be observed in the act of “contracting”.
That’s why the opposite universe must be “imaginary” – if it exists as one of the pair of Genesis Particles described by Hawking Radiation, its destiny is not to observe its partner universe but to annihilate it.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:09 pm
All I can say to that is that these two universes appear to be rushing towards each other as much as they are exploding in opposite directions.
Bit of a moebius strip, what? Maybe this would help explain dark matter after all…
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Mike,
Yes, the Pauli exclusion principle precludes massive particles from occupying the same state. However, this principle does not apply to massless particles such as photons. Therefore, if the southern portion of the vortex doesn’t represent an entirely separate universe, what’s to prevent these particles from interacting with the northern portion?
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
spectre – thanks so much for participating.
“… Why would each “chamber†need to move inverse lockstep with the other if they don’t interact?”
They don’t interact because that would violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Instead, the chambers are in a perfect dance of random synchronicity. Because they each spring from the same Cause, they are identical, and the narrative of randomness unfolds for each universe in exactly the same way.
Why matched pairs? Why not? It is certainly allowed under the Many Worlds Interpretation to have two practically identical universes adjacent to each other. I would propose that the fabric of reality is made from the orderly distribution of random universes (the bicameral universe model being the most elementary unit of the matrix = strings of matched pairs).
Also, I think the Bicameral Universe model fits quite well with Hawking Radiation.
Hawking proposed that the particles appearing to emit from a black hole are actually disembodied bits of creation. According to the theory of vacuum genesis, paired +/- particles spontaneously come into being and then promptly annihilate themselves all the time all around us. But when these Vacuum Genesis particles form around the event horizon of a black hole, Hawking Radiation shows that one side of the particle falls into the black hole, while the other side spins off into our universe as a free particle, appearing then to have emerged from the black hole.
I suspect our universe is something like one of those particles – apparently free standing, but actually paired with an invisible and opposite partner universe.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
“If this were a quantum puzzle, you would not be able to link the train with both time and place.”
This goes to the long conundrum of QM. Is there an independent underlying reality independent of observation?
Schroedinger’s cat …
Schrödinger’s cat is a famous illustration of the principle in quantum theory of superposition, proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. Schrödinger’s cat serves to demonstrate the apparent conflict between what quantum theory tells us is true about the nature and behavior of matter on the microscopic level and what we observe to be true about the nature and behavior of matter on the macroscopic level.
Here’s Schrödinger’s (theoretical) experiment: We place a living cat into a steel chamber, along with a device containing a vial of hydrocyanic acid. There is, in the chamber, a very small amount of a radioactive substance. If even a single atom of the substance decays during the test period, a relay mechanism will trip a hammer, which will, in turn, break the vial and kill the cat. The observer cannot know whether or not an atom of the substance has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the vial has been broken, the hydrocyanic acid released, and the cat killed.
Since we cannot know, the cat is both dead and alive according to quantum law, in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat that the superposition is lost, and the cat becomes one or the other (dead or alive). This situation is sometimes called quantum indeterminacy or the observer’s paradox: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that the outcome as such does not exist unless the measurement is made. (That is, there is no single outcome unless it is observed.)
We know that superposition actually occurs at the subatomic level, because there are observable effects of interference, in which a single particle is demonstrated to be in multiple locations simultaneously. What that fact implies about the nature of reality on the observable level (cats, for example, as opposed to electrons) is one of the stickiest areas of quantum physics. Schrödinger himself is rumored to have said, later in life, that he wished he had never met that cat.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Mike,
WOW! You’ve really put a lot of thought into this subject. It appears I’ve come into this discussion very late in the game.
I’ve taken a cursory look into the links you provided … and well, much of it I don’t fully understand. Either my capacity to understand what you are saying is limited, or your ability to clearly explain yourself is lacking … or both. Either way I would enjoy analyzing this further as I am interested in new ideas, and clearly you have put a lot of work into your theories.
Hopefully, I can contribute to the development of your thoery, and learn a few things in the process.
