Cosmologist Sean Carroll asks, Is anything constant?

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 28, 2015

Cosmology, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The ability for seemingly constant things to evolve and change is an important aspect of Einstein’s legacy. If space and time can change, little else is sacred. Modern cosmologists like to contemplate an extreme version of this idea: a multiverse in which the very laws of physics themselves can change from place to place and time to time. Such changes, if they do in fact exist, wouldn’t be arbitrary; like spacetime in general relativity, they would obey very specific equations.

So are we now enlisting Einstein on behalf of the multiverse? Out of interest, what would he have thought?

We currently have no direct evidence that there is a multiverse, of course. But the possibility is very much in the spirit of Einstein’s reformulation of spacetime, or, for that matter, Copernicus’s new theory of the Solar System. Our universe isn’t built on unmovable foundations; it changes with time, and discovering how those changes occur is an exciting challenge for modern physics and cosmology. More.

Physicist Rob Sheldon responds,

We’ve dissected Sean “the cosmologist” Carroll before, who is willing to sacrifice cosmology to the altar of Darwin, promoting “evolution” of “multiverses”. In this article he is equivocating on the word “change” to suggest that if Einstein showed that spacetime was changeable, then evolution must be true. I would argue that it merely demonstrates Cosmology to be in smaller denominations than the other bills of truth in circulation.

Seriously, though, attempting make Evolution the “one thing that is constant” in a changing world, reverses the usual hierarchy of “biology being made out of the laws of physics”, replacing it with “physics being made out of the laws of biology”. Now I’ve read Rosen’s “Essays on Life Itself”, so I won’t say that life is “nothing but” complicated physics, yet surely it would be equally incorrect to adopt Sean’s view that cosmology is “nothing but” evolution of physical constants.

Yet this is a perfect illustration of the dualist tension that swings between extremes. Newton’s deterministic, clock-like universe had fixed laws, fixed mechanisms, fixed purpose, fixed boundary conditions, while Carroll’s evolutionary, biological universe has changing laws, changing mechanisms, changing (if even existing) purpose, changing boundary conditions. The miracle of science, however, stands between the extremes.

See also: Multiverse cosmology: Assuming that evidence still matters, what does it say?

and

In search of a road to reality

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

bornagain,
you claim “The frame dragging explanation for the pendulum is new to me.” and then claim “I did—the pendulum and geostationary satellites.” you can’t have it both ways
Anyone who does not buy the hypothesis that earthquakes have strong and predestined cosmic effects still believes that the pendulum and satellite evidence easily overturns geocentrism. However, there is literally no empirical evidence that I could present that some crackpot couldn't explain away.
The why do you keep pestering me? That is all I need from 4-D space time for my own argument against the Copernican principle to succeed.
Best of luck with that, sincerely. If you haven't read it, I would suggest Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler as a reference. The first edition is best.
Since having a rotating earth model, even though the earth can considered central, is so important for you, I suggest you do the proper experiments and show exactly where Einstein and Company were wrong in their interpretation of General Relativity.
I guess I do have to say it every post. MacAndrew is attempting to ascertain whether GR itself actually predicts perfect dragging in our universe. GR is not being put to any test here.daveS_{December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PST}

you claim "The frame dragging explanation for the pendulum is new to me." and then claim "I did—the pendulum and geostationary satellites." you can't have it both ways! You then state "I think I should put a disclaimer on ever post to the effect that nothing I’m saying implies that something else must be more central than Earth." Then why do you keep pestering me? That is all I need from 4-D space time for my own argument against the Copernican principle to succeed. Once again, I remind you that you are arguing with Einstein and company not me. Since having a rotating earth model, even though the earth can be considered central in your model, is so important for you, I suggest you do the proper experiments and show exactly where Einstein and Company were wrong in their interpretation of General Relativity of allowing a fixed earth. And then wait for your Nobel! Or better yet, go to another blog where somebody cares to more rigorously defend the stationary earth model. To repeat, it's not my dog, and even if it were my dog, you have not even convinced me, a non-expert, that your case is compelling as far as empirical science is concerned. Seeing as I have a life besides feeding a troll on an issue that I don't even care about, I will let you have the last comment all to yourself. I am out of here.bornagain_{December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PST}

