The Story of Our Universe May Be Starting to Unravel

The "basic" laws are not settled by any means. And, are not claimed to be. For instance, if you can make it to the educational level of 14 years of formal education and happen to also qualify for a ChE thermo class then you will learn immediately that science has no measure of the absolute value of energy as it is applied in thermo. The best that we know is how such metrics as enthalpy, entropy, pressure, temperature and volume behave relative to one another. This is pretty wild, and may be difficult to appreciate for lots of normal folks. We can calc stuff like the relative power of a 1500# compressed air bottle against a gallon of gas in an internal combustion engine process, but we cannot compare by any known relationship the internal energy of atoms in a diamond against this, aside from E=MC2, which is an equation that remains out of reach in terms of, ugh, well, it is clearly within reach of pure nuclear physics, but, there are serious metaphysical implications around it that are mysterious, to me anyway....

My belief is that regarding all manner of religions and theories, nothing makes sense other than that ultimately there is enough matter to make the universe cyclical, that there is enough unknown presently so-called dark matter that eventually all the expanding Doppler shifts will shift the other way, all will become one, then rinse and repeat.....

 

Not my area of expertise, so I have no worthwhile perspective to offer. I do, however, respect the expertise of Dr. Hossenfelder.

 

Interesting point but I want to diverge a little from it if you don't mind.

If the premise that nature never does anything in singles only holds true throughout the universe, known and unknown, then the existence of our universe is evidence for multiverses.

Logically that follows but does the math allow for multiverses? The answer is that there is some that does but it is still only a hypothesis.

There is also the cyclical universe theory which could answer some of the anomalies recently uncovered by the Webb telescope. Nature recycles so a cyclical universe is my own personal favorite and it has credible supporters.

Then there is the question of what is beyond the reach of our measurable universe? Given that our measurable universe accounts for a mere 4% of matter that the math says should exist then the rest of the universe exists in a similar form to what we can observe, we just cannot measure the 96% part that is literally beyond our measurable horizon.

 

I stand by what I said.

Everything we know is up for serious testing and possible modification as a principle of science. In fact, there is constant testing of our physics that has gone on DAILY throughout the last century.

But, that does NOT justify pretending that our most solid understanding of the physics of this universe may be offhandedly ignored, as if breaking our fundamental understanding is no more than an engineering problem that hasn't yet been completed.

 

And who, pray tell, was "pretending that our most solid understanding of the physics of this universe may be offhandedly IGNORED?"

If you are going to contend that it was me, would you please snip out the specific sentence(s) in which I do so?

The suggestion of my comments, applied to your fallacious implication, above, would result only in the slight addition, of your saying, for example:
"...our most solid understanding, at present, of the physics of this universe..."

Unless you care to make a case, against that phraseology, your remarks are wholely inapplicable to my post, which they purport to answer. I have already explained, about your previous, erroneously non sequitur post, that my point concerns only the way we CONCEIVE, and so SPEAK, of our understandings; not the way we apply them. The post of mine which both of your replies address, though, had itself been crystal clear about this.

The purpose of, or advantage in adopting this change, I explained, was to avoid obscuring the lines of exactitude, in our certainty about different things. Through your own, obvious, rejection of my proposition, you help me demonstrate its value: based on my original objection to the certainty with which you'd stated things about the speed of light (represented as "c"), your current statement about offhandedly ignoring "our most solid understanding of the physics of this universe," can only be taken to mean that you are including your earlier statements, that nothing in the universe, including thought, can move faster than light speed, as being on an equal level of our certainty, as the most fundamental, best established principles in the physical sciences. This is clearly hogwash, and no knowledgeable scientist worth his salt, would agree with that. Nevertheless, I do not say, that because of the language that nearly all, lazily use, this is not only the impression they can give others, but also the fact which they, themselves, in practice, often forget.