A few questions for clarification:
You state that the “south” region of the model is imaginary, do you mean that it doesn’t have a physical reality? Also, why do you claim that the southern portion needs to be contracting … as opposed to be expanding but in a different universe.
You state in your Bicameral Universe model, the Big Bang is a single explosive event that propels massive ejecta in two equal but opposite directions in SpaceTime.
… Are you proposing that spacetime had a preexisting existence prior to the big bang?
You state that we should think of the southern region of the model as an equal-but-opposite version of the northern region. It is almost a mirror-image, and that the most important thing to grasp here is that the relative movement of mass-through-space in one chamber must be offset by an equal-and-opposite relative movement of mass-through-space in the opposite chamber.
… Why would each “chamber” need to move inverse lockstep with the other if they don’t interact?
When you speak of simultaniety or simultaneous events, you seem to imply that there exists an underlying actual reality of simultaniety that exists independent of the observers frame of reference, is this what you are saying?
Sorry that I’m not up to date on all this, and that I don’t fully digest what you’re getting at.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Maybe I can explain my reasoning here by painting up another analogy. Let’s say that the universe is represented by a train that journeys from its home station in St. Louis to a final stop in Chicago.
If the train were only visible to me in the context of a route map, this map would have to show the train as well as the beginning and end points of the track (not to mention a little context about the environs between St. Louis and Chi town).
If I wanted to actually witness the train as a “train” (and not a prediction of a train), I would have to zoom in sufficiently to “catch the train in the act” of moving somewhere between these two particular geographic points of travel. If I wanted to find the train as it passed from Missouri into Illinois over the Missouri River, I would have to find the train as it existed at 10am. If I want to see the train passing by a particularly tall, blue silo somewhere in the vast cornfields of central Illinois, I would need to see it around 3pm. If I want to see the train arriving in Chicago, I need to look at 9pm.
Over a space of 11 hours the train existed somewhere – but not everywhere – along the entire line between St. Louis and Chicago. Because this is the macro world, you and I are able to predict the location and time of the train at any point along the line to a very small margin. If this were a quantum puzzle, you would not be able to link the train with both time and place.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:02 am
spectre – thank you for the wonderful concept: the entire universe as a two-dimensional skin wrapping three dimensions.
Just a point of clarification on the gGlobe model. Most of the “globe” in my model is not actually part of the universe. Instead, the universe is defined by the vortex within the globe. It is the interior of the vortex that represents the universe. (I used a globe because it’s easier to explain the globe sitting on my desk than an out-of-context vortex.)
If we were to lay the vortex out flat in two dimensions, the big bang would still be at the center, and all matter (and the space it is bounded by) would surround the big bang in a circle, where space/time begins at the center and ends at the perimeter of the circle. In this model, time and causality are 100% completed, and so you are looking at a universe that has completed a full cycle in which all the mass in the universe has expended all of its potential for relative motion.
I talked about this concept in the MND forum a few years ago (LINK).
In THIS GRAPHIC, I show the universe as a two-sided coin in which one side begins with the potential to expand, and the other side begins with the potential to contract. (As the observer, you can’t know which side is which until the process of observation has already begun.)
So you see, the gGlobe is just a globe that takes up space on my desk. Only some of that space – the two-dimensional vortex that begins at the center and ends at the surface – contains anything “real”.
Having said all that, I will continue to stand by My gGlobe(tm) as a viable thought experiment.
BTW – my bicameral universe model is essentially the same as that of the gGlobe, with the exception that the imaginary “other” vortex located at 180 degrees from the center of the original vortex is NOT represented in My gGlobe(tm). This is because it is physically impossible for the observer of Vortex A to simultaneously observe Vortex B. In the bicameral universe system, the observers of A and B are quantitatively different observers, though each might appear as an identical mirror image of the other to any THIRD observer of this bicameral pair.)
