Hawking Glitch or what!?

[IamJoseph]

SPOT THE GLITCH:

Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story'In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the cosmologist shares his thoughts on death, M-theory, human purpose and our chance existence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven

In the interview, Hawking rejected the notion of life beyond death and emphasised the need to fulfil our potential on Earth by making good use of our lives. In answer to a question on how we should live, he said, simply: "We should seek the greatest value of our action."


His talk will focus on M-theory, a broad mathematical framework that encompasses string theory, which is regarded by many physicists as the best hope yet of developing a theory of everything.

M-theory demands a universe with 11 dimensions, including a dimension of time and the three familiar spatial dimensions. The rest are curled up too small for us to see.

Evidence in support of M-theory might also come from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Cern, the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva.

One possibility predicted by M-theory is supersymmetry, an idea that says fundamental particles have heavy – and as yet undiscovered – twins, with curious names such as selectrons and squarks.

Confirmation of supersymmetry would be a shot in the arm for M-theory and help physicists explain how each forces at work in the universe arose from one super-force at the dawn of time.

Another potential discovery at the LHC, that of the elusive Higgs boson, which is thought to give mass to elementary particles, might be less welcome to Hawking, who has a long-standing bet that the long-sought entity will never be found at the laboratory.

Hawking will join other speakers at the London event, including the chancellor, George Osborne, and the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

Science, truth and beauty: Hawking's answers
What is the value in knowing "Why are we here?"

The universe is governed by science. But science tells us that we can't solve the equations, directly in the abstract. We need to use the effective theory of Darwinian natural selection of those societies most likely to survive. We assign them higher value.

You've said there is no reason to invoke God to light the blue touchpaper. Is our existence all down to luck?

Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in.

So here we are. What should we do?

We should seek the greatest value of our action.

You had a health scare and spent time in hospital in 2009. What, if anything, do you fear about death?

I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.

What are the things you find most beautiful in science?

Science is beautiful when it makes simple explanations of phenomena or connections between different observations. Examples include the double helix in biology, and the fundamental equations of physics."

It is a common, fundamental science glitch to all science discussing a finite universe:

In the talk, he will argue that tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged.

In the beginning there cannot be fluctuations - because these are the result of impacting interactions with other things which have yet not emerged. Note how he evades the pivotal question of what causes fluctuations of a first entity in a finite realm! Like Dawkins, Hawlings is talking about a man driving a car - before the car appears. Starting at a cozy, later mid-point as a beginning is a slight of hand casino science.

Check mate - or correct me!

[Fuqin]

In the beginning there cannot be fluctuations

well that’s wrong ,cause there was!! , and what Should it be ? Should it be a priori that a perfect geometry is The natural state of affairs ? as if geometry mattered to anything else other than number crunching or pattern readers.
Hay uniformity is a human abstract , the universe tells us very different and often counterintuitive explanation, why! is a mystery and I guess that’s what attracts folks to place like these, but you asserting a perfect model drawn from an imperfect mind , it doesn’t cut for me.

[IamJoseph]

well that’s wrong ,cause there was!! , and what Should it be ?

All depends which universe we are talking about. There are only two kinds: an infinite or a finite. I position myself in the latter kind. Here, Hawkins is talking of a primodial first entity, be it an atom, quark or particle does not matter, as long as it is 'first' - meaning indevisble and irreducible, else it is not a first entity.

In this scenario, how can a fluctuation occur? Give an example. Consider that there is nothing else but that sole, lone entity - nothing to interact with. If a fluctuation is the result of internal interactions - it violates the finite factor, meaning it was not a first singular entity; the same principle applies to an external interaction - it cannot occur, nothing else exists. Here, no bang or expansion can happen. This is the issue which I see as a glitch in the BBT.

[Lincoln]

I'm sorry, but your criticism reflects a substantial misunderstanding of the current state of affairs. You have committed the sin of literalism.

There is no unique beginning from a single, mathematically-perfect, pointlike singularity. This is (literally) incredible. But no scientist would claim this to be true. The best you might get is someone who claims that it is what a theory says. But the theory has been known to be a cartoon for some 80 years.

Further, even >>IF<< the cartoon Big Bang theory you're arguing against were true, there can be quantum fluctuations brief instants after the start of the expansion which are subsequently locked in by inflation. So, even under this unphysical scenario (which is consistent with a theory taken to the extreme,) quantum fluctuations present in the early universe can seed the cosmos.

Now you're new here and I might be wrong, but I've spoken to hundreds of BBT critics. Thus far, 100% of them are arguing against a cartoon theory that is known to be wrong to scientists. I also note that many of the critics have spent so long arguing against a theory that isn't even an accurate representation of what modern science says that they are unwilling to stop fighting and understand what the modern body of scientific knowledge actually says.

I'm not saying you're one of them and time will tell. But judging from what you are posting here, I strongly, strongly, strongly advise you to put aside the cartoon you're arguing against, and learn what the theory actually says, how it's known to be incomplete, and the basic thinking by modern science as to how one might fix it.