bornagain,
But does it not strike you in the least bit odd that you cannot appeal directly to any experimental evidence to refute the geocentric model as you had originally imagined you could easily do?
I did---the pendulum and geostationary satellites. But then the geocentrists could respond by saying that, if we assume earthquakes on Earth are correlated with violent acceleration of distant objects in a complicated way, their theory will survive. As long as you are willing to tolerate the addition of outrageously implausible ad hoc hypotheses, you can probably keep geocentrism "alive" indefinitely.
If a non-geocentric universe is such an obvious and easy point to grasp, surely experimental evidence must be abundant to make the point clear. But alas, you ended up scrapping the bottom of the empirical barrel looking for what appears to be a fairly technical glitch in General Relativity in order to try to support your case with actual empirical evidence.
What do you mean be "fairly technical glitch"? I gather that perfect dragging is by far the exception rather than the rule. I haven't had time to read through the paper yet, but the author does refer to data collected from one of the Pioneer probes which presumably will present Sungenis with a serious challenge. I'll keep you posted.
And since there is no definitive experimental evidence that you can point to to easily refute the geocentric model as was highlighted by Einstein and company, (which, to repeat, is not my dog anyway), then Ellis’s comment comes back full force to haunt you. i.e. You are using philosophical grounds, not empirical grounds, to choose your model.
Is Occam's Razor one of these philosophical grounds? If so, then I plead guilty. It's part of what we (including IDists) call "inference to the best explanation".
As to your race car/earthquake example, and your appeal to ‘absurdity’, i.e. personal incredulity, (and not actual empirical evidence), to try to make your case that the earth must move and something else must be considered more central than earth.
I think I should put a disclaimer on ever post to the effect that nothing I'm saying implies that something else must be more central than Earth. But to address your point, do you think the assumption that earthquakes/racecars here cause distant matter to accelerate (in the past, no less) merits serious consideration? Edit: If so, how would you falsify this empirically?
Once again I ask you, why do you not find it even more absurd that the universe itself did not exist 10^-43 seconds ago until you consciously observed it?
I don't want to start on a whole new topic here, but yeah, I find both assertions about equally absurd.
In fact, in thinking this matter over a little bit last night, I now hold that since Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is ‘built upon’ 4-D space-time, instead of 4-D space-time being derivative from General Relativity, and since 4-D space-time itself dictates the each 3-D point may be considered central in the universe, then I now hold that any experiment trying to give any position in the universe ‘more centrality’ than any other position in the universe will fail since it will go against the foundational precept of 4-D space-time itself.
Great. I don't even know what that means, but please do write it up and publish it. You might want to replace the words in the scare quotes with more precise terms.daveS_{December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PST}

daveS in spite of the fact that you agree the geocentric model is much harder to shoot down experimentally than you first imagined it would be, you, none-the-less, state
I do think any reasonable person would agree that the notion of earthquakes here (or a racecar driver turning his steering wheel) causing distant galaxies to violently accelerate is absurd, and I’m sure there are many more implausible implications of a non-rotating Earth (or racecar). Have you met any geocentric astronomers lately? There’s probably a reason for that.
But does it not strike you in the least bit odd that you cannot appeal directly to any experimental evidence to refute the geocentric model as you had originally imagined you could easily do? If a non-geocentric universe is such an obvious and easy point to grasp, surely experimental evidence must be abundant to make the point clear. But alas, you ended up scrapping the bottom of the empirical barrel looking for what appears to be a fairly technical glitch in General Relativity in order to try to support your case with actual empirical evidence. That embarrassing development in your argument should tell you something very important as to the real strength of your argument as far as empirical science itself is concerned! Ego, personal incredulity, and/or consensus does not determine truth in science. Only experimental evidence does! And since there is no definitive experimental evidence that you can point to to easily refute the geocentric model as was highlighted by Einstein and company, (which, to repeat, is not my dog anyway), then Ellis's comment comes back full force to haunt you. i.e. You are using philosophical grounds, not empirical grounds, to choose your model.
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55
In fact, in thinking this matter over a little bit last night, I now hold that since Einstein's theory of General Relativity is 'built upon' 4-D space-time, instead of 4-D space-time being derivative from General Relativity, and since 4-D space-time itself dictates the each 3-D point may be considered central in the universe, then I now hold that any experiment trying to give any position in the universe 'more centrality' than any other position in the universe will fail since it will go against the foundational precept of 4-D space-time itself. As to your race car/earthquake example, and your appeal to 'absurdity', i.e. personal incredulity, (and not actual empirical evidence), to try to make your case that the earth must move and something else must be considered more central than earth. Once again I ask you, why do you not find it even more absurd that the universe itself did not exist 10^-43 seconds ago until you consciously observed it? I guess absurdity is in the eye of the beholder, and can be employed at your own personal discretion when trying to support your preferred theory? :) You can have that supposed 'scientific method' if you want, myself, I will appeal to experiment!
Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm "That's the enigma. That our choice of what experiment to do determines the prior state of the electron. Somehow or other we had an influence on it which appears to travel backwards in time." Fred Kuttner - Univ. Of California "It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing... we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been registered. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present." - John Wheeler - The Ghost In The Atom - Page 66-68 "What we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure, which is a very, very deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers." – Anton Zeilinger, Quantum Physicist Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms - Mind = blown. - FIONA MACDONALD - 1 JUN 2015 Excerpt: "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It - June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The main originator of Quantum Theory - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797) Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables - Scott Aaronson - MIT associate Professor Excerpt: "Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!" http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html
bornagain_{December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PST}