This is a better representation of the universe in that the two vortices are depicted in the context of a globe… (note that Vortices A and B are in red; the blue vortices are also imaginary, and represent yet another bicameral pair iteration. Ignore the blue ones for now and focus on the red pair….)
Assume that each vortex represents the universe as I have described it in My gGlobe(tm) above. The reason I cast the big bang in the center of the globe originally is so that I could make room for the second imaginary vortex that occupies imaginary space/time outside of what you – the observer of the first vortex – could observe.
In my opinion you have to have a bicameral pair because Conservation demands that something be done with the problem of Observed Inflation.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Hey Mike, thank you for your thought provoking theories and hypotheses.
Everything I understand about the big bang theory leads me to suggest that it’s far more productive to ignore the interior of the globe (it lying outside the universe) and just let the surface of the globe represent the entirety of the universe.
The big bang theory, as I understand it, supposes that the explosion that occured was not a spontaneous explosion of matter and energy into empty space. Instead, it was an explosion, and the very creation, of spacetime itself. Therefore, it’s not helpful to view this explosion as being the epicenter of creation into already existing but otherwise empty space. This explosion was the event that created space itself. Therefore, everywhere in the universe is the center, and therefore, there is no true discernible center to intelligently speak of.
It’s much better to let only the surface of the globe represent the universe. This actually fits in waaay better with the hubble model. According to the hubble model, all observers situated anywhere within the universe observe themselves at an area of space where everything else is receeding away from him. By using only the surface of the globe, all observers situated anywhere on the globe would deem himself at the center and everything would seems to be receeding away from him as the globe balloons (expands).
By only concerning yourself with the surface of the globe you avoid the faulty concept of a singular physical discrete center to the universe, can appreciate how all observers could deem themselves to lie at the center, and can explain how all observers observe everything else receeding away as the universe expands (or the globe balloons).
Also, by using only the globe’s surface, it serves to demonstrate how the universe is curved. And therefore, to get from one place to another you must follow a curve to get there. In GR, there is no such thing as a straight line.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:07 pm
spectre – thank you for your responses.
in respect to the gGlobe model: why is it such a bad thing to have the Big Bang in the middle? It’s just an arbitrary starting point. Why not the middle? Seems to me it fits quite nicely with the Hubble model of the universe that places the observer at its center. That’s really all I am trying to represent – that the universe had a beginning, and that that beginning has a corresponding physical location in space (relative to any observer).
Does it not make sense to suppose that an explosion occurred – in a more or less uniform fashion – just as we have already observed in nature? So why not a sphere to represent the farthest reach of the explosion? I appreciate that the model is idealized, but – that’s what it is: an idealized view of how man might navigate the corners of time and space.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Mike wrote:
“I would respond by saying that matter cannot exist without first having time and space as a precondition. (Matter does not exist without time or space.) ”
Yes and no.
According to GR, matter is a fundamental element of spacetime. .
So you’re correct in your assertion that matter cannot exist without space and without time. However, GR goes further and states that space and time cannot exist without matter. Time, space, and matter, taken together form the geometry of the universe.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Mike, you repeatedly talk of massive objects receeding at speeds greater than c. What objects are you speaking of? … or are you just speaking hypothetically?
According to Special Relativity (SR) no massive object can break the light speed barrier. It doesn’t say massive objects cannot travel faster than light, it only prohibits a crossing of the light speed barrier by a massive body either by speeding up or by slowing down. This is essential in order to preserve causality.
Now, SR is a local theory and cannot be used to explain or predict events on a global scale. The theories you propose tend to use SR to explain phenomena where General Relativity (GR) should properly be employed.
SR is local in the sense that SR only applies where local spacetime is flat or approximates flatness. In any area of space where the spacetime geometry is flat (either small enough spacially or where a short enough time period is observed) SR can be used to explain or predict events and phenomena. However, on a global scale SR breaks down and GR must be used. Hence, SR is a special case of GR … where the local spacetime geometry is flat.