Because if your premise is "the singularity of a trite understanding of the Big Bang Theory predicts absurd things," well that's right, but you're some 80 years too late for it to be news to anyone.

[IamJoseph]

I'm sorry, but your criticism reflects a substantial misunderstanding of the current state of affairs. You have committed the sin of literalism.

There is no unique beginning from a single, mathematically-perfect, pointlike singularity. This is (literally) incredible. But no scientist would claim this to be true. The best you might get is someone who claims that it is what a theory says. But the theory has been known to be a cartoon for some 80 years.

Further, even >>IF<< the cartoon Big Bang theory you're arguing against were true, there can be quantum fluctuations brief instants after the start of the expansion which are subsequently locked in by inflation. So, even under this unphysical scenario (which is consistent with a theory taken to the extreme,) quantum fluctuations present in the early universe can seed the cosmos.

Now you're new here and I might be wrong, but I've spoken to hundreds of BBT critics. Thus far, 100% of them are arguing against a cartoon theory that is known to be wrong to scientists. I also note that many of the critics have spent so long arguing against a theory that isn't even an accurate representation of what modern science says that they are unwilling to stop fighting and understand what the modern body of scientific knowledge actually says.

I'm not saying you're one of them and time will tell. But judging from what you are posting here, I strongly, strongly, strongly advise you to put aside the cartoon you're arguing against, and learn what the theory actually says, how it's known to be incomplete, and the basic thinking by modern science as to how one might fix it.

Because if your premise is "the singularity of a trite understanding of the Big Bang Theory predicts absurd things," well that's right, but you're some 80 years too late for it to be news to anyone.

Whuah! Its me who says the BBT cannot be possible [a cartoon]. So the issue is, you uphold fluctuations at the start up point of a finite realm as possible and pivotal. I disagree. The preamble of a finite universe must first be agreed or rejected, and you did not say where you stand here.

To cut to the chase, do you uphold or reject that a finite realm must have a primal first singular entity [a ONE'], namely an indevisible and irreducible factor. A negative response here only pushes the goal post further and will demand a decision later.

My theory is:

1. There is no ONE in the universe. Technically.

2. The universe began with a minimum of two [a 'DUALITY], with all parts pre-programmed and interactive-friendly. E.g. Nitrogen will not combine with oxygen to form water.

IMHO, the duality factor has no alternatives.

[Lincoln]

All I'm saying is the limitations of a singularity preceding the Big Bang has been known fo 80 years. It's not new, even if you worked it out independently. Beyond that, I can't make heads or tails what you're talking about. A more colloquial writing style would be helpful.

[Robert Rudzinski]

Question/ Clarification.....

1) Singularity. Am I correct in assuming that a singularity is defined as a point in space which is infinitely small and dimensionless?

2) Does quantum physics not define the Plank Space as the smallest unit of space possible which can not be broken down any further or even subdivied. This would technically be a cubic Plank length.

3) Wouldn't a cubic Plank Length be infinitely larger than a singularity?



A Black hole would be defined by one theoretical dimension, the size of it's Event Horizon which would be the area of which noting, not even light can escape. Inside the Event horizon we have NO idea as to what exists. It is proposed that there may be an Inner Horizon which could be the actual space which is occupied by the mass/matter within a black hole. Many theories exist which postulate that the inner horizon is a singularity.

Doesn't quantum physics deny the possible existence of a singularity?


What would prevent there to exist another phase of matter..... black hole material... Which would occupy some proportional volume inside the event horizon such that.... lets says the outer radius of the event horizon is 1 mile out, the black hole material would have a radius of 1/2 mile and would technically be no special magical substance which defies the law of physics?

[Lincoln]

1. Yes

2. Not quite. It is the smallest length for which we can have any expectation of our laws of physics apply.

3. Yes.

Actually, there is some recent work (see the June issue of Discover Magazine) regarding what is inside a black hole.

Quantum physics breaks down inside a black hole, however, the concept of quantum mechanics (discrete space) is quite at odds with the concepts of relativity (continuous space). The two are incompatible.

Last paragraph...hard to say. Probably the idea is wrong (simply because most ideas are wrong,) but that is a region with which we are ignorant. So maybe. However it is far more likely that something even weirder still is going on in that domain.

[Robert Rudzinski]

From #2. Is it not one of the premises of Quanta that one unit, be it a photon, a plank unit etc. exists as the smallest undivisable unit possible?
Mathematics would allow scalar quantities to be notated in infinitely small quantities, you can always add another digit before or after a decimmal point.

The laws of physics breakdown inside a black hole because we interject the assumption that such a singularity exists where space equals zero. I would contend that we can not every truely understand the VOID, and not the vaccum, the void being what exists before creation(not a godly creation), My contention is that a true void is undefinable space where quantum fluctuations cease to exist removing all sence of distance or time.
Seems like everyone is hung up on the existence of a singularity. If a singularity doesn't exist then the laws of physics never break down.