bornagain,
well daveS, so it all boils down to a fairly technical experiment that may or may not fail?
The author isn't running any experiments, but he does consider empirical data which has already been collected. It could "fail", if by that you mean that he arrives at the wrong answer.
Not quite so easy to shoot down the Ptolemaic theory as you had originally thought huh? :)
In some ways, no. The frame dragging explanation for the pendulum is new to me. On the other hand, how do you shoot down the Earnhardt-centric theory? I do think any reasonable person would agree that the notion of earthquakes here (or a racecar driver turning his steering wheel) causing distant galaxies to violently accelerate is absurd, and I'm sure there are many more implausible implications of a non-rotating Earth (or racecar). Have you met any geocentric astronomers lately? There's probably a reason for that.daveS_{December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PST}

well daveS, so it all boils down to a fairly technical experiment that may or may not fail? Not quite so easy to shoot down the Ptolemaic theory as you had originally thought huh? :) LOL,
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio Imagine Heaven - Evidence for the Afterlife (with interview of Dr. Mary Neal towards the end of the video) https://vimeo.com/140585737
bornagain_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PST}

I don't think this would violate the equivalence principle. Perfect dragging has been shown to exist only in a few models, so it's definitely not a priori obvious that it fully explains the pendulum's precession.daveS_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PST}

Then there would be a physical difference and it would challenge GR's cornerstone equivalence principle? If so, I hold that the test to show the earth's rotation, if it is ever performed, will fail. And again, even if it does not fail, it still does not effect my argument, since my argument relies on 4-D space time itself within general relativity. i.e. every 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. i.e. I don't have a dog in the fight as far as earth's rotation is concerned! Only 'centrality' not fixity.bornagain_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PST}

sorry daveS, as this is not my fight, I’m not familiar with the Lense-Thirring question. You have to go to another blog for that fight.
The Lense-Thirring effect is aka frame dragging. The author is investigating whether all of the precession of a Foucault pendulum is explained by this effect. If not, then the pendulum would still be evidence of the Earth's rotation. Which is relevant to your quote above from MTW.daveS_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PST}

sorry daveS, as this is not my fight, I'm not familiar with the Lense-Thirring question. You have to go to another blog for that fight. All I know is that if you hold that there is a physical difference within GR between two different CS, then you are, as far as I can gather, challenging GR.
“If one rotates the shell *relative to the fixed stars* about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*” –Albert Einstein, cited in “Gravitation”, Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545. “One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K’ [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’ [the Earth], whereby K’ [the Earth] is treated as being at rest.” –Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, “On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921 “We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance.” Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology – A Modern Course, (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co.), p. 416,1975. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.” Hoyle - discoverer of stellar nucleosynthesis
If you are saying there really is no physical difference between two different CS, and are not challenging GR, then I really have no clue what you keep going on about with the non-rotating earth model in GR, and why you keep pestering me about something that does not even effect my main argument overturning the Copernican Principle in the first place.
It is a straightforward argument really. 1. Show that General Relativity does not contradict an earth centered model 2. Show that the latest Planck data supports a earth/solar system centered model 3. Show that Quantum Mechanics gives conscious observation a ‘central’ position in the universe Easy as 1, 2, 3 & a, b, c https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jason-rosenhouse-gets-it-half-right-on-galileo/#comment-588880 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jason-rosenhouse-gets-it-half-right-on-galileo/#comment-588642
bornagain_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PST}