You queried:
“This means that, theoretically at least, material objects in space that are separated by the width of our universe are moving away from each other at speeds that exceed the speed of light squared.
But how can that be if the universe is supposed to be EXPANDING?”
The answer is that, although locally, all massive objects are bound by the light speed barrier, globally thru expansion, it can appear to be doing just that. It is the expansion itself that cause the phenomena.
Also, your gGlobe(TM) is a poor representation of the universe, and hurts your understanding of it’workings. Implicit in its’ design is the big bang at the core of the globe. This implies that there is some sort of center to the universe. However, this goes manifest against the big bang theory. It would be far better to view only the surface of the globe as the entirety of the universe itself, and the interior of the globe as being not part of the universe at all. This way one can understand that there is no actual center of the universe, and serves to demonstrate how all observers situated anywhere on the globe observes all other objects in space as receeding from them as the universe expands. Locally, all observers see themselves as the center and everything moving away from them as the universe inflates. However, globally it’s to discern that no actual center exists.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:53 pm
In the article, I said:
mr_null has objected to this statement, saying,
I would respond by saying that matter cannot exist without first having time and space as a precondition. (Matter does not exist without time or space.) Therefore, you cannot argue that mc2 has nothing to do with time/space and dimension.
Furthermore, the movement of matter through space is itself a definition of energy. E=MC2 is the same as saying that E = “the totality of matter in which all potential motion has already occurred.”
May 1st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Are you saying that our universe is bounded entirely by the “visible” universe? I have always understood that the universe is actually much larger than what we (from our vantage point) can physically observe. So, when we witness galaxies rushing away from us at the edge of the observable universe, why can’t we suppose that other galaxies – now moving faster than the speed of light relative to us – exist OUTSIDE the event horizon of this universe?
BTW – I believe that during the first moments of the Big Bang, matter was accelerated faster than the speed of light.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:52 pm
well, first of all, according to theory nothing in the universe that ever had mass moved/is moving at or beyond the speed of light. So nothing can move outside the event horizon of the universe – it’s bounded by the speed of light. (and even then, it gets mathematically weird – more on that later).
I’m not sure what you mean by “In other words, from the POV of a light ray, the wave frequency is expanding at a constant rate: c2″. Again, c^2 isn’t a rate. Regardless, nothing according to relativity can exceed c, and only light can actually attain c. That’s kind of the whole point of general relativity, to prevent paradoxes like the one you mention from actually happening. Lorenz transformations kick in demonstrably at about .6c and mess with time and distance in order to keep this house in order. It’s neat stuff, but pretty heavy on the math.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Mr_Null – thank you for nitpicking….
time/space dimensionality:
mc^2 is the escape velocity of matter. If you can get matter past this “speed” relative to the observer, that matter will effectively leave this universe.
How does this apply to “time/space”? Naturally, matter occupies space over time. That is almost a definition of matter. How can you then say that mc^2 does not address dimensionality? How can you have matter without time and space?
I stand corrected: I agree “velocity” is the wrong word. Light isn’t expanding at a “velocity” because it isn’t expanding relative to anything but us observers.
Perhaps you could help me figure this one out…. according to Inflation theory, the universe is inflating at a constant rate, in that the farther an object is from us, the faster it is moving away from us – up to the speed of light. From our point of view, objects moving faster than the speed of light have disappeared from our universe, in that these objects are moving faster than the light that is radiating from them.
I trust you can agree with the above statement.
This means that, theoretically at least, material objects in space that are separated by the width of our universe are moving away from each other at speeds that exceed the speed of light squared.
How could that be if the object were not shrinking relative to the light wave being emitted from it? In other words, from the POV of a light ray, the wave frequency is expanding at a constant rate: c2. But if the distance between the object and the observer is greater than between the observer and the object’s light ray, then, from the observer’s point of view, the object is actually deflating.
But how can that be if the universe is supposed to be EXPANDING?
