Find Out About the Future of Science 446
Science magazine writer Charles Seife has written a new book, Alpha and Omega: The Search for the Beginning and End of the Universe. According to Publishers Weekly, Charles claims, "Scientists...now know how the universe will end and are on the brink of understanding its beginning. Their findings will be among the greatest triumphs of science, even towering above the deciphering of the human genome." A brave statement! Charles is happy to answer your questions about ongoing research that is busily revealing the basic nature of life, the universe, and everything in a serious (as opposed to humorous) sense, so ask away. One question per post, please. We'll post the answers as soon as we get them beck.
Publishing hype (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been doing some thinking about this lately. (Score:-1, Insightful)
Some perhaps are content with chaos theory, but I'm glad there's another scientific viewpoint that can rationalize the concept that free will is the only variable that yet seems unaccounted for... and with all likelihood, that too was carefully strewn into the universe to keep a perpetual working model. Although I suppose we have to keep in mind that this too is only a theory, and while it's possible everything was made to work smoothly from the beginning (on the whole) I'm more comfortable with the idea that somebody's looking in from time to time. One has to start somewhere to reconcile observation with history in order to get closer to the truth.
So I'm glad that there are still some minds out there, like Copernicus and Einstein, that are not satisfied with science by rote, and I think that if we allow ourselves break out of the current dominant paradigms for just a little bit the change in perspective can open many new insights.
Re:Publishing hype (Score:2, Insightful)
Probaly not as long as book publishers don't mind broadcasting things like:
Here in the US, I would hardly call news stories about science as "frequent front-page headlines." It usually takes some debate over creationism vs. evolution to make it into the media now-a-days.
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:1, Insightful)
Unfortunately, too many treat these things like sacred cows, which is ironic given that science and faith are so continually at odds.
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh god (irony), not this crap again.
Haven't you got anything better to do that to keep 'refining' Creationism whenever in response to Evolution showing it to be unnecessary.
There is NO NEED for intelligent design. It's only purpose is to allow you justify your belief in God. I don't care if it's the Bombadier Beetle, the jinking Moth, whatever, it's just as sensible to think of a way it could've evolved than to allege that there is a God. And a God is a damn big hypothesis that only serves to abstract out the thing you can't explain.
Justin.
Bored of bloody desperate religionists arguing over who's got the best imaginary friend.
Thinly veiled "proof of God" stuff.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The post is about scientists looking at physical evidence and coming to a testable conclusion... not playing with numbers and supposition in order to prove some religious belief.
Beware the man who calls well proven ideas... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, before you start arguing about science, try and understand its terminology at least a little.
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:4, Insightful)
You mention "continually reexamined in the light of new evidence" yet mention no new evidence. OOGG hear such comments many times. OOGG know Darwin think of many objections, answer with real evidence. Many observations on human breed pigeons, dogs, agriculture, etc., substantiate Darwin argument. Many more observations since Darwin's time substantiate evolutionary ideas. "Intelligent design" provide no observation other than "I don't believe in the alternative."
Perhaps try read Darwin's book?
Know how the universe will end? (Score:3, Insightful)
Science used to "know" the world was flat. They used to "know" that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the human heart worked just like a furnace.
Then, one day, some guy sailed over the horizon and didnt fall off. A pump was invented, and the notion of a heart as a pump came to being.
Each time people had thought they'd reached the pinnacle of understanding, and had all the answers. Then paradigms shifted, and completely changed our ways of thinking, and all our previous answers and theories were null and void.
What makes you so sure that this isnt simply happening again?
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:3, Insightful)
Intelligent Design violates the principle known as "Occam's Razor", which states that, given two plausible explanations for one phenomenon, the most simple explanation is the correct one.
"Intelligent Design" states that an intelligent creator was at the origin of the universe [some even say a purely semitic YHWH] and of all life. It can be construed as more complicated than a purely "naturalistic" vision, because it states that this all-knowing, all-powerful being is necessary for the universe to be created.
On the other hand, the "naturalistic" vision can be said to be "more simple" because it only requires parameters that are more limited and easier to prove (Singularity = Big Bang = Universe, Mutations = Evolution = Intelligent beings).
Therefore, I prefer the naturalistic version. In my experience, people who uphold the "Intelligent Design" theory are only using it to justify their own views of the world... as well as their own prejudices [nothing personal here].
At this point in time, I am not so sure that Intelligent Design or Creationism have anything going for them, except in the most fundamentalist circles.
(Just my US$ 0.02...)
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:2, Insightful)
----------
I'm more comfortable with that idea too, but being more comfortable should have nothing to do with it. Wouldn't you rather just know the truth even if it's less comforting?
