View Full Version here: : Evidence for More Universes.
For your reading ....
Do you guys know about this?
12-09-2011, 06:28 AM
Is this what they mean by "Things that go bump in the night"??!!!:)
12-09-2011, 07:13 AM
If this were proven true it would seriously increase the chances for life to exist OUT THERE as there would be a hell of a lot more OUT THERE :P:rofl:
12-09-2011, 07:33 AM
Yep .. we kicked it around when it was announced.
There have been several subsequent critiques of the original Penrose et al paper, since. We had a couple of threads about it which start here. (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=684108&highlight=Penrose#post684108)
Personally, I'm starting to think more about the CMB as a fractal image. I recall that it has been confirmed that it it does indeed have a calculable fractal dimension within the appropriate range. If this is the case, then both ordered regular patterns would be expected amongst the seeming remainder of chaotic image ('caused' by nothing more than the intrinsic behaviours of rapidly expanding, interacting radiation ).
Coming from this perspective, it is not surprising that CMB radiation could self-organise to form patterns which we might normally recognise and relate to other ways such patterns may form elsewhere in nature (like from rapid expansion of patterns formed in minute discontinuities in a fluid medium).
Whether or the CMB patterns are actually caused in the same way theorised by Penrose et al, is highly debatable and not necessarily likely. (This is a nice way of saying that the pattern is more likely to be in the eye of the beholder .. much like tea-leaf gazing to tell the future).
The Penrose et al papers are regarded with much scepticism within the scientific community. See the 'counter arguments' (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101210/full/news.2010.665.html) here.
12-09-2011, 07:36 AM
No .. not by any scientific or mathematical arguments.
As explained many, many times before .. this statement is unsupportable, other than by faith.
.. A dreamer's perspective … which is Ok .. so long as one recognises it as such, and keeps it separate from real science.
12-09-2011, 09:32 AM
What's "real science"????. If you think that the opposite argument to the "pro lifers", for want of a better definition, is the essence of "real science" (a more "balanced" approach), then you don't know what "real science" is. All scientists are dreamers to varying degrees and "faith" has a lot more to do with it than you realise. However, the big difference is that unlike religion, science seeks quantifiable, verifiable evidence for what it believes in and rejects that which it can prove to be false (or, in reality, what it thinks is false).
So, if pro life people are dreamers, then so are the "no others". Despite their "scientific" pontifications and justifications, they're just as much guilty of "faith" based opinions as anyone else. They have no proof of their assertions. So, in the final analysis, it's nothing more than a pointless argument based on supposition and ignorance. Neither side knows the real answer and they can't prove their point, definitively.
The only way to prove the point, either way, is to go out there and look for life...and not just within our own little corner of the cosmos.
12-09-2011, 10:16 AM
If it is objective, independently verifiable, and internally self-consistent, then it is science … and 'belief' becomes redundant.
Science never calls for 'proof', thus it says nothing about 'true' or 'false'.
Proof does exist internally within mathematical axiom-based systems, which rigorously define the conditions for distinguishing 'true' and 'false', before operations commence.
Apart from pure mathematical systems, 'true/false' only has meaning in faith-based dogma. Those who speak in this sense, are coming religious/faith based dogma.
Science never requires 'proof' … thus it says nothing about 'true' or 'false'. In general usage, these only have meaning in faith based dogma.
Frankly, if you don't recognise these fundamentals which distinguish science from religion, then you don't speak on behalf of, nor represent science in any way, shape or form.
You can't have it both ways. If something is "independently verifiable", it is proveable. Either it needs to be independently verifiable (hence calls for for proof) or it doesn't need to be independently verifiable (which would mean it doesn't call for proof). :)
12-09-2011, 11:12 AM
Agreed. However, belief isn't made redundant because of this. It becomes part of the paradigm and that is all too obvious when you look at how science is promoted even by those that do science.
Science calls for evidence, either way. The veracity of that evidence comes from the experimental testing of hypotheses and then theory is based on the tested evidence. However, that evidence and theory is taken for proof all too often by both scientists and non scientists alike.
And you don't think that science can be dogmatic and faith based??? Open your eyes, Craig.
Strictly speaking, science doesn't require proof, but it's proof it gets and gives out....all the time. You only have to listen to some scientists to see where they're coming from. Read a few of the textbooks and you'll see plenty of assumptions/theories that are taken as gospel truths, so to speak.
