I just put another pot on.
Noting that some have been making great claims for Einstein’s theory of general relativity (greater, perhaps, than the ones he himself would have made), like “The reward for harnessing Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity is nothing less than the key to understanding the universe, the origin of time, and the evolution of all the stars and galaxies in the cosmos”:
General relativity (GR) is no more the key to the origin of time than Newtonian Mechanics or Thermodynamics. It reminds me of a paper by historian of science Stephen Brush, who taught at UMd when I was in grad school. Brush noted that the “Bose-Einstein” condensation was Bose’s work, Einstein merely translated it into German for the Zietschrift fur Physik when the Royal Society rejected the paper. So why does Einstein get the credit? Brush called it “The Matthew Effect”, citing Matt 25:29, and it now has its own Wikipedia page. In Jesus’ parable, the rich ruler comes back from his journey and takes away the 1 talent and gives it to the man with 5 talents. “To those who have, will more be given”.
This is true in my area of space physics, where the name “Alfven” is attributed to things Hannes Alfven knew nothing about–and in his own lifetime, asked why they were named for him. I think the theorist who is promoting it, hopes that a famous name will lend credence to his ideas, even if they aren’t named for him.
And that is certainly true of cosmology. Very little of the era of “precision” cosmology is actually precise. What it amounts to, is the fitting of arbitrary polynomials to the data more and more precisely. The polynomials, on the other hand, are pulled out of a hat and attributed to Einstein when in fact, he would likely have disowned these metaphysically messy objects. It is time for “critical probing” indeed.
Pos-Darwinista kindly paases the raw sugar down the table and writes to say that Stephen Brush’s papers are here.
See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology) for obstacles to any such probing.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
The Stephen Brush archive was a gold mine. I found the first reference to Matthew Effect in a 1978 Paper. I also found that SB had sparred with Henry Morris and campaigned to keep Creationism out of schools.
When I met him, he was researching a paper on Hannes Alfven, and evidently completed several papers, trying to figure out why the man kept making successful predictions, but without acceptance by the community. Science, evidently, doesn’t always reward the ones who are right–sometimes politics are more important, which in this case, was Sidney Chapman.
But then, most curiously, I found a 2000 publication in which he claimed:
“The new “Intelligent Design” theory is a “soft” Creationism — it makes no testable statements, in contrast to Young Earth Creationism which makes many testable statements, all of which have been tested and refuted. Both versions, along with postmodern skepticism about the validity of scientific knowledge, undermine public support for science.”
Not surprisingly, Brush was not a Kuhnian, but where did he get his false information on ID? Two publications in 2003, 2004 with the NCSE are the probable cause. Even historians of science, evidently, can be misled about history. Perhaps we should start the field of “History of Science Historians” to set the record straight.
Hero worship seems to be ingrained in the psyche of the human species. This is the main reason, IMO, that progress in physics and computer science has come to a standstill. Physics has a rather crowded pantheon of gods and demigods with Einstein and Feynman at the top. Computer science, by contrast, seems to have just one almighty god at the top of their pantheon, Alan Turing. Charles Babbage and John Von Neumann are a distant second, even though they contributed more to modern computer science than anyone else. Physics is handicapped by its mistaken belief in nonsensical concepts like physical space and time, and continuity. Computer science, OTOH, is paralyzed by their belief in the algorithm as the basis of computing. It is depressing. Both fields are worshipping false gods who have led them astray. Now they are lost in a lost world of their own making.
as to ‘time’ and the origin thereof, I learned more from this following quote as to the ‘hierarchy of time’, and from whence time ‘originated’, than I did from anywhere else:
That there actually is a higher ‘eternal’ dimension of time above this one, (from whence this temporal time originated), is verified by special relativity (and general relativity).
Some may think that time, as we understand it, coming to a complete stop at the speed of light is pure science fiction, but, as incredible as it sounds, Einstein’s infamous thought experiment has many lines of evidence now supporting it.
