Modern Science vs The Children of the Future

a reply to: Navarro

I didn't mean "prior" to the formation of the universe, but instead, if we were to travel to the formation of the universe from the present time, I'm referencing "just prior" to our arrival at it.

I cannot parse any meaning from that statement. This is what you said:

As far as Big Bang being "believable," you're not aware of the problems with the math immediately prior to the "bang."

The word prior means before.

If the math doesn't seem presently capable of producing a Big Bang, then the prospect of a Big Bang is somewhat less plausible.

Why? If there is not math to describe it why does that make it less plausible. Before Newton there was no math to describe the behavior of gravity. Does that mean that the exisitence of gravity was not plausible?

originally posted by: Krakatoa
An alternative future is one where our "children" 1,000 years from now know nothing of science. Thy might know only how to describe the world from a religious perspective, where everything is a miracle and cannot be explained. DO not laugh, it has happened in our own history. The advancement of man's knowledge is not a clear linear line upward. It is more of a varying amplitude waveform. If it were not for the black death and the Renaissance that followed, we might still think the Earth was the center of the Universe. We might still be forbidden to question or analyze nature and the natural processes for fear of heresy and death of some sort.

That still could be in our future...so I would not count on it being all butterflies and space unicorns at all.

That is my opinion, based upon human history and the role of religion vs science in the past.

It might be more difficult to arrive at a world lacking any knowledge of science. Even from the time of our infancy we're already performing activities which can be construed as experiments in physics. Throwing a rattle for instance, observing its progression through the air and fall to the ground. Even animals are known for conducing similar "experiments," such as cats thrusting objects from tables one-by-one and observing the results. Our technologies and scientific determinations may one day be lost, and civilizations have risen and fallen repeatedly with that same effect. As in physics, "what goes up must come down," or entropy, where order tends to graduate into disorder. So, even understanding the historical pattern regarding the rise and fall of civilizations is to understand something about science.

I could easily understand circumstances leading to a humanity deprived of it's more complex discoveries though. You might be interested to know that a decade ago, perhaps less, the UK "forgot" how to construct nuclear weapons. The British were forced to request assistance from the Americans, specifically with regard to the "fog hat" component. NASA managed to lose the documentation with regard to the construction of key Apollo components, and would thus be unable to replicate the Apollo program through utilization of 1960's technology without first performing the research again. We couldn't even backward engineer the equipment because much of it has been sold or destroyed since then. Information has a tendency to be lost even without collapse. It's easy to imagine how humanity might find itself in a more primitive state, with a more primitive understanding of the universe.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: schuyler

You seem to indicate that's why we have heard of String Theory. Really? They aren't even talking about the same thing.

To a certain extent, they are. String "theory" (I don't think it actually can be termed a theory, though) includes the notion of branes. It goes on to hypothesize that the intersection of branes is what initiates the formation of a universe.

Somehow I don't think the op had branes in mind when wrote his sentence .

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Navarro

I didn't mean "prior" to the formation of the universe, but instead, if we were to travel to the formation of the universe from the present time, I'm referencing "just prior" to our arrival at it.

I cannot parse any meaning from that statement. This is what you said:

As far as Big Bang being "believable," you're not aware of the problems with the math immediately prior to the "bang."

The word prior means before.

 

If the math doesn't seem presently capable of producing a Big Bang, then the prospect of a Big Bang is somewhat less plausible.

Why? If there is not math to describe it why does that make it less plausible. Before Newton there was no math to describe the behavior of gravity. Does that mean that the exisitence of gravity was not plausible?

Well, gravity is a force, it's constantly present. The big bang Is a past event.

I would agree that the maths need to add up but just because we can't mathematically explain the big bang now doesn't mean we won't be able to in the future. That's if the member you replied to is right about this, I don't know.

originally posted by: Phage
I cannot parse any meaning from that statement.

Then allow my to clarify with "immediately following" the singularity.

originally posted by: Phage
Why? If there is not math to describe it why does that make it less plausible. Before Newton there was no math to describe the behavior of gravity. Does that mean that the exisitence of gravity was not plausible?

If you propose a thing bereft of evidence beyond the circumstantial, such as Hubble's Law, then we might be discussing philosophy. Steady-State also predicts Hubble's Law, Inflation and so forth. In fact, it's prediction of Hubble's Law was more detailed than Big Bang. Meanwhile, Big Bang's math doesn't appear able to attain a singularity, let alone the catalyst for it. There doesn't appear to be a logical means for the model to arrive at the primary hypothesis. You might argue that the math is simply flawed, or incomplete, but Big Bang remains valid, however there are other problems as well. To discount the math is, I think, an incredible error though. If you've published that 2+2=6 then I think it's important that you step outside of base 10 mathematics and explain how this could be.