Not that we know what the truth is yet, but why settle for less than the truth?
Of course, even if we do find "the truth", only a small percentage of the population will bother to consider its merit, and an even smaller percentage will believe it.
Life _as_we_know_it_ (Score:4, Insightful)
1. It suggests the variables necessary for life as we know it. While life on Earth is incredibly varied, it isn't the end-all-be-all. Perhaps fundamentally different life could exist in different conditions, ranging from the mass of a neutrino to the spectral-jibber-jabber constant.
2. It doesn't present ranges for the variables. It does give "if higher/lower/more/fewer" qualitative statements, but not quantative. What if a variable was increased by 1%? 10%? 100%? What is the range for those variables to preserve current life-abling conditions?
I think most scientists would concur that the probability of life as we know it is almost certainly zero*. And yet, we have life, as we know it. If a variable was fudged in the past, we surely wouldn't have life as we know it, but that is not the same analysis as not having life at all.
* math for really, really, really freakin' close to zero. A finite number of instances of life given an infinite number of chances.
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Know how the universe will end? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not Science - it's Engineering (Score:3, Insightful)
The Science behind fusion is well understood and proven out
The Engineering behind creating a self-sustaining fusion reaction from which more power can be extracted than consumed is a little more challenging - especially given that the only natural model we have requires collecting enough Hydrogen such that it starts to fuse under the pressures of its own gravity - a little tough to package in a useful manner.
But progress - or lack thereof - on an Engineering project does not necessarily discredit the Science.
DG
Re:variable constants (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:3, Insightful)
The science I can explain better, but the second part of your argument is flawed as well. There is currently a need for intelligent design, though there might not be a scientific need in the future. There are significant genetic gaps in our current observations of evolution. An easy, although hard to support, explanation would be intelligent design. A divine-genetic push and you have a new species. We don't currently have an explanation for these gaps, and while not an evolution expert I have not read a valid explanation.
And, actually I'll leave it at the science for today. I'll let someone better than myself explain why your god as only an explanation for the unexplained is incorrect. ~Dan
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:5, Insightful)
The existence of God cannot be disproven scientifically. As long as something cannot be disproven, it is a valid theory.
Err... if a theory is not falsifiable, it is certainly not a useful theory, scientifically speaking.
And if, as you assert, the existence of God cannot be disproven scientifically, then God is not a topic of science. So....
What I am trying to say is that you can believe what you want, but don't force it on others. Eliminating Intelligent Design, or whatever you want to call it, from school curriculum amounts to nothing more than censorship, just like eliminating evolution.
You can keep intelligent design in your curriculum. But it should be a part of a religion or comparative world faiths class, not a part of a science class, because it is not science. It is wrong to claim that it is, and it is dogmatic interference to insist that it be taught as such.
-Rob
Re:I've been doing some thinking (not really) (Score:1, Insightful)
I'll refer you to this argument [infidels.org]:
Re:variable constants (Score:3, Insightful)
Sort of.
It's actually an indication that a better model _might_ exist.
Until we have a model in-hand that works at least as well as the current one, however, there's no justification for throwing out the current model (which still works quite well as an approximation). So, calling for the current model of the universe to be chucked is a bit premature.
Another possibility is that several fundamental parameters of the universe _do_ vary with time, as a result of some mechanism which has not yet been discovered. Constants that cannot be derived from other constants and are instead set at arbitrary values are just as suspicious as "constants" that change.
Re:Know how the universe will end? (Score:4, Insightful)
What will it mean (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:2, Insightful)
Answer: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no friction in space to counteract the inertia of the explosion's particles. Therefore one would assume that they'd fly out from the explosion at the same rate forever w/o ever hitting one another as they all blew out away from the same point.
Ever hear of universal gravitation [google.com]?
You mention that the gravity of the particles is "basically zero". How do you define "basically zero". Does that mean zero or non-zero? If the latter, does that mean less than or greater than zero? I can only assume you mean greater than. What effect do you think all these tiny amounts of gravity will have over billions of years? Do you honestly think that these particles will not gather over time?Re:Why does the rate of expansion change? (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing I don't understand is why we can conclude that from measuring the second derivative of the size of the Universe (acceleration). If the third derivative were negative, it wouldn't matter (to the fate of the Universe) that the first two were positive. The Universe would still end in a big crunch, right? How closely have scientists measured the function that governs the size of the Universe? And what do they know about it?
Theory Abuse in full force (Score:5, Insightful)
From the HyperDictionary [hyperdictionary.com]: scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
Proponents of ID and other some such notions love to brutally abuse the term theory to confuse the issues. For something to rise to the accepted level of theory, it must be based on scientific observations. It must have passed through the hypothesis stage of initial concept deliniation. It must be tested repeatedly, succeeding each time (or the initial hypothesis must be reworked). It has to pass peer review.