This following confirmation of time dilation is my favorite since they have actually caught time dilation on film
(of note: light travels approx. 1 foot in a nanosecond (billionth of a second) whilst the camera used in the experiment takes a trillion pictures a second):
This higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is also warranted, by logic, because light is not ‘frozen within time’, i.e. light appears to move to us in our temporal framework of time, yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. The only way this is possible is if light is indeed of a higher dimensional value of time than our temporal time is otherwise light would simply be ‘frozen in time’ to our temporal frame of reference. Another line of evidence that supports the inference that ‘tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday’, at the ‘eternal’ speed of light, is visualizing what would happen if a hypothetical observer were to approach the speed of light. Please note, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.).
,,,hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, yet, and this is a very big ‘yet’ to take note of; this ‘timeless’ travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our temporal perspective. Yet, in quantum teleportation of information, the ‘time not passing’, i.e. ‘eternal’, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but is also ‘instantaneously’ achieved in our temporal framework.
That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of quantum information is instantaneous to both the temporal framework and the ‘eternal’ speed of light framework, not just the speed of light framework. Information entanglement/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us in this temporal framework.
Most importantly, Quantum entanglement shows us that ‘pure transcendent information’ is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned).
i.e. Logic also dictates ‘a decision’ must have been made, by the ‘transcendent, eternal, infinite information’ from the primary timeless (eternal) reality ‘It’ inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality in which time flows. In other words, God is a personal agent!
Supplemental note:
The main problem is the publish or perish attitude of modern academia. It has resulted in professors taking on as many grad students as they can and then taking most of the credit for their work.
BA77, time does not pass for anybody. Why? Because the sentence is self-referential. This is the reason that nothing moves in Einstein’s spacetime, something I’m sure you are aware of.
Mapou, not that you will take it, but a word of advice. When confronted with a puzzle, denial that the puzzle exists is not the best option. Investigation as to why a puzzle is as it is is a better option.
BA77 reference to Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory
The writer of that article is a bit deficient in his/her handle of the matter…
First, it could be arranged in advance. The second option is that it could be synchronised by some signal sent between the particles.
Third, it could be the result of the particles are connected in a way more fundamental than spacetime, like say, via an algorithmic processor.
The writer assumes that the “signals” are sent thru space-time. They are not. The effect is instantaneous. There is no information traveling through space-time. Thus no violation of Einstein’s relativity. It all makes sense in a virtual reality where whatever generating space-time transcends space-time.
Apparently, they haven’t caught on to the virtual reality concept yet. Too much of what is going on with quantum entanglement all but proves that a transcendent reality exists that is making instantaneous connections (from our perspective) between the objects within space-time.
I predict they won’t find anything.
BA77:
You’re absolutely right. Your advice is worthless to me but it would do you a world of good. Based on experience, I’m sure I’m wasting my time with just another a doctrinarian. See you around, amigo.
Vishnu @7:
You right. Spacetime is a perceptual illusion because nothing can move in it, not particles, not information, nothing. Space (distance), too, is an illusion because it leads to an infinite regress. Einstein did not understand this. This is why he could never understand his so-called ‘spooky action at a distance’. As Gottfried Leibniz once put it, “space is nothing else but an order of the existence of things, observed as existing together; and therefore the fiction of a material universe, moving forward in an empty space cannot be admitted.”
Mapou, no hard feelings buddy. I just think you miss some very important subtleties with your brash proclamations as to how you think reality is constructed. For instance, in your rush yesterday to declare that infinity did not exist and only the finite was real, because of the logical contradictions inherent in a infinity of material objects,,,
(actually the ‘theory’ that needs to be retired is the materialistic theory of inflation, which led to the epistemological failure in the first place)
,, Mapou, In your rush to declare that infinity does not exist and only the finite exist, because of the preceding absurdities inherent in a infinite number of finite ‘material things’, you missed the very important subtlety that infinite information can easily exist with no such inherent contradictions, such as the contradictions that are forced on those positing an infinite number material objects (instead of a transcendent Creator).