Gravity is immediately plausible due to observation of its effects. A force is acting on an object, pulling it toward the ground. There's nothing to debate with regard to the general principal. Big Bang is more complicated. It's not simply the suggestion that the universe is currently undergoing expansion, which appears true. It's the suggestion that if one were to follow that expansion in reverse, than the universe would necessarily progress unhindered to a single point, or singularity. You immediately begin with the requirement of a variety of assumptions, and as the theory deepens an increasing amount of assumptions become required. Assumptions of phenomena which we've not observed, or that we can't be certain of. Gravity is less demanding.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Somehow I don't think the op had branes in mind when wrote his sentence .

You're right. It was a remark on the fact that the math has only been able to shrink the universe to ten to the negative forty three seconds, planck time, following Big Bang. We can shrink the universe, but we can't make it bang. We can't even reach the bang. You also have other mathematical issues, where for Big Bang to work, you require a universe twenty times more dense than Big Bang predicts. This is where dark energy and dark matter make another appearance, because you require more matter and more energy than appears to exist. As such, you require invisible, undetectable matter and energy before Big Bang can even begin to bang. Even if we do assume dark energy and dark matter are realities, there's still the issue of being unable to mathematically represent the Big Bang itself.

This is even aside from the point that if most people were to propose a theory which predicted the universe was twenty times denser than we observe it to be, then argued that the reason their theory contradicts observation is because the missing matter isn't missing at all - it's invisible - such a person would normally be laughed out of academia. There's a remarkable similarity to God of the Gaps here. Invisible man; invisible matter.

Never the less, my point wasn't that Big Bang had been disproven, but rather that it's taught in such a way that most people interpret it to be fact, when it's absolutely unproven. A reference to what we think we know, which may turn out to be what we thought we knew. As far as the reference to String Theory, that was a simplification. While I suppose it could have been construed as a reference to branes and the Oscillating Universe, I don't expect that most readers are familiar with that theory, at least not by name. I think they're most likely to know of String Theory through The Holographic Principle. In retrospect, I may should have stated "Holographic Universe" for clarity. The point however was that there's other avenues worthy of consideration. That is to say, "Big Bang isn't a fact, there's points which make the theory questionable, also, allow me to remind you of another avenue of thought."

Anyone care to speculate as to what beliefs we hold today which may one day be deemed inaccurate?

The part regarding dark matter sounds more like the discovery of neptune... rather what actually occurred for the postulation of dark matter

originally posted by: Navarro
Anyone care to speculate as to what beliefs we hold today which may one day be deemed inaccurate?

I'm not sure what the point of such speculation would be. We know that new data very frequently changes our understanding. Speculating about that data and whether or not it will invalidate rather than support current theories is sort of, I don't know, silly. Or perhaps it is more along the lines of wishful thinking. Maybe our notions about faster than light travel are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool?

Perhaps our belief that the Earth is an oblate spheroid will be deemed inaccurate. Probably not, though.

originally posted by: Navarro

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Somehow I don't think the op had branes in mind when wrote his sentence .

You're right. It was a remark on the fact that the math has only been able to shrink the universe to ten to the negative forty three seconds, planck time, following Big Bang. We can shrink the universe, but we can't make it bang. We can't even reach the bang. You also have other mathematical issues, where for Big Bang to work, you require a universe twenty times more dense than Big Bang predicts. This is where dark energy and dark matter make another appearance, because you require more matter and more energy than appears to exist. As such, you require invisible, undetectable matter and energy before Big Bang can even begin to bang. Even if we do assume dark energy and dark matter are realities, there's still the issue of being unable to mathematically represent the Big Bang itself.

This is even aside from the point that if most people were to propose a theory which predicted the universe was twenty times denser than we observe it to be, then argued that the reason their theory contradicts observation is because the missing matter isn't missing at all - it's invisible - such a person would normally be laughed out of academia. There's a remarkable similarity to God of the Gaps here. Invisible man; invisible matter.

Never the less, my point wasn't that Big Bang had been disproven, but rather that it's taught in such a way that most people interpret it to be fact, when it's absolutely unproven. A reference to what we think we know, which may turn out to be what we thought we knew. As far as the reference to String Theory, that was a simplification. While I suppose it could have been construed as a reference to branes and the Oscillating Universe, I don't expect that most readers are familiar with that theory, at least not by name. I think they're most likely to know of String Theory through The Holographic Principle. In retrospect, I may should have stated "Holographic Universe" for clarity. The point however was that there's other avenues worthy of consideration. That is to say, "Big Bang isn't a fact, there's points which make the theory questionable, also, allow me to remind you of another avenue of thought."

