100th ToK Blog Post: In Honour of Spaghettification and the Flying Spaghetti Monster
April 30, 2009 by ithinkthereforeib
April 29, 2009
Notes on InterToK – Follow Up Session
Andy Fletcher’s book recommendations → to be found on his webpage, specifically here: Bibliography
String Theory
- No evidence: not wrong, not right. Cannot be falsified.
- Quarks are made of strings
Name derived from James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake, taken from the phrase “Three quarks for Muster Mark” (see: Finnegan’s Wake, scroll all the way down the page to “Cultural Impact”)
Loop Quantum Gravity
Absolute motion: There is only motion that is relative to something else. Is there any point in space that you can consider an absolute coordinate, which can be used to for all the other coordinates? (No…)
Some further information on Loop Quantum Gravity:
on Wiki
LQG
Is math safe?
You can trust math in a relative sort of way. No absolute frame of reference exists anywhere in space as it is impossible to define even a point (see above.)
Particles don’t look like particles… look like you want them to look. Don’t have a definition until we give them – doesn’t mean they don’t have one, but that we can’t understand it.
“It’s real…it’s just not real the way you thought it was.”
Mathematical evidence: is not absolute, is not a finality… but you start with mathematical evidence. Mathematical evidence is theory, for which there is no (scientific) evidence.
If we have support it does not mean something is true. If we have a little bit of evidence, it is a little bit true.
Multiverses: different options. Infinity of universe. Separate universe, separate laws, etc. Where are they? Somewhere else?
Explanations for multiverses:
→ String theory: one origin of multiverse.
→ Another explanation: Hugh Everett: observation – you cannot get rid of observation. When you make an observation, there are multiple options, e.g. there is both a cat that is alive and dead. Every time you make an observation you get ALL the possible options, resulting in a very large or infinite number of coexisting multiverses. Is there evidence for them? No.
Stephen Hawkins: there are multiple, possible universes, but all go away when you actually make an observation (only the universe that you live in remains).
There is no evidence for other universes except this one, which doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
Big Bang: there is both mathematical and scientific evidence. This universe has lots of evidence that it came from something (physical evidence):
Super-rapid expansion: evidence that should be there and has been found: cosmic microwave background radiation – should be there and measurable. Heat from Big Bang: at 3 Kelvin (was found to be at 2.768 Kelvin
A resource on Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation: CMB
Do we know it is true? No, but:
When all evidence points in a certain direction: allowed to think that your theory is very good.
Do we know that it is true? No.
Is it reasonable to think that it is true? Yes.
→ crucial difference!
Scientists and The BIG BANG
Scientists didn’t like Big Bang – didn’t look for evidence, found it though they didn’t want it to be true. But… kept finding evidence that it is true.
Many times: particularly in classic science – we look and find what we want to find, but in this case – with the Big Bang and Quantum Mechanics – we found evidence for what we didn’t like and didn’t want to find (but nonetheless encountered).
- Anthropic Principle
- Complexity Theory
“Particles can be in two places at a time….”
Observer of the universe: 13 billion light years in time out into space (furthest reaches)…
Particles that are conscious:
“If light is conscious” vs.
“If light is conscious as it appears to be, the most you can say about light, particles, electrons, etc. it is that they appear to react to your attempt to interact with them.”
“it appears to be conscious” – crucial, we can’t say anything more about it.
This is an example of the precision of language: You can use language in a sloppy or precise way, but this kind of precision is of the utmost importance in the sciences! [And you thought, it was just us literature and language teachers that were overly finicky about language! I feel vindicated! Quote from a conversation after the follow-up session: “So the sciences are all semantics”]
How do you “prove” that?
Proof vs. evidence – profound difference.
Just because you believe it’s true says nothing whether or not it is true. Doesn’t say it is true, it doesn’t say it is false. Says nothing to the rest of us – it might be true and you might be the only person to know it.
If two people believe something: it is a little bit true… this depends on their reputation with you. Are they an authority? Are they lunatics? (Factors that might influence this.)
Three believe something… or all of us believe something: Does that mean there is a greater chance that it is true? Not really.
Does that mean that there is no truth? It depends – we have to ask whether there is evidence, whether there is less or more or no or lots of evidence.
But, again: If you can’t establish that something is true, that doesn’t make any statement about whether it is possible.
Should term “absolute truth” exist?
Can variables be known? Not by you… but can only be known by an omniscient observer? Can you know that there is an omniscient observer?
Even belief in God is based on evidence.
Evidence for a “Creator” or higher being of some sort: half the scientists say “yes”, the other half says “no”, despite the fact that they are looking at the same evidence. Indeed, the same group of people can look at same evidence, but make their own decision, depending on their background, leanings, biases – but that has nothing to do with truth or lack thereof.
Important: Science does not disprove nor prove existence of god. It simply provides evidence. [Remember our article on The Science of Believing?]
Do you, do I exist?
Existence – mathematical definition: occupying a place in a certain time and space
We are space and time at the same time. Einstein: we are all part of space-time (seamlessly), we are a “focused bit of space time”.
Space travel: an astronaut is affected by space time. He will live, say, 100 years but his 100 years could be stretched over 1000 years
Example: Franklin Chang Diaz: has been to space 7 times, 300 microseconds less x 7 x 10 times = 2100 microseconds less old (2 seconds) – after 70 days
[I find this is rather inriguing: it is a tiny difference... but it is already measurable!]
Everything changes in aspaceship: space-time affects everything – you, your watch, etc.
Gravity is infinite in a black hole…. space and time cease to exist in a black hole.
Black holes go away over immense amount of time.
No time and space, but gravity: measure gravity not over time and space, but over space-time. Space-time is bent by gravity, but everything warps space-time but is extreme in a black hole.
Reference to The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: Ultimate Answer (= 42)
on Wiki
on BBC
Black Hole:
Event horizon – point of no return
Black Hole warps space – dust particles, planets, etc. get rolled into region of influence
Do black holes move: yes, rotate, move, etc. but black holes don’t suck anything in….
Close enough that space time is warped, so larger object warps space time sufficiently. (Marble – bowling ball on trampoline example)
“Spaghettification”
P.S. Just in case you are wondering about the flying spaghetti monster…..
P.P.S. Andy Fletcher’s Website
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
I think this has been one of the most interesting discussions I have had about science. Not only because I was half lost most of the time and did not really understand much of the physics part, but also because it made me realize many things. Among these things include: how scientists have developed theories and ideas of the creation of the universe without having much evidence to support themselves, yet there is evidence enough to make such ideas viable….
I have a lot more to say but I will most likely write about these on my blog. I know I might not be making much sense but the ideas just sort of swirl in my mind and somehow correlate. =)
For me this was one of the most interesting discussions about science. I liked very much how the IB God stated every point of evidence he knew (Spaghettification is the BEST!!!). The most astonishing of all was the part of the quarks that traveled through time and that they were teenagers that didn’t want other people to see them. Poor cat… he was killed a week ago but was fine at that moment… that was the only thing that got me really mixed up.
Existence… what can we say about it? Are we starting life at this instant and our memories were also created in that exact moment or are we going to disappear in any second? It was really interesting… =P