Do you believe in gravity?

[samsara15]

And what do you suppose is the fundamental difference between hypothesizing god and hypothesizing vibrating branes, hmmm?

To my mind, the former is nothing more than an honest statement of what logically follows, while the latter is a vain attempt at sounding smart.

We interpret what we know to the best of our ability, however limited that ability may be, which in my case is very limited.

I try not to call on the God concept until there is no other choice, because of the ideological baggage it carries along with it, much of which I find quite distasteful. Albeit that all that 'baggage' could not be proven to apply to such a bare bones 'God' as would result from hyptheisizing God at the point beyond which science fails.

But isn't that idea simpky the "God of the gaps' idea? The gaps keep shrinking, as more is added to our knowledge of the universe?

 

[numinus]

Golly Jeepers Mr. Numinus, you are still reading the wrong thing. What I wanted you to read has nothing to do with quantum theory. Here, I will copy what I was referring to here:


I know all that, but you were misusing the word. I have not seen lambda used in that context, and I have never seen the word "tensile tendency" used. In fact a google search of that phrase and "universe" results in only 4 hits. One for plastics, two on this forum, and one on another forum by a rather abrasive poster.

I am having serious doubts if you even understand what you are talking about.

All mass has gravitational potential, yes? The effect of gravity is to curve space-time, yes? A point mass with gravitational potential in all direction tends to curve space-time towards itself, which would appear to be contracting, yes?

But we know that the universe is not only expanding, it is doing so at an accelerated rate, yes? And if gravity tends to contract the universe, something else is doing the opposite -- stretching it, yes? And the opposite of a contracting tendency is a tensile tendency, yes?

And what exactly in einstein's field equation accounts for this tendency if not the lambda term?

And a constant lambda multiplied by the metric tensor means that this tendency is INCREASING as space-time expands, yes?

Anyone who has read physical cosmology know that this stretching (if you abhor the word tensile) tendency is loosely refered to as lambda. Its part and parcel of the lambda problem.

I have no problem with calling physics a branch of philosophy.

Good for you. Some people on this forum have this annoying habit of pretending to refute philosophy using science -- never realizing this particular fact.

If you want to call that God, I don't care, but it does not come about by reason alone. Not by a long shot. The majesty of the universe is far larger than a word you want to tag on to it. Are you thinking of pantheism? That would make more sense.

Not at all.

The ontological god is BOTH imminent and immanent. Clearly, this constitutes a fundamental departure by pantheism. A unity of existence, such as pantheism, precludes any objective existence outside of self. But we already know mathematics, logic and morality are just such an existence.

 

[numinus]

Of course they are only theories right now, but as more is known about the nature of the universe, stronger models may come out that have predictive effects toward possibility of a pre-existing mega-universe. As I said before, have patience. These new models are still evolving.

Please.

If a quantity lacks ALL the fundamental and measureable units of length, mass and time, IT AIN'T PHYSICS. And you can have the patience till hell freezes over and it STILL AIN'T PHYSICS.

That is precisely why physicists stop further speculation short of singularities, event horizons and particles smaller than planck length. After all, one cannot conclude anything that contradicts one's initial postulates, no?

 

[numinus]

We interpret what we know to the best of our ability, however limited that ability may be, which in my case is very limited.

I try not to call on the God concept until there is no other choice, because of the ideological baggage it carries along with it, much of which I find quite distasteful. Albeit that all that 'baggage' could not be proven to apply to such a bare bones 'God' as would result from hyptheisizing God at the point beyond which science fails.

But isn't that idea simpky the "God of the gaps' idea? The gaps keep shrinking, as more is added to our knowledge of the universe?

I have no intentions of attributing anything to god other than what logically follows. And contrary to what you might believe, advancement in the natural sciences only make the conclusions of the cosmological argument GLARINGLY obvious.

All cosmic motion, extrapolated backwards (and sprinkled with a few enduring mysteries here and there), inexorably lead to a POINT OF SINGULARITY -- a point beyond which NO HUMAN KNOWLEDGE CAN PENETRATE. And if you insist on stretching the powers of logic beyond its limits, you only arrive at antimonies and paradoxes.

 

[Lagboltz]

I am having serious doubts if you even understand what you are talking about.

Gosh a-rooty, Mr. Numinis. I sent you a quote by Stephen Hawking. And you say I don't understand what I am talking about? Do you understand what Hawking is talking about? It seems simple enough to me. I have doubts that you don't understand what all three of us are talking about.

I'm telling you that Hawking and others said that the total energy of the fracking universe is zero. So spontaneous emergence of our universe from nothing is theoretically possible. Energy and mass are conserved. You keep thinking I am talking about lambda. I was NOT referring to lambda when I originally made that post.