In your resisting acknowledgement of our limits in knowledge, and therefore levels of certainty we can really have about different aspects of the "physics of this universe," you simply portray the image of someone who stubbornly adheres to a senseless approach, based only upon one's comfortable, if highly flawed, habit. Your, now second, reply, completely missing my point, and making an argument that is utterly divorced from what I am saying, is yet more evidence of that mindset, you are trying to defend. In doing so, it is in fact yourself, who is doing the "pretending."

 

I don't know the difference between "speak of" and "apply" the way you use it.

There is a strong direction in our culture that what science has found is BS - whether it is physics, climatology, healthcare, or anything else related to science.

We support this assault on science by what we say. What we say does make a difference.

Is this different that what you are conveying in your posts? I'm not really sure.

But, physics says that information, thought, light, and everything else is subject to the cosmic speed limit that is called c.

This was laid out by Einstein in 1905. It has held true since then.

 

I am using those words, in their most basic, mundane sense-- you don't know the difference between contemplation and action?

I guess I should feel sorry for you.

And yet, I could not make it any plainer, or simpler. That is why you should take note of the fact that your way of thinking will not allow you to grasp the concept.

Whenever something is less than completely certain-- and the behavior of undiscovered particles, we nevertheless are sure, still exist, should obviously fall into that category-- our current knowledge should be expressed in a way to noticably caveat, that our information is incomplete, and therefore whatever idea or theory we are presenting, is potentially more subject to change, than some fact which we have been able to exhaustively, and comprehensively, investigate.

There are many, easy ways to do this, of which I have already given you several examples, in my other replies. Maybe you should re-read those, with the door to your thought, "open."

We have not comprehensively identified anywhere near all substance, in the universe; therefore it is largely assumption for you to say, definitively, that nothing goes faster than light speed. On the other hand, the acceleration of an object, of a given mass, dropped from a given altitude, we can compute with great accuracy, and we can anticipate it behaving the same way, every time (adjusted only for the effect of wind-- which would be the small caveat).

We cannot, however, confidently predict, of every new particle we discover, that it absolutely will not exceed the speed of light. Therefore we cannot know for absolute truth that "nothing" goes faster than c. We can only know that we have not, to this point, discovered anything that does (that is another example, right there). If you cannot see the difference between those two things, then that is proof that this has become a problem, for your perception.

I can only think of one last method to help break through your brain lock: use my proposal for science speech, the same way you already do, for other types of situations. If you have spoken to someone on his home phone, and he tells you that he will be staying in, all night, then bump into someone who asks if you know where that person is, you have a pretty sound basis, for just saying that "he's at home," but would probably include a modifying phrase, like, "He was at his place, an hour ago," or "He told me, he was staying in"-- indicating he is most likely home, unless for some reason he'd changed his mind, which is certainly possible, at least. That is why it's better to explain the basis for your belief, if it is less than rock solid. You might use a shortened form, like, "he should be home," or "I think he's home." The analog, in the statement that you had made, would be to say something like, to the best of our knowledge, nothing goes faster than light.

Or, say you shop at a particular supermarket. When you are shopping in that store, you are 100% sure, that the store is open. If you're not there, but it's your local grocery, and you know their hours by heart, you can be reasonably certain they are open, barring any unforeseen circumstance. That last phrase, is the caveat (which literally means "beware," but can also be used to cite things that one should be aware of, often things which are uncertain).

Now, if you were travelling in a state you'd never been to, and find out that your usual supermarket chain is here, as well, you could assume that their hours are the same as in your home state, but this is a less certain presumption, than that your local grocery will be open for its normal hours. Can you see that? So, if your travelling companion asks if you know what time the store in the new state closes, would you, based on the way it is at home, just say, "Eleven o'clock?" Or would you add in the caveat, "Back in XX, they're open till eleven?"

Do you need more examples of the difference between expressing something that is a "bet your life on it" certainty, rather than just a good probability?

 

That doesn't do the job, because it's commonplace to talk about science, thus affecting direction by political means.

The cosmic speed limit doesn't change based on what the particle is. The speed limit is a property of the universe. And, it is not dependent on where you are in the universe, whether the universe is expanding, etc.

