Trick or Treat? Will Einstein's Theories Extend Beyond Our Universe? (A Galaxy Classic)

Chris Knight, the finest fictional physicist of our time, once said "All science.  No Philosophy.  Wrong."  It's true that an understanding of existence outside of equations is vital for scientists, both in terms of enjoying life and avoiding things like Agent Orange, but beware careless combination of the two.  A science/philosophy mixture can lead to metaphysical claims that the laws of physics are nothing but local zoning ordinances, as demonstrated by Lee Smolin.

Smolin is author of "the fecund universes theory" of cosmology which suggests that the rules of biology apply on the grandest scales, and is often referred to as "cosmological natural selection". Smolin summarized the idea in his book, The Life of the Cosmos.

The theory surmises that a collapsing black hole causes the emergence of a new universe on the "other side", whose fundamental constant parameters (speed of light, Planck length and so forth) may differ slightly from those of the universe where the black hole collapsed. Each universe therefore gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes.

The Perimeter Institute theoretical physicist got together with philosopher Roberto Unger and arrived at three radically new conclusions. The first is that there is only one universe - the idea of a multiverse might be awesome science fiction, and essential to the slightly less credible string theory, but there's no reason to base your worldview on worlds where the Nazis won or the universal constant of gravitation has a different value.

The second idea is that time is real.  Remember when you read that first sentence?  Okay, you agree with us - this is one of those discussions that takes place at a level regular humans don't argue at.  Some say that all of existence is a crystal of reality that we happen to move through, Dr Manhattan style, which is wonderfully imaginative but displays incredible cognitive disconnection.  Even speaking the words aloud demonstrates the passage of time, and most arguments beyond that depend on bringing the debate to an extremely specific linguistic field of hyper-definitions that the opponent hasn't wasted their life learning, and will therefore "lose" at.  Luckily for us, Lee agrees that time actually exists and we can move on to the real problem: the idea of physics as local rules.

His argument that physics can change over time and space is apparently based on an extremely specific strawman argument which depends on separating experimental procedure into initial conditions and laws.  He says you can only arrive at laws by examining a large "configuration space" of possible setups.  In the lab you can set up a large number of tests, in cosmology you can look at a wide variety of situations, so in both you can arrive at laws.  His argument is that since you can't actually rearrange the stars themselves to set up different initial conditions in each place, you can't make conclusions about the physical laws there.  He uses many, many more words to describe this idea.

It's all very intellectually stimulating, but mainly demonstrates the difference between metaphysics and useful physics.  If you're going to claim that general relativity stops working beyond some sort of interstate-of-existence line, the burden of proof is on you to show that's the case - and strawman arguments on the nature of experimentation aren't going to cut it.  You can say that the plank constant is a variable over time and space, but when we want to build an bridge or a fusion reactor we're going to stick with our silly, provincial, non-new-book-publishing "actual physics."   And that's the difference.

Posted by Luke McKinney

Recommended Post

"Will DNA Prove to be the Life Code Throughout the Universe?"

Source:

The Unique Universe

VIDEO

Smolin is author of "the fecund universes theory" of cosmology which suggests that the rules of biology apply on the grandest scales, and is often referred to as "cosmological natural selection". Smolin summarized the idea in his book, The Life of the Cosmos.

The theory surmises that a collapsing black hole causes the emergence of a new universe on the "other side", whose fundamental constant parameters (speed of light, Planck length and so forth) may differ slightly from those of the universe where the black hole collapsed. Each universe therefore gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes.

The Perimeter Institute theoretical physicist got together with philosopher Roberto Unger and arrived at three radically new conclusions. The first is that there is only one universe - the idea of a multiverse might be awesome science fiction, and essential to the slightly less credible string theory, but there's no reason to base your worldview on worlds where the Nazis won or the universal constant of gravitation has a different value.

The second idea is that time is real.  Remember when you read that first sentence?  Okay, you agree with us - this is one of those discussions that takes place at a level regular humans don't argue at.  Some say that all of existence is a crystal of reality that we happen to move through, Dr Manhattan style, which is wonderfully imaginative but displays incredible cognitive disconnection.  Even speaking the words aloud demonstrates the passage of time, and most arguments beyond that depend on bringing the debate to an extremely specific linguistic field of hyper-definitions that the opponent hasn't wasted their life learning, and will therefore "lose" at.  Luckily for us, Lee agrees that time actually exists and we can move on to the real problem: the idea of physics as local rules.

His argument that physics can change over time and space is apparently based on an extremely specific strawman argument which depends on separating experimental procedure into initial conditions and laws.  He says you can only arrive at laws by examining a large "configuration space" of possible setups.  In the lab you can set up a large number of tests, in cosmology you can look at a wide variety of situations, so in both you can arrive at laws.  His argument is that since you can't actually rearrange the stars themselves to set up different initial conditions in each place, you can't make conclusions about the physical laws there.  He uses many, many more words to describe this idea.

