How the Universe Will End

[Valiant_Soul]

On the contrary, it is precisely the change you mentioned whose validity I am questioning. As I stated earlier, QM is content to describe the what rather than try to explain the why and how. Not just me, but one of most pre-eminent QM Nobel laureates, John Bell himself, has made this statement about QM.

If you look at quantum mechanics in that sense, then that is true for the whole of science. If you begin by asking a scientific question, do you ever see the chain of questioning ending? I don't think so. So that means you would ridicule the whole of science and the technological advancements it has made possible, because it cannot reveal the "complete picture"?

I maintain that the job of physics is to explain the underlying workings of reality, not just describe it. If it cannot do so, it should be humble enough to acknowledge its limitations, rather than elevating its inadequacies into universal Principles of ignorance.

That is a very weird way of looking at the topic. What do you want? Close down all researches or develop another way of doing science? And do you have any suggestions regarding how we should proceed?

I do not think you appreciate how much effort has gone into the building of the theories you are ridiculing and how much brain has been spent to do so. To maintain logical consistency and sanity, in the subatomic world, is itself commendable.

The villagers in my earlier analogy can get a lot of mileage from their careful observations of TV programs, but it doesn't mean they have a clue about the underlying technology. They may even issue religious proclamations and lofty Principles that the technology of TV sets is forever unknowable and, with their level of technical knowledge, it would be.

First - this is a very naive approach to look at the world. There is absolutely nothing comparable to it, it is simply unlike anything. Second - your analogy itself is incorrect. Unlike the television, the complexity of the underlying "technology" of the world is immeasurable. If you go up to where your logical, intellectual along with technical capabilities can take you, you will find out why I say that. But you can go only as far as your observational and logical capabilities can take you, is it not?

QM has dropped the ball and elevated ignorance to a science, even a Principle. QM says that just because it can't explain reality, therefore no one ever, in a billion years with any amount of advanced scientific knowledge, can ever explain reality.

There are certain things in this world that cannot be known by technological or scientific advancements. There are proven roadblocks that we can never cross.

Just because the ordained priesthood makes these claims, and the uninspired sheeple chant it religiously to excuse their own mediocrity, doesn't make it true.

If you believe they are false, then what can be done about your beliefs? Intelligent observers see logics up to the highest level in them.

If there is one thing we have learned from the history of science, it is that the scientific dogma of the day is overturned by revolutionary ideas -- ideas that are triggered precisely to explain observations that the reigning dogma fails to explain.

We are not living in stone age any more. We have reached a point where revolutionary ideas in science will be scarce. Physics can predict a lot more now than it was ever possible. Physics could tell you what we can do and where our line of pursuit ends, or it at least warn you about it. But just like you, I am also waiting for at least one more turning point in science in my life. *Fingers Crossed*

A fundamental postulate of SR has been violated experimentally with FTL information transfer. The scientists involved are smart enough to couch their results in diplomatic terms, so as not to endanger their professional careers. It doesn't necessarily invalidate all of SR, it just means the reality is a lot more complex and a more comprehensive theory is needed.

Same for GR. Leaving aside the galactic anomalies, it still cannot explain the simplest manifestation of gravity on an everyday scale -- i.e. an apple falling from a tree. Certainly it is more 'complete' than Newtonian gravity, but it remains grossly inadequate as an explanation of gravity.

That is why I said that science has never been able to give 'complete answers'. If you ask a question, then a chain of questions will eventually leave you with a big unanswered questions or many big unanswered questions. But that is how we develop our scientific knowledge, there is no third way.

It is a circular argument -- just because we cannot observe something with our current technology and scientific knowledge, it is therefore inhererently unobservable. It is one thing to say we cannot do something today; it is quite another to say that something is forever impossible.

No it is isn't. Just as I said, physics is no longer an immature kid. It can say a lot about what can be done and a lot about what cannot be done.

Mathematics is a tool to describe scientific theories -- all it can say is whether a theory is mathematically consistent. The only thing that proves or disproves a physical theory is experimental results and/or observations. Mathematics never proves a physical theory, although it can disprove it if it is mathematically inconsistent.

As I said, mathematics has never been found inconsistent with experimental observations. So are we to believe you or the history of science?

The history of science is replete with personal agendas, professional blackmail and stubbornness. Certainly, good ideas win out eventually, but the establishment often plays dirty. For example, look up the ugly feud between Newton and Leibniz.

All I can say is that I disagree. I think you are confusing certain events with the end results.

 

[Developereo]

If you look at quantum mechanics in that sense, then that is true for the whole of science. If you begin by asking a scientific question, do you ever see the chain of questioning ending? I don't think so. So that means you would ridicule the whole of science and the technological advancements it has made possible, because it cannot reveal the "complete picture"?