You can be a little condescending at times and a tad over zealous about your own "beliefs" about what science is or isn't, Craig. You have to remember, I am a scientist. I do know, or at least have some inkling of what I'm talking about. Whether that be the philosophical aspects of science or otherwise. Nothing in science is as clear cut and objective as you would like to think. Nor can you deny that the feelings and prejudices of those that do science don't cloud it in any way. Despite of all the laudable indifference and objectivity the scientific method supposedly holds true to. In any case, the scientific method is just as open to interpretation as any other method or tool used by people to study anything in question. There have been many, many heated debates about this in the past, as well as in the present. It even goes to the core of peer review and its efficacy. You could debate until the cows come home about objectivity, self consistency and verifiability and never get total agreement on any of those points. You may get a consensus of opinion on the general points but you'll get endless arguments over the degrees and levels of each and how applicable they are in any number of situations etc etc etc. I've been in those arguments, especially sitting at the coffee table in staff rooms and in classes. It's great fun when you're in a talk/debate/discussion with creationists, which I have been on a few occasions, and have debated the very applicability of objectivity, etc, with them, where it concerns their beliefs. Can get rather heated:):):P
12-09-2011, 11:44 AM
My point is quite simple.
Unless a strong focus and discipline is practised and promoted by scientists in doing their work ... and even in Amateur Science Forums such as this, we're all just pitting our own opinions against each other, which leads nowhere.
The value in science comes from how rigorously we resist the temptation to revert to our primal belief systems. Science offers us this opportunity, and freedom to do this .. and I personally choose to exercise this freedom, and gain from the opportunity of doing so.
Frankly, giving air-time to how sloppy any of us can be, in abusing carefully performed research done by others, to support what is a pre-conceived belief, in my view, is a complete waste of time and electrons in this forum. And .. yep .. that's an opinion … right there … and its unfortunate that it seems I have to spell this out in black and white terminology, but at least I can recognise it, for what it is.
Can we put aside these moot low-value points … and get on with some quality discussions?
12-09-2011, 12:35 PM
I agree with Craig.
Mathematicians deal with proof, scientists deal with accuracy.
While evidence may disprove a scientific theory, verifiable evidence can only support a theory within the technological limitations of the experiment or observation of the time. This does not constitute proof.
An example is the Moon's orbit, an early test case for Newtonian theory. While theory and observation were in agreement, it was only until Apollo astronauts placed mirrors on the lunar surface that a "precise" laser measurement of the Earth/Moon distance was possible. Suddenly Newtonian theory was no longer an accurate theory.
If scientists actually believed that evidence constituted proof, they might as well throw away their lab coats and their experiments, as they are no longer performing science.
Hopefully high cost experimental science will not fall away as an economic casualty of the times.
It's through experimental science, by the development of ever increasing accurate experiments that theory will always be kept on it's toes and not become dogma.
12-09-2011, 01:02 PM
I agree with you Steven. However how often have you seen scientists openly say that their theories constitute a proof of whatever, or at least intimate that they do through their dealings with the general populace. Like with the speed of light barrier....whilst we know that even though experimental evidence has upheld that contention, so far, scientists come out and proclaim that nothing can travel faster than light, without making any qualifications to that contention, most of the time. It's an ego thing..."I'm the scientist and I know what I'm saying is correct, therefore you must listen and take my word as gospel". At least, that's the way many carry themselves when dealing with everyone else. You or I know full well what the qualifications to that contention are because we've studied it. But most people don't. If it was proven, then why not call Einstein's deliberations laws and not theories, just like Newton's Laws.
The big problem is that the words "proof", "theory" and "laws" get awfully mixed up and misinterpreted. Even by scientists at times, who sometimes forget they're not in the business of proving anything to be a fact, or explaining as being such.