Bizarre. How am I challenging GR? The answer to the Lense-Thirring question I referred to could be either "yes" or "no", with either one being consistent with GR, depending on conditions. It's probably not possible to get a definitive answer because we lack the required information.daveS_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PST}

then good luck on your (or his) Nobel and don't claim you are not challenging GR!bornagain_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PST}

bornagain,
Okie Dokie, then you have no problem with these following comments and you will not challenge them anymore?
Why would I sign away my right to challenge anything in the future, whoever the author? No. I'm interested in the issue of whether the Lense-Thirring effect actually can account for the observed precession of the pendulum and the behavior of geostationary satellites. I found an accessible article by a physics PhD which addresses just that question here. The phenomenon in question is called "perfect dragging", and he discusses whether this could actually occur in our universe.daveS_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PST}

Mapou: This spacetime nonsense gets tiring after a while. I'm curious how you deal with the empirically verified fact that clocks farther away from the earth's gravity run faster than those close to the earth, which is predicted by General Relativity. (Due to acceleration and gravitation having equivalent effects upon mass and its local timeframe.) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-dilation/ So far, every empirically verified test confirms GR's predictions. Currently, a device is being developed that will be launched into space to look for gravity waves coming from binary pulsars. If gravity waves are detected, how will you fold this into your current views? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_Laser_Interferometer_Space_Antennamike1962_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PST}

I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… Right. In spacetime everywhere is center and nowhere is center. A good two-dimensional analogy is equally spaced dots on the surface of a balloon. (Adding air to the balloon further illustrates the spacetime expansion where, in general, everything is receding away from everything else.)mike1962_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PST}

"You are the only one here who imagines anyone is trying to refute GR." Okie Dokie, then you have no problem with these following comments and you will not challenge them anymore?
To reiterate Einstein weighs in here “Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Fred Hoyle, discoverer of stellar nucleosynthesis, weighs in here: “The relation of the two pictures [geocentrism and geokineticism] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view…. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.” Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973. George Ellis, who, along with Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking, helped extend General Relativity to show that not only energy and matter had a definite beginning in the Big Bang but that space and time also had a definite beginning in the Big Bang, weighs in here: “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55 In addition, Max Born wrote: “…Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless earth’… One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right.” Born, Max. “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”,Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
If you do have a problem, do the research, publish, and get your Nobel. And/or go to another blog to argue with someone with a dog in the fight. Myself, the position, while interesting, is not crucial for my argument. It is a straightforward argument really.
1. Show that General Relativity does not contradict an earth centered model 2. Show that the latest Planck data supports a earth/solar system centered model 3. Show that Quantum Mechanics gives conscious observation a ‘central’ position in the universe Easy as 1, 2, 3 & a, b, c https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jason-rosenhouse-gets-it-half-right-on-galileo/#comment-588880
bornagain_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PST}

Since you have no real argument with General Relativity, then why do you keep pestering me as if you could refute GR?
You are the only one here who imagines anyone is trying to refute GR. Unless you have any more evidence for a non-rotating Earth, I'll leave it there.daveS_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PST}

daveS, "I don’t have any way of refuting the proposition that the Earth truly is non-rotating, using only GR. It might not be possible to do so". Since you have no real argument with General Relativity, then why do you keep pestering me as if you could refute GR? I'm certainly not going to toss Einstein and company to the side based on your personal incredulity. As far as Dale Earnhardt, Jr being the 'center of the universe', quantum mechanics, not GR, is what establishes that each and every conscious observer is the 'center of the universe'.
Due to advances in Quantum Mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even a central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries; Wheeler’s Delayed Choice; Leggett’s Inequalities; Quantum Zeno Effect) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit
bornagain_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PST}

bornagain,
daveS, once again, your argument is General Relativity, not with me.
No disagreement with GR here. In fact, without even an order-of-magnitude estimate of the strength of the Lense-Thirring effect, I don't have any way of refuting the proposition that the Earth truly is non-rotating, using only GR. It might not be possible to do so. If so, I don't believe you can refute, using only GR, my hypothesis that Dale Earnhardt, Jr can control the motion of distant galaxies. Edit: That blog is great. A comment by the author:
The difficulty is that there is empirical evidence that shows that the earth is at the center of the universe. In particular the fact that the measured velocity of the galaxies all show them moving radially away from the earth. that clearly puts the earth at the center of the universe.
daveS_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PST}

