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.
comparable ramifications? (Score:5, Interesting)
[Almost] Serious question! (Score:5, Interesting)
So... How will the Universe end? Big Crunch, Dark & Cold, Equilibrium, Giant Black Holes, Act of God, or... what?
And, of course, how can you be so sure of that? [Add "You, Insensitive Clod!" to this last question for the humorous touch...]
Whatever theory you build today will only be validated in, what? A dozen billion years? More? So what makes you so sure you know the ned of the Universe today?
Please note: this is really a serious question. I am interested in the End of the Universe as we know it. Thanks for your answers!
Why does the rate of expansion change? (Score:5, Interesting)
Universe's container (Score:5, Interesting)
ID isn't scientific (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't need a God to make the universe work. Although you may say that there's no concrete evidence against one, there's also no evidence to suggest that our whole universe isn't an elaborate 5D shadow puppet show run by unicorns. Occam's razor must be applied.
How ultimate is the end of the universe? (Score:4, Interesting)
Dark Matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Since it is something of an open issue, what is the current understanding of the nature of dark matter in our universe? What kinds of questions are still being investigated? What kinds of hypotheses do we have now, and what do they imply?
Re:Universe's container (Score:2, Interesting)
The best we can do at this point is make broad assumptions based on what we are given, but the concept of intelligent design I think gives us a larger intellectual playing field to work from -- the concept that we can accept what we do not yet know.
Lee Smolin et al (Score:5, Interesting)
As I understand it, there is a serious strand of thought in cosmology that suggests that our universe may be only one of (an infinite number of) alternatives. A small finite area in a parent universe undergoes inflation and blows up like a very fast balloon; for observers within this bubble, theirs is the only universe. Smolin also talks about how this hypothesis might tie in with the six magic physical constants which, if their values were even slightly different, would cause totally different physical conditions within our universe. If the inflationary bubbles occur within singularities, they would also be unknowable to their parent universe. A universe with lots of black holes would tend to give rise to offspring that would also have lots of black holes, and vice versa. I'm badly mangling his explanation of this ! but he provides an IMHO elegant explanation for the phenomena of these numbers' values appearing to have been tuned very precisely to the values neccessary for "our" sort of universe, and hence, life, and ultimately us and any other observers out there.
What's your opinion of this? It seems to me that this hypothesis makes no testable predictions and so falls beyond the remit of the scientific method. Is it just a smart way of talking around the anthropic principle, or might this be one of the key concepts to help tie up the loose ends in the standard model?
Re:Errr.. (Score:1, Interesting)
What is the next paradigm shift? (Score:5, Interesting)
My question is what, if any then, are the areas where we need similar paradigm shifts to answer current outstanding questions? It seems to me, at least, that maybe there aren't any, and today's scientists are left working harder and harder simply to add a few significant digits to existing theories. What are your thoughts?
Re:Dark Matter (Score:3, Interesting)
Dark Matter, as an esoteric, non-euclidian form of matter, is still, IMO, nothing more than the late 20th century equivalent of the luminiferous aether of the 19th century, and merely a convenient algorythmic placeholder, until proven otherwise. Furthermore, without answering either the question on neutrino mass or dark matter, saying we know how the universe is going to end is just so much posturing for marketing's sake, and really poor science.
Re:Universe's container (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not a physicist, but I think it's finite - multiply the age by the speed of light.
That's just the observable Universe, which is indeed bounded by a "horizon" as you say.
The best current indication of the geometry of the Universe, though, is that it's flat, not a 4d analog to the surface of a sphere, which means that it is in fact infinite, or at the least a whole heck of a lot larger than the size of the observable Universe. We can't observe all of that, because light from anything beyond our "horizon" hasn't had time to reach us.
-Rob
variable constants (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't the use of ugly hacks to prop up an established theory in the face of contradictory observations an indicator of a theory which needs to be chucked out en masse and reformulated in the light of a more fundamental description of physics?
Universe Expansion (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm not sure what to think (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Scientists may know
Which brings me nicely to point two: supposing our Brainiacs are right? That's hardly the mystery taken out of everything; questions abound, and always will. Maybe when we're all in our Vorlon-like encounter suits we'll have a decent understanding of the part of the universe that we can see; before then, there'll always be questions.
True Random (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, I'm not really in the mood for another religious flame war, but I am going to respond to this.
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. I suspect you don't really know anything about the science behind Intelligent Design. I suggest you learn something about it before criticizing it.
As for your remark about Creationism, the theory of evolution does not "show it to be unnecessary." For all we know, evolution could be the process by which God chose to create life. If you look carefully at the Biblical account of the Creation, it fits very nicely with what scientists have determined took place over the last ~13 billion years.
For having been written thousands of years ago by a man (Moses) who knew nothing about science, it seems pretty close 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. Many people over time have believed that they were contacted by God or other spiritual beings, though, and I'm sure such people considered this sufficient evidence of his existence; and no, not all of them were crackpots. 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.
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:5, Interesting)
There is NO NEED for intelligent design.
On the contrary: if there was no need for the idea of intelligent design (note that I didn't call it a theory), nobody would've come up with it. It's pretty well-understood that there are a large number of fundamental constants which are balanced just perfectly to allow complex systems to arise in the Universe. This creates a question: how did this perfect balance come to be? Some people feel the need to have an answer, and for these people, ID fills a genuine need.
On the other hand, ID isn't science. Science is concerned with empirical observations and testable hypotheses. You can't empirically test God. Theologically speaking, we can't test God because he exists on such a level beyond us that we can't conceive of a test. (There are many other theological problems with testing God, but leave those alone for now.) And scientifically speaking, God defies all attempts at making testable hypotheses. So either way, you're screwed by introducing ID into a scientific curriculum. If you want to believe in ID, great; just please don't call it science.
Interestingly, the Catholic Church doesn't believe in ID except in a very abstract way. The Catholic Church has, amazingly enough, learned from Galileo and Copernicus and all the rest. Many times in the past the Church said such-and-such a physical phenomenon is the direct handiwork of God, only to have it shown that it's not God's direct handiwork anyway. At that point, what do you do? Redefine God so that "well, God's still directly handling the other things, just not that"? And what happens when natural processes are discovered for the other things?
The Catholic Church has become so cognizant of this that they've assigned it a name: the God Of The Gaps. If every unexplainable instance is attributed to God, the Catholic theology goes, then whenever a previously unexplainable instance is discovered to have an explanation, God's glory is diminished by the explaining.
ID is a God Of The Gaps argument. We don't understand how the finely-balanced nature of the cosmos is possible, therefore God must have done it... well, what happens if/when we discover there's a natural phenomenon behind it?
Re: why I object to ID and CS on theological grounds instead of scientific ones... ID and CS are both theological models of the world. As such, they can't be refuted with science. They stand entirely apart from it.
Re:We need a futures market for futures. (Score:3, Interesting)
You're on [longbets.org]
Re:but the really important question is (Score:3, Interesting)
Effects of multiverse (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Errr.. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a good point you have hidden in there. Wouldn't it be ironic if, despite all the gloom & doom lovers out there, that we all died because of some race even more ignorant than ourselves? Or, perhaps, even more brilliant than ourselves.
Physics and Consciousness (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you think there will be any fruitful (i.e., predictive) experimentation in this matter? Could we someday develop a theory that will unite physics and consciousness?
We don't understand the dark energy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Even when we understand the dark energy it can not be hailed as a triumph above all other discoveries, because we don't know how galaxies form? How massive (primordial?) black holes at the centers of galaxies form? What re-ionized the universe? How even a single star forms?
Unfortunately, this is also a view held by many older astronomers and physicists in academia, because they have pushed so hard for so long for the values of these fundamental parameters.
None the less, the book looks interesting. I always enjoy books about science and scientists. My question for Chris Seife, which is related to his phenomenal statement, is: As a science writer, do you attempt to explain the hard science to people and if so do you feel it is important for scientist to try and explain their work to the public, or is it better to skip the details and just show them pretty pictures and cool stories? We all know that's what gets science funded.
Re:What is the next paradigm shift? (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right, everything important has been discovered. [asu.edu]
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:1, Interesting)
The Apostle Paul said that 'through Adam sin and death came into the world'. If that is not true then none of it is true. Death, of either men or dinasours cannot have occured before Adam's sin in the Garden, because death was part of the curse God placed on man for his sin.
One cannot harmonize the literal Genesis account with Evolution and still retain a need for God, i.e., one cannot dis-believe what Jesus believed and still call ones self a "Christian".
As far as Evolution being a 'science', all it has to do is propose a falsifiable hypothesis which can be used as a test. (Defacto experiments or trivial extrapolations need not apply.) If the most rapid evolutionary model is correct, then it should take no more than 5 to 50,000 years to determine the outcome.
mmmm... maybe the Egyptian Pyramids are a long term experiment testing the hypothesis that men will evolve into gods? After 3,500 years we can say that such is not the case. Maybe we need to let the experiment percolate a little longer. Our egos are god size, we only need to allow our abilities to catch up. In fact, not only can man NOT predict how the Universe will die, he can not reliably predict how much rain I will receive at my house between the hours of 8 and 10 AM next Friday morning.
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:1, Interesting)
Here's how I look at the whole thing: There are too many finely-balanced things happening in the universe that coincide to allow complex systems to exist. In my opinion, saying that these phenomena are all just coincidences is too much of a stretch. I believe that someone had a direct role in their inception. This idea, while hard to comprehend, is a lot more believable to me than the idea that mankind simply "happened" over time, with monkeys acting as source material. It's totally possible for species to evolve, but I defy anyone to explain to me how one species ever evolves into a completely different species.
