h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Virus 1,

I am impressed!

You are good at Math and Physics. There's one question I carried arround for quite some time: The age of our universe since the Big Bang and it's diameter are roughly the same. Given that c is a constant, doesn't that imply that our universe expands with the speed of light?

Thanks,
Wonko

Hi Wonko

Thanks for the compliment but I have to tell you that I am in no sense a mathematician or a phycisist. Scientific subversive would be a preferred description.

The problem about dating the Universe to the Big Bang is, I think, unsolvable. We don't know what time was doing in those early moments. It can't have been doing the same thing that it is now. So what can it mean to say the BB occured at a particular time in the past? Time would have to mean pace of events, interactions, or be closely related to that, or to the speed of light perhaps. Was pace of interaction, or c, the same in an infinitely small space containing, so it's supposed, all the matter of the Universe. Seems a tad unlikely.

The other problem is how to pinpoint the exact moment of the Big Bang. We judge this to be our earliest understanding of what happened, the earliest point at which we can imagine an observation being possible. But according to normal thinking there must have been something which led up to that first observable event. Then you have to ask how much time passed in reaching that first observable event.

If you picture the Universe as growing upwards like a cone then a BB supporter would see the cone as starting at a point somewhere in the observable past. I would rather see it as a cone of infinite, or at least much greater, length, with the Big Bang 'event' as just the smallest cross section which we can detect or conceive of.

In other words the BB is just a product of our conceptions and methods of observation. The idea that the BB theory somehow explains anything important about the Universe is a doubtful one. (That is not to say that it is not the best explanation of our observations). A decent explanation would explain why it started, 'when' is not a sensible question. As time, in the sense we use the word, could not exist until the Universe existed, (in fact until we existed), then putting a time on the start of the Universe is a quite meaningless exercise. This seems common sense to me, but perhaps I have a warped mind.

I get confused thinking about c and the size of the Universe. Science now tends to treat its size as its area. In other words not the volume of a balloon, but the surface area. If it was expanding at the speed of light then somewhere two points in it would be seperating at the speed of light. But which two points? Where are the edges? Perhaps two opposite points across the diameter of the balloon are parting at the speed of light. If so then how fast is the area expanding, and which form of expansion is it that counts? And what does that mean for nearby points? And how can a volume or an area expand at the speed of light? What does that mean? And etc etc?

Underneath all this lies the interesting thing about the evolution/creation/science thread. Science as it is, the scientific method applied to observation, has produced a view of the Universe which leads to paradox and to forever unanswerable questions. It uses the wrong language, the wrong concepts, and fails miserably to apply itself to the real topic of study, the logical consequences of our current concepts and beliefs. It believes in things which, when subjected to analysis, make no sense at all. It says never mind, we'll do some more observation and that will solve the problem. But it is dishonest, it knows that by definition more observation will never solve the problem. Thankfully there is, I think, a growing view that we have been badly misled about the world and that it is time to tackle the real issues. Hence the many popular science books around at the moment which question the very basis of our scientific beliefs.

Sorry to rant - but science is leading us into a cul-de-sac which we must try to escape from. We must start looking at reality and start finding an explanation rather than a description! Science is great at describing and predicting statistically derived behaviour, bodies of water, lumps of mass, it falls apart when it comes to explaining the behaviour or existence of the singularities that make up those things. Do you know the 'two slits' experiment? It's a good example.

OK - I ranted again. Apology on bended knee this time. Must stop before you reach catatonia. Good luck in the quest.

Many thanks for your answer. I too think that we're not even near to answers, and I think most of us, including the scientists, did not even fully understand Einstein.

I have thought about energy, and I think the concept is mainly misunderstood. Take for example the discussion about statical energy: You move something from the surface of the earth higher and higher, thus giving it statical energy. The moment you leave our solar system far behind, this energy is, yes, lost? And magicly regained when you come back? So maybe we should introduce the concept of negative energy: Most possible energy is zero, everything else worsens this below zero.

Could you please give the names of the books you mentioned?

OK- Some books. In rough order of interest -

Quantum Questions - Ken Wilbur (metaphysical writings of Einstein, Heisenberg etc.)

From Brains to Conciousness - Ed. Steven Rose (Nature of conciousness etc)

At Home in the Universe - Stuart Kauffman (complexity theories)

Evolution in Mind - Henry Plotkin (as per title)

Does God Play Dice - Ian Stewart (Role of chance etc in Universe)

The Fabric of Reality - David Deutch (Reality and existence, but I think not a good explanation)

Fuzzy Thinking - Bart Kosko (fuzzy logic as solution to duality. Fuzzy thinking I would say, and way off the mark, but good food for thought)

Any of the popular Quantum Mechanics stuff by Richard Feynman as a great description ( only very slightly dated) of the problems science faces and the weird solutions it is forced to find.

The Nothing That Is -A History of Zero - lent the book and forget the author - but great book, fair amount of maths but not rocket science, arrives at the best conclusion of all of these authors - but does not explore it, just reaches it by the end of the book. Arrives at just the starting point of a real understanding in my ever so humble opinion but raises many of the important issues.

Energy in a gravity well - good point. Where does it go. I suspect the answer is that in fact the energy increases to infinity as the body is moved further away. Gravity is believed to be infinitely extended from any body, that is a natural consequence of the inverse square law, which never allows gravity to reach zero (gravity change as the square of the change in distance). Of course whether the inverse square law is correct is another question.

Gravity is a good example of how far science is from a real understanding. We say that space is curved by mass, producing the effect we call gravity. But what is space and why does it curve? And more - curved space bring bodies together, but what curves space? If mass is measured by the amount of curvature then it can't be mass that causes the curvature, that would be a circular argument. In other words mass can't be the curvature and also cause it.

Every time you try to get to the bottom of a scientific explanation you reach a paradox of this kind. How is it we have come to believe so completely in its power to explain? It doesn't take years of study to see the flaws in the logic of the scientific method - however it seems to take years of study to get scientists to forget them.

It would be great to hear your comments on any of these books if you get to reading them.

Bye

Many thanks again. You are very friendly.

Will take me some time to get through these books.

Bye