Split from Philosophy, Science. Reality

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

And how exactly do you propose that Dr. Krauss show his model is valid?

 

He figures that reality popped into existence from nothing out of the false vacuum in pairs of opposite energy, thus maintaining a zero energy situation (although some little tiny bit of energy had to be the seed, which invalidates the theory, theorectically)

?

Suppose my model is that there must be conservation of space, and if space bulges out here it has to compress over there, and reality did not come into existence in one set of pairs but instead six sets of pairs (like the 12 sections of the sphere.)

How do we decide which of us is correct? Which is the true thing? Which is the real thing? Who is right?

The universe has to be right, so we can check with the universe and see which model works...but how? It is a philosophical question, more than a scientific question.

Inflation violates the conservation of space law, so obviously no scientist would subscribe to Dr. Krauss' model.

The Almadine Garnet Is a real example of how space is arranged in the fashion I describe.

 

Do I have more real proof of the validity of my model than Dr. Krauss? He has to, in his mental thought experiment, violate the speed of light limit to make his model work. And the speed of light is empirically established as the limit the universe has. I do not think he can both do science, and have this "there be the dragons" area of his model. And have the model be empirically valid.

 

 

Then show that your model is valid.


No, but you have to actually do science to be a scientist.

 

I have already proven that we are all, just by being human, point of consciousness entities, already doing science. You have no claim toward being a special breed of human.

 

Regards, TAR

Nor, according to my model is any human able to view the entire universe at once, as one model (except in the exact way, we really do when we gaze into the night sky.) It violates the common sense law.

Edited June 23, 2017 by tar

[Mordred]

Krauss applied qunatum field theory in all its glory. Including full mathematical accuracy. He didn't guess without applying mathematics.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Mordred

[tar]

Suppose my model aligns with the Big Crunch followed by the Big Bang bevy of models, which would not require a "from nothing" assumption.

 

The whole deal is more in the realm of philosophy than science. Science being the noticing of how reality actually behaves, actually fits together, actually works. You can notice a different piece of reality from a different angle and have a different point of view than another human, but nobody has a monopoly on being able to do science. And once somebody notices a fact about reality and reports that fact to others, and the others believe the fact to be true, well then you have the explorer/tourist situation, but it does not take the fact away from the tourist.

[Mordred]

That would be easy to show in mathematics. Far too often those with personal theories do not know the essential step.

 

mathematical model

[tar]

Krauss applied qunatum field theory in all its glory. Including full mathematical accuracy. He didn't guess without applying mathematics.

 

So exactly how fast was inflation?

[Mordred]

Over 10^60 efolds which is also a specific formula. That is the minimal number to solve the horizon problem.

 

If I recall Krauss model had inflation at 10^60.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Mordred

[tar]

what is an efold? is that a real thing? Or a mathematical device?

[Mordred]

A doubling of volume in a short rate of time.

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

And how exactly do you propose that Dr. Krauss show his model is valid?

 

I wasn't talking about him. I was talking about you. And since you referred to me as part of the discussion, I didn't think you were talking about cosmology, since I have no model to offer. I thought you were talking about your model of science vs reality since that's the topic of this thread.

 

I have already proven that we are all, just by being human, point of consciousness entities, already doing science. You have no claim toward being a special breed of human.

Proven? Somehow I missed where you have "proven" anything of the sort.

[tar]

That would be easy to show in mathematics. Far too often those with personal theories do not know the essential step.

 

mathematical model

 

I was not actually proposing a theory. I was using an on the spot model to put up against Dr. Krauss' as being of equal standing in terms of correlation to reality.

A doubling of volume in a short rate of time.

 

What exact amount of time? What is the mechanism that causes this doubling? What gets doubled? If before an efold there was 16 cubic Planks of Space, and after the efold there were 32, what physically happens to the 16 quarks that resided each in the center of a cubic Plank? Are there still 16 quarks but now they are further apart?

[dimreepr]

Stop digging 'tar' it gets hot down there.

We're layman FFS, we seldom know more than experts, despite our intelligence.

[tar]

dimreepr,

 

I will stop. My question was, in regards to the thread, whether different branches of science had different levels of empirical evidence available and applied.

 

I was not putting myself up against SwansonT, I was putting a cosmologist (Dr. Krauss) up against a quantum physicist (SwansonT) for comparison, as to the philosophy/science content of each discipline.

 

But I will stop. I see my question isn't being considered and only my poor ranking as a mathematician is being discussed.

 

Regards, TAR

Leaving just this last thought. What is the second derivative of a cow?

Edited June 23, 2017 by tar

[swansont]

dimreepr,

 

I will stop. My question was, in regards to the thread, whether different branches of science had different levels of empirical evidence available and applied.

 

I was not putting myself up against SwansonT, I was putting a cosmologist (Dr. Krauss) up against a quantum physicist (SwansonT) for comparison, as to the philosophy/science content of each discipline.

 

From my perspective you failed miserably. Where did you present Krauss's position on this matter?

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

My answer is immaterial, I was after your answer to the question of whether there is a different philosophy/science content to different branches of science .

 

Regards, TAR

I am a lay person, math challenged, I don't count in the discussion.

[dimreepr]

dimreepr,

 

I will stop. My question was, in regards to the thread, whether different branches of science had different levels of empirical evidence available and applied.

 

Sometimes, there is no empirical evidence, all they can do is imply, from the available evidence.

 

Edit-Xposted.

Edited June 23, 2017 by dimreepr

[Strange]

Where Lawrence Krauss goes wrong, in my estimation, is when he thinks, or knows, that his model is superior to mine.

