Thanks LibWhacker.
· String Theory Ping List ·
· Join · Bookmark · Topics · Google ·
· View or Post in 'blog · post a topic · subscribe ·
Posted on 06/13/2012 11:11:54 AM PDT by LibWhacker
Two years ago several of my Sci Am colleagues and I had an intense email exchange over a period of weeks, trying to figure out what to make of a new paper by string theorist Erik Verlinde. I don’t think I’ve ever been so flummoxed by physicists’ reactions to a paper. Mathematically it could hardly have been simpler—the level of middle-school algebra for the most part. Logically and physically, it was a head-hurter. I couldn’t decide whether it was profound or trite. The theorists we consulted said they couldn’t follow it, which we took as a polite way of saying that their colleague had gone off the deep end. Some physics bloggers came out and called Verlinde a crackpot.
For those who know Verlinde, that label hardly fits. He is a brilliant theorist, and the amount of discussion his paper provoked suggested that most of his colleagues saw something in it. The whole story caught the eye of New Scientist and the New York Times, but ultimately we at Sci Am opted for watchful waiting. I caught up with Verlinde this spring during a workshop at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics. He has doubled-down on his original paper, and his colleagues’ reaction hasn’t changed. One told me: “There are a lot of ideas he’s bringing together in an interesting way, but it’s a little hard for us to decipher, so I’m withholding judgment.” All he has really done, though, is take a general sentiment among string theorists and follow it to its logical conclusion.
String theorists and other would-be unifiers of physics face a basic problem. The theories they seek to unify, quantum field theory and Einstein’s general theory of relativity, are well-grounded and well-tested, yet mutually incompatible. Reconciling them will demand that some deeply held intuition must give way. One such intuition is that the world exists within space and time. Participants at the Kavli workshop were inclined to think that space and time are not fundamental, but emergent. The universe we seeing playing out in space and time may be just the surface level, where we float like little boats while leviathans stir in the deep.
Black holes provide the strongest argument for this point of view. The laws of gravity predict that these cosmic vacuum cleaners obey versions of the laws of thermodynamics, which is strange, because thermodynamics is the branch of physics that describes composite systems, such as gases made up of molecules. A black hole sure doesn’t look like a composite system. It just looks like a warped region of space that you would do well to stay away from. For it to be composite, space itself must be.
In that case, black holes represent a new phase of matter. Outside the hole, the universe’s “degrees of freedom”—all that its most fundamental building blocks are capable of—are in a low-energy state, forming what you might think of as a crystal, with a fixed, regular arrangement we perceive as the spacetime continuum. But inside the hole, conditions become so extreme that the continuum breaks apart. “You can make spacetime melt,” Verlinde told me. “This is really where spacetime ends. To understand what goes on, you need to use these underlying degrees of freedom.” Those degrees of freedom cannot be thought of as existing in one place or another. They transcend space. Their true venue is a ginormous abstract realm of possibilities—in the jargon, a “phase space” commensurate with their almost unimaginably rich repertoire of behaviors.
Verlinde’s 2010 paper applied this reasoning to the laws of gravity themselves. Instead of being a fundamental force of nature, as almost all physicists since Newton have thought, gravity may be an “entropic force”—a product of some finer-scale dynamics, much as the pressure force in a gas arises from collective molecular motions. At Kavli he went further and argued that the notion of emergent spacetime transforms our entire conception of the universe. “If you realize there’s much more phase space than we usually assume—much more—you will think about cosmology differently,” he argued.
For starters, dark matter may be a glimpse into the depths. To account for anomalous motions within galaxies and larger systems, astronomers think our universe must be filled with some invisible material that outweighs ordinary matter by a factor of five to one. They have never detected the material directly, though, and for something that is supposed to be so overwhelmingly dominant, dark matter has a puzzlingly subtle effect. The anomalous motions occur only in the unfashionable outskirts of galaxies. Stars and gas clouds out there move faster than they should, but don’t do anything truly wacky—it is as if the gravitational field of the visible galaxy were simply being amplified.
Consequently, some astronomers and physicists suspect there may be no dark matter after all. If you notice the floorboards in your house are sagging, as if there is too much weight on them, you might conclude there is an 800-pound gorilla in the room with you. You see no gorilla, so it must be invisible. You hear no gorilla, so it must be silent. You smell no gorilla, so it must be odorless. After a while, the gorilla seems so improbably stealthy that you begin to think there must be some other explanation for the sagging floorboards—the house has settled, say. Likewise, perhaps the laws of gravity and motion which led astronomers to deduce dark matter are wrong. “I think dark matter will be a sign of another type of physics,” Verlinde said.
The leading alternative to dark matter is known as MOND, for Modified Newtonian Dynamics. Verlinde has reinterpreted MOND not just as a tweak to the laws of physics, but as evidence for a vast substratum. He derived the MOND formula by assuming dark matter is not a novel type of particle but the vibrations of some underlying degrees of freedom—specifically, vibrations produced by random thermal fluctuations. Such fluctuations are muted and become conspicuous only where the average thermal energy is low, such as in the outskirts of galaxies. Astoundingly, Verlinde even derived the five-to-one ratio. “I started seeing this as a manifestation of this larger phase space,” he said.
MOND is super-iffy, as cosmologist Sean Carroll has detailed in a series of blog posts over the years, most recently this one. I’m inclined to agree, but one thing gives me pause. MOND manages to account for a wide range of anomalous galactic motions with one simple formula. Even if MOND doesn’t overturn the laws of physics, it has shown that dark matter behaves in a simple way. All the complicated dynamics of dark matter must somehow settle down into a very regular pattern. Dark-matter modelers tell me they have yet to explain this.
Verlinde bucks conventional wisdom not only on dark matter, but also on much of the rest of cosmology. For instance, he has reintroduced elements of the steady-state theory that most cosmologists thought they had ruled out in the 1960s. In his model, all matter—ordinary as well as dark—consists of vibrations of the underlying degrees of freedom and so is being created and destroyed all the time. In fact, the same degrees of freedom also explain dark energy, thereby unifying all the components of the universe. What differentiates these components is how fast they respond: ordinary matter is the surface chop, dark matter the languid but powerful deep currents, and dark energy the quiet bulk of the sea. As for another leading cosmological theory, cosmic inflation, he doesn’t think much of that, either.
The grander his claims become, the less plausible they seem. Still, Verlinde has captured theorists’ sense that cosmological mysteries signal a new era of physics. The impulse to explain dark matter and dark energy as signatures of a deeper reality, rather than a bolt-on to current theories, arises not only in string theory but also in alternatives such as loop quantum gravity and causal set theory. And if Verlinde is wrong and spacetime really is a root-level feature of our world, what other intuition will have to give way? What other thing that we thought we knew for sure is wrong?
Maybe parts of the Bible remain to be decoded?
Yep that proves it! Discussion over.
The work of scientists, even those 'wacky' theoretical physicists, is of enormous value. Does that work, in and of itself, answer the big questions about existence? Not likely but they are valuable nonetheless, just as the research necessary to invent the light bulb was valuable, or the discovery of penicillin. Jesus is the light of the world, and he is our healer, but I seriously doubt that he would have dismissed the work of Edison or Fleming as somehow missing the point.
Please be assured that I don't believe you are dismissing the work of science, but often others who read these threads misunderstand the position that Christians take.
Here's more to make your head hurt:
In the big bang, we had all the matter-energy being in a tiny point -- a universe-sized black hole. Nothing can escape a black hole. Yet, the big bang happened.
The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world.
In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.
Psalms 19:1-6
You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.They try to explain away what the very word says, many even claim you must have a secret code ring to understand the truths of the Bible, yet the truth is simple. It is written in easy to read words that the common man can understand if he seeks with a believing heart.
John 5:39-40
A fundamental assumption of science is that the Universe can be understood. Further, that it can be understood by an intelligence in the human range. What if that's not true?
Could a human with an IQ of 75 ever achieve an intuitive understanding of quantum mechanics. How long would it take to get such a person to be able to pass a course in partial differential equations? What if the math involved in understanding the universe is outside human range?
Thanks LibWhacker.
Understood and agreed.
My whole problem is more with those who actually admit they are doing the research because they claim to be looking for the source of the creation. When the source is before them, but they deny Him.
God wants us to study his creation, He even tells us to search for Him in it. As I said, there was a time when men studied the world around us to better understand God and how to utilize the great treasures of knowledge and beauty he has loaded into his creation we call the universe.
If the vast majority of scientists would quit trying to feed us lies about the universe, we could get on with using it to make all of mankind’s life better to live. They waist so much time and energy trying to prove theories that will never ever prove to be true, yet they will ignore many more simple truths that would be beneficial to man if they just let go of their desire to disprove God and his truths.
There is yet much to be revealed. I agree the Holy Spirit opens hearts, eyes, and minds, moment by moment.
You are judging a large population by the opinions of those who you read about, mainly because they are 'controversial'.
I think if you took a poll of all scientists, you would find that the bell curve would be about the same as the bell curve for the US population.
If the true God who cannot lie, lied about the number of days and how he created us, then He is not a true God.
God didn't lie. Days have no meaning to anyone other than physical life forms on the planet Earth. All all of them have a different 'view' of what a day is. Penguins find it hard to believe that humans think a day is exactly 24 hours. For all we know, the author of Genesis used the aramaic/latin/whatever word 'day' because 'countless millenia' was too hard to spell.