Assuming that I'm right, and some intelligent entity did create the universe, it's pretty obvious that this entity is far beyond us in every way. "God" would be a pretty good name for this entity. Someone at his level probably knows a heck of a lot more than any of us how things work, science or not. A bunch of scientists digging up monkey skulls and saying stuff like "I don't know how much ID has going for it these days" seem, to me, relatively transient and irrelevant.
I agree, ID is not science. So what? It's what I choose to believe, and so far no one has offered any convincing proof otherwise. Having answered that question for myself, I can move on to other things.
Suppose I'm wrong. I shuffle off this mortal coil someday, go to the "afterlife" (whatever that is), and find a bronze plaque hanging on a post that says "This is the end of the road. Man sprang from toads, and it was all just a big accident. Thank you, drive through." Does it really matter?
Now, suppose I'm right... The Bible talks about a time when everyone answers to God for what they've done. If that's true, and you're standing there then saying , "Well, em, I, uh, was one of those that said you didn't exist, and that the whole universe was just an accident. Sorry about that" and I'm over on the other side of the ditch saying "Sucks to be you!"(in so many words, I probably won't actually say "sucks") Does that matter?
Some say that man invented God to serve as an explanation for the unexplainable. I say that man uses science to invent things to try and explain God away. This allows some the temporary comfort of thinking they don't ultimately have to answer to someone for the things they do.
Re:Why does the rate of expansion change? (Score:2, Interesting)
> 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?
It is a valid point. The Cosmological Standard Model IIRC allows the first and second derivatives to be non-zero, but not the third. In general, almost all differential equations in physics are second or first order.
Maybe thats the reason they dare leave out the third derivative?
disclaimer: IANAC (cosmologist) - IAAPP (particle physicist) though. It has been a couple of years since my cosmology class though...
Beginnings and Endings (Score:1, Interesting)
My question is this: what can you offer in the way of a scholarly critique of Arp's evidence. As you likely know, Arp has images and calculations making it abundantly clear that the redshifts used to determine the age and expansion of the universe are not, in fact, due to receding velocities.The implications for cosmology are profound. In addition, Arp calculates the statistical probabilities (typically 1 in thousands to millions) that the various findings he uses to support his theory are due to chance ("chance occurrence" being the standard reason given for rejecting Arp's articles for publication).
Arp's book is technical and I do not pretend to accurately summarize his extended arguments here. I assume you are aware of his work.
I appreciate any thoughts you have about these issues.
"Fire and Ice" (Score:2, Interesting)
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
-Robert Frost
I liked the parent-parent better. (Score:4, Interesting)
I defy anyone to explain to me how one species ever evolves into a completely different species.
What do you mean by "completely different species"? All it means when a different species appears is that members of the new group are different enough that they can't reproduce with the original species anymore. We still have something like 98% of our DNA exactly like that of a chimp... but our reproductive details are different enough that we can't produce a natural hybrid. It's silly to say we're completely different.
Now, suppose I'm right... The Bible talks about a time when everyone answers to God for what they've done.
Where do you fit in the atheist who volunteers for public services, gives to charities, etc.? There are plenty of people out there who don't believe in God but who follow the same ethical rules as you do, for different reasons.
And where do you fit in people who lived before monotheistic religions were even an option? Are they all still in hell? Poor suckers.
Just my thoughts on this... I think you'll find that the average atheist didn't choose that path to "permit" them to break the rules. For me, at least, all of the human religions that I know about just seem... well, really unlikely. The only idea that comes close is the suggestion that there's some force that started the whole ball rolling... but we know nothing about it, and praying to it or worshipping it as about as useful as praying to my own foot.
I'd probably sleep better if I believed that I would move on to some kind of pleasant afterlife after I die, but I'd rather live my life based on the best assumptions I can come up with -- not the most comfortable ones.
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:1, Interesting)
How do you know we know nothing about it?
A man's mind prepares his way. But the Lord directs his steps.
Human Immortality (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, methods for restoring telomere length, reversing the effects of glucose binding, correcting genetic damage, and promoting the growth of new neurons.
How long do you think life can be extended by these and other methods? And to step briefly away from the science aspect, how do you think the results of this research will be offered to the public? Will it be available as part of the average health plan, or only for the uber-wealthy?
Re:I've been doing some thinking about this lately (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, I flipped a coin 30 times the other day and came out with the following result: HTHHTTTHHTHHTHTTHHTHHTTTHHTHTT
Now I ask you: what is the likelihood of my getting exactly this sequence of heads and tails? And to think I got exactly this, without a single mistake! I can't believe my luck! Clearly the result of divine intervention!
(Message: Be careful trying to apply probability theory when the result is a priori known.)