 |
|
04-13-2008
|
|
|
Hypographer
|
The End of Cosmology
Scientific American has taken it all-out and headlined this on their March issue frontpage:
...
----------------
 Your Friendly Neighborhood Administrator
Want to lose the advertisements? Become a Sponsor!
Join our Facebook group or follow us on Twitter
Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Optimistic speculation about billionth century human history
From “the End of Cosmology?”- The quickening expansion will eventually pull galaxies apart faster than light, causing them to drop out of view. This process eliminates reference points for measuring expansion and dilutes the distinctive products of the big bang to nothingness. In short, it erases all the signs that a big bang ever occurred.
- To our distant descendants, the universe will look like a small puddle of stars in an endless, changeless void.
- What knowledge has the universe already erased?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbird
This view goes as far as these event horizons, information is lost to our present observations past these points, however this view is not taking in to account that our point of view will not remain static in space time for the next few billion years.
|
While the quoted bullet-point items don’t mention it, the article later states: Ambitious future observers might also send out probes that escape the supergalaxy and could serve as reference points for detecting a possible cosmic expansion. Whether it would occur to them to do so seems unlikely, but in any event it would take billions of years at the very least for the probe to reach the point where the expansion noticeably affected its velocity, and the probe would need the energy output comparable to that of a star to communicate back to its builders from such a great distance. That the science-funding agencies of the future would support such a shot-in-the-dark is unlikely, at least if our own experience is any guide. IMHO, the authors are stretching artistic license pretty thin in their guesses about billionth century (  th C) science-funding policies, but can be forgiven this, as the goal of this article is not so much to speculate on future human history as to illuminate an under-discussed consequence of present day cosmological theory.
One possible th C human history, I suspect the most widely believed one among present day humans, is that there won’t be any human history in the billionth century – in short, that no terrestrial life, except possible some low-to-non-intelligent extremophiles, will be present anywhere in the universe. For almost entirely emotional reasons - because it makes me happier to do so, without doing any apparent harm to others or myself - I chose to imagine a different history, in which a cultural, if not a genetic, continuity from our current historic past to this hundred-million times more distant future exists – that in principle, a th C “human” might use their culture’s equivalent of a library to read this very hypography thread, if their interests so lead them. In short, I believe in the preservation of data, and the end of effective library burnings.
In this imagined future th century, interested humans, having access to effectively many orders of magnitude more telescope data than we  th centurians, would know a great deal about the universe at large, even if the observations that built that knowledge were no longer possible. I imagine they’d know a great deal more about physics and cosmology, and about subjects that no human living today can imagine, than any human living today can imagine.
It’s quite possible and reasonable, IMHO, that among the greater human knowledge of physics would be improvements on present day theory invalidating the predictions made in a 3/2008 Scientific American article, and the night sky of whatever natural or artificial place a given human called home would look very different than that article’s beautiful illustrations.
My beliefs, which I have but can’t prove, label me, I think, an optimist, a trait not incompatable with a naturalistic scientific worldview. |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The End of Cosmology
As an after thought, cosmology cannot end because as long as there are stars and galaxies in the sky, than the science of these observations has to exist.
Regarding the observed redshifts, my opinion is that this is a relation between the RS's and the apparent distances implied that would include the angular sizes with the higher RS objects that implies distance.
Mike C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The End of Cosmology
Quote:
|
Both the simple signal time HydrogenBond mentions, and these more complicated factors, are included in theoretical models of the universe. These models are complicated, but mathematically rigorous, not reliant on intuitive satisfaction.
|
The question is, can mathematically rigorous proof support illusions? Math is a faithful horse that we can lead anywhere ever we wish. We start with a goal in mind and then find math proof.
Let me give an example. Say we assume that gravity is due to the repulsion of matter by space. This is erroneous, but if we assume this to be true, one could come up with sort of the reverse math of what we currently use to express gravity. The math will allow us to create the illusion this assumption is correct because the math works out using this assumption and it can be used to make predictions. Do we assume our assumption is true simply because the math appears to say so? In physics the answer appears to be yes, allowing mutually exclusive options. Common sense is not so generous, it would say, we need to test the theory to make sure this is real and not just a math illusion, even if math alone is sufficient for many.
Quote:
As has been noted in many threads, claims like the following
Quote: Originally Posted by HydrogenBond
It tells us nothing of today, since the signal of what is happening today will take billions of years to reach us. strongly contradict the relativity of simultaneity, a essential concept of modern physics. The concept that spatially separate events absolutely do or do not happen at the same time or on a particular order, though intuitively appealing, is ultimately meaningless and unhelpful.
|
If the theory of simultaneity is correct let us test it to make sure it is not just an math illusion. It should be impossible to coordinate all the watches in the example I gave, placing astronauts on the moon, mars and one of the moons of jupiter doing the same task at the same time. Even if the watches change slightly, when we bring them back to earth, that little change will not be anywhere near the time delay we will experience due to the transmission of signals over those distances. Light speed is the same independent of reference. So we are off by less than 1%. The observable universe is still ancient history. The data says long-long ago it was accelerating-expanding quickly. But long ago it was not doing this quite as much. Closer to our own time in history it looks like it is getting closer again. No math illusion just common sense. We bring the watches back to fine tune.
