I’m sure Ruben Bolling is making fun of people I disagree with, and not of me.
The underlying point is a good one, though, and one that is surprisingly hard for people thinking about cosmology to take to heart: without actually looking at it, there is no sensible a priori reasoning that can lead us to reliable knowledge about parts of the universe we haven’t observed. Einstein and Wheeler believed that the universe was closed and would someday recollapse, because a universe that was finite in time felt right to them. The universe doesn’t care what feels right, or what “we just can’t imagine”; so all possibilities should remain on the table.
On the other hand, that doesn’t mean we can’t draw reasonable a posteriori conclusions about the unobservable universe, if the stars align just right. That is, if we had a comprehensive theory of physics and cosmology that successfully passed a barrage of empirical tests here in the universe we do observe, and made unambiguous predictions for the universe that we don’t, it would not be crazy to take those predictions seriously.
We don’t have that theory yet, but we’re working on it. (Where “we” means an extremely tiny fraction of working scientists, who receive an extremely disproportionate amount of attention.)
What makes any work of art is a sense that there is something beyond – beyond what is observable – infinity – Parts of the forest you did not know existed before – its a mystery – you cant see it but you know there is something more out there.
Okay, now I’m being made fun of. In a good way.
I thought one of the problems was whether laws varied from place to place (like the rules do on Earth!). Otherwise, it’s merely a matter (heh) of how far “the same stuff” – including dark matter/energy – extends. But how can anyone get a handle on “basis for laws” without invoking speculation about First Causes, or just saying we’re in one of a multitude of universes – with no proof? Some talk of strings being a basis for variation in laws either from place to place in a big contiguous space, or in separate spaces (“universes.”) But as I’ve asked before: we can predict what a real violin etc. string will do because it’s made of atoms, and we invoke the fundamental properties of those constituents. But what explains what strings (or particles without parts if you don’t believe in strings, like muons) act like? If they aren’t “made of something” and we must presumably take their behavior as given fundamentally, but that’s just a command economy type thing. It has little explanatory value since there isn’t an underlying, even more fundamental interaction inside to model it with, to build up from.
Hello,
I was wondering what do you think about CMB-based tests (like Integrated Sachs-Wolfe, Cold Spot) for string theory and braneworld models.
With future gains in the uncertainties and error bars in the correlation between CMB and LSS (as Mark said here
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/06/15/evolving-potentials/#comment-318632) we can use evolving potentials to make predictions on f(R) models, and maybe (imho) on braneworld models too.
Thank you very much
Neil,
Maybe it’s a little of the nature vs. nurture dichotomy. That it isn’t just the fundamental nature as cause of everything arising from it, but the element of feedback is integral to what the nature of the fundamentals are in the first place? Much more confusing of course, with more of an eternal cycle, than first cause.
Interesting article on E. O. Wilson’s latest doings that brought the observation to mind;
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15wils.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1216170149-QwYV7VZa+6I+LmSmo/lSjQ
It seems to me, in most cases, scientists or anyone for that matter, start with an unproven idea and then set out to prove it. Often, it may be decades latter that it can actually be proven. Our technology must first extent our perception abilities.
If we could communicate with some of the animals, they would have told us long ago that an ultra violet spectrum or above the magnetic energy around the earth because they could perceive them. The point is that just because we don’t perceive something, doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Then of course, there is the huge problem of perception itself. Our interpretation of what we do glimpse in the Universe may be very skewed. We make interpretations based on what we experience, believe or imagine. Plus, since the observer cannot observe without producing some effect on what he has observed, how can you know for certain what is there when it isn’t being observed?
Since everything is made of energy, even our thoughts and imaginings, and the smaller the sub atomic particles or proposed particles that compose it, the more unpredictable it becomes, how can you know what affects the particles of energy that our thoughts contain and the particles of other energies zipping around have on each other? I suspect that there may be something even more basic and less tangible than energy. That would take quite an experiment to prove.
Interestingly, some of the imaginings of many of the ancient mystics or elite of some ancient spiritual theories, have much in common with many of the scientific theories being proposed or proven today.
It seems to me that theories of gravity still have some gaps and we thought we had that all sewn up because Newton had proven that it worked and that it could be used to predict how things moved. Then Einstein revised that, and everyone thought it was a done deal again. But then quantum physic came along and some of the newer observation don’t always seem to fit as well as one would like
Why is it so weak compared to the other forces. No one knows.
The point is that is it presumptuous to every assume that we have it figured out. Not that we shouldn’t try. But imagination must come before theories and theories before proof and proof before anyone considers it a fact. But facts also can be presumptuous. Until we have the senses to see everything and the wisdom and awareness to fully and accurately understand what we are seeing, any proven fact is just a highly effective theory.
So quit the back biting. All the disciplines have something to ofter. And people generally believe what they want to believe, “facts” or not. However, I do think anything should be presented accurately, pro and cons, results – one that prove or disprove.
Especially for lay people like me who are fascinated, curious and intrigued by new ideas, information and discoveries but lack the technical education to understand equations.
You may dismiss these observations from a mere lay person if you like. I am still eager for all the new information that I can get as the result of your pioneering research and discoveries. It is exciting, intriguing and fascinating. nd the Universe is amazing.
Thanks,
Lauren