This is more of what I'm pointing to. We've grown to take a casual view of physics - and other sciences, too.

 

Our basis for that belief, is far less watertight, than for other scientific ideas. It is not a soundly proven fact. It is a theory. Your error, and problem, is that you apparently cannot discern between the two-- but that is exactly what I am advocating, we should do.

 

No.

This is the theory of relativity - NOT some untested idea from theoretical physics, where actual physical testing is not required and is most likely not possible.

Science, experimental science, scientific method, doesn't have positive proof, so your concern for "proof" is just a misunderstanding of how science works. There is a sound reason for this, if you care to ask.

In experimental physics, scientific method, NOT theoretical physics, the very best truth available is theory. There is nothing stronger. And, in this realm that is taken very seriously. It took years to accept Einstein's relativity.

I view this as a result of a SERIOUS terminology problem. Theory in day to day life means no more than an idea. In theoretical physics, it means something more than that, as it involves mathematically consistent extensions from what is known from experimental physics. It experimental physics, there must be serious experiments by multiple groups of scientists showing 5 sigma significance to even be considered. From there, various levels of validation of technique takes place, and the new idea becomes a theory as it shows value in extending human knowledge.

With relativity theory, the level of testing is severe and continuous and has been for a century.

For people to now come along and say they don't believe relativity theory is just flat out nonsense. If relativity theory shows a hole, it would mean Nobel prizes all around.

Who here is ready to claim a Nobel prize for crapping on relativity theory in some post?

 

There is no way of actually knowing whether the speed of light is universally constant .We cannot measure the speed of light other than for light that is generated on Earth. We cannot tell if light received from other bodies in the universe is travelling at the same speed as light generated on Earth. We cannot tell if light through the ages has always travelled at the same speed

 

Do you ever proofread your posts?

You admitted yourself, that it is possible that we may one day discover something that is an exception to this theory, did you not? You acknowledged that serious scientists have alternate theories about things which do travel faster than light (you'd mentioned tachyons)-- do you remember? Some scientists have even postulated about the ability to create spacecraft, which break this law. I, of course, understand that these are just theories, but let me ask you: are there any credible theories that contradict belief in the effects of gravity, on Earth? Do you acknowledge the reasonable possibility that we may eventually find that our theory of gravity's effects, was wrong? So then, this proves that our basis for believing in gravity's effects, is sturdier, than for this aspect of the theory of relativity.

That is my entire point, right there. Instead of acting like every current belief of science is unimpeachable-- for you know that, with new information, we change our beliefs, about what is true-- is it not more honest, for our language, when speaking of any scientific "fact," to indicate how unimpeachable that fact is considered? If it is reasonable to say that we might yet find some fact, to not be fully factual, then it is not as solid a fact, as one which there seems no reasonable expectation of the possibility for its being "updated."

But this is in no way saying that we should "discard" the beliefs that are less than 100% certain, which for some reason, you keep taking me to be advocating. I am only recommending that we remain conscious of the possibility of updates to our knowledge and, that the prospects of everything in science which is treated as a fact, for being eventually overturned, are not equal. We should acknowledge that difference, where it exists, just as most of us do, in daily life, to distinguish between things we know with absolute certainty-- as that the store, in which I am currently shopping, is definitely open-- those which we can say with high confidence, are true-- like that out local store will be open until a given time, on a given night-- and those things which gave a factual basis, but which involve uncertainty-- as that, in other states, this same store would keep the same hours as does our local one. Ironically enough, the idea I am suggesting should be expressed in our language, which you here argue against, is the concept of relativity.

 

Tachyons are totally hypothetical, coming from theoretical physics, not experimental science (scientific method) and not universally accepted even in theoretical physics. They have not been detected. The idea of tachyons is that they can not travel SLOWER than the cosmic speed limit. But, the main point is that they do not challenge the cosmic speed limit even in the ideas of theoretical physics. Even tachyons would abide by the cosmic speed limit as a limit, in this case a limit on how slow they could go.