Talking about high cost experimental science falling by the wayside, the US is in a bit of a pickle with their science funding. Same seems to be the case in Europe as well. Some large budget projects maybe cancelled, or at least put on the back burner, because of the economic situation there. Also, considering the US has over 9% unemployment, it doesn't bode all that well for graduates looking for research and/or teaching positions. Which worries me somewhat, as I'm in that market as well. Might have to win the Lotto, buy myself a large scope with all the goodies to go with it and go out on my own, for the time being!!!!:):P
Just thinking of that....makes you wonder what a particle physics graduate would buy themselves if they had the same inclinations. A small version of the LHC??:):P:P
12-09-2011, 01:08 PM
Pretty much this whole forum is opinion, Craig. That's what usually comes about when you discuss anything. You read a paper, you comment on it, or on what other say, you get an opinion expressed. This comes with all the baggage of pre-conceived ideas and such. However, all i ws saying is that the corollary of the pro life position (as expressed by Warren) is just as valid as the rare or no other life position, which has been expressed by some scientists (e.g. Rare Earth Hypothesis). Neither has any definitive proof of their assertions. That's why it's a somewhat pointless debate because we only have one example of life, that's here, and all we're doing is extrapolating from that based on our fundamental opinions and how they influence what we study to derive our theories.
And now, I'll go clean up my mess I just dropped on the floor. Or, should I let the dog slurp it up:):):P:P:P
12-09-2011, 01:22 PM
Please note Craig that I didn't say that it would mean that life existed I stated that it would increase the chances of life. I can't see how you can dispute this mathematically or otherwise. I really feel that you Craig despite your claims that you are openminded are just as rusted on to your beliefs as you claim anyone who believes that exolife exists is.
12-09-2011, 03:36 PM
… Ok .. noted ! … And, please note that I didn't say that it implied that life didn't exist, nor have I ever made any statements about my open-mindedness (or otherwise) .. the latter being totally irrelevant.
So far, we've seen that the first part of your assertion is unscientific, as neither 'proof' nor 'truth' has anything to do with science ...
I have seen no scientific or mathematical arguments, in support the rest of your assertion:
Perhaps you could start by quantifying the underlined phrases, mathematically, stepping us through any assumptions, uncertainties and replicable data involved, in order for us to independently verify your results?
Also, how could we access this 'life' you mention, both in our own universe, and any others which might be "out there" .. in order for us to independently verify and quantify your results ?
The third question is: "Could you please provide a definition which enables us to describe the "life" component ..so that we might be able to independently verify your results ?
12-09-2011, 05:11 PM
I was not claiming to offer any results in any form or any proof of any sort and any life I refered to can not be defined but life be it sentient or not is still life and can be based on a wide variety of chemical and biological types.
I am the first to admit I have no proof but that is my point neither do you for the lack of life. So neither can say one way or the other whether it exists or not and I have never attempted to do so. I have only ever stated that I believe because of the amount of stars just in our Galaxy that I BELIEVE it exists no I can't prove it I haven't the brains or the ability to do so but as a logical being I can't discount it.
Your statement that truth has nothing to do with science is a very long bow to pull because there are many things that we use and take for granted wouldn't be possible without science. And I reckon the proof is in the pudding or the computer, space travel etc,etc all made possible by science.
13-09-2011, 02:14 PM
I have often thought it was pointless speculating about a multiverse however it is exciting that they can offer such a view with a specualtive linking to observable data.
Many apologies guys for leaving this thread unattended and not coming back in the last few days. I've been reading your comments but on a speed in and out of here.
Thanks for all your input everyone.
One thing that Carl said, really hit the nail on the head for me..
As someone trying to learn and a 1000 steps (and the rest) behind you guys, I get this all the time and that's where it bails me up. I have to know enough also to try and sort out the wheat from the chuff. All the docos I watch, the person being interviewed always makes their statements to appear factual. Rarely do I hear... according to current theories it may be etc etc.
The other day I was watching a doco on different theories of the big bang. Brains (?spelling), inflation, singularity, big bang etc. One guy insists that the universe emerged in a gentle *puff*. He can prove it, he just needs time. Another insists, the universe resembles something like a block of swiss cheese - yes the multi universes. Some german guy. He knows he's right too. Same goes to the guy who tells us, no, we are here because of membranes rubbing each other and gently merging. etc etc. I am not knocking any of these theories. Personally, I tend to go along with string theory (it's the best we've got so far, right?). And not that I know enough about it as you guys do, I just seem to read a whole lot about it over anything else and it seems to make sense to me. :shrug:
The other day I got caught up in learning all about the Oort cloud. Well didn't that take me off on a confusing venture. Especially when Nasa updates their page and they don't bother updating the picture to go with it (Voyager page with Oort cloud info), so what they were saying didn't make a whole of sense to me. Well there I was googling my eyes out for days. After 3 days, I find it it's only a hypothesis. There might not be an Oort cloud out there after all. Yet All the docs I have watched have said exactly where this Oort cloud lays. Not once, have I heard a reference of "we're not sure", so I always thought they somehow had proof of the Oort cloud.
