American Recorder Society, Columbus Ohio

A short time ago I made the decision not to use this blog for personal info anymore, especially my feelings. I tend to be emotionally stunted and it shows in my writings about personal stuff.

Nevertheless last few entries were pretty incoherent despite having nothing to do about personal stuff. I was in the midst of a manic attack, during which I feel I have these brilliant ideas that will change the world. I still feel my ideas are somewhat noteworthy, but as I keep researching I realize how little I know about the world of physics. Therefore it will take a lot more research and thought to fully develop my ideas. Perhaps I will never have the time.

Meanwhile I'm trying to find ways to connect to other people. Church has been my way of doing this for, oh, thirty years now. I still go to an occasional church event, which is interesting now that I consider myself an "outsider." Your perspective changes, especially on seeing church as more of a social outlet than a religious one. I've joined a virtual chess club with the intention of eventually meeting real people to play chess again. Cafe Kerouac, just south of Clintonville where I live, has real live people playing real live chess every once in a while, if I am not mistaken.

I was also given the name of a member of The Early Interval, a performing group here in town that just celebrated their thirtieth anniversary. I contacted him hoping to find a nearby chapter of The American Recorder Society. I played in one here in Columbus in my high school years, and I was dissapointed to find that it has since disbanded. My hope is that a new one can still be formed, but in the meantime I'm just looking for folks to get together with and jam. (Well, not actually "jam," as that implies improvisation, but to play with anyway.)

So part the purpose of this blog is to create a page that perhaps people with similar interests will find on a google search:

American Recorder Society, Columbus Ohio

Big Bang/Big Bust

After reading more about gravity on the 'net, my initial reaction was one of disappointment. My explanation of how gravitons work doesn't fit observations made about gravity. But as I thought about it, I cheered up. Gravity is too complicated to be described totally in terms of the hypothetical gravitons I have envisioned.

So for now, I'm still holding on to my theory, and I thought of a visualization that would make it clearer. Imagine that at the time of "our" big bang, there was another universe consisting of a ring of a nearly infinite number of particles far distant from our universe. As our universe expands, this "ring" universe contracts in the exact rhythm of our expansion. As the ring contracts, particles must pop out of existence to maintain the shape of the ring. Eventually, our ever more quickly expanding universe will slam into the ever more contracting ring universe, which by now consists of only one ring. At this time, our universe shatters into a near infinitude of micro universes which fuse with this ring. Of course, this visualization isn't totally accurate: the "ring" actually exists neither inside nor outside our universe, since it's spacial dimension(s) are negative.

Gravitons exist of three main components. There is the negative mass component, which is responsible for virtual particles. There is the negative energy component which is responsible for dark energy. And there is the negative time/space component, which is responsible for the hypothetical graviton that everybody is so anxious to find evidence of.

In my model, the expansion of our space is caused neither by dark energy nor by an undiscovered particle called the inflaton. It is caused by the continual conversion of time into space. The common sense idea that "time is running out" is, ironically, the correct one. Thus in our universe space is moving positively (expanding) while time is moving negatively (contracting). The relationship between space and time should be able to be defined by an equation such as this:

S=1/T

where S is space and T is time. Likely there is some constant that needs to be added to this equation. The state of our universe started with T being a very large value and the end will come when T reaches 0 with the shattering of our universe.

Maybe a good name for this model is the Big Bang/Big Bust.

[0 Comments]

The dual universe theory

Well, now I've discarded the theory of my last blog in favor of another one.

Gravitons have long been postulated as a particle which "somehow" causes gravity. I suggest that gravitons are the remnants of a negative universe which has experienced a Big Rip. Everything about them is negative from our universe: they have negative space/time and negative mass/energy.

At the time of our universe's (the positive universe's) big bang, there were an enormous amount, yet finite number, of gravitons. There was plenty of "room" for them, because their spacial dimensions are all negative. Of course, "room" is not quite the right word. Because their dimensions are negative, they can't really be said to be "in" our universe.

Gravitons cause gravity because their space is contracting instead of expanding. On the local level this causes the space in our universe between two masses to contract in opposition to the general tendency of our universe's space to expand. As gravity causes the space between objects to become less and less, there is "room" for more and more gravitons because their dimensions are negative. This accounts for the increased power of gravity as objects move closer and closer to each other. It also explains why there is time dilation in a gravitational field as the negative time of gravitons affects our time.

Since fewer and fewer gravitons will "fit" in expanding space, they are constantly being destroyed. Finally our universe will reach a point where only one graviton is left. At this point our universe will progressively split until it becomes the maximum possible number of universes. This is the Big Rip. These multiple universes will "fuel" the Big Bang in the negative universe by becoming the gravitons in that universe.

Thus there are really two universes: a positive one and a negative one.

[0 Comments]

The Big Switch Theory

It seems to me that one of the strongest arguments for Intelligent Design is that the Universe seems finely tuned to support life- at least life as we know it. The main counter argument to this is that although the universe may appear to be finely tuned for life, it is just as possible that life is finely tuned to the universe. Although this counter argument may sway you, it must be admitted that there is no more evidence for one point of view than the other.

Recognizing this, many naturalists have proposed the possibility of a multi-verse, some system of multiple universes. In such a system multiple universes may co-exist, some number of which may support life but many of which may not. This would diffuse the Finely Tuned argument somewhat.

The problem with this is- where's the evidence?

At the moment there seem to be only theories about how multiverses could come about. I have one that as far as I know hasn't been articulated.

Currently it is believed that the universe started with a "big bang" in which all matter and space/time came into existence simultaneosly. (One question that arises: "What did the universe look like before the big bang?" I'll get to this). Since that time, scientists have observed that the universe seems to be expanding at an exponential rate.

Einstein postulated that, ironically, the speed of light is constant for all observers. Scientists seem to have confirmed this, although there seems to be a little wiggle play for this: under certain conditions it seems that this speed might vary slightly. Einstein also postulated, counterintuitively, that as an object moves faster, time slows down. This has been verified by putting highly sensitive clocks on airplanes, flying them a given distance, and comparing these clocks to highly sensitive clocks that remain on the ground. Given this, it seems obvious to me why nothing can move faster than the speed of light. At this point, time has slowed down to the point that it must move backwards.

So what I'm wondering is: what happens when the expansion of space speeds up to the point where the expansion rate reaches the speed of light and passes it?

One possibility will be that time will make a "switch" and instead of running forward will move backward. Space might also switch its expansion and begin to compress.

If this seems ridiculous consider an alternate theory:

Rather recently we have discovered that matter and energy, which seem totally different from each other, can be converted according to Einstein's famous formula E=MC2. Everyone knows this because it is the explanation for the huge amount of energy that an atomic bomb can generate. This idea is called mass-energy equivalence.

If this is true, why can there not also be a time-space equivalence, by which time can be converted to space, and visa-versa? Rather than time running backwards, I would suggest that at the point of the "switch" in the above example, time converts to space and space converts to time. This would be a cataclysm on the order of the big bang. What would such a cataclysm look like?

At the point of the cataclysm, space has reached a maximal point. It is as big as it can possibly get, yet is still finite. At this point it converts to time which, at the point of the cataclysm, is as big as it can possibly get, but still finite. So what happens to time when it converts to space? Since we have reached what could be called "the end of the universe" time has become as short as it can possibly be. When it converts to space, this "shortness" becomes converted to "smallness." We have a "new universe" with maximally large time and minimally small space. In other words, another big bang.

In this scenario, questions such as "what happened before the big bang?" and "when was the universe created?" are meaningless, because the words "before" and "when" misunderstand the nature of time. Such questions are analagous to the question "what does the world rest on?" This question, which so puzzled the ancients, misunderstands another fundamental property of the physical world, in this case the nature of gravity.

So what happens to all that matter when time and space make the switch?

The Heat Death theory is a possible final state of the universe, in which it has "run down" to a state of no thermodynamic free energy to sustain motion or life. The Big Rip is a theory about the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of the universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, is progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. (I got these definitions from wikipedia)

If we combine these two theories, we have a state in which all matter in the universe is maximally cold and maximally thin. At the time of the big bang, scientists postulate a situation in which all matter is maximally hot and maximally dense. This looks like a switch that is on the order of the time/space switch I have postulated. I would suggest that at the "time" of the next big bang, the universe makes a Big Switch. This "new" universe looks like the "old" one in that it "starts" with a big bang.

I call this theory the Big Switch.

===

After writing all this, I looked on the internet to try to find out if anybody else had the same idea. I quickly found out that I don't nearly know enough about physics to even be able to tell very often what real physicists are talking about when they get into their technical jargon. I did find an interesting page by an honest to God physicist that talks about the conversion of space to time: so at least I'm not off the mark on that point.

On the other hand, there is a definite problem with the idea that the rate of the expansion of the universe can be tied to the speed of light. I realize that I have visualized this expansion as though there were a "wall" on the edge of space- and this is not a proper way to visualize things. Nevertheless I can't help but visualizing a situation of a finite time shrinking while a finite space is expanding as inevitably leading to a cosmic catastrophe of some sort.

The physics page describes the conversion of space to time in this way:

Examined at the microscopic level of quantum mechanics, the conversion of space to time involves the simple "switch" of implicit time to explicit time, the switch of the "wavelength" or spatial component of the electromagnetic wave to the "frequency" or temporal component of the wave.

I found it interesting that the word "switch" was used here- of course, not in the sense of a Big Switch that I have postulated.

At any rate I continue to find the latest theories of physics interesting and will continue to read...