Special relativity shows that it takes increasing energy to travel faster. For a mass to travel at the cosmic speed limit would require infinite energy.

Photons, gluons and maybe some others have zero rest mass, so they can travel at the cosmic speed limit in a perfect vacuum.

I have NOT said that every current belief of science is unimpeachable. You're way off base with that.

But, let's take some care when assuming that what science has found can just be **** canned out of desire for something different.

Anything requiring faster than light speed has to include a caveat stating the stupendous unlikelihood of such an eventuality.

Physics is NOT an engineering project where more man hours can build a better bridge.

 

Exactly.

The cosmic speed limit comes from special relativity that shows that increasing the speed of a mass requires energy - with more energy required for greater speed. It says that it would take infinite energy to accelerate a mass to a certain speed - the cosmic speed limit. Special relativity describes the situation for objects that are within a local frame where the expansion of the universe is too small to be important.

As for the universe as a whole, one needs general relativity.

The expansion of the universe between Earth and a distant object CAN grow to be greater than the speed of light, simply because the universe is expanding.

There are galaxies that are winking out of view, never to be seen again, because the expansion of the section of the universe between us and those objects has exceeded the cosmic speed limit. Thus light speed is too slow to get here. Ever.

And, as you point out, it is really, really hard to figure out what the expansion rate for any section of the universe might have been billions of years ago.

Science claims that there was fabulous expansion called the big bang. Then there was slower expansion. And, today we know that the expansion rate is increasing. So, how many times has it oscillated? Is the universe oscillating in unison? Etc.

So, the cosmic speed limit has to do with special relativity which describes the situation within a local arena, where the rate of expansion isn't important. And, the speed of light isn't changed by the expanding universe - the expansion just means that photons have an increasing distance to go before they reach us.

 

Except I have not said, what you claim. To the absolute contrary, I assumed that you were perfectly aware, that scientific beliefs change. I, in fact, began my reply, which you'd quoted, pointing out that you had conceded this point:

DEFinning said: ↑
Do you ever proofread your posts?

You admitted yourself, that it is possible that we may one day discover something that is an exception to this theory, did you not?
<End>


So how can you possibly imply that I have claimed that you had said "every current belief of science is unimpeachable?" That is quite clearly nothing more than a lie, that you're telling, is it not?

It is really pathetic, how incapable you are-- due to your chosen mindset-- of understanding the words that you read. Let this stand as validation of my argument, and as a warning to those who think a misrepresentation of all scientifically accepted ideas, as being of equal certainty, is an advisable practice. Will Readmore's totally erroneous reading of my post, is an analog to any other data. In other words, Will's ideological views so color what he interprets, from what he sees, that his "study" of something, does not allow him to understand it. Otherwise, if he could appreciate things as they are, why would he have just now suggested that I am arguing that "what science has found can just be **** canned?" Please, oh advocate for the standard operating procedures of science, show us the data, from which you derived that "understanding." In truth-- which is something that is conspicuously absent from your reply-- I have already corrected you, on this point:

DEFinning said: ↑
That was your opening statement, and you are already being disingenuous. To wit: my pointing out that any ideas which we have inadequate ability to truly "test," should not be voiced as absolute truths, is by no stretch of rational thinking, calling for the "discarding" of said ideas...

<later in the reply>
And yet, changing your phrasing to, for example,

We believe that nothing, not even information, can travel faster than c,

as I had suggested was the more accurate way to relate this idea, would not be a discarding of anything-- would it?...


<Still later in reply>
when I read a post that begins with such complete nonsense, as pretending that I have suggested anything like that we can, or should, not still employ our theories, I am often disposed to just stop reading such obvious garbage.