Chaitin reflects on Cantor’s work in the area of infinite mathematical information in the following video:
As you can somewhat see from the preceding video, Mathematical information is transcendent of spacetime mass-energy, thus the logical contradictions that are inherent to infinite material objects simply do not apply to infinite mathematical objects. Berlinski reflects a bit on the relationship here:
Pi is a very good example of a infinite number that interacts with the universe,
,,,the universe is found to actually be a circular sphere
It is interesting to note how precise the ’roundness’ of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is:
Besides being ’round’, the universe is also found to be ‘flat’:
And what do we get if we divide a circle by its circumference? The infinite number of pi! Thus Mapou, for me, this is very strong evidence that God is infinite in knowledge and power so as to bring into existence, from his transcendent Dimension, a universe that is built on a infinite framework of pi.
Supplemental notes:
I have only paid attention to sciency thjings since I got interested in creationism in my early thirties. I’m now in my late 40.s
Yet I do note how there was constant contention on who gets credit for the bit discoveries and inventions.
In dfact posters here say confidently about the computer credit. Yet i found it was not babbage and others but a few yanks. in fact they tried to get a patent on the living computer of today they were so sure it was their idea.
Anyways it should be the winners are listened to more if intellectual competence matters in subjects they apply themselves too.
I don’t see why hawkings, bless him and heal him, is claimed to be a great scientist . I see no great patent.
I do find there are motivations other then careful consideration of giving credit where its due.
Its amzing how they fight about it all.
mapou, I think my confusion, yesterday, was due to my failure to distinguish between the possibility of a hypothetical, physical/material infinity and an immaterial infinity.
I have a suspicion some of BA77’s assertions, above, may be related to this in some way.
I also believe that Einstein could not understand ‘spooky action at a distance’, because he could not/would not countenance the divine mind as the matrix of all Creation, so that nothing would have to travel faster than the speed of light.
axel as to:
‘to distinguish between the possibility of a hypothetical, physical/material infinity and an immaterial infinity.
I have a suspicion some of BA77?s assertions, above, may be related to this in some way.’
That is no suspicion, but is exactly the distinction I was trying to convey. ,,, You put it all in one simple phrase and I, perhaps, used overkill.
RB:
And what patents did Galileo, Newton and Einstein hold?
I would say infinity is nonsensical within space-time for the reason Mapou gives: it leads to contradiction. Someting cannot be finite and infinitesimal at the same time. Which is why physicists have to “normalize” things to eliminate the infinities that crop up. They have to eliminate them because infinities are nonsense.
I would agree with Mapou that infinity does not exist. But I go beyond what Mapou is saying. Infinity pertains to quantification. The transcendent reality is not subject to quantification. It is neither finite nor infinite. It is something other. Something unimaginable by human reason. That’s why I think people have an impossible time getting their heads around it including physicists and philosophers. You can’t get your head around nonsense.
Ask yourself: when you look up at the sky and ‘perceive’ the color blue in your consciousness, is your conscious state of blueness finite or infinite? It almost seems a silly question, doesn’t it. Infinity pertains to quantity. Your conscious state of blueness has nothing to do either a finite quantity nor an infinite quantity. It is outside the scope of quantity altogether. It is part of a reality that is (cue the music for effect) … something other.
Vishnu, I agree with Mapou too, material infinity does not exist. But I disagree with you when you say the ‘transcendent reality,,, is neither finite nor infinite’. The logical contradictions inherent for infinity in the material realm simply do not apply to infinity in the immaterial realm. And I hold infinity to be a necessary quality of the transcendent reality which brought this material reality into being.
I’ll spare boring you with links,,
You folks are trying to create some kind of religious difference between the material and the immaterial but you are mistaken. The two are complementary opposites and, as you know, opposites are of the same nature. I did not use some kind of material or physical logic to arrive at my conclusion re infinity. Logic is an immaterial/spiritual thing.