It's all very intellectually stimulating, but mainly demonstrates the difference between metaphysics and useful physics.  If you're going to claim that general relativity stops working beyond some sort of interstate-of-existence line, the burden of proof is on you to show that's the case - and strawman arguments on the nature of experimentation aren't going to cut it.  You can say that the plank constant is a variable over time and space, but when we want to build an bridge or a fusion reactor we're going to stick with our silly, provincial, non-new-book-publishing "actual physics."   And that's the difference.

Posted by Luke McKinney

Recommended Post

"Will DNA Prove to be the Life Code Throughout the Universe?"

Source:

The Unique Universe

VIDEO

The theory surmises that a collapsing black hole causes the emergence of a new universe on the "other side", whose fundamental constant parameters (speed of light, Planck length and so forth) may differ slightly from those of the universe where the black hole collapsed. Each universe therefore gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes.

The Perimeter Institute theoretical physicist got together with philosopher Roberto Unger and arrived at three radically new conclusions. The first is that there is only one universe - the idea of a multiverse might be awesome science fiction, and essential to the slightly less credible string theory, but there's no reason to base your worldview on worlds where the Nazis won or the universal constant of gravitation has a different value.

The second idea is that time is real.  Remember when you read that first sentence?  Okay, you agree with us - this is one of those discussions that takes place at a level regular humans don't argue at.  Some say that all of existence is a crystal of reality that we happen to move through, Dr Manhattan style, which is wonderfully imaginative but displays incredible cognitive disconnection.  Even speaking the words aloud demonstrates the passage of time, and most arguments beyond that depend on bringing the debate to an extremely specific linguistic field of hyper-definitions that the opponent hasn't wasted their life learning, and will therefore "lose" at.  Luckily for us, Lee agrees that time actually exists and we can move on to the real problem: the idea of physics as local rules.

His argument that physics can change over time and space is apparently based on an extremely specific strawman argument which depends on separating experimental procedure into initial conditions and laws.  He says you can only arrive at laws by examining a large "configuration space" of possible setups.  In the lab you can set up a large number of tests, in cosmology you can look at a wide variety of situations, so in both you can arrive at laws.  His argument is that since you can't actually rearrange the stars themselves to set up different initial conditions in each place, you can't make conclusions about the physical laws there.  He uses many, many more words to describe this idea.

It's all very intellectually stimulating, but mainly demonstrates the difference between metaphysics and useful physics.  If you're going to claim that general relativity stops working beyond some sort of interstate-of-existence line, the burden of proof is on you to show that's the case - and strawman arguments on the nature of experimentation aren't going to cut it.  You can say that the plank constant is a variable over time and space, but when we want to build an bridge or a fusion reactor we're going to stick with our silly, provincial, non-new-book-publishing "actual physics."   And that's the difference.

Posted by Luke McKinney

Recommended Post

"Will DNA Prove to be the Life Code Throughout the Universe?"

Source:

The Unique Universe

VIDEO

Comments

[Keith]

Ugh Luke McKinney ruins this site for me. Enough of your opinions. It's a science blog, so report the science. Unless somehow YOU are the only one who knows everything in this world, your opinion is just as likely to be right or wrong as anyone else. There are numerous theories out there trying to explain the universe, and sure many of them may turn out to be incorrect, but until EVERYTHING has been explained, putting new ideas on the table for analysis and review is kind of the point of this whole "science" thing. It's common knowledge that as of right now SOMETHING is missing from the standard model, and how the hell do you figure out what that is without "different" ideas? Einstein did this very thing back in his day, and I wonder what kind of sarcastic and smug "I know more than you" rejection of his work you'd have come up with and how stupid you'd have felt when his work panned out.

[Rajnish Roy]

Time in absolute sense is non-existent. It is just an experiential reality that is assumed by an experiencer. If there is no experiencer, there is nothing like time. The brain tends to link up two points of actions (motions or processes) with its memory function. This associative experience is called time. The universe is a perpetuity of motions or processes, chemical or otherwise.
Or else: imagine the beginning or end of so-called time billions and trillions of years before or after, but still the question remains: what was before or will be after that? Saying that time started with big bang and ends with the end of the universe, is partial explanation. Big bang was rather a beginning of a series of processes/motions that would stop one day.
Time is an illusion, but a persistent one for any life form as such.
Rajnish Roy
http://rewiringthebrain.net/

[Narendra Nath]

The item is poorly presented and to make a head out of tail seems impossible. Time exisits because we exist through birth and death. Space exists because we move in it and thus we are aware of both space and time. Gravity exists because we are aware of it and more so when we go and down in a a fast lift. Science is all experience and the same can not be ruled out as no-reality.

[Jesse]

Luke McKinney makes this site for me. I find him to be very observant and keenly insightful about the items he chooses to comment on. He also has a crafty sense of humor that often exposes the hubris of some scientific thought.