The ontological god is BOTH imminent and immanent. Clearly, this constitutes a fundamental departure by pantheism. A unity of existence, such as pantheism, precludes any objective existence outside of self. But we already know mathematics, logic and morality are just such an existence.

The pantheism I know does not preclude anything outside of self. Pantheism embodies the universe along with selves, of course. From what I studied you were describing one form of pantheism.

Please.

If a quantity lacks ALL the fundamental and measureable units of length, mass and time, IT AIN'T PHYSICS. And you can have the patience till hell freezes over and it STILL AIN'T PHYSICS.

That is precisely why physicists stop further speculation short of singularities, event horizon's and particles smaller than planck length. After all, one cannot conclude anything that contradicts one's initial postulates, no?

Physics is very comfortable with event horizons. You are reading too much into the word "singularity". It strictly means that an equation blew up, not that nature blew up. There have been vicious singularities in QED theory, but renormalization got around them. The fact that an equation blows up most likely means that nature is not correctly modeled. It does not mean that it aint physics.

 

[Chip]

I didn't know the universe was expanding at an accellerated rate, as I just read in the recent conversation.

Wasn't it Einstein (and others, I'm sure) who waxed on about the challenges of distinguishing between gravity and acceleration?

We know what acceleration is.

We know its effects.

But we don't know what gravity is, I mean, for a fact.

We thought gravity might be particulate ... but no graviton has emerged.

We thought it might be related to the curature of space-time ... but we can't really say how.

Considering the power of fields to keep me in my place despite my attempts to jump off of this ride ...

... I'm beginning to wonder if I really do believe in gravity after all.

Maybe I was just believing in cosmic acceleration all along.

Then again, I'm told I'd feel the gravity of gravity greater on Jupiter than I do here ... perhaps thanks, somehow, to all those strong little compact fermions at Jupiter's core, though I don't see how, considering it's bosons that force the issue.

But regardless, how then am I to really know what's keeping me down?!

And if the the universe ever decellerates, will I suddenly wish something was keeping me down?!

Damn ... just when I thought it was safe to believe in something ... ... .

 

[Lagboltz]

Wasn't it Einstein (and others, I'm sure) who waxed on about the challenges of distinguishing between gravity and acceleration?

Einstein hypothesized that no physical experiment in a closed room could distinguish between acceleration and gravity, (unless you looked out a window.)

But we don't know what gravity is, I mean, for a fact.

We certainly know it exists. The mathematical model resulting from Einstein's simple hypothesis leads to a requirement of curved space, and has been totally successful in modeling interstellar phenomena. But it is at the most microscopic level and the earliest stages of the big bang where it really seems to falter. Both of those levels are the domain of quantum mechanics, therefore there should be a melding of the two theories. The graviton is one suggestion on how that might be done.

We thought gravity might be particulate ... but no graviton has emerged.

The graviton is another hypothesis that does not have a complete mathematical model to back it up. Physicists should investigate it, but it is not yet a viable model. It may never be, but time will tell.

But regardless, how then am I to really know what's keeping me down ?!
Damn ... just when I thought it was safe to believe in something ... ... .

Oh well, we humans seem to have no trouble believing in things we don't understand.

 

[Chip]

Einstein hypothesized that no physical experiment in a closed room could distinguish between acceleration and gravity, (unless you looked out a window.)

Well, this existence is one hell of an experiment ... and I really haven't noticed any windows in the place.

As for the curvature of space-time, well, anything that initially blasts out of a big bang type singularity to expand spherically so unfathomably fast is going to be pretty darn warped, I would imagine.

Yeah ... I'm beginning to believe a lot less in Santa Gravity than I use to.

 

[numinus]

Gosh a-rooty, Mr. Numinis. I sent you a quote by Stephen Hawking. And you say I don't understand what I am talking about? Do you understand what Hawking is talking about? It seems simple enough to me. I have doubts that you don't understand what all three of us are talking about.

I'm telling you that Hawking and others said that the total energy of the fracking universe is zero. So spontaneous emergence of our universe from nothing is theoretically possible. Energy and mass are conserved. You keep thinking I am talking about lambda. I was NOT referring to lambda when I originally made that post.

JESUS H. CHRIST!

I am talking about the EXISTENCE of the universe -- and how it CANNOT come about from NOTHING.

And in response, you provide some irrelevant sophistry consisting of mere mathematical CONVENTIONS??? As if hawking meant for that to mean a 'spontaneous emergence of our universe from nothing (theoretically)'.

When a rock falls on your head, energy is conserved. The distinct sensation of cracking skull, however, EXISTS, and is REAL -- regardless of conservation.