Vishnu writes:
Actually, physicists only pay lip service to the principle that infinities should be avoided like the plague. The physics community is a political community of crackpots. They accept Einstein’s physics even though it is laden with infinities. Einstein’s physics is based on continuity (infinitely smooth fields, surfaces, etc.) which assumes the existence of infinitesimals. Stephen Hawkings himself, is the supreme infinity crackpot because his black holes are the epitome of infinity usage in physics. But then again, what should we expect from someone who believes in the possibility of time travel, multiple universes and other Star-Trek voodoo physics? The situation in physics would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.
And this is the problem I have with BA77 continually reciting modern crackpot science to buttress his religious agenda.
Infinity is not a “quality”, it’s a quantification.
I am very interested in this: did you carefully consider what I asked about your conscious state of blueness? When your consciousness is in that state, does it have a finite or infinite quantification?
I don’t think I would go quite that far. There are lots of physicists who would have no trouble abandoning Einstein. In fact, a lot of them believe that whatever unifies all of QM with both Relativities will have to be something that ultimately overthrows them both. The M-theory guys are attempting that, etc.
‘And I hold infinity to be a necessary quality of the transcendent reality which brought this material reality into being.’ – BA77
Spot on, imho, BA77. However, I believe Vishnu has too narrow an understanding of ‘infinity’, its being, in my book, a virtual synonym for ‘transcendence’. It sounds crazy, but I think the association of the word, ‘infinity’ with its root, ‘finitude’ is unfortunate!
To say its like a perfectly due comparison between apples and oranges would not begin to convey the gulf between the measurable, and a formless, intellectual realm, in relation to which only neuroscientist ‘nut-jobs’ could envisage the possibiity of measurement in any shape or form.
‘Infinity’, like ‘transcendence’, signifies the absence of bounds; as the Merriam Webster online dictionary puts it: ‘Going beyond the limits of ordinary experience.’ Although that can be construed as a vast understatement.
I think the fact that the antonym of ‘finitude’ is not ‘infinitude’, but ‘infinity’, indicates this, since, to what could the quality of ‘infinitude’ be applied but itself, ‘infinity’? There bain’t be no adjective for yon. Or to put it the other way round, as M-WO indicates, there are only ‘NEAR antonyms’ for the word, ‘transcendence’.
Quantification in relation to infinity is a ‘red herring’, Vishnu; ‘infinity’ is as undifferentiated as ‘transcendence’; they epistemologically coinhere. You seem to be ‘splitting hairs’ on a bald man’s head!
mapou, doesn’t BA77 always cite research findings backed up by the mathematics of quantum physics?
Axel @ 21, excellent rebuttal!
Mapou, I agree that it is easy for people to get sidetracked with ‘crackpot’ ideas from not only Relativity but also Quantum Mechanics. But in defense of those ‘crackpot’ theories, their predictions, for both GR and QM, are verified to something like 14 decimal places by experiment. Thus, though you may not like the ‘crackpot’ interpretations that many people draw from these theories, (through their misinterpretation of what infinity actually represents or whatever), until you can come up with a better theory to replace it/them, a theory that has near the level of accuracy as those two do, you are simply barking up the wrong tree.
The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science – May 5, 2011
Excerpt: So, which of the two (general relativity or QED) is The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science?
It’s a little tough to quantify a title like that, but I think relativity can claim to have tested the smallest effects. Things like the aluminum ion clock experiments showing shifts in the rate of a clock set moving at a few m/s, or raised by a foot, measure relativistic shifts of a few parts in 10^16. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. That’s an impressively tiny effect, but the measured value is in good agreement with the predictions of relativity.
In the end, though, I have to give the nod to QED, because while the absolute effects in relativity may be smaller, the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is:
g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28)
Depending on how you want to count it, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision (the value you would expect without QED is exactly 1, so in some sense, the shift really starts with the first non-zero decimal place), which is just incredible. And QED correctly predicts all those decimal places (at least to within the measurement uncertainty, given by the two digits in parentheses at the end of that).
http://scienceblogs.com/princi.....sted-theo/
BA77,
The accuracy of a theory is not an indication of its correctness. Ptolemaic epicycles could be made as accurate as any theory of planetary motion. And yet, it’s complete crackpot nonsense. Unless a theory explains the why of phenomena, any interpretation that is derived from it is likely to be false.
