Relativity and stuff

[OniyaMCD]

For those of you who are Susskind fans, Stanford University has all of his quantum mechanics lectures (several years-worth of 'summer courses for laypeople') uploaded to YouTube. There's also a Stanford Institute of Theoretical Physics channel that has recently carried a series of lectures on Complexity - as seen from both an IT standpoint and from a Physics standpoint. I have spent many an hour listening to both channels - usually while grinding through some Minecraft process that I haven't figured out how to automate yet.

 

[Inaeo]

And here's the only problem I have with every argument for time feeling faster as you get older as a psychological issue. The problem solving process starts with this assumption:



https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/why-does-time-fly-as-we-get-older/

That, IMO, incorrect assumption has led people to justify false conclusions because of the assumption that it's not simply part of nature.

Edit: I don't have the words yet, but I'm running my little theory by everything else I know about the universe and it still fits every single time, pretty snugly. I'm getting more and more confident. I may have a detail or something off that makes it not exact, but at this point, I would be positively shocked if expansion wasn't essentially in the driver's seat for the arrow of time.

I mean, what other universal force out there continues infinitely in one direction? Everything in space rotates. Why don't we rotate in time? Because time is the expansion of the universe accelerating in one direction forever, so much faster than we rotate that it renders that force more or less insignificant.

Incorrect assumptions are often the bane of theorycraft. Unfortunately, until it can be proven that the assumption is indeed incorrect, more layers get built upon the foundations of incorrectness, making it harder to challenge the idea, even with proper evidence.

I listened to a discussion, somewhere along the lines, where a physicist brought up the idea that we, as a planet of scientists, have no idea what we don't know. He challenged that the two universal constants we use to build our entire understanding of physics and the universe are built on the assumption that gravity and the speed of light are, in fact, constant on a universal level. He asked the table how our views would change if we suddenly realized that they weren't truly constant, but it merely seemed that way from our perspective when we began to put the pieces together. The table all got a good laugh in - and then they realized he wasn't joking. The conversation from there on was mostly circular logic and attempts to tell him he had no proof by which to make such assertions, but I found the question interesting.

 

[OniyaMCD]

Incorrect assumptions are often the bane of theorycraft. Unfortunately, until it can be proven that the assumption is indeed incorrect, more layers get built upon the foundations of incorrectness, making it harder to challenge the idea, even with proper evidence.

I listened to a discussion, somewhere along the lines, where a physicist brought up the idea that we, as a planet of scientists, have no idea what we don't know. He challenged that the two universal constants we use to build our entire understanding of physics and the universe are built on the assumption that gravity and the speed of light are, in fact, constant on a universal level. He asked the table how our views would change if we suddenly realized that they weren't truly constant, but it merely seemed that way from our perspective when we began to put the pieces together. The table all got a good laugh in - and then they realized he wasn't joking. The conversation from there on was mostly circular logic and attempts to tell him he had no proof by which to make such assertions, but I found the question interesting.

A question like that is how non-Euclidean geometry became a topic for serious study. 'Yes but what if the fifth postulate isn't true?' 'Ah, Lobachevsky - you kidder!'

 

[SolManX]

Not sure why anyone should be laughing at the idea that 'constants' in physics might only be constant over a region of space. There's a whole branch of physics (string theory) that's at least been considering that possibility. But still, evidence has to exist for any idea to become more than a theory, or for any existing idea to be knocked over.

 

[Inaeo]

This isn't the discussion I mentioned above, but I'm pretty sure it was Rupert Sheldrake who brought up the idea in that discussion. Here is his 'Banned' TEDtalk (not really banned, but labled as unprovable science and removed from the TED website - since returned).

 

[SolManX]

Go to say, it's all a bit strawman.

For example, suggesting that 'science' dogmatically demands that the constants/laws of nature are fixed. See string theory/inflation theory/anthropic principle etc. He's obviously missed that out deliberately as it pretty much calls into question the whole notion of fixed constants of nature.

I couldn't listen to much more after that, I'm afraid.