Do you see what I mean? If the prediction is true, two objects separated by the full length of the universe and that pass outside of each other’s respective event horizons would (theoretically) continue to “expand” relative to us and to each other. Yet, it appear – when an object passes OUTSIDE of the event horizon of our universe, these objects actually begin to contract.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:43 pm
> E=MC2 is a formula that describes the theoretical escape velocity of
> matter. The formula also describes TIME as a dimension akin to the 3
> dimensions of space.
Erm, not to be a nitpicker, but there’s a problem with your basic TOE premise here – e=mc^2 first has nothing to do with velocity, and it also says nothing about time/space dimensionality. e=mc^2 is a mass/energy equivalence – the only velocity involved is “c”, which is a constant. The end result is that the energy equivalence of a specifc mass is equivalent to that mass multiplied by the *square* of the speed of light. Meaning your output (in metric, for simplicity) is in kg-m^2/s^2, or joules. Trying to describe that as a “velocity” is like trying to use a pound as a measure of length, or describing a distance in “miles per gallon”, or saying you made the Kessel run in under 12 parsecs. (Consequently the universe can’t expand at “c^2″ because that’s not a rate. )
Similarly, the space/time thing – and this is a very common mistake – is from a different theory of relativity. Uncle Albert had two – special relativity which gave us the famous formula, and general relativity which gave us relatioships between space, time, gravity and reference frames.
I’m also not sold on the TOE as being elegant and simple. Elegant, sure, I’ll give you that, but simple? I liken it to a good ballet – it’s certainly elegant, but as anyone who’s tried to dance can tell you, it’s not simple by any means. Theoretical physics is kind of like that too – e=mc^2 is supremely elegant, but trying to explain why that exactly works is not simple.
April 29th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
The word is “logos“. This is a Greek word. It’s a stand in for logic, reason and principle. As I understand it, the word references the four corners of a perfect square.
This goes to my point: Christianity is in good harmony with theoretical mathematics, modern cosmology and quantum physics. (IMO, of course.)
April 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
To attempt to contemplate or describe biblical creation is a most complex and confusing thing, and even more so for a nutcase like me. The universe doesn’t express God’s image it expresses his handiwork and some of it even expresses things God never intended. Only humanity expresses the image of God, and almost immediately that was defiled by the serpent. Moses wrote that in the beginning of a recent re-creation or a billions of years ago creation, the Spirit of God was brooding over it, God said… John gives credit to Jesus as the one who spoke the word, was with God, and the word was God, through him all things were made, the word who became flesh. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were together however many billions of years ago, and I really don’t care if there was a big bang or not. The only thing I see them actually making with their hands is humanity. Everything else God commanded and others carried out. Solomon wrote about one of these spirits who always follows God, who says her name is Wisdom. She is clearly describing herself as a personal spirit being and in the feminine. The first statement makes me think it can’t be the Holy Spirit being described, “The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,†and the description continues “before his deeds of old, I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning before the world began… I was there when he set the heavens in place… when he marked out the foundations of the earth then I was the craftsman at his side… “ “she cries aloud to you O men I call out I raise my voice to all mankind… whoever finds me finds life all those who hate me love death…†then she describes another personal spirit being, described in the feminine, named Folly, who opposes God’s ways and entices people to do the same, “Little do they know that the dead are there and her guests are in the depths of the grave.†There are many personal spirit beings, who were ordered by God to create and maintain the universe, some obey God and some oppose God. Satan tried to steal the whole thing from God and run it his way. Isaiah 11 shows us that many things we think normal that God will fix when Jesus returns, the wolf, the leopard, the lion, the bear, the cobra, the viper… have all been twisted by evolutionary processes by spirits that oppose God. When he describes the shoot from Jessie’s stump “the Spirit of the Lord will rest on him†that’s the Holy Spirit. Then look at all the other personal spirit beings described “Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Power, Knowledge, Fear of the Lord. What is idolatry? This is the demands of personal spirit beings who oppose God who are oppressing people with their demands. Jeremiah said, “Tell them this: these Gods who did not make the heavens and the earth will perish…†The idea that you will become like whatever you worship is in Psalm 115, “Their idols are silver and gold, made by the hands of men… those who make them will be like them, and so will all who trust them.†Psalm 106 says, “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons… whom they sacrificed to the idols of Cannon… therefore the Lord was angry…†Deut 32:17 “they sacrificed to demons which are not God†All the blessings and curses of Genesis are supernatural forces that were commanded by God are the best description for the reality of the world.