You speak of physical theories as being accurate in their predictions. This may be true in a narrow sense only. Relativity assumes a changeless universe, something we know to be false. It is the ultimate Ptolemaic theory.
Quantum physicists have no idea why particle decay is probabilistic. Nobody knows what causes gravity or why entanglement is possible. Heck, physicists have no clue as to what causes simple inertial motion! Is it any wonder that their models allow for absurd nonsense like cats that are both dead and alive at the same time. Multiple universes and time travel are more examples of voodoo ideas that emerged from modern physics. It’s truly pathetic. The ignorance of the physics community is legendary and in-your-face.
So your use of quantum mechanics to support your religious doctrine leaves a lot to be desired, IMO
Mapou, you simply have nothing to replace the theory(s) of physics with save for your scoffing. I agree some of your incredulousness is well deserved, but you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You reference that ‘Ptolemaic epicycles could be made as accurate as any theory of planetary motion’ but fail to mention that that theory was replaced by better theory that explained the observational data much better, i.e. heliocentrism. You have nothing of the sort to offer to replace the theories save for your scoffing. Good luck with all that, but my hunch is that
As to your examples of ‘voodoo’ science springing forth from modern physics, I note that most of your examples, particularly multiple universes and time travel, are examples that sprang forth from materialistic presuppositions and incomplete understanding, and did not arise from Theistic presuppositions.
Moreover, when one separates the wheat from the chaff in all this infinity business, a reconciliation of ‘infinities’ between GR and QM becomes clear.
Godel, who proved through the ‘logic of infinity’ that you cannot have a mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, without allowing God to bring ‘completeness’ to the ‘Theory of Everything’, also had this to say:
And if we allow that God can ‘play the role of a person’, as one of the greatest logicians who ever existed held was possible, then a reconciliation between GR and QM readily pops out for us:
it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:
and as would be expected if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (QED) were truly unified in the resurrection of Christ from death, the image on the shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process. The image was not formed by a ‘classical’ process:
Verse and Music:
BA77, you don’t know that I have nothing to replace current theories. This is a lame ad-hominem argument that is irrelevant even if it were true. The existence of a replacement theory has nothing to do with whether or not an establshed theory is a correct model of reality. You write about my scoffing as if it were a bad thing but then you engage in same. This is my last reply to your illogical comments. Have fun.
Considering mapou ended his previous post with ‘IMO’, I thought you might have been a bit more sourly truculent – no bad thing in due measure, imo – than necessary, BA77.
You actually seem to be rather hurting each other to no useful effect, when you should resign yourselves to arguing in complete futility or, as Elisha ordered the sons of the prophets, to holding your peace! (Elisha was very truculent wasn’t he?! Or maybe alternating.
Elijah: ‘You tarry here a while I go further on to Jericho (or some such),
Elisha: ‘I will not tarry here! (or words to that effect.)
I love the brutal simplicity of so much of the dialogue in the Bible, especially the O.T.
But, as I was saying………………….. I’ve forgotten now.
This looks promising. Is the Catholic church beginning to fight back? On the other hand, the title of the award, the ‘Carl Sagan Medal for “outstanding communication by an active planetary scientist”‘ is not without a highly humorous dimension, particularly in the light of Bro Consolmagno’s stricture:
‘But too many religious people only see “TV scientists” who are about as accurate a representation of science as “TV preachers” are about real religious believers. They need to see that real science is not the realm of atheists or narrow, egotistical fools.’
Oops:
http://www.zenit.org/en/articl.....or-egoists
Acartia bogart.
the patent word makes the point of a definable and even important contribution.
So those guys have patents and thats why they are remembered. Hawkings has no patent or none above the common lot who engage in science stuff.
In short WHY is he presented as a great or good scientist?
what did he patent that will be remembered?
I see nothing but no malice or unkindness to him. I just sese he was selected as a celebrity scientist back in the 60’s for seeming to have discovered things that matter. Yet they were trivial things.
this happens a lot now and i suspect in the past.