I would suggest that being able to postulate what happened at 10*-43 secs is pretty impressive.

As for the BB being taught as fact. I can see your point but you get given rudimentary knoweldge at school and then refine it as you get older.

We know electrons are not little point particles orbiting the nucleus like planets but do you really want to teach kids at school about probability clouds and wave functions? (Just making a point of course)

I personally belive the BB is most likely true but I would like to see it referred more often in the press as the best explanation we have rather than THE explanation.

a reply to: Navarro

I think its reasonable to conclude many of today's scientific theories won't hold true for the next 50 years, never mind a 1000.

Just look at how far we have come in the last 100 years? The singularity approaches, possibly within the next 25-50 years. After that barring us destroying ourselves or some kind of extinction level event humanity will be learning at an exponential rate. The outcome of which, quite frankly we cannot hope to imagine.

originally posted by: ErosA433
The part regarding dark matter sounds more like the discovery of neptune... rather what actually occurred for the postulation of dark matter

It's a common theme. Someone thinks something should be a certain way, and when their observations fail to account for discrepancy, some "dark" anomaly is blamed. Galaxies, planets, stars. Even our own solar system. Planet Nine and Nemesis for instance.

Jan Oort also hypothesized the existence of dark matter in 1932. Oort was studying stellar motions in the local galactic neighborhood and found that the mass in the galactic plane must be greater than what was observed, but this measurement was later determined to be erroneous.
Wikipedia

These matters tend to end with no further development of information, or on some occasions, rebuttal. There's nothing wrong with that. If you're a scientist, you want to let everyone know when you think you've discovered something. When that something is strange, you want to offer a potential explanation. If that wasn't the nature of scientists, we'd never have learned of black holes. Though, some scientists argue that singularities don't actually exist, but that's another discussion all-together.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Navarro

I think its reasonable to conclude many of today's scientific theories won't hold true for the next 50 years, never mind a 1000.

Just look at how far we have come in the last 100 years? The singularity approaches, possibly within the next 25-50 years. After that barring us destroying ourselves or some kind of extinction level event humanity will be learning at an exponential rate. The outcome of which, quite frankly we cannot hope to imagine.

I disagree. I think many of our current scientific theories may get REFINED like the ones who's principles we use daily like quantum mechanics, newtons and Einsteins laws etc ( as well as their versions in other fields) but I can't see us being very wrong about them since they work.

But who knows about things like dark matter and other things. Gonna be interesting either way.

I remember an LHC physicist saying that if they are wrong about the higgs that they at least get to learn lots of new physics .

originally posted by: Phage
[
I'm not sure what the point of such speculation would be. We know that new data very frequently changes our understanding. Speculating about that data and whether or not it will invalidate rather than support current theories is sort of, I don't know, silly. Or perhaps it is more along the lines of wishful thinking. Maybe our notions about faster than light travel are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool?

Perhaps our belief that the Earth is an oblate spheroid will be deemed inaccurate. Probably not, though.

I was under the impression that NASA had already proven that Earth was an oblate spheroid. Our satellite observation has revealed a bulge at the equator, has it not?

The speculation doesn't have to be of a scientific nature, but beliefs generally. Even in the original post I spent a considerable amount of time remarking on archaic religious beliefs. I think we can all agree that drilling into the skull of a person for the purpose of releasing demons wasn't the most reasonable practice, for instance. "Firebrand preachers" had a tendency to suggest sinners "sew a seed," buying their way into heaven. I'm not sure that there's be many today who'd be very willing to give a preacher money in exchange for his promise of guaranteed admittance to the afterlife. Never the less, there today seems to be a considerable amount of people who're willing to send large sums of money to Nigerian princes in exchange for the promise of a much larger sum of money in return.

Faster than light travel would be interesting, though something tells the transit wouldn't bare much similarity to what we've seen on Star Trek.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Even if current theories are refined as apposed to being completely replaced, once we attain the ability to learn at an exponential/near exponential rate we are going to be able to pose and answer questions and that we cannot even imagine yet. So one way or another new theories are bound to materialize.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Even if current theories are refined as apposed to being completely replaced, once we attain the ability to learn at an exponential/near exponential rate we are going to be able to pose and answer questions and that we cannot even imagine yet. So one way or another new theories are bound to materialize.