That is a very weird way of looking at the topic. What do you want? Close down all researches or develop another way of doing science? And do you have any suggestions regarding how we should proceed?

My criticism only applies to QM.

SR/GR, for all their shortfall, do what physics is supposed to do and try to explain the how and why, litle by little. I would say that QM is leading us down a dangerous path of limiting ourselves to merely describing and cataloguing reality and codifying our ignorance into eternal laws.

I prefer the way SR/GR approach their problem. That is the traditional physics of Descartes.

I do not think you appreciate how much effort has gone into the building of the theories you are ridiculing and how much brain has been spent to do so. To maintain logical consistency and sanity, in the subatomic world, is itself commendable.

Irrelevant. QM gets an A for effort, but what matters is the end result, not the effort that went into it. Certainly QM has been very successful in its application and has given us much benefit. My criticism of it applies to the part about giving up on explanation.

First - this is a very naive approach to look at the world. There is absolutely nothing comparable to it, it is simply unlike anything. Second - your analogy itself is incorrect. Unlike the television, the complexity of the underlying "technology" of the world is immeasurable. If you go up to where your logical, intellectual along with technical capabilities can take you, you will find out why I say that. But you can go only as far as your observational and logical capabilities can take you, is it not?

That is not an excuse. We do not give up on a problem because it is too hard or too complex. People who think like that should find some other line of work; they do not belong in science and technology.

There are certain things in this world that cannot be known by technological or scientific advancements. There are proven roadblocks that we can never cross.

That's the whole argument; I don't buy the 'never' part.

If you believe they are false, then what can be done about your beliefs? Intelligent observers see logics up to the highest level in them.

That's called argument-by-authority and it won't wash. We know from history that scientific revolutions are not brought about by those who buy the established dogma.

We are not living in stone age any more. We have reached a point where revolutionary ideas in science will be scarce. Physics can predict a lot more now than it was ever possible. Physics could tell you what we can do and where our line of pursuit ends, or it at least warn you about it.

Again, we have a fundamental disagreement. This is the type of reasoning that was present in every age, when people thought they had reached the pinnacle of scientific knowledge and only a few loose ends needed to be tied up.

I am sure you know that the head of the US patent office declared at the end of the 19th century that it was time to close down the patent office because pretty much all that could be invented had already been invented. At the end of the 19th century!

The same kind of smug arrogance pervades the physics community from time to time.

That is why I said that science has never been able to give 'complete answers'. If you ask a question, then a chain of questions will eventually leave you with a big unanswered questions or many big unanswered questions. But that is how we develop our scientific knowledge, there is no third way.

Exactly! We keep asking questions. We don't say "these things are eternally unknowable so don't even bother trying."

No it is isn't. Just as I said, physics is no longer an immature kid. It can say a lot about what can be done and a lot about what cannot be done.

I lost a lot of respect for Stephen Hawkins when I read in his book that we would soon know all there is to know about the fundamentals of physics. This at a time when our most advanced theories cannot even explain how a simple mirror works -- or the bit about the apple!

As I said, mathematics has never been found inconsistent with experimental observations. So are we to believe you or the history of science?

Both.
Mathematical consistency is a necessary but not sufficient condition to prove a physical theory. It has always been this way. Throughout the history of modern science.

 

[Valiant_Soul]

Double Post

 

[Valiant_Soul]

My criticism only applies to QM.

SR/GR, for all their shortfall, do what physics is supposed to do and try to explain the how and why, litle by little. I would say that QM is leading us down a dangerous path of limiting ourselves to merely describing and cataloguing reality and codifying our ignorance into eternal laws.

I prefer the way SR/GR approach their problem. That is the traditional physics of Descartes.

I am getting a hint of where you are coming from, but I am amazed that you are still that far behind. Well, I used to think like this a long time back and but it did not took me time to figure out that the game has drastically changed. We are not on the same pitch anymore, post quantum physics. I remember my classmates and I were so unable to reconcile with this modern physics that was brought about by quantum physics and quantum mechanics.

The issue is not of preference or the style of doing science, because that is not an option available at all. Scientists try to do their best that is in their capability. It is similar to digging through a mountain...you cannot dig through metallic substances, you dig where the mountain allows you the way, because paving the way is the first step.

Irrelevant. QM gets an A for effort, but what matters is the end result, not the effort that went into it. Certainly QM has been very successful in its application and has given us much benefit. My criticism of it applies to the part about giving up on explanation.

I do not think it has the "wish" to give up on anything, but it stumbled upon some dead-ends, some of which it very well establishes and says that those dead-ends are as of now dead-ends for sure. And that from any point of view cannot be called giving up.

That is not an excuse. We do not give up on a problem because it is too hard or too complex. People who think like that should find some other line of work; they do not belong in science and technology.