 

[Drbretto]

Inaeo, I didn't watch the video yet, but I actually understand the theme you're referring to and that he's bringing up, and I'm already pretty sure I know what the issue with it is. I touched on it a little bit upthread when I spoke about simulation theory being essentially religion.

That thought process is false skepticism and actually leads to something extremely (intellectually) dangerous that once you see, you'll be shocked at how much of it you'll see in people on a day to day basis, and is, in fact, the direct enemy of science.

It also grossly misunderstands science, while pretending to be science. Most importantly, science isn't a doctrine, and it's always malleable. If scientists can observe and measure something that contradicts what we think we know, everything gets updated. And, to be more clear, that wouldn't mean we have to throw everything out. It would mean that we are now aware of an additional factor. It wouldn't negate anything else that's been tested and proven, it would co-exist with it.

Going off of that into a journey of the mind sounds like a good thing, and indeed it's a fine line. You need outside the box, creative thinking first in order to know what you're testing for in the first place, but any idea that can't be tested in any way, shape or form actually just leads to a psychological science denial.

The example I gave upthread fits. With Simulation Theory, you can totally ignore the objectivity of all scientific knowledge because those are all experiments taken within the "simulated" world that we live in. All that does is lead to an imagined "truth" outside of that that allows the person to deny science in favor of his own imagination, and that breeds ignorance.

It's totally cool to THINK about those things, btw. I do all the time. It's just really, really important to separate it from science. It is, in fact, religion. Even if it has nothing to do with any kind of god or anything. And this is coming from an extremely science minded individual that will forever remain agnostic on religion (I'll have a huuuuuge post on that one day and it'll blow your damn mind), so it's not closed mindedness. It's just that science is specifically a set principals designed to sift through the ether and find objective truth.

If any god, idea, or simulation theory "other" world sits outside that testable range, then science has nothing to say for or against it. And I'd say it's most likely that the guy you're posting about thinks that scientists specifically deny that possibility because they're blind to the possibilities, not that science simply has no comment because it's simply not testable science and there's no possibility of objectivity. That is why he's banned. Not because he's too radical, but because he fundamentally misunderstands science at the core and continues to refuse to adjust.

 

[Drbretto]

It's important to note, too, that what we refer to as scientific fact is not something that an authority of science tells us to believe and something everyone has to work off of. By design, science has no authority. Everything that is accepted as science has been independently confirmed by other scientists from other angles for centuries. It's objective truth, and it gains consensus over a huge number of years. Not because someone said so, but because the principals of science allow people to find objective truth from all angles, and it all stands up to scrutiny. Not kind of stands up, but stands up exactly, precisely, every single time.

It may start with an idea or a math equation and someone publishes a paper. Or tries to, as they are subject to peer review who poke holes in everything they can. Later, it's tested by independent experimental scientists who would love nothing more than to prove every case wrong. Everything about them wants to prove it wrong. After much testing by multiple independent outlets, more papers are published and run through peer review processes. And then, after 20-30 years, MAYBE it'll gain scientific consensus.

 

[SolManX]

It's really nice to be able to totally agree with someone.

By the way, I'm absolutely not adverse to people speculating about things like consciousness, the nature of reality, etc or questioning current thought. I do get a little bugged though by people who want to equate science and the scientific method with belief. As Drbretto said, very eloquently, science is by definition the things we don't have to believe since we can test the belief out of them.

Of course there's always going to be stuff on the periphery, that's either still pure speculation or hasn't been tested yet or not enough but that has to be expected, required.

My only worry is sometimes the language scientists use when dealing with the general public/press. For example, inflationary theory has been around since the seventies, but it's only recently (with the detection of gravitational waves) that any chance of testing the theory has become remotely possible. Yet if you heard some scientists talk about inflation, you'd think it was already a done deal. It's not a problem when they're talking amongst themselves as they have enough understanding to not have to bother to be so careful, but a lot more care should be taken for those outside.

Another interesting misconception is that scientists always want to maintain consensus. Actually, the contrary is often true. No-one's going to make a name for themselves just peddling the existing theories and ideas. A good example of that is the number of physicists who were really hoping that the Higgs boson wouldn't be discovered as that would mean a whole rethink of the standard model would have have to be done.