I have to start learning to take many things related to science/astronomy as "perhaps", even if those presenters with big excited eyes and arms flying everywhere in their explanations tell me otherwise with their insistent statements. Which when I think of it, so much can't be proved, it's based on theory - unfortunately people like myself do indeed get bogged down into believing it to be fact, brainwashing us of the theories that they are.
Wish they'd just put a "we think" in front of their sentences sometimes. :rolleyes:
I"m trying to learn.... it's difficult. You ask one question which leads on to a whole new tangent. And then you have to stop and ask yourself, well is this actually proven?
Sorry guys, I was having a rant :rolleyes:
I came to the right place for a rant though didn't I? :P :lol:
18-09-2011, 06:16 PM
Boy, ya got that right !
This is why I harp on so much about the philosophy of science.
When I got into this stuff, I was dumbfounded and perplexed with questions like:
"How can these guys rave on about all this stuff as though its all real .. when so much of what they say it theory?"
"How does a theory somehow get translated into something real ?"
"They seem honest .. why is that the more knowledge you gather, the more it sounds like an outright, deliberate lie?"
Enter a truck-load of material to read up on, to just begin to understand how these 'theories' came into existence, how the evidence got assembled and then how it was all interpreted to answer 'big' philosophical questions.
Yep .. there's a lot more to this subject than knowing where and when to spot that object through the scope … there's no easy short-cuts, Suzy .. but never give up !
There's plenty of time to absorb it all and the beauty of having it as a hobby is that you can learn at your own pace.
Hang in there .. !
Cheers & Rgds
Just to clarify to anyone that may have taken my rant the wrong way...
I do think science is important, I like scientists, I respect the job they do, we have come a long way thanks to science and if it wasn't for scientists, I couldn't keep learning. *throws the shovel back* :lol:
Meanwhile, I'll keep learning and keep a level head by knowing much of this is theory- much of it strong theory, and of course much has indeed been proven. :)
Beautiful come back Craig, thank you. ;)
I won't give up. :D And you are absolutely spot on with pacing myself. So easy to let one subject consume me though - the more questions I ask and get the answers to, the more questions it brings, round and round and round and round, it doesn't stop.:confused2: Sometimes I feel so wired, it's almost as if it's up to me to solve the mysteries of the universe... tick tick tick goes my brain. And I can't even do math. I've been stuck on something the last few days so will start a thread in this forum if I'm unable find out myself. :bashcomp: It has to do with pulsars in white dwarf stars.
But, I like to learn, so as long as you guys are here to help me out, I'm very happy. ;)
Oooh and guess what? Prof. Lawrence Krauss even answered me on facebook :D. He said "yes" to a statement I made. I like it when scientists tell me "yes". Why? Because it never happens of course :shrug::lol:. That's all he said, but I'm sure he's a busy man.:P And then Shelley found out that I was friends with him on facebook and she nearly passed out right then and there in facebook land- because anyone who knows Shelley well, knows how much she loves Prof. Krauss. So she friended him and then he answered her, and he used a whole sentence for her :eyepop:. I don't think her feet have hit the ground yet. :lol: Brian Cox of course is much to do busy to answer anything fb, but we won't go there because he's a celebrity/rockstar/physics professor and all, so I guess he's forgiven. :shrug: Don't say anything Craig. :P :lol:
18-09-2011, 11:40 PM
Well Suzy, there's an answer to that. I'm into genealogy and I know where this behaviour comes from. You see, they all have some Italian blood in them:):):P:P
Knowing that Italians are big on the wide eyed, very vocal, arm waving type of explanations and/or remonstrations, it's quite easy to see where they get this trait from:):):P:P
18-09-2011, 11:57 PM
What's the problem, Suzy??
Alex Filippenko might fit this bill. :lol:
I've been watching his very interesting Berkley lectures on YouTube. Oh boy there's so many, I think about 80. Slowly working my way thru. When I've finished watching them, I will tell you all my theory.:P
Carl, I've just got a bit more reading regarding those pulsars that I'm trying to muddle through. But basically, I was surprised to hear that there are pulsars in 47Tuc.