daveS, once again, your argument is General Relativity, not with me. https://uncommondescent.com/physics/cosmologist-sean-carroll-asks-is-anything-constant/#comment-590271 As far as I'm concerned, my argument succeeds regardless of what position I take on a geocentric universe or on a Dale Earnhardt, Jr centric universe, in regards to General Relativity, because, aside from needing the 4-D space-time of GR, I rely on the CMBR data and Quantum Mechanics to do the majority of my heavy lifting of overturning the Copernican principle. https://uncommondescent.com/physics/cosmologist-sean-carroll-asks-is-anything-constant/#comment-590427 I simply have no real dog in the fight as you seem to think I do, regardless of the fact that I have told you over and over that you are disagreeing with Einstein and company not with me. Since it is so important to you, I suggest you write up a paper with the proper math and empirical support, showing where you have overturned General Relativity and submit it to the proper journal and await the fame and fortune to come your way. Barring that, I suggest you go to a blog where a fixed earth position is near and dear to them. As you yourself said, "The Principle" has sure generated a lot of controversy, and I am sure you can find a fight somewhere on the internet since it is so important to you. Like perhaps this blog
The Principle, in the manner of a science documentary film, addresses a current problem in the science of cosmology, popularly known as the “Axis Of Evil”, but it is really an exploration and critical “cross-examination” of the intellectual integrity of modern science. That is what makes this film extraordinary and exceptional. It cross-examines the testimony of cosmologists who claim to be telling the truth about the science of the universe. When compared with the recently produced cosmological documentary series Cosmos, that appeared in 2014 on US televisions FOX Network The Principle is superior in every aspect.,,, http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/06/08/the-principle-challenging-the-intellectual-integrity-of-cosmology/
bornagain_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PST}

Although, I do not find it as implausible as you insinuated I did, and certainly don’t think your earthquake example (which I note you have now switched to in place of the other experiments) will ever come close to overturning GR, I simply find quantum mechanics and the CMBR data to be far more devastating to the Copernican Principle than GR by itself is.
Hopefully you don't find it too plausible. You could apply exactly the same argument to show that when Dale Earnhardt, Jr heads into a turn, galaxies and quasars billions of light years away accelerate (billions of years ago, naturally).daveS_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PST}

daveS, once again you are arguing with general relativity and not with me. Although, I do not find it as implausible as you insinuated I did, and certainly don't think your earthquake example (which I note you have now switched to in place of the other experiments) will ever come close to overturning GR, I simply find quantum mechanics and the CMBR data to be far more devastating to the Copernican Principle than GR by itself is. Perhaps you should go to another blog where people are more committed to the fixed earth position and have more experience defending it than I do. Again, all I require is centrality from GR, not a fixed earth, in order for my argument to work overturning the Copernican Principle. Which is something you agree is a given in GR. The fixed earth position simply is not central to my argument as I have repeatedly pointed out to you and is not nearly as important for me personally to defend as overturning seems to be for you. I have no real dog in the fight. Now if you try to say that 4-D space-time does not give centrality to every 3-D point in the universe, then I will have a dog in the fight.
In what I consider an absolutely fascinating discovery, Einstein’s General Relativity has shown that 4-dimensional (4D) space-time, along with all energy and matter, was created in the ‘Big Bang’ and, via the finely tuned 1 in 10^120 cosmological constant. continues to ‘expand equally in all places’: "There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell." Philip Gibbs http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html Thus from a 3-dimensional (3D) perspective, any particular 3D spot in the universe is to be considered just as ‘center of the universe’ as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered ‘center of the universe’. This centrality found for any 3D place in the universe is because the universe is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point is central, no matter where you live in the universe.
bornagain_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PST}

bornagain,
Seeing as you have not even come close to refuting general relativity that I can see, then I am free to hold the fixed earth position of General Relativity if I so choose.
Yes, just like I'm free to hold that I am the King of Tonga. It looks like we agree that both statements are massively implausible, however.daveS_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PST}

daveS, again to refute Einstein and company's contention that,,,
“the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” could be used with equal justification
,,you need to refute General Relativity itself, not me. Seeing as you have not even come close to refuting general relativity that I can see, then I am free to hold the fixed earth position of General Relativity if I so choose. But again, as pointed out the other thread, where I also repeatedly pointed out to you that you were arguing with General Relativity and not with me, the fixed earth position is not central to my argument. The 'centrality' position from General Relativity is the only concession I require from GR for my argument. The actual empirical work of overturning the Copernican principle in my argument relies on the CMBR data and on quantum mechanics, not on General Relativity.
I find all of your flip flopping on Einstein to be rather humorous since I have many more lines of evidence from Quantum Mechanics and the CBMR data that do the actual empirical work of overturning the Copernican Principle. Which was the ONLY point I was trying to make anyway of my original post. (i.e. post 10 and 11 that you originally took exception to!) The only thing I ever really required from General Relativity to make the argument airtight was the concession from Einstein for a earth centered model. A concession that you conceded, when pressed, is correct. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jason-rosenhouse-gets-it-half-right-on-galileo/#comment-588981 posts 10 and 11 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jason-rosenhouse-gets-it-half-right-on-galileo/#comment-588642 the earth being allowed to be central in the universe according to Einstein, is pretty much the only thing I was trying to establish in my original post before I laid out some of the other evidence, from CMBR and QM, that completely overturns the Copernican principle. It is a straightforward argument really. 1. Show that General Relativity does not contradict an earth centered model 2. Show that the latest Planck data supports a earth/solar system centered model 3. Show that Quantum Mechanics gives conscious observation a ‘central’ position in the universe Easy as 1, 2, 3 & a, b, c https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jason-rosenhouse-gets-it-half-right-on-galileo/#comment-588880
bornagain_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PST}