[Lincoln]

Sort of. You're pushing some popularization concepts a little far, but only a little.

A Planck length is the "natural length." We don't really know what happens at the Planck length or the Planck energy. In fact, there are credible theories that suggest that the Planck length is a conceptually-flawed concept. The classical interpretation of the Planck length is "scale below which we do not believe the normal laws of physics apply." However, note that this is a pretty squishy concept and not one you should take seriously.

Second paragraph...I'll avoid the quasi-philosophy, but the rest of your statement is probably not correct. The singularity is math's way of saying "try again." However, long, long, long, before you actually encounter a mathematical singularity, it is extremely likely that some physical phenomenon not yet discovered will come into play.

The world is likely more complicated than you're making out to be.

[Robert Rudzinski]

Forgive me, I am simply an arm chair physicist.

Can you recommend any good literature which delves into the co0ncepts of vaccum or true void. I find this fascinating, is there any research being done on the amount of energy or negative energy needed to create real space, space which we are familiar with that is subject to quantum behavior out of a true void? Any theory on the rate at which the propagation of the creation of real space might travel out of a void.
Anything on the possibilities of human being ever being able to create a true void?

I believe that this is just one important element in creation which modern science has just begun to expound upon.
I just finished nothing by Frank Close and I am hungy for more.

[Lincoln]

There is no need to apologize. Your questions are normal and sensible.

However, the short answer is "probably no." The simple fact is that we scientists don't know the answers to your questions.

I am not so sure precisely what you mean by "a true void," but the quantum nature of space is not understood. I can tell you about quantum foam...I can tell you about general relativity's view of space (which is known to be wrong.) But quantum space? There are some ideas by leading physicists, but nothing tractable by a layman.

We do have some physicists on the board who can chat about the ideas as they are currently understood.

[xcthulhu]

@Lincoln:

I think Robert Rudzinski is interested in a pop-sci book to read... I for one couldn't tell him a nice one.

Being a pop-sci-physics author yourself, you're probably the expert on the forum. Any suggestions?

[Robert Rudzinski]

As a scientist myself i have a hunch that we have a rather poor understanding of space. If you were to take the existing universe and remove all of the matter, antimatter, photons, fields and even any undiscovered particles or mysterious substances that we may have yet to discover, you would be left with all of the empty space that has been created by the big bang and that is expanding per our current beliefs and observations.
this space itself would still be subject to quantum jitters and random creation and annihilation of particles, fields photons and anti particles.

I would call VOID, the total absence of everything, something that we have a hard time even visualizing because it is dimensionless, scaleless and is not subject to random quantum fluctuations. This is what I would believe existed prior to the big bang. What is the speed at which empty space could be created in this medium, empty spacer or vaccum as we refer to it today which is subject to quantum fluctuation? can this empty space be created at a rate faster than the speed at which light propagates though what we conceive as a vaccum?

[Lincoln]

You've gotten way ahead of yourself and begged 2-3 questions along the way.

Your description of space is accurate enough. Not perfect, but works OK. However, the thing you are calling a void is a mathematical abstraction for which there is no evidence. (BTW...I would agree it is scaleless, but not dimensionless...unless you are using a specialized meaning of the term.

According to our best current theories (which are, grantedly, flawed,) the thing you are describing doesn't exist.

However space can expand faster than light can propagate locally in our own space.

Bottom line, you are assuming the physical reality of a mathematical abstraction in the absence of evidence for the abstraction. That assumes the answer before you start and is a categorical no-no. Hypothesizing this to be true? Fine...no problem. Beyond that? No way.

[Lincoln]

@Lincoln:

I think Robert Rudzinski is interested in a pop-sci book to read... I for one couldn't tell him a nice one.

Being a pop-sci-physics author yourself, you're probably the expert on the forum. Any suggestions?

Yeah, I know what he's looking for. It's just that popularizations lag the field by 5-10 years. Since we're still trying to solve it right now, the popularizations don't exist. The best one can suggest is Discover magazine, Scientific American or some poorly-regulated blogs.

[1337spb]

Every object has an opposite. The universe is probably just a very elaborate way of having nothing. No sleight of hand or appearing from nothing required.

[linford86]

Every object has an opposite.

How do you support this assertion? I see no reason to believe it to be true.

[xcthulhu]

Every object has an opposite.

How do you support this assertion? I see no reason to believe it to be true.

Well... there is generally a matter/anti-matter symmetry, right?

[Lincoln]

What is the antimatter equivalent of a photon or a Z boson?

[linford86]

Every object has an opposite.

How do you support this assertion? I see no reason to believe it to be true.

Well... there is generally a matter/anti-matter symmetry, right?

I don't think this was meant in the post, and even if it was, that symmetry needs to break down somewhere. There needs to be a mechanism to explain why there is more matter in our universe than anti-matter, and why our universe isn't just a giant photon gas.