The pantheism I know does not preclude anything outside of self. Pantheism embodies the universe along with selves, of course. From what I studied you were describing one form of pantheism.

Of course it does.

A god that is EMINENT is logically impossible from a unity of existence. Therefore, pantheism rejects the existence of god.

Physics is very comfortable with event horizons. You are reading too much into the word "singularity". It strictly means that an equation blew up, not that nature blew up. There have been vicious singularities in QED theory, but renormalization got around them. The fact that an equation blows up most likely means that nature is not correctly modeled. It does not mean that it aint physics.

Do you mean this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removable_singularity

In complex analysis, a removable singularity (sometimes called a cosmetic singularity) of a holomorphic function is a point at which the function is ostensibly undefined, but, upon closer examination, the domain of the function can be enlarged to include the singularity (in such a way that the function remains holomorphic).

So, you are saying that a phenomenon that does not have the measureable quantities of mass, length and time (like a space-time singularity) is actually within the field of inquiry of physics?

Why stop with space-time singularities then? Why not any phenomena that cannot be quantified in any rational way? Free will for instance? Morality? Aesthetics?

Hmmm?

 

[numinus]

I didn't know the universe was expanding at an accellerated rate, as I just read in the recent conversation.

Wasn't it Einstein (and others, I'm sure) who waxed on about the challenges of distinguishing between gravity and acceleration?

We know what acceleration is.

We know its effects.

But we don't know what gravity is, I mean, for a fact.

We thought gravity might be particulate ... but no graviton has emerged.

We thought it might be related to the curature of space-time ... but we can't really say how.

Considering the power of fields to keep me in my place despite my attempts to jump off of this ride ...

... I'm beginning to wonder if I really do believe in gravity after all.

Maybe I was just believing in cosmic acceleration all along.

Then again, I'm told I'd feel the gravity of gravity greater on Jupiter than I do here ... perhaps thanks, somehow, to all those strong little compact fermions at Jupiter's core, though I don't see how, considering it's bosons that force the issue.

But regardless, how then am I to really know what's keeping me down?!

And if the the universe ever decellerates, will I suddenly wish something was keeping me down?!

Damn ... just when I thought it was safe to believe in something ... ... .

Actually, an accelerating expansion has something to do with the rate at which the scale factor increases over time. Graphically, it looks like newtonian acceleration. That's about the only thing similar between the two.

And yes, this subject matter is quite vexing. You want to simply accept what textbooks say, except you get this nagging feeling once in a while that you where somehow duped.

 

[samsara15]

Alan Guth and a host of others have proposed that the Big Bang / Universe could have resulted from a Quantum Fluctuation. No Supernatural agent required. Matter spontaneously pops into and out of existence all the time, as long as the net energy is zero and the time is short enough.

 

[Lagboltz]

JESUS H. CHRIST!

I always wondered what the H stood for.

I am talking about the EXISTENCE of the universe -- and how it CANNOT come about from NOTHING.

And in response, you provide some irrelevant sophistry consisting of mere mathematical CONVENTIONS??? As if hawking meant for that to mean a 'spontaneous emergence of our universe from nothing (theoretically)'.

I have no idea what you are getting at. Samsara understands what I'm talking about. A quantum fluctuation creates particles, but still has a total energy of zero. The total energy of the universe is zero, so the two concepts are self consistent.

A god that is EMINENT is logically impossible from a unity of existence. Therefore, pantheism rejects the existence of god.

Maybe it rejects your definition of God, but not mine.

Do you mean this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removable_singularity

Of course renormalization in quantum electrodynamics is far more complex than that, but that is a reasonable analogy. What I'm saying is that just because an equation has a singularity it doesn't mean that nature has a singularity. The current theory is incomplete at the inception of the big bang. There will most likely be no singularity in the equations when things are understood and modeled in more detail. You don't want to compare singularities in equations to morality, aesthetics, etc.

 

[Dr.Who]

Alan Guth and a host of others have proposed that the Big Bang / Universe could have resulted from a Quantum Fluctuation. No Supernatural agent required. Matter spontaneously pops into and out of existence all the time, as long as the net energy is zero and the time is short enough.

Is that theory descriptive or explanative?

 

[samsara15]

The Casmir Effect is well known.

If you want cutting edge physics, without being spoon fed, try here:

http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php

In reference to Quantum Fluctuations:

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/~yuki/cosmos/Fluctuations.htm

Of course, you can find simpler explanations in Wikipedia.

 

[samsara15]

I find the math in the above URLs sometimes a bit hard to follow. It has been over 45 years since I worked with math at that level.