bornagain:
I’ve said all along that your argument is with GR not me!

Then, since all I need in my argument is centrality from GR, and not fixity, and since you readily concede this ‘centrality’ point, we have nothing further to discuss.
Hogwash:
Since gravity is useless for determining true centrality in the universe, then I am free to say that the Earth (or any other point in the universe I may choose to pick) stays still and everything in the universe revolves around it.
(Edit: Added quote)daveS_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PST}

BA, yes it is. I watched the whole video, watched the "trailer" for the documentary, and did a bit of googling about it. The guy makes a good case that the scientists quoted were fairly warned about what they were getting into. He implies that the trailer exaggerates the position being taken. However, getting an accurate picture of what is being claimed is impossible without buying the documentary. One thing is clear, the scientists involved seem very disappointed -- they feel misrepresented, but aren't interested in properly correcting the record. Frustrating.bFast_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PST}

bFast, Is this video what you are talking about? At the 13:55 minute mark of the following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR data does indeed line up with the earth and solar system
“Thoughtcrime: The Conspiracy to Stop The Principle” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0eVUSDy_rO0#t=832 What Is Evil About The Axis Of Evil? – February 17, 2015 The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation contains small temperature fluctuations. When these temperature fluctuations are analyzed using image processing techniques (specifically spherical harmonics), they indicate a special direction in space, or, in a sense, an axis through the universe. This axis is correlated back to us, and causes many difficulties for the current big bang and standard cosmology theories. What has been discovered is shocking. Two scientists, Kate Land and João Magueijo, in a paper in 2005 describing the axis, dubbed it the “Axis of Evil” because of the damage it does to current theories, and (tongue in cheek) as a response to George Bush’ Axis of Evil speech regarding Iraq, Iran and, North Korea. (Youtube clip on site) In the above video, Max Tegmark describes in a simplified way how spherical harmonics analysis decomposes the small temperature fluctuations into more averaged and spatially arranged temperature components, known as multipoles. The “Axis of Evil” correlates to the earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes, and this represents a very unusual and unexpected special direction in space, a direct challenge to the Copernican Principle. http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/evil-axis-evil/
bornagain_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PST}

I was taught that according to big bang theory, no matter where you locate yourself, you are at the center of the universe. To say that the Copernican principle is wrong, that there is a true center to the universe would require some clear evidence. A video link that BA provided recently, the one promoting a documentary movie, suggested that such evidence exists. I haven't gone and bought the film, but the protests by the scientists involved seems puzzling to me. If their perspective is that the evidence shows that we are at the center of the universe, why would they say so for the documentary film, but not for the rest of the world? As far as the footage with the cool zoom out from earth, the reason we are seen as being at the focal point is that this is our perspective. The universe spins around the earth? Well, all things are "relative", perspective is an interesting editor. However, the model that has the earth spinning is much more comfortable to work with. As a perspective it is much more functional. Further to the perspective that the earth goes around the sun, and not the other way 'round, and that the milky way spins round a central axis with the solar system near the outside of it.bFast_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PST}

*pounds head on desk* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3qsu4QzRUU I've said all along that your argument is with GR not me! as to: "Yet again, I haven’t said that it is impossible to consider the Earth to be central in the universe. That part is not an issue in my view." Then, since all I need in my argument is centrality from GR, and not fixity, and since you readily concede this 'centrality' point, we have nothing further to discuss.bornagain_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PST}

bornagain,
my main point is not to defend the absolute fixity of Earth in the universe or to defend that it cannot possibly rotate.
Wait, what??? *pounds head on desk*daveS_{November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PST}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply