Jump to content
Science Forums

Geometry As A Unifying Idea


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Very true and an extreme example of this is string theory.  Billions in valuable but limited research funds have been spent on it over the last several decades.   For years it dominated the field, and

The idea that all SPIRAL galaxies have or had supermassive black holes is intriguing and could explain dark matter effects, MAYBE. We will wait and see. the amount of work involved in testing such a t

Most cosmologists take the electroweak symmetry breaking as the same phase as the inflation.

 

Most lose that argument when put to test :) Inflation of space ftl precedes hot big bang, and caused hot big bang. 

 

An interesting get around for singularities is CCC and Aeons by Penrose as g > 0 expansion accelerates creating another inflation phase and another hot big bang ie no beginning of time unless you mean in this Aeon :)

 

The more I try and find arguments against emergence of space time and gravity the more I am tending to buy into the ideas. An interesting outcome of emergent theories is they don't appear to require all the dimensions of string theory to explain things :sherlock:  Theoretical and never detected gravitons and dark matter are not required  :shocked: Which enables other theories to rapidly kicked into touch when they try to invoke them, which makes me very suspicious of string theory which needs gravitons :zip: and a pre existing space time :eek: in some versions, but not all

Edited by Flummoxed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most lose that argument when put to test :) Inflation of space ftl precedes hot big bang, and caused hot big bang. 

 

An interesting get around for singularities is CCC and Aeons by Penrose as g > 0 expansion accelerates creating another inflation phase and another hot big bang ie no beginning of time unless you mean in this Aeon :)

 

The more I try and find arguments against emergence of space time and gravity the more I am tending to buy into the ideas. An interesting outcome of emergent theories is they don't appear to require all the dimensions of string theory to explain things :sherlock:  Theoretical and never detected gravitons and dark matter are not required  :shocked: Which enables other theories to rapidly kicked into touch when they try to invoke them, which makes me very suspicious of string theory which needs gravitons :zip: and a pre existing space time :eek: in some versions, but not all

 

 

Well in an expanding universe g > 0 had to be the state of the universe otherwise how would you explain Dark Energy just as Λ > 0 , In a universe where there was no dark Energy I do not think there would be gravity because of the nature of dark energy as a kinda inverse to gravity somehow Dark Energy and Gravitation are connected via time-space, it is possible that Dark Energy is the conclusive force of the BB where as Gravity is the system trying to reach equilibrium like in thermodynamics. Dark Energy usually is in behavior like a negative mass to the reference point of all gravitation-ally interacting objects or "Massive" objects. Dark Energy is a manifestation of Λ > 0 just as Gravitation is a manifestation of G > 0. Big G being the absolute force of gravity just as  Λ being the absolute force of dark energy, if Dark energy has a force it should be treated like gravity. What if Dark Energy is Anti-Gravitons?

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this talk strikes me as nothing more than metaphysical speculation.  Many of the various  premises invoked are completely without empirical support and beyond the scope of falsification.   It's a product of perhaps brilliant, but still basically only creative, minds.  So much of it is simply ad hoc.

 

The greeks, in their creation myths involving the development of their various Gods, and their biographies, were much more entertaining than all of this speculation which goes by the misnomer of "physics."  If you want to embark on a journey of creative art, it should at least be entertaining, I figure.  

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true that gravity is not a real force and knowing this....

 

To me, the metaphysical speculation enters ab initio. 

 

"Spacetime" may be a useful mathematical fiction, but the whole concept in one that I regard as just that, i.e. fictitious.

 

Yet so many start with the assumption/conclusion that it "truly" represents something "real" which is absolutely "known."

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this talk strikes me as nothing more than metaphysical speculation.  Many of the various  premises invoked are completely without empirical support and beyond the scope of falsification.  

 

 

Would you like to expand on this, which of the many ideas put forward are beyond the scope of falsification? 

 

None provable might be more accurate, but definitely not beyond the scope of speculation, although we might be beyond the scope of the OP "Geometry as a unifying idea".

 

How can the universe arise from geometry. In the beginning likely there was the HUP. Which maybe provides the driving force for expanding space time dimensions plus maybe some more.  

 

Accepted standard model of the original big bang has slowly changed over the years, but people still talk about the Big Bang as if it came from some mathematically derived point in space. Which it is now apparent it did not. The best curve fit, for the available data currently appears to be a period of inflation causing big bang. Does anyone have a better idea? Penrose is still pushing his idea on CCC, which might well be unprovable, although he thinks he has found new evidence to support his claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you like to expand on this, which of the many ideas put forward are beyond the scope of falsification? 

 

 

Where to even start?  Without trying to compile some exhaustive list, many accept the theory that multiple, even infinite, alternative "universes" were generated with the big bang.   How ya ever gunna disprove that?

 

I've heard it said that we would need to build a particle accelerator with a diameter larger than the entire solar system to even try to disconfirm elements of string theory.  Anyone who wants to claim that this makes the theory "falsifiable" has my  sympathy.  Of course even within the contents of the theory, there are seemingly an infinite number of configurations which all predict the same result.  Which one of these would be "confirmed" by any given experiment, even assuming such was possible?

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where to even start?  Without trying to compile some exhaustive list, many accept the theory that multiple, even infinite, alternative "universes" were generated with the big bang.   How ya ever gunna disprove that?

 

Emergent space time does not allow multiverses. The thing about multiverses and any discussion of weird theories, they need proof, there is no proof of multiverses so likely they are bollocks or a failing in string theory which predicts them. Penrose's theory of CCC does not need multiverses or beginnings of time, he thinks he may have new proof validating his theory, but like any new idea, without proof, its bollocks. The original proof he had 10 years ago, was shown to be none conclusive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...he thinks he may have new proof validating his theory...

 

 

Whatever "evidence" he thinks he may have, it certainly does not constitute "proof."  Like the rest of them, you can't really eliminate the possibility of "emergent gravity and spacetime" by any known empirical test.

 

Some may find this theory more satisfying, others may prefer theories which presuppose multi-verses, all depending on how they think it fits in with other components of view which they currently fancy.

 

Some of the medieval scholastic philosophers may have had better arguments to support their particular conclusion about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin than others.  That didn't make it "science," though.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever "evidence" he thinks he may have, it certainly does not constitute "proof."  Like the rest of them, you can't really eliminate the possibility of "emergent gravity and spacetime" by any known empirical test.

 

Some may find this theory more satisfying, others may prefer theories which presuppose multi-verses, all depending on how they think it fits in with other components of view which they currently fancy.

 

Some of the medieval scholastic philosophers may have had better arguments to support their particular conclusion about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin than others.  That didn't make it "science," though.

 

Its a candy store of ideas, with each one we learn a bit more. Its just a case of keeping an open mind, and trying out new ideas as they come along.  

 

Medieval Philosophers tried to make sense of their world, based on what they were allowed to think. A flat earth society still exists. Just looking at the horizon Philosophers were able to ascertain the world was round, but religion declared these scholars to be heretics, until they took the philosophical position, that being out of prison on a flat earth, is better than accepting reality of the spherical earth and staying in Prison. Religion has nothing to do with science, and angels dancing on the head of a pin assumes angels exist, can dance, have some form of shape etc etc. Religious belief in a thing has held back science in the past, and it holds back some peoples understanding today. Creationism for example a part of some old testament beliefs, the world came into existence 10000 years ago. I wonder how emergent spacetime correlates with peoples religious views. 

 

This thread is about geometry, lets try and stay on topic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 I wonder how emergent spacetime correlates with peoples religious views.  

 

Bottom line, emergent spacetime appears to take the position that mind (information) precedes matter.  Possible, but unfalsifable.  But one could certainly read some religious overtones into this, if they were so inclined.  By the way, "geometry" is involved here.  It's a matter of two dimensions "creating" a third one.

 

What is mind?  No matter.  What is matter?  Nevermind.  (Bertrand Russell)

 

 

Maybe it's one or the other, maybe not.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line, emergent spacetime appears to take the position that mind (information) precedes matter.  Possible, but unfalsifable.  But one could certainly read some religious overtones into this, if they were so inclined.  By the way, "geometry" is involved here.  It's a matter of two dimensions "creating" a third one.

 

 

Maybe it's one or the other, maybe not.

 

Its more to do with what space really is and how it unfolds. How many dimensions required to model reality satisfactorily, is all about geometry.

 

Bottom line is how the did we get here from the big bang, theories have changed over the years, and newer maybe more plausible ones keep on coming :) Its all smoke and mirrors, reflections of reality, from which we construct our understandings of the universe.  We hints of other dimensions with the ER=EPR conjecture, particles sharing the same wave functions separated by space. Its a question of how much do you believe the math, and how close to modelling/explaining reality is it.

Edited by Flummoxed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its more to do with what space really is and how it unfolds. How many dimensions required to model reality satisfactorily, is all about geometry.

 

Bottom line is how the did we get here from the big bang, theories have changed over the years, and newer maybe more plausible ones keep on coming :) Its all smoke and mirrors, reflections of reality, from which we construct our understandings of the universe.  We hints of other dimensions with the ER=EPR conjecture, particles sharing the same wave functions separated by space. Its a question of how much do you believe the math, and how close to modelling/explaining reality is it.

 

Math is just a modeling tool, if you can math it in a certain way that doesn't mean it actually works that way, we model the universe but that doesn't mean the math explains the actual nature of the system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Math is just a modeling tool, if you can math it in a certain way that doesn't mean it actually works that way, we model the universe but that doesn't mean the math explains the actual nature of the system.

 

 

Very astute, Vic.  It's a shame that so many people don't seem to realize that.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

 but that also doesn't mean the math never explains the actual nature of the system which mathaphobes don't seem to realize. It depends on your skill with the tool. Math is, after all,  the language of the universe, I don't think it speaks or understands English very well. Things get lost in translation.

Edited by ralfcis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...