ID and other notions don't even rise to the level of hypothesis.
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:4, Insightful)
> Intelligent Design, a recent theory that has gained enough respect from the scientific community
ID has no respect in the scientific community whatsoever. (If it did, Dembski wouldn't be making up paranoid conspiracy theories to explain why it doesn't.)
> that it is being taught alongside evolution in many schools and colleges
A number of creationist pressure groups have tried to get it adopted by state school boards, but AFAIK they haven't actually succeeded anywhere.
Which is all for the best, since if you ask an ID advocate what should go in their lesson plan all you'll get is a blank look. All the political noise the ID movement has stirred up over the past few years is based on nothing more than a couple of easily refuted arguments that evolution must have had some help somewhere along the way.
> explains that to even reach the stage at which we exist there are no fewer than twenty-six variables necessary for our universe to even consider permitting life and a further sixty-six within our galaxy and Earth itself that allowed the multitude of living beings not only to come into being but to flourish
Those aren't findings of the ID movement; they're arguments that the ID movement appeals to. (Showing, in passing, that ID is nothing more than the old fine-tuning argument painted up with a fresh layer of pseudo-science.)
> (this whitepaper that was in My Favorites breaks these criteria into probabilities -- great read if you prefer to see the evidence of this hypothesis)
Probability arguments are what creationists use to deny that something has happened. (Scientists also acknowledge that the universe is a very improbable place, or would be if all configurations of matter and energy were equally probable, but from that recognition they part with creationists by investigating the causes of the observed non-randomness rather than invoking armchair arguments to deny causes.)
> Some perhaps are content with chaos theory, but I'm glad there's another scientific viewpoint that can rationalize the concept that free will is the only variable that yet seems unaccounted for
The existence of free will hasn't even been demonstrated; it's small wonder that it hasn't been accounted for.
>
No, it isn't even a theory. It's speculation unconstrained by any evidence.
> So I'm glad that there are still some minds out there, like Copernicus and Einstein, that are not satisfied with science by rote, and I think that if we allow ourselves break out of the current dominant paradigms for just a little bit the change in perspective can open many new insights.
Hope you were just trolling. That would be a good trollpost, but a pathetic serious post.
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:5, Insightful)
> Yes, so-called "Intelligent Design" is inherently a religious concept. So what? How does that invalidate it? The existence of God cannot be disproven scientifically. As long as something cannot be disproven, it is a valid theory.
The fact that it can't be disproven shows its worthlessness as a theory. There is no conceivable observation that isn't compatible with 'goddidit', which makes 'goddidit' completely useless as an explanation for anything.
[Snip fantasia on Genesis I]
> For having been written thousands of years ago by a man (Moses) who knew nothing about science, it seems pretty close to me.
Regardless who wrote it and when, it sounds pretty wrong to me.
> I understand why some people refuse to believe in a God. It takes a very open mind to believe in something you have no evidence of.
Alas, it takes an open mind to believe in things we do have evidence of, such as the big bang and biological evolution.
And if you're so keen on believing stuff without any supporting evidence, why don't you believe in all the other gods and unicorns that people have professed throughout the ages? You're merely engaging in special pleading.
> Eliminating Intelligent Design, or whatever you want to call it, from school curriculum amounts to nothing more than censorship, just like eliminating evolution.
No, omitting ID is just like omitting other pseudosciences based on bad arguments.
Wilkinsin Microwave Anisotrpy Probe (Score:2, Insightful)
My guess is that the book is a hyped up discussion of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy probe [nasa.gov]. This probe looked at minor fluctuations in the cosimc microwave background (much like COBE but with far better resolution).
The probe provided some really interesting data which has ended up posing far more questions than it answers (always the best type of experiment!). The data show that if the Big Bang model is correct that the Universe will end in heat death i.e. there will be no big crunch.
However it also shows that only ~5% of the Universes matter is "baryonic" i.e. what you would call "normal" matter. About ~20% is non-baryoninc matter and a whopping ~75% is dark energy. Currently the physics that we know about cannot account for most of the non-baryonic dark matter let alone the "dark energy". So to say that we know how the Universe is going to end when we only understand about 5% of what it actually is shows that the statement is clearly pure hype.
However this is also the reason that science is fun: we have a lot more of the Universe to understand. Either there is a lot of new fundamental physics out there for us to find or the Big Bang model predictions of the energy content are wrong. It's just best to wait until we do understand it before we make predictions.
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure you're post will attract a lot of flames, and I'll try not to add to the heat too much. As a former proponent of Intelligent Design, I do have some comments, which I hope you'll take in the spirit they are intended.