I am going to digress, but this is important for understanding abstract thinking. Art typically anticipates and proceeds changes in the way culture looks at reality. Abstract art started in the late 1800's and the early 1900's and anticipated the change into abstract thinking. If you look at abstract art there are no set rules for clarity or proportion. It doesn't even have to look real or be anything. It can also employ special affects that would not be possible in the real world such as the stairway to nowhere.
This art movement anticipated the movement toward abstract thinking and sort of gave a glimpse into the mind of abstraction. It uses the same tools as the classical artist or thinker, i.e., paint=math. I am not saying all math is an illusion, it is a faithful horse that goes where we wish it to go. It can be used to help create reality art or abstract art.
The advantage of abstract art is because it is free style, without rules of common sense proportions, it makes it easier for anyone to do. It allows more artists than reality art, since reality art requires more careful sense of reality and proportion. A good painting of a tree can be seen by all. This is reflects our common sense. Abstract art is an acquired taste for a narrower range of taste. With an abstraction, common sense is suspended. It gives us a feeling for alternate reality apart from common sense. It stimulates the imagination more than a sharp portrait allowing one to leave reality further and drift into the ozone layer.
This is the state of affairs with all types of abstractions and even some stairways to nowhere. It is still beautiful art that takes skill to do. But by its very nature it not suppose to real or it won't stimulate the imagination. Chaos is a tool that helps the abstract affect. If a person sort of sees a tree, then chaos helps to create a sense of doubt to make sure the abstraction isn't too real. This prevents the art from appearing to go retro so it can look like it is cutting edge leading the charge. |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Optimistic speculation about billionth century human history
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigD
From “the End of Cosmology?”[indent][list][*]
It’s quite possible and reasonable, IMHO, that among the greater human knowledge of physics would be improvements on present day theory invalidating the predictions made in a 3/2008 Scientific American article, and the night sky of whatever natural or artificial place a given human called home would look very different than that article’s beautiful illustrations.
My beliefs, which I have but can’t prove, label me, I think, an optimist, a trait not incompatable with a naturalistic scientific worldview. |
I thought you might enjoy this perspective. 
Quote:
The Other Syntax
Did the universe really begin?
Is the theory of the big bang true?
These are not questions, though they sound like they are.
Is the syntax that requires beginnings, developments
and ends as statements of fact the only syntax that exists?
That's the real question.
There are other syntaxes.
There is one, for example, which demands that varieties
of intensity be taken as facts.
In that syntax nothing begins and nothing ends;
thus birth is not a clean, clear-cut event,
but a specific type of intensity,
and so is maturation, and so is death.
A man of that syntax, looking over his equations, finds that
he has calculated enough varieties of intensity
to say with authority
that the universe never began
and will never end,
but that it has gone, and is going now, and will go
through endless fluctuations of intensity.
That man could very well conclude that the universe itself
is the chariot of intensity
and that one can board it
to journey through changes without end.
He will conclude all that, and much more,
perhaps without ever realizing
that he is merely confirming
the syntax of his mother tongue.
***************************
a chapter from Carlos Castaneda's book The Active Side of Infinity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The End of Cosmology
Quote:
Originally Posted by HydrogenBond
The question is, can mathematically rigorous proof support illusions? Math is a faithful horse that we can lead anywhere ever we wish. We start with a goal in mind and then find math proof.
|
Hello HydrogenBond,
Sanctus and I have been having a bit of a look at higher derivatives in http://hypography.com/forums/physics...tml#post215792 and both of us think something is wrong.
It looks like an improper imaginary unit is becoming evident in some forms of the calculations. Could this be an example how imaginary illusions can creep into a rigorous mathematical proof? |
|
Last edited by LaurieAG; 04-16-2008 at 03:35 PM..
|
|
|
|
Re: The End of Cosmology
Hi All,
There was an error, a missing multiplier, in one of the given equations (on a path that my calcs don't go on) that appears to be the cause of the improper i, when comparing the correct working with the incorrect answer.
This is interesting because it shows one basic method for identifying (and correcting) an implicit imaginary unit i, introduced through error, when none should explicitly exist.
Put succinctly: if you have an implicit i and you are not working with imaginary units, check your work for errors.
|
|
Last edited by LaurieAG; 04-16-2008 at 06:43 PM..
|
|
|
|
Re: The End of Cosmology
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tormod
Yeah see that was my point. Cosmology isn't dependent on evidence IMHO. Only when it's coupled with astronomy and made into a science does it require scientific evidence. Cosmology has been around for a long time without needing any evidence apart from the observed movement of the sun, the moon, the planets etc... |
Actually, the theories that you are talking about do use evidence. Just very little evidence. The point of the article is that eventually the great amount of evidence we have access to now will be gone.
(The article comes about ten years too late, but since the evidence won't disappear for millions if not billions of years, it's not all that important.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The End of Cosmology
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
|
I accessed that article and it quickly changes to an encoded scrap text.
Does that happen to you?
Mike C |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The End of Cosmology
I think Hydro brings up an interesting point. If the local galaxies in say a 100 million light year sphere are showing any signs of contraction why wouldn't I assume that the rest of the universe is acting the same way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Article: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
|
» Advertisement |
|
|
|