My post was, as plain as day, all about the way we think and speak about our theories-- not in any way, related to our use of them. If your reading acumen is insufficient to have gathered such a basic and obvious truth, about my post, then there seems little reason to continue reading this hapless reply, as you are clearly out of your conceptual depth.
<End First Reply>

<Second Reply>
DEFinning said: ↑
And who, pray tell, was "pretending that our most solid understanding of the physics of this universe may be offhandedly IGNORED?"

If you are going to contend that it was me, would you please snip out the specific sentence(s) in which I do so?
<End>

Note, that Will has provided no such, confirming snips of his assertion, and yet persists in making it. If my replies, then, were a scientific phenomena, which Will was bringing his way of thinking to analyze, then his reiterating false information, without being able to support it with fact, would be an example of bad science.

*And an example of comic irony, that Will would be the one to caution us all, about taking "some care," in our thinking.

 

Yes, science is designed to allow for new ideas. You CAN try to challenge the theory of relativity. You CAN try to challenge the theory of evolution. Etc.

But, that fact does NOT support claims that the cosmic speed limit is likely to be tossed out with the garbage.

One can't just trash the fundamental concepts of science on grounds that they aren't comfortable or on the grounds that science allows you to try to replace them with superior theory.

Einstein was instrumental in creating the theory of relativity. It's been tested for a CENTURY as it is so fundamental to the way EVERYTHING works. You can NOT just come along and suggest that it is garbage.

I get wired up about this, because we see it happen all the time - not just with physics, but with pretty much all of science. We see claims that science is no more than a political game, played for cash. We see the most crank ideas being touted with no attempt to validate them, for reasons no stronger than that it is what some want to hear - or don't want to hear.

 

And, in your case: one cannot understand, what is written right in front of one's face. If Science, personified, knew that such a one, who repeatedly demonstrates his faulty analysis of something so blatantly obvious, to any objective reader, was promoting himself as its spokesperson, Science would, no doubt, say to Will, "Thanks, but no thanks."

You only further discredit everything else you are contending, by your going off on what is now approaching a rant, about something that has absolutely no relation to any of the posts you are answering. You might just as well be taking issue with my post's pick for the next Superbowl (which I didn't make), for all the relevance that what you are spouting instead, has to my post. So this can only be taken as a self-disqualifying admission, that you are incapable of any intelligent discussion, of the point I have made in all of these posts of mine.

And, as you are so irresponsibly repeating for a third time, your bogus charge about my making any suggestion of "trashing," anything whatsoever, while offering no quote to justify your contentions (after my requesting such evidence from you, if you insisted on persisting in portraying this patent fiction)-- that is your third strike. You lose. And you're out!

 

If you had a point to correct, I think you would state it.

 

You might hope for that investment of my time-- but your posts have proven, now in spades, their author is not worth the time. There is no need for me to "correct" what is so clearly false.
Or that which I have already corrected.

 

You were shown to have NO valid position of any kind.

 

We just assume that the universe is expanding because we assume that the speed of light is universally constant for all time. What would be the consequence if the second assumption is wrong?

 

Science can still never answer the ultimate question.... What was there before any of the observable phenomena that we think we are aware of?

Was it just nothing? Because even nothing is something and even nothing nowhere is still somewhere.

If it was just a great big void of nothing then where did that nothing exist?

 

There are MULTIPLE hypothesis to that question ALL of which MUST obey the Conservation of Matter/Energy principle.

The "Big Bang" theory is that ALL matter and energy were COMBINED into a SINGULARITY which then exploded.

The "Cyclical Universe" theory is similar but instead of a single instance of the big bang there are SERIAL big bangs where matter/energy expands and then collapses followed by another big bang.

There was NEVER a time or place where there was "nothing".

The Space-Time Continuum itself might not contain matter/energy but it would still be Space where Time continues to move.

 

The theory of relativity isn't an assumption. And, that's the source of the cosmic speed limit.

If the theory of relativity were that wrong, it would lead to major problems with pretty much ALL of physics. And, these problems would be showing up throughout physics.

Stated more positively, measurements throughout physics support the correctness of the theory of relativity.

 

My post is nothing to do with the theory of relativity.