Two books that helped me in getting outside the box of western thinking when I was training for missions are “God at War†and “Communicating Christ in Animistic Contexts.â€
http://www.amazon.com/God-War-Bible-Spiritual-Conflict/dp/0830818855
http://www.amazon.com/Communicating-Christ-Animistic-Contexts-Rheenen/dp/0801093120
April 27th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
[...] My gGlobe(tm): Intelligent Design in a Nutshell Anyway, with all the media hub-hub over “Intelligent Design†these past few years, I wondered if Hawking’s public remarks had been timed thoughtfully in order to elicit a rise from media outlets quick to capitalize on gossipy tales of friction between Science and Religion in the public square. Sure enough – on the day I checked (6/18 – Father’s Day – 2006) a search of Google News showed 141 results for the term “stephen hawking, pope“. [...]
April 27th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Inflation and Contraction are observer-dependent processes. Thus, neither the Big Bang nor the Heat Death could have occurred without a “live” observer.
In my view, this is an epistemological proof for the existence of God.
Final anthropic principle (FAP): “Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_anthropic_principle
Put another way, in as much as the religious right has made Charles Darwin a bone of contention, I would like to suggest instead that Charles Darwin and his remarkable discovery should be seen as a guarantor of God’s Kingdom to Come – because, as we all know, mindless chaos is no match for an impulse to create order from useless bits.
In short, the process of evolution is a natural phenomenon that Will Lead Inevitably to God’s Supremacy over the whole of Heaven and Earth. God has skewed the odds of nature itself to favor His Own Existence.
April 27th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
I said, “Potentially, the TOE may, for scientists and theologians alike, offer the ability to scientifically infer God’s Existence, and perhaps even His Expectations.”
What I mean is: in a universe in which the apparent rule of chaos is the explicit condition, then who hunts Chaos? (Chaos was bested by Itself when Khaos bore Eros…)
April 27th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Chas,
Good questions, all. I chalk some of it up to the need for control. Even those who refuse to see God need to know their universe is stable, despite the lip service they pay to ultimate full entropy. I would think for some that TOES and such provide ultimate security–not that they aren’t true, but rather they are not the only or the end of truth. (The next question, in fact, must be, “Who wrote the TOE?”)
I think some scientific advancement is possible by atheistic materialists, just as some advancement is possible by a car whose alternator has failed. But it is mostly technological advancement, the fundamental science already having been perceived by those who see more deeply. Once the Turing machine was articulated, 1GH PC’s surely followed. It seems to me that if you deny (can’t see!) God, you’re fundamentally running on empty.
Mike, IQ is, generally speaking, a good thing, but as you known there are plenty of Dawkins to go around. However, if we’re ageless (eternal?) then that denominator might appropriately be set to 0, which should do the trick.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:57 am
While I contemplate your gGlobe universe in a nutcase theory, reading it brought up some deeply buried questions about science, unless you charge some kind of fee for professional science therapy…
Some questions about science:
This group of sophisticated atheist materialist intellectuals currently controlling the sciences, why do they ridicule and ruin as superstitious fools anyone who believes anything supernatural is real, including intelligent design?
Are atheist materialists genuine scientists or are they part of the despair subculture that are street gangs with spray paint defacing the sciences like they have vandalized every other part of our culture?
Are atheist materialists taking control of sciences developed by deeply religious people and forcing everyone to deny credit to their true source, and give undeserved credit to atheist materialists as the only ones who could possibly understand science and who are the true protectors of the sciences?