 

 

It is not really about one model being "superior" to another (however you are defining that). It is more that the mental models you are describing, that we all create as a way of navigating the world, are informal, fuzzy and changeable from moment to moment. They can, however, for the basis for formalised and testable models. The latter become the basis of science. So the only way that science is "superior" is that it is a methodology that is formalised, rigorous and tested. None of which applies to our mental models.

[Mordred]

What is standing for what? Is the speed of light taken as 1? In which case, you just took reality right out of the equation.

 

 

 

Regards, TAR

Obviously never heard of normalized units. You set one as c then velocity of measurement as a percentage or ratio of 1.

 

What is wrong with doing that instead of dealing with huge numbers under scientific notation? You will end up with precisely the same answer if you do it correct.

 

Simple rules of ratios.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Mordred

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

My answer is immaterial, I was after your answer to the question of whether there is a different philosophy/science content to different branches of science .

 

 

 

An interesting way of going about it.

 

My answer is this: Probably?

 

I can only answer you as an experimental atomic physicist. Even within physics there would be some difference in philosophy content; my observation is that theorists tend towards more, and those working on foundational issues tend toward the most (even if this is still not a lot) My own attitude is that philosophers have yet to show that they have any impact on how I adjust my optics to get an experiment working.

 

Other fields? You'd have to ask them.

[tar]

 

 

An interesting way of going about it.

 

My answer is this: Probably?

 

I can only answer you as an experimental atomic physicist. Even within physics there would be some difference in philosophy content; my observation is that theorists tend towards more, and those working on foundational issues tend toward the most (even if this is still not a lot) My own attitude is that philosophers have yet to show that they have any impact on how I adjust my optics to get an experiment working.

 

Other fields? You'd have to ask them.

 

SwansonT,

 

Well thank you for the answer. Sorry I put you into the QED category, when maybe you are more in the collider field...

 

But that does raise a question I have had since high school chemistry about the "reality" of "seeing" a particle go off in one spiral or another after a collision by noticing a trail of ionization. Is not the ionization happening on a scale much different from the scale in which the particle is to be modeled? That is, you might be able to see the path a mouse is taking through a crowd, by noticing the reaction of the startled people from high above, but you don't actually see the mouse, or know what effect the people had on the mouse's path.

 

Regards, TAR

[beecee]

 

Proven? Somehow I missed where you have "proven" anything of the sort.

In my experience with science forums, those that continually raise the "proven" aspect of science, are eventually shown to have an agenda of sorts.

Stop digging 'tar' it gets hot down there.

We're layman FFS, we seldom know more than experts, despite our intelligence.

And while science forums such as this and others remain open to any and all Tom, Dick, and Harry's. [as they should] that will always be the case.

Those that matter, those that spend a good proportion of their lives studying cosmology/astrophysics, with their heads down and arses up, at the coal face, will always be the ones that advance all scientific disciplines, as opposed to idle conversations/debates on public forums.

Edited June 23, 2017 by beecee

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

Well thank you for the answer. Sorry I put you into the QED category, when maybe you are more in the collider field...

 

 

Don't know what I said to make you think that.

 

But that does raise a question I have had since high school chemistry about the "reality" of "seeing" a particle go off in one spiral or another after a collision by noticing a trail of ionization. Is not the ionization happening on a scale much different from the scale in which the particle is to be modeled? That is, you might be able to see the path a mouse is taking through a crowd, by noticing the reaction of the startled people from high above, but you don't actually see the mouse, or know what effect the people had on the mouse's path.

 

Regards, TAR

Yes, that's a fair assessment. Direct observation is not a requirement to know an effect is real. But there's also a limit to what information you can get. Can you be sure it's a mouse, or is it some other small rodent?

[tar]

Right. Bad overthink on my part. Perhaps you are more ​​on the QED side, involved in quantum measurements as discussed in this paper from Oregon, 2009.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0901.0951.pdf

 

Glossing over the paper's math, and reading some of the introduction and conclusions and internal thought processes, I would say the scientists involved in the work that surrounded the measurements taken during the construction of this paper, were as concerned with the meaning of information and thought experiments as they were with the behavior of the particles themselves.

[beecee]

 

Proven? Somehow I missed where you have "proven" anything of the sort.

In my experience with science forums, those that continually raise the "proven" aspect of science, are eventually shown to have an agenda of sorts.

 

Stop digging 'tar' it gets hot down there.

We're layman FFS, we seldom know more than experts, despite our intelligence.

And while science forums such as this and others remain open to any and all Tom, Dick, and Harry's. [as they should] that will always be the case.

Those that matter, those that spend a good proportion of their lives studying cosmology/astrophysics, with their heads down and arses up, at the coal face, will always be the ones that advance all scientific disciplines, as opposed to idle conversations/debates on public forums.

Let me add......If I really had any question re the validity or otherwise of current scientific theory, based on current observation, or if I had formulated another hypothetical model that imo was superior, I would be doing my best to brush up on all current cosmology/astrophysics, [i don't believe anyone can have a genuine theory if they are ignorant on what the current incumbent models claim] and then going through the proper circles and submitting a paper for appropriate peer review.

We do not have complete knowledge of the universe as yet, but what we have achieved since the beginning of the 20th century, up to today, is extraordinary imo.

Arguing against current knowledge and how we observe the universe, because of any personal agenda, or because of some philosophical reality, is not really going to achieve anything.

Edited June 23, 2017 by beecee