[0 Comments]

I. D. vs. Blind Evolution

I have been looking at the Intelligent Design v. Evolution debate as it has been articulated on the web. My first thought is: what can I possible add to this debate that hasn't been said already? Is it possible to say anything that is in the smallest sense original?

I'll try.

IMO strongest argument that I've seen the I. D. proponents put forth is that the faith of the I. D. believer is the same kind of faith as the believer in undirected evolution. Before we can fully examine whether this is true, we must look at what faith is.

One common idea seems to be that faith is belief in something without any evidence whatsoever. This seems like a ridiculous explanation to me, and one which in any case doesn't apply to I. D. proponents, who believe that the existence of any living thing (and perhaps the existence of the universe) is ample evidence of a supernatural Intelligent Designer. But of course the more reasonable and more common definition of faith is a belief that is held in the absence of proof.

Next question: what is proof?

Proof generally involves a consideration of the evidence and a decision that one side or the other of a controversy is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. Of course, as we all know, proof is subjective: what one person considers overwhelming evidence may not be at all sufficient for another person.

With this bit of background we can take a closer look at the faith of I. D. proponents and the faith of evolutionists.

The thing about evidence is that over time, the amount of evidence continally increases. The substantial difference as I see it between the belief of the evolutionist and the belief of the theist is that the evolutionist is more willing to change her belief in the light of new evidence. One reason I can believe this is by examining what religious sites say about faith. Faith is "solid," a "bedrock," "unchangeable". By definition religious faith cannot change. I've never heard a Christian say that he would stop believing in God if enough evidence to the contrary were amassed. On the other hand, I've seen many instances of atheists saying on the internet that if credible evidence of the supernatural occured, such as the verifiable generation of a missing limb, they would modify their beliefs.

Another way to look at this is the common claim by I. D. proponents that appearance of design is evidence of design. Really, this seems like a quite reasonable to me. But the converse of this is that the appearance that the Christian God is evil is evidence that He truly is evil. In my experience in conservative churches there is a consistent answer to this argument: we cannot possibly understand God's "mysterious ways." Here is that cannot once again: the Christian will never modify her belief that God is good.

I don't know if I've really added anything to the argument, especially as I found a quote concerning this controversy that I believe says the same thing:

Two vital principles must be upheld in the debate: firstly, if we don’t know,
we must say we don’t know and, secondly, we must have the courage to let a
beautiful theory be slain by an ugly fact, a phrase coined by the great
evolutionist, T. H. Huxley. Therein lies the nobility of the scientist’s quest for
truth, to which religion, alas, rarely aspires.

[0 Comments]

Fideism and Reasonism

Since I was rather rough on Michael Shermer in my last blog entry, I thought it appropriate to give a quote from Why People Believe Weird Things that I think is truly excellent:

(T)here are, I believe, reasonable arguments for why we should not cover up, hide, suppress, or, worst of all, use the State to squelch someone else's belief system, no matter how wacky, unfounded, or venomous it may seem. Why?

*They might be completely right, and we would have just squashed the truth.

*They might be partially right, and we do not want to miss a part of the truth.

*They might be completely wrong, but by examining their wrong claims, we will discover and confirm the truth; we will also discover how thinking can go wrong, and thus improve our thinking skills.

*In science, it is not possible to know the absolute truth about anything, so we must always be on the alert for where we have gone wrong and where others have gone right.

*Being tolerant when you are in the majority means you have a greater chance of being tolerated when you are in the minority.

The fourth point, that science cannot give us absolute truth, is an interesting one. Where does absolute truth come from? Here is one idea:

Reasonism is the intellectual claim that only rationality can correctly, positively, and definitively determine neutral, objective, absolute reality. Reasonism is the argument that only reason leads to certain understanding and unquestionable knowledge.- Kyrel Zantonavich

According to this, reason is the only basis for absolute truth. I found this quote interesting because many people lump science and reason together as basically the same thing, or at least two sides of the same coin. Thus we seem to have a contradiction between what Zantonavich and Shermer believe about absolutes. I don't think I'm a reasonist, at least a la Zantonavich, but rather a fideist:

"Fideism" is thus to be understood not as a synonym for "religious belief," but as denoting a particular philosophical account of faith's appropriate jurisdiction vis-a-vis that of reason.- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

There seem to be things going on in this science/absolute discussion that roughly parallel the is/ought problem of David Hume. Just as there is a hard line that is hard to cross between "is" and "ought" there is a hard line between reason and faith. "Ought" corresponds to reason: we arrive at our opinions about what ought to be by thinking about it. Faith on the other hand, corresponds to what is. (W)ithout faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. But as the above definition of fideism shows, faith is not limited to religious belief, but corresponds more closely to ontology, that is, the realm of what exists. It is notoriously hard to prove things exist by reason, as Descartes found out.

[3 Comments]