This isn't quite true...if something cannot be disproven, it is an empty theory. The principle of falsifiability is a cornerstone of modern scientific understanding. If you cannot devise a way to disprove a statement, that statement can be said to actually have no content, because it cannot add to your understanding of the world around us. It may influence your perception of it, which is fine - perceive it however suits you best - but it cannot be said to contain information.
Evolutionary theories (of various types) actually do show (as much as science purports to "show" anything) that God is unneccessary. What it does not claim is that God does not exist, or did not use evolutionary methods in creation. Unfalsifiable claims can be added to any scientific theory, without adding or detracting anything from it. Adding a God hypothesis to a scientific theory does not add any information to the theory. It is merely a statement of perception about that theory.
I disagree strongly with the statment that "[e]liminating Intelligent Design, or whatever you want to call it, from school curriculum amounts to nothing more than censorship, just like eliminating evolution", except perhaps in comparitive religion courses. Intellegent Design is a method for believers to integrate scientific knowledge into their faith. Teaching ID in school is tantamount to teaching faith, in that it does not teach you anything more about evolutionary theories, only how a certain religion understands and deals with the introduction of new scientific knowledge.
On a personal note, I went from belief in a literal translation of the bible, to science/faith integration tools like ID to a rather reactionary atheism, to agnosticism, where I now stand. I take that to mean that I cannot state anything about God (or any faith system) in such a way that it increases my knowledge of the world, and that therefore all such statements are empty.
Schools should teach reasoning, scientific method, and what knowledge we have gained from those processes. The public education system should not teach as part of a scientific curriculum methods that religions use to integrate scientific knowledge into their belief structure.
Re:God (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't disprove the existence of Leprechauns either, but that doesn't mean I go looking for gold at the end of a rainbow.
The unending search for truth through science is a humanistic attempt to place one's self above God and finally be "free" from Him.
That's an awfully general statment there. If what you mean is that revealed religion is the only access to "God", then which one are you talking about.
In order for someone to disprove God's existence they would have to be omniscient and omnipresent.
Why ? Deists have produced some interesting "proofs" of a "Greatest Conceivable Being" (google it yourself) but these have nothing to do with disproof. BTW the GCB may have nothing to do with the "God" of the 1611 KJV.
It sounds like you resent science. Scientists typically are not trying to prove, or disprove the existence of god, God or the GCB. They work only by what can be observed. And you are correct, scientists are neither omniscient, omnipotent, nor omnipresent; if those qualities are required you must go to someone who claims to have a revelation from a being that is. Who would that be Moses ? Mohammed ? Jesus ? Siddhartha ? Zarathushtra ?
-- Rich
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:3, Insightful)
> Darwin stated that the fossil record, incomplete and meager as it was at the time, would eventually substantiate his theory by showing the gradual progression of creatures and intermediate forms. It is now evident due to the overwhelming preponderance of fossil evidence that has been found and cataloged, that the fossil record is a dismal failure in this role of corroborating evidence.
Funny, the people who actually study it think it is an overwhelming success. Look at the historical record of the bones in your middle ear. Look at the history of whale legs. You don't have to be a guru to grok this stuff; you just need to get your information from sources other than creationist propaganda sites.
BTW, the theory of evolution neither predicts nor requires that specimens of every species will be fossilized, let alone that they will be found and catalogued by a scientist. Creationists like to point out the gaps in the fossil record as if that were a problem for science, but completely ignore the masses of fossils that we do have, for which creation can give no better explanation than "God wanted it to look like stuff evolved".
Notice in passing that "God wanted it that way" is compatible with any conceivable observation. It's a completely useless way of trying to understand the universe.
At any rate, when you've got a better explanation than evolution for all the fossils we do have, let us hear about it. The fossils we don't have are a nuissance for reconstructing all the details of biological history, but they're not a problem for the theory of evolution.
> In fact, punctuated equilibrium is a theorist's patch designed specifically to cover this gaping hole in Darwin's evidence trail.
Punk-eek, like every other scientific theory, is an attempt to explain what we do see. Patterns in the fossil record demand an explanation, and punk-eek is a reasonable attempt to explain them.
And BTW, were you aware that people who work with genetic algorithms sometimes observe punk-eek in their non-biological work? It's an unsurprising and readily comprehensible phenomenon; no conspiracy theory required. Unless of course you're a creationist who has to fall back on slinging mud at scientific theories, to distract observers from the fact that you don't have any theory of your own at all.
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:1, Insightful)
ID is not the only way to address that question. (In fact, some would argue that ID is not even an answer -- what does saying "Goddidit" tell us, beyond what we already knew?)