 

[Drbretto]

I liken science and belief to a connect the dots picture. Science is the dots, belief is how you connect them. The only time where the belief is a problem is when new dots appear, and you ignore them because you're too stuck on your own artwork to adjust the picture.

And my picture has long since started to predict future dots. I'm seeing things pretty clearly lately.

 

[Drbretto]

It's really nice to be able to totally agree with someone.

By the way, I'm absolutely not adverse to people speculating about things like consciousness, the nature of reality, etc or questioning current thought. I do get a little bugged though by people who want to equate science and the scientific method with belief. As Drbretto said, very eloquently, science is by definition the things we don't have to believe since we can test the belief out of them.

Of course there's always going to be stuff on the periphery, that's either still pure speculation or hasn't been tested yet or not enough but that has to be expected, required.

My only worry is sometimes the language scientists use when dealing with the general public/press. For example, inflationary theory has been around since the seventies, but it's only recently (with the detection of gravitational waves) that any chance of testing the theory has become remotely possible. Yet if you heard some scientists talk about inflation, you'd think it was already a done deal. It's not a problem when they're talking amongst themselves as they have enough understanding to not have to bother to be so careful, but a lot more care should be taken for those outside.

Another interesting misconception is that scientists always want to maintain consensus. Actually, the contrary is often true. No-one's going to make a name for themselves just peddling the existing theories and ideas. A good example of that is the number of physicists who were really hoping that the Higgs boson wouldn't be discovered as that would mean a whole rethink of the standard model would have have to be done.

Yes!

Imagination and creativity are where scientific ideas are born. Not all science has to be rigid and mathematical. That is a side of science that really needs to be more known, because the prevailing assumption that it's the opposite is turning people away.

Edit: But at the same time, they need to proceed with caution and understanding of the scientific method or it can get out of control.

 

[OniyaMCD]

Even math is flexible and evolving - you go to kindergarten, and one of the first things they tell you is you can't take a bigger number away from a smaller number. Somewhere around third grade - hey! Negative numbers! Then they tell you that you can't divide by zero. What do you know - the entirety of calculus revolves around dividing by zero! Square root of a negative number is a big no-no until you hit complex analysis. And of course, the aforementioned non-Euclidean geometries.

(May have gotten a little carried away there. I like making the numbers dance. >_> )

 

[Drbretto]

I'll say you didn't get carried away enough! lol

Take all that, and also add in that the methods they teach for doing math also evolve. Kids these days subtract differently than the way most of us did in school. Crazily enough, though, that's the same way I personally have always done subtraction.

But, the important thing to note is, that while thing evolve and expand in math, 1 + 1 still always equals 2, and that goes for the rest. And the same goes for science.

 

[SolManX]

What do you know - the entirety of calculus revolves around dividing by zero!

Hope I don't come across as pedant but that's not actually true. You divide by a number as close as you like to zero, but not zero.

 

[triggerfinger12]

It's like trying to put 5 into zero groups. You can't do it.

 

[Inaeo]

Unrelated, mostly, but any Apple user should ask Siri what zero divided by zero is. I found the answer quite entertaining.

 

[Drbretto]

It's like trying to put 5 into zero groups. You can't do it.

To be fair, they probably said that about the square roots of negative numbers. Then someone was like, eh, it's ok, I'll just make up imaginary numbers instead. And everyone else was like "ok, that totally makes sense".

Or it could just be impossible. I dunno.

 

[triggerfinger12]

Have you ever tried?

Also, inverse powers were made up, so were regular powers.

 

[SolManX]

There are ways to incorporate division by zero into number systems (the extended real line maybe - would have to check to be sure) but these systems have limited uses and applications. For real and complex numbers there just is no definable meaning - or use - to dividing a number into zero portions.

Whereas square roots of negative numbers arise naturally from trying to solve even quite simple equations like x^2 + 1 = 0. They do have meaning and uses across wide swathes of maths and physics. It's similar to how irrational numbers arise very naturally from simple equations like x^2 = 2.

 

[Drbretto]

Have you ever tried?

Yes. I divided by zero, had a seizure and for a brief moment I could contemplate infinity. It might have also been the weed.