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

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

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

Tyler on Jul 14th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Lawrence wrote:

“Some sort of new physical principle I suspect is required to make better sense of what we are working on.”

Interesting how much more often I see some variety of this sentiment expressed these days compared to, say, 5 years ago. Not counting crackpots.

The reason revolutions do tend to originate on the margins and in the cracks is because growth is bottom up, be it biology, geology, economics, politics, etc. So long as earlier process can contain and define later process, the structure continues to grow, but when top down pressure and bottom up growth create a disconnect, start looking for a new model.

I am posting from the birthplace of Rumi from an internet cafe so don’t mind my language.

Ingilisi-ye-shoma kamil ast. Shoma dar Balkh hastid?

I think questions like this can be divided into cases of various degrees of confidence. I’d bet every cent I own that classical general relativity continues to hold just as well a few metres inside the event horizon of a large black hole as it does outside the hole (and for a large enough hole someone could even take me up on this bet; we could jump in side by side, and the loser could hand over a small ingot of gold to the winner before dying).

And I agree when Sean says:

it would not be crazy to take those predictions seriously

Certainly not crazy. Still, when it comes to making claims about a literally infinite unobservable region of the universe, based on our observations of a finite region, I’d certainly be much less confident than I would be about the interior of a black hole.

Whoever you are, I don’t recall you ever making a substantive argument of any kind here.

As for my comment and Sean’s response, I’ll let others judge which was more substantive.

Dear Sean: there is a vast gulf fixed between “reliable” and “endlessly repetitive, with no substantial argument”.

I also strongly disagree with your closing line about
“extremely disproportionate amount of attention”. What’s disproportionate about it? It’s good when interesting things receive more attention than boring things, and this is a canonical example. Examples of things that really *do* receive more attention than they are worth are easy to come by: nano-anything, medical “research”, etc etc etc.

Popper’s admonition was that science should not attempt to explain its own success; that way lies a kind of damnation (my word, not his). I suspect that, in part, he had in mind Kant’s attempt to account for what he (Kant) imagined was the indubitable and final success of Newtonian mechanics, some decades before it became fully apparent that its success was neither indubitable or final.

The universe doesn’t care what feels right, or what “we just can’t imagine”; so all possibilities should remain on the table.

The great thing about assuming homogeneity and isotropy is that the assumption has consequences that can be tested. Thus, it could turn out to be wrong! What we have observed, and even what we imagine we can observe in principle, have changed over time. Every time this happens, apparently simplistic assumptions like homogeneity and isotropy come under threat. What is amazing is how often they hold up.

It therefore sometimes pays to make unjustified but testable assumptions that strike some, perhaps may, people as implausible, if somebody is willing to test them. Of course, if the culture of science evolves away from this—eg, for reasons of cost or widespread anxiety about career prospects—then its development will be profoundly impaired in the long run.

It doesn’t matter whether or not Einstein and Wheeler thought the assumption of a spatially and temporally finite universe “felt right”, if the idea constrained observational outcomes. Limitations on expected observations is what we need; because we learn something when those expectations are violated. Although it isn’t clear what its promoters intend, the idea of the multiverse smacks of leaving “all possibilities…on the table” in a single theory, thus ensuring that such a theory can never be contradicted by observation. If one supposes that the most open-minded and ultimately scientific attitude is to consider all possibilities, and one would also like to be right, then it is tempting to build all possibilities into a single theoretical framework. Unfortunately, in pursuing this goal science devolves into metaphysics—a metaphysics full of fascinating and imaginative mathematical (and other) ideas and constructions perhaps, but still metaphysics.

Of course one can still say: “Perhaps that is just the way the universe [multiverse] is.” As a purely logical matter there is no good response to this. As a matter of pure logic, the universe presumably can be anything its wants to be, including something we have no hope of grasping scientifically. For some strange reason, the universe has cut us a break:

The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.

“Some sort of new physical principle I suspect is required to make better sense of what we are working on.”

Interesting how much more often I see some variety of this sentiment expressed these days compared to, say, 5 years ago. Not counting crackpots.

One of the terms that gets tossed about in physics that I have become unhappy with is TOE. Maybe it’s better to use TOS, Theory of Something. The RHIC data does suggest a possible signpost on string theory that illuminates some neighborhood in the theory. This does not mean string theory is in anyway confirmed (science never really confirms theories), but that nature might share some features common to strings.

String theory fails to “constrain” very well. As a result we have a vast multiplicity of “theories” on how E_8xE_8 string decompose on a vast number of vacua and a seemingly endless nesting of more complicated algebraic geometric constructions. I will say that for various reasons I think there are stringy aspects to this domain of physics. This does not mean I think string theory is the final answer to things. It appears that it can’t be, for something else appears required, or else the whole theory is simply wrong.

I am of the opinion that some basic principle is required. I suspect that some of the difficulties within theoretical physics is that some very basic idea is lacking in what we are doing. Some sort of new physical principle I suspect is required to make better sense of what we are working on.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Lawrence B. Crowell

The problem with testing string theory is not that you can’t test its predictions since they are at the Planck scale, it’s that there are no predictions at any energy scale. This includes making no predictions about what the ground state and low-energy excitations about it look like.

The question of whether string theory provides a useful model that can be compared to the RHIC data has nothing at all to do with whether it provides a predictive TOE.

Some RHIC data on quark-gluon plasmas indicates dualities with black hole interiors as expected with M-branes. So the this statement might have a few little cracks in it. The big problem with testing string theory is the same as with LQG, the scales where the theories operate are utterly extreme. Both theories might just be different perspectives on these problems, and both might have some elements of physical reality.

Lawrence B. Crowell

however, when working in such a field, i can see that – if one wants to make any meaningful progress in the scientific sense – one has to make certain grounding assumptions, as it were. and one could certainly make the *theoretical* assumption that the cosmological principle is correct (& all the other associated assumptions under discussion here) and proceed from there, without losing sight of the fact that these assumptions are simply that, axiomatic statements we must make at the outset, without which progress cannot be made. The only way this could be a serious problem is if the assumptions are elevated to the level of supposed factuality and given mental precedence over conflicting experimental data, or if the assumptions are *presented* as fact via the media to the public.

This latter point is greatly complicated by the ongoing and apparently nearly total inability of the public at large to comprehend any amount of nuance when presented with scientific ideas. I’m sure this must be very frustrating to those doing the presenting. One can keep in mind, and even state, caveats such as “well we start from this assumption, and we have to keep in mind that this might not be correct and needs to be re-evaluated in light of any possible conflict with experimental data, etc” and either it will get edited out of the story, or the public will just think “blah blah blah don’t these poindexters ever say anything directly, do you know what you’re talking about or not?”

Synchronistically, see http://arxivblog.com/?p=520

Also: Ruben Bolling rules. This strip is good but pales in comparison to his sublime “God-Man” strips, collected here:
http://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/godman.html

Of which my favorite is “Is God-Man…Dead?” aka “God-Man vs. Nietzsche-Lad”
http://archive.salon.com/march97/comics/comics4970313.html