No we don't give up and nobody is advocating to give up. But if you are travelling on a road and come to see the end of the road going into a valley, you won't call it a way, would you? You would then try to circumvent it and cross over through some other way.

That's the whole argument; I don't buy the 'never' part.

The 'never' has been said in a context with a backdrop of science. Science or direct observation or logical deductions are not the only way to knowledge, not all kinds of knowledge.

That's called argument-by-authority and it won't wash. We know from history that scientific revolutions are not brought about by those who buy the established dogma.

You are mistaken. People, in general, specifically in scientific field are open-minded, they do not confine themselves to dogmas. But sometimes, the hurdles are just too big to cross, so it obviosuly takes more time to cross, if at all it is crossable.

Again, we have a fundamental disagreement. This is the type of reasoning that was present in every age, when people thought they had reached the pinnacle of scientific knowledge and only a few loose ends needed to be tied up.

We will see, let us wait and watch.

Exactly! We keep asking questions. We don't say "these things are eternally unknowable so don't even bother trying."

No we are not saying that. But just as I said, there can be other paths to the destination that is currently being blocked by a dead-end. Even if we know in theory that something is impossible, for example to cross the speed of light, I am sure that our human tendency will never rest until either we break the wall with our head or get our head broken, in another case.

I lost a lot of respect for Stephen Hawkins when I read in his book that we would soon know all there is to know about the fundamentals of physics. This at a time when our most advanced theories cannot even explain how a simple mirror works -- or the bit about the apple!

As I said in my last post, no question related to mechanism of nature has ever been completely answered. So why point out a few? That has always been the case, you should at least be glad that these theories give us an insight into lot more finer issues and paves way for more possible answers.

Both.
Mathematical consistency is a necessary but not sufficient condition to prove a physical theory. It has always been this way. Throughout the history of modern science.

I disagree, I say mathematics is both necessary and sufficient to prove a physical theory. Observational confirmations are simply to satisfy our feelings about them. And there are numerous example wherein mathematical theories have preceded observational confirmations and they have never failed, and if rarely they have failed then the problem was in the mathematics done, not in the way of mathematics itself.

P.S. Try to see the other side of the coin as well, until then you are stuck with an incomplete picture. My arguments are only to help you see that other side, justice cannot be done until you can see both sides with equal sight. Nevertheless, in the end, it is your call.

 

[Developereo]

I am getting a hint of where you are coming from, but I am amazed that you are still that far behind. Well, I used to think like this a long time back and but it did not took me time to figure out that the game has drastically changed. We are not on the same pitch anymore, post quantum physics. I remember my classmates and I were so unable to reconcile with this modern physics that was brought about by quantum physics and quantum mechanics.

It's not a matter of being behind but accepting QM's inadequacies. If QM was humble enough to say that it cannot explain some things, I would have no problem. Nobody expects a scientific theory to be complete or perfect. What I object to is the assertion by QM that some things are forever unknowable.

Since you buy QM's excuse as a universal, eternal law of nature, good for you. I don't.

I do not think it has the "wish" to give up on anything, but it stumbled upon some dead-ends, some of which it very well establishes and says that those dead-ends are as of now dead-ends for sure. And that from any point of view cannot be called giving up.

That's the whole point. QM doesn't say "as of now", it says "forever, eternally."

Science or direct observation or logical deductions are not the only way to knowledge, not all kinds of knowledge.

As far as I know, science only deals with experiments, observations and logic. It uses mathematics as its language. I am not sure what other kind of knowledge you are talking about -- surely not scientific knowledge?

You are mistaken. People, in general, specifically in scientific field are open-minded, they do not confine themselves to dogmas.

A person who believes in QM's dogma will not spend time, or get funding, looking to explain how a mirror works. He will be content with Shroedingers equations telling him the probabilistic distribution of reflected photon pathways. It is only the stubborn maverick who will defy the establishment and look for answers in forbidden places. Granted, most of those maverics will be madmen or fools, but eventually an actual genius will join their ranks and science will lurch forward another leap.

As I said in my last post, no question related to mechanism of nature has ever been completely answered. So why point out a few? That has always been the case, you should at least be glad that these theories give us an insight into lot more finer issues and paves way for more possible answers.

I fully accept that SR and GR give us more insight into the universe. My claim is that some very basic questions are left unanswered by these theories which is a big red flag saying the theories need a major revision.

Let me put it another way. Since we know that GR cannot explain simple gravity at an everyday scale, we should be working to fill that hole, before giving up 95% of the universe to imaginary matter/energy.

Which is where this discussion started.

I say mathematics is both necessary and sufficient to prove a physical theory.

I doubt you will find any physical scientist who will agree with your statement.

P.S. Try to see the other side of the coin as well, until then you are stuck with an incomplete picture. My arguments are only to help you see that other side, justice cannot be done until you can see both sides with equal sight. Nevertheless, in the end, it is your call.