Sure, agreed.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

I would suggest that being able to postulate what happened at 10*-43 secs is pretty impressive.

As for the BB being taught as fact. I can see your point but you get given rudimentary knoweldge at school and then refine it as you get older.

We know electrons are not little point particles orbiting the nucleus like planets but do you really want to teach kids at school about probability clouds and wave functions? (Just making a point of course)

I personally belive the BB is most likely true but I would like to see it referred more often in the press as the best explanation we have rather than THE explanation.

Personally, I think to begin with the example of electrons around a nucleus is reasonable, but I would prefer it wasn't left at that. In my opinion, a more detailed introduction to quantum mechanics would be more interesting. You might remark that "the orbit of the electron is dynamic, progressing at a speed which can't be averaged due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal. As far as we can tell, it's impossible to determine it's average rate of speed with certainty. You'd never see an electron getting a speeding ticket, because the police could never be sure how fast it was moving. Not only that, but the electron moves like characters in a video game when there's server lag. One moment they're moving in a higher orbit, and instantaneously, they've transitioned into a lower orbit. It's almost as though for a moment they travelled quicker than the speed of light and we just didn't see it's transition from high orbit to low because it was moving so quickly."

Even Bill Nye talked about Wave Functions. These subjects can be incredibly interesting. Let the kids see how what happens when you put our solar system in motion, travelling through the galaxy. Let them see the stationary Sun with orbiting spheres turn into a spiral traveling at 514,000 MPH, as is reality. We teach kids Algebra, which they'll never likely make use of in the real world ever in their lives, and then even sometimes Calculus in High School, but can't be bothered to give them a good introduction to science? Personally, I think that's because science has a tendency to make people contemplate, envision foreign and abstract concepts in their minds, like a thought experiment meant to visually represent the relationship between time and velocity. Mathematics is all about memorization and structure. Must be better to have a population capable of solving equations than ones than can envision and grasp "complex" concepts freely.

Still, my point wasn't really that I take issue with how the education system presents Big Bang, but instead I was pointing to the potential for that "fact" to turn out to be untrue.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Navarro

I think its reasonable to conclude many of today's scientific theories won't hold true for the next 50 years, never mind a 1000.

Just look at how far we have come in the last 100 years? The singularity approaches, possibly within the next 25-50 years. After that barring us destroying ourselves or some kind of extinction level event humanity will be learning at an exponential rate. The outcome of which, quite frankly we cannot hope to imagine.

The moment the technology is developed which allows to information to be downloaded directly into the brain, there will be no competing with such super humans. We've already developed brain-to-computer interfaces, and we've already managed to translate a handful of words from the "code" of the human brain. Once instantaneous learning or computer aided database referencing becomes a reality, a new breed of superhuman will be born, and will cease the advantage only for itself. We could be talking about a genius so immeasurable that it's capable of out-thinking and manipulating every other member of the human species, with absolute precision. Some people wonder whether or not humanity will survive to reach Singularity. I wonder whether or not we'll survive Singularity itself.

a reply to: Navarro

I wonder whether or not we'll survive Singularity itself.

Already there.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

I disagree. I think many of our current scientific theories may get REFINED like the ones who's principles we use daily like quantum mechanics, newtons and Einsteins laws etc ( as well as their versions in other fields) but I can't see us being very wrong about them since they work.

But who knows about things like dark matter and other things. Gonna be interesting either way.

I remember an LHC physicist saying that if they are wrong about the higgs that they at least get to learn lots of new physics .

Those observations which lead us to assume dark matter exists could in fact be examples of our current science not working. Maybe we've got physics all wrong. Maybe we've got gravity wrong. When our observations don't match our expectations, it seems foolish to discount the possibility that our theories are flawed.

Does it make more sense that 27% of the universe is composed of invisible matter and energy, or that the mass necessary to hold a galaxy together is less than we anticipated? Is a universe populated by 27% dark matter more likely, or is it more likely that our unproven theory about the origin of the universe is wrong? Which conclusion requires the least amount of assumptions?

Big Bang became a theory about ninety years ago. Einstein produced his Theory of Relativity just a hundred years ago. Newton lived just 500 years ago. The universe seems to have been around for considerably longer than that. Since we're pretty new to this physics stuff, I wouldn't be in a hurry to discount the possibility that we're just simply wrong.

It wasn't long ago that we were mystified by Fast Radio Bursts, high energy pulses originating from beyond our galaxy. As it turned out, they were just RFI produced by astronomers heating their lunch in microwave ovens. Not very extragalactic at all, it turned out. We thought we had found something extraordinary, and it turned out that we were just simply wrong.