Can anyone please give me a list of all the scientists who made significant scientific advancements in the history of the world, who were atheist materialists?
Is scientific advancement even possible by people who have an atheist materialist world view?
Does the skepticism of the atheist materialist world view suppress their creativity?
April 27th, 2007 at 10:27 am
But I’m not quoting QM scripture. I’m making it up. God CAN choose to do lot’s of things, including the things He can’t do, but, in the end, He done what he done.
As I’m driving to work I’m thinking, “What does that flesh in the car next to me feel and experience? Where is it’s consciousness?” One very stubborn fact is that I’ve never “been in” it’s consciousness. Come to think of it, I’ve never been in anyone’s consciousness except my own. But Shirley must possess consciousness–this is not a solipsism.
Actually, I HAVE been in others’ consciousnesses. I’ve been in my wife’s when she was delivering our son. I–and many of us–have been in the Challenger 7’s when they lifted off even beyond the confines of gravity. I felt sick when Terri Shiavo was dessicated. We all have moments when our consciousness extends a little bit farther than our own bodies. In fact, it happens all the time. The things we interact with are actually part and parcel of what we are.
Imagine something–I don’t know…a cup of tea–but not the one you want. One that is floating far, far out there, which no one will ever see, hear, taste or touch, which will never interact with any particles or energies–just an isolated cup o’ tea. Could it exist? No. There’s nothing to observe it. I.e., if it has no consequences and connects in no way to any consciousness, and therefore is devoid of meaning, then it doesn’t exist.
Now, does this mean that God needs to commission observer lieutenants to either bring into existence “the observed?” Yes and no. The observer IS the observed.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:55 am
jjtaup says, “There is an overpowering tendency, to which no one is immune, of forgetting that the observed does not exist without the observer. ”
This is an error, a misreading of Quantum Mechanics.
But it has been used as a rationale for God being the observer, He being the only one to exist before there were any other sentient beings in His Universe to do the observing for to enable existence of anything. But even that is an error. God cannot be limited, we posit, so He cannot be limited in His ability to create an item that needs His observance or not need it. He can, if He chooses, create something which does not need Him to even know of its existence, shirley?
April 26th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
What a nice nutshell! Somewhere God is looking down on you Mike, and smiling.
So, since you have his ear, tell him to make sure both Joyanna’s earlobes get to hear the Beatles songs I’ve never heard in that other dimention.
Thanks.
I always love when you write about this stuff…it’s like eating an juicy peach and wondering by just what miracle did it evolved to be so delicious!
April 26th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
I can’t conceive of another universe I’d rather be in, since that would be the one that I’d be in!
There is an overpowering tendency, to which no one is immune, of forgetting that the observed does not exist without the observer. While it may exist as a mathematical conception, a universe that is not appropriately tuned to my existence cannot exist. I am, and therefore it is. This situation is eternal, for if I weren’t, then nothing ever was.
I don’t want to be accused of hogging it all to myself: I’m not really me. Just a temporary window shining from God’s consciousness. And all the other windows I see are of that same one consciousness. I know they are because at times I merge with some of them, in love, in anger, in empathy. It truly hurts to see a loved one suffer. The suffering becomes my own. And it is true joy to know another’s happiness.
Again, begging the FAP, when the chalk dust clears (and I have great respect for the paths they have left behind and those who have laid them), TOE will be found to be a three letter formula so easy that a child could understand–GOD.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
The key may well be in the ‘all possible paths’, Mike. And if you look carefully in your My gGlobe(tm), at the specific history of one single particle in that single carbon atom, the one that was in you, and traced the ‘all possible paths’ that it had taken, would you find that it was lying alongside itself in that atom? And the atom lying next to it was made of it, itself, too.
That is to say, that one, single particle was in fact every particle in existence at all points of time. That that one single particle was all that is. That is , that that single particle is God itself. The particle that is creating for itself an infinite variety of forms and combinations.
I think I want a cup of tea. Maybe the Universe is what happens when God wants a cuppa too.