Since a number like 40 billion is incomprehensible to me in term of 'years', and regardless to the 'length' of what is called a 'day' in the Bible, any 'details' provided by the Bible were man's attempt at communicating to other men. So... if God inspired the 'concepts' , and they are there, then I'd say don't sweat the details.
Evolution is a means to explain the adaptation of life-forms. The creation of new life-forms (advancement) is not done by evolution. Science tries to mix the two, which is why they run into problems.
The creation of man required the will of God. Literally.
Adam (mankind) was created based on the same working and well proven pattern that all creatures use, which you have to admit is a pretty clever plan. God created all the creatures at once. YES. He just didn't have them all 'living' at the exact same time. Just because God said Adam could name the creatures (which only included ones in a five mile radius), doesn't mean they didn't exist before. I mean, it was a GARDEN.
The creation of the Universe, the Earth, all life forms and even viruses was instantaneous. The 'execution' was, however, a bit longer.
The good part is we can choose 'good', and create 'good', and it's all up to us. Just having the scales tipped towards good most of the time is all that is necessary. These are the messages in the Bible. The concepts are there, and very simple. The concepts apply on in multiple levels, such as macro and cosmological, or daily personal to lifetime personal events.
I believe God was trying to point out that he gave us free will, and that means 'our world' is the result of 'our choices'. The environment around us is a long term crap shoot, where change is the only constant, and is mainly there to 'make you grow' (in more ways than one). God is not to blame for the 'society' we have created. Nor how we have altered the environment, good or bad. It's all up to us, and that, I believe, is a major 'concept' in the Bible that God wanted us to learn.
Yeah, really small waveheight, Like smaller than 53.025×10(to the minus 36 power) ft, and I would guess a really low, almost imperceptible frequency.
Much like that 'still small voice of God' that is inside each of us.
It has been my experience that the really smart ones are the ones more concerned with what they do not know, than with what they do.
Sorry, I just 'arrived' here.
I missed the first part of the conversation. Proves what?
The word was written for men to know. The Hebrew of the Torah which is the first five books of the Bible Christians use, was specific in using the words that could only mean days, not eras, millions or billions and not millenniums.
So we know that God wants us to know he created everything in the time span that men understand to be human days in how we measure time.
I could give you a lesson in the Hebrew as apposed to English, but I am afraid you would be lost in my attempt to explain the nuisances and meaning when we are talking about a language that had no vowels.
Besides it would take more time then I have to offer while I am at work, and am not sure I will have the energy or desire to properly formulate my reasoning in a way that would convey and educate you in why the events in Genesis chapters 1 to 3 are to be taken literal.
If you believe Christ cured the sick, healed the lame, and brought the dead to life, and then Himself died and was resurrected, then why is it so damn hard for you to believe God did all this in 6 days and rested on the 7th?
If however, you do not believe Christ did all he did and came back from the dead before ascending into heaven to sit on the right hand of His father, then you have more problems then just believing in a small god.
It is possible. I don't think it was coded to begin with, though.
I think that it was written so that we got 'what we needed', as we needed it. As we grow, our 'concept' of God, religion, faith alter. "When I was a child, I acted like a child".
We grow, and face new challenges, yet the answers are there in the Bible, if we just look. They were there all along, we just didn't 'understand' them. IMHO, your 'belief' in the 'meaning' of the Bible is a covenant between you and God (assuming you actually undertake to read if from cover to cover, at least once), and anyone else's view is really irrelevant. Our lives and choices are not the same, and the 'word' that we 'need' from God, depends on each individual.
My fault for rambling too much.
Six days, 60 billion years, does it really matter?
Must we require or prove that God is so infinitely awesome that he did it in six days? Does it matter how 'long' Got took? Does it alter the beauty and complexity of the the Universe and the World we know?
Which do you think was the 'point' of Genesis? How long it took, or that God did it?
However, I've found two works by Gerald Schroeder very interesting:
"The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom", and
"God According to God: A Scientist Discovers We've Been Wrong About God All Along".
(I usually borrow from the library first, and then buy if I can afford, and want to own them.)
Lately I've been reading Robert M. Hazen, "Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins".
I find it very interesting that reproduction could not have evolved, but had to be "built in" already, from the first organisms or they couldn't have continued their line. That's pretty sophisticated, and would seem consistent with my own belief in God.
I can remember learning the math to deal with equations beyond three dimensions. I do not, however have an innate sense of dimensions beyond three. I can still work the math for any number of dimensions but if, as some string theorists assert, there are seven or nine or eleven actual dimensions then reality is a place I cannot ever fully understand. Answers that might be obvious to me if the universe were a three dimensional place, will always be out of reach to me; I can never have an intuitive sense of the place.
Its pretty obvious that dark matter is a fudge factor because current models of the universe are wrong. There might possibly be dark energy but dark matter doesn’t exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.