I have trained as a physics major and have seen the other side. And found it wanting.

 

[Valiant_Soul]

It's not a matter of being behind but accepting QM's inadequacies. If QM was humble enough to say that it cannot explain some things, I would have no problem. Nobody expects a scientific theory to be complete or perfect. What I object to is the assertion by QM that some things are forever unknowable.

I do not understand why you single out quantum mechanics. Is biology not inadequate, is chemistry not inadequate, is classical physics not inadequate? Do any field of science gives you the complete picture? Surely not. Quantum mechanics found that there are certain things you cannot do. It is not an excuse, simply because it does not suits your fondness that things cannot be unknown forever. It simply presents a picture that is out there.

But as I said, there might be other ways to circumvent some dead-ends that quantum mechanics has found.

Since you buy QM's excuse as a universal, eternal law of nature, good for you. I don't.

The problem is you see that as an excuse, I see that as mathematical deductions of real world scenario.

That's the whole point. QM doesn't say "as of now", it says "forever, eternally."

Absolutely, but it found one blocked way, what about other possible ways. Do we know about them? That is my point.

As far as I know, science only deals with experiments, observations and logic. It uses mathematics as its language. I am not sure what other kind of knowledge you are talking about -- surely not scientific knowledge?

There are three ways to knowledge in this world. First and the most basic is the knowledge through sensory perception. The second and a more advanced way is the way of both observation and logical deductions - that which forms the basis of science and mathematics. And the third and the last way is the knowledge through realization. But this realization is not attained through any of the five external senses, rather through the sixth sense and only this sixth sense, which is the mind.

The subjects of this third way of knowledge cannot be grasped using any of the first two ways of knowledge. So you would not find any comprehensible stuff about what has been found through it. But quantum physics and quantum mechanics takes us very near to them, and that is why you find dead-ends, because we have reached the boundary of the second way of knowledge. Now if you want to go further, you will have to take this third way of knowledge.

Have you wondered why the most basic thing of existence has never fitted into the scheme of science, that which we know as consciousness? It is because it is not the subject the first two ways of knowledge, it is the subject of the third way and modern physics points that it is exactly why we are in a limbo right now. And it tries to point to us that it is time we took consciousness into account, if we want to move any further.

I fully accept that SR and GR give us more insight into the universe. My claim is that some very basic questions are left unanswered by these theories which is a big red flag saying the theories need a major revision.

So you think there have been no efforts in this direction? But if no one has been able to come up with something more or equally substantiative, what is the fault of Einstein's theories in that?

Let me put it another way. Since we know that GR cannot explain simple gravity at an everyday scale, we should be working to fill that hole, before giving up 95% of the universe to imaginary matter/energy.

We have been working, but we can work only according to our mathematics and current technological status. Dark matter and dark energy concepts are just a way of explaining what is being observed. They are not established facts, until some direct or indirect observation can be made about them. But currently they are the most probable explanations.

 

[Developereo]

I do not understand why you single out quantum mechanics. Is biology not inadequate, is chemistry not inadequate, is classical physics not inadequate?

Because biology, chemistry, relativity, etc. are humble enough to admit the limits of their knowledge. It is only QM that makes assertions that whatever it cannot explain, no one else can.

The problem is you see that as an excuse, I see that as mathematical deductions of real world scenario.

Absolutely, but it found one blocked way, what about other possible ways. Do we know about them? That is my point.

That's not what the Uncertainty Principle says. It says that some information is eternally impossible to obtain.

Forever.

By any means, past, present or future.

There are three ways to knowledge in this world.

Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter! Those other types of knowledge are part of metaphysics and philosophy, not science. There is a whole philosophical debate going on for centuries about what exactly is reality. Once you enter that territory, then all hope is lost, and you leave the realm of science. We could all be plugged into the Matrix and everything we 'sense' could just be made up.

QM is very popular with people who believe in the metaphysics of consciousness, etc. since it somehow validates their metaphysical (i.e. unscientific) beliefs about consciousness, reality, causality, etc. However, as Einstein said during one of his famous debates with Bohr, "I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."

what is the fault of Einstein's theories in that?

I never said any of this was Einstein's fault. The fault lies with people who propose dark matter/energy as a cheap way to balance their equations, rather than doing the hard work of expanding GR to account for gravitational anomalies. Einstein took up where Newton left off and took us one step further. Now its time for someone else to take the baton and move us to the next stage.

Cooking up imaginary dark entities is just a temporary hack and will not solve the problem of why that apple falls in the first place. I maintain that solving the apple's riddle may well answer the bigger, galactic, questions and obviate the need for these dark entities.

 

[Condor]

All the fragments of Science, Philosophy and Religion, even when unified represent but a fractional picture of Reality.