I thought that globular clusters were only made of white dwarfs.:question:
So for a pulsar to be found there, doesn't there have to be a super giant star which goes supernova for it to go on to be a pulsar. Or can this happen with a binary system of low mass stars where one feeds off the other and Kapow supernova 1a. But supernova 1a don't leave behind pulsars do they?
In short, how do those pulsars get there? Some 22 alone in 47 Tuc it seems.
Oh and by the way...
Take a listen to this (LesD sent it to me on fb). No doubt Carl you've probably heard this already, but others should enjoy.
Have a panadol ready tho. :lol:
It is the sound file of the 16 millisecond pulsars in the globular cluster 47 Tuc. One by one at first, until they all play together.
Okay, have just finished reading that article and am now even more surprised and confused than ever.
Wow, I didn't know that there was an ancient planet (13 billion yrs old) discovered in 2003, orbiting a pulsar/binary system in 47 Tuc.
Gets more and more interesting...
Thanks to Ron for sending me this link- he was trying to help me out in my quest to better understand globular clusters.;)
19-09-2011, 01:06 AM
13 billion years, Suzy:):)
lol Carl, I just edited then saw your post. :lol:
I meant billion, just came out wrong.
I think I'm getting on top of it now Carl.
So they seem to be a big soup of everything. Interesting. But then that poses more questions for me. If there are black holes in them that just opens up a whole other can of worms of questions within me. Yikes.
19-09-2011, 01:24 AM
Hi Suzy, see this passage to see how the pulsers ect where formed
Discovered by Philippe Loys de Chéseaux (http://www.seds.org/messier/xtra/Bios/decheseaux.html) (1718-51) in 1746, M4 (http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m004.html) (NGC 6121) is one of the Milky Way's smallest but closest known globular star clusters. Unfortunately, it is obscured by dark interstellar clouds from the perspective of the Solar System. Located only around 5,600 ly (1,720 parsecs) away in the northwestern part (16:23:35.4-26:31:31.9, J2000) of Constellation Scorpius (http://www.e-z.net/%7Ehaworth/constel/constel/scorpius.html) (lined photo (http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/scorpius.jpg)), the Scorpion, it is also one of the most open, or loose, globulars with some 100,000 stars spread over more than 50 ly. As it contains mostly stars around 13 (12.7 +/- 0.35) billion years old (Sigurdsson et al, 2003 (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0307339)), most of its higher-mass stars (i.e., Sol-sized and larger) have already evolved out of the main sequence to become white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes. (See a photo of some of M4's white dwarfs (http://www.seds.org/messier/more/m004_hst.html#M4WD)). Moreover, since most of M4's stars were formed within a billion years of the Big Bang (http://www.umich.edu/%7Egs265/bigbang.htm), they are only around five percent as enriched in elements heavier than hydrogen and helium as Sol (Sigurdsson et al, 2003 (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0307339)).
I hope this helps
19-09-2011, 08:54 AM
I can quite understand your perplexed response when scientists, and especially cosmologists, seem to lecture about things that sound outlandish or nearly impossible, and yet they give the lecture in that characteristic tone of absolute certainty.
(cosmologists have a habit of "believing in six nearly impossible things..... and that's before breakfast")
Unfortunately, many popular science presentations give the incorrect impression that all of the ideas put forward are facts,
so they fail to distinguish between :
those theories that are secure (the old idea of a "law" ; such as Newton's laws of motion
those ideas that are more likely to be true than not true (that is, ideas that are not one hundred percent secure, such as dark matter)
those ideas which are essentially informed speculation (e.g. the multiverse).
More about this later, as I have deadline to meet ("just for fun, I work with a soil scientist studying soil invertebrates, and he wants some data soon)
19-09-2011, 09:22 AM
Yep....all done to promote their work. Makes it look sexy. Plus, the scientist want to look like they know what they're talking about and that they are the ones with all the answers. It's the old "teacher/student" thing.
19-09-2011, 10:08 AM
So, given that these presentations actually serve a productive purpose by introducing more folk to astronomy, astrophysics and the 'science' of it all, does not the outcome of the above observations listed by Robert, say more about our own individual unfulfilled expectations, than it says about science?
There seems to be much time spent on criticising these presentations (I'm also 'guilty' of this … to a certain extent .. I'll admit that), and seemingly, less time spent on strengthening our abilities to see through the smoke ..?.. :question:
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.