Science > Physics > Proposed radical new approach to understanding the universe
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sam Wormley" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2006 09:13:26 PM |
| Object: |
Proposed radical new approach to understanding the universe |
From the present to the past (Jun 30)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/6/16
Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking and his CERN colleague Thomas Hertog
have proposed a radical new approach to understanding the universe that
studies it from the "top down" rather than the "bottom up" as in
traditional models. The approach acknowledges that the universe did not
have just one unique beginning and history but a multitude of different
beginnings and histories, and that it has experienced them all. But
because most of these other alternative histories disappeared very early
after the Big Bang to leave behind the universe we observe today, the
best way to understand the past, they say, is to trace our knowledge
back from the present (Phys. Rev. D 73 123527).
.
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed radical new approach to understanding the universe |
01 Jul 2006 01:01:48 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:aTkpg.13174$FQ1.4768@attbi_s71...
From the present to the past (Jun 30)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/6/16
Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking and his CERN colleague Thomas
Hertog
have proposed a radical new approach to understanding the universe
that
studies it from the "top down" rather than the "bottom up" as in
traditional models. The approach acknowledges that the universe
did not
have just one unique beginning and history but a multitude of
different
beginnings and histories, and that it has experienced them all.
But
because most of these other alternative histories disappeared very
early
after the Big Bang to leave behind the universe we observe today,
the
best way to understand the past, they say, is to trace our
knowledge
back from the present (Phys. Rev. D 73 123527).
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0602091
"Populating the Landscape: A Top Down Approach"
Assuming they mean by "universe" our local "bubble" part of it, then it
doesn't really matter whether you start at the bottom or top. You are
still going to have trouble figuring out what the bottom is. ;-) There
is really only one way to do it. Try to figure out what the geometry of
interactions is in the quantum "vacuum". That is what dictates all that
we know and more.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed radical new approach to understanding the universe |
01 Jul 2006 03:29:10 AM |
|
|
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:aTkpg.13174$FQ1.4768@attbi_s71...
From the present to the past (Jun 30)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/6/16
Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking and his CERN colleague Thomas
Hertog
have proposed a radical new approach to understanding the universe
that
studies it from the "top down" rather than the "bottom up" as in
traditional models. The approach acknowledges that the universe
did not
have just one unique beginning and history but a multitude of
different
beginnings and histories, and that it has experienced them all.
But
because most of these other alternative histories disappeared very
early
after the Big Bang to leave behind the universe we observe today,
the
best way to understand the past, they say, is to trace our
knowledge
back from the present (Phys. Rev. D 73 123527).
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0602091
"Populating the Landscape: A Top Down Approach"
Assuming they mean by "universe" our local "bubble" part of it, then it
doesn't really matter whether you start at the bottom or top. You are
still going to have trouble figuring out what the bottom is. ;-) There
is really only one way to do it. Try to figure out what the geometry of
interactions is in the quantum "vacuum". That is what dictates all that
we know and more.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
All sounds quite nonconstructivistic. Also, you need both top-down and
bottom up processes to form a metasystem transition and the current
state of the Universe.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed radical new approach to understanding the universe |
01 Jul 2006 05:07:39 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sat, 01 Jul 2006 02:13:26 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <aTkpg.13174$FQ1.4768@attbi_s71>:
From the present to the past (Jun 30)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/6/16
Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking and his CERN colleague Thomas Hertog
have proposed a radical new approach to understanding the universe that
studies it from the "top down" rather than the "bottom up" as in
traditional models. The approach acknowledges that the universe did not
have just one unique beginning and history but a multitude of different
beginnings and histories,
Must have gotten to hawkin's brain now
Do we need this crap?
CLOSE CERN TOO, BEFORE THEY DESTROY THE EARTH
like they did their brain.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rock Brentwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed radical new approach to understanding the universe |
06 Jul 2006 06:10:17 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
From the present to the past (Jun 30)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/6/16
Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking and his CERN colleague Thomas Hertog
have proposed a radical new approach [which] acknowledges that the universe
did not have just one unique beginning and history but a multitude of different
beginnings and histories, and that it has experienced them all.
Then there's no point to having empirical science, since everything
happened, all experiments happened in all ways and there's nothing left
to test for or falsify (i.e., the new creed is self-defeating and
therefore dead on arrival). Even Newtonian Physics is true, since one
of the lines of evolution was into a Newton-Cartan spacetime. (Hell,
even a hybrid Riemmannian, Lorentzian, Newton-Cartan spacetime is in
there somewhere).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed radical new approach to understanding the universe |
01 Jul 2006 11:34:25 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
From the present to the past (Jun 30)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/6/16
Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking and his CERN colleague Thomas Hertog
have proposed a radical new approach to understanding the universe that
studies it from the "top down" rather than the "bottom up" as in
traditional models.
Here's the paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0602091
The paper looks pretty dumb, and the physicsweb.org article is dumber. The
radical new "top down" approach appears to be what used to be called
"fitting the theory to the data". Landscape cosmology is the trendy new name
for what used to be called anthropic cosmology.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed radical new approach to understanding the universe |
30 Jun 2006 10:50:23 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
From the present to the past (Jun 30)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/6/16
Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking and his CERN colleague Thomas Hertog
have proposed a radical new approach to understanding the universe that
studies it from the "top down" rather than the "bottom up" as in
traditional models. The approach acknowledges that the universe did not
have just one unique beginning and history but a multitude of different
beginnings and histories, and that it has experienced them all. But
because most of these other alternative histories disappeared very early
after the Big Bang to leave behind the universe we observe today, the
best way to understand the past, they say, is to trace our knowledge
back from the present (Phys. Rev. D 73 123527).
Alternative histories become trivial as the now evolves.
Truth is the only nontrivial history.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed radical new approach to understanding the universe |
01 Jul 2006 12:17:22 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
From the present to the past (Jun 30)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/6/16
Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking and his CERN colleague Thomas Hertog
have proposed a radical new approach to understanding the universe that
studies it from the "top down" rather than the "bottom up" as in
traditional models. The approach acknowledges that the universe did not
have just one unique beginning and history but a multitude of different
beginnings and histories, and that it has experienced them all. But
because most of these other alternative histories disappeared very early
after the Big Bang to leave behind the universe we observe today, the
best way to understand the past, they say, is to trace our knowledge
back from the present (Phys. Rev. D 73 123527).
Bottom line: we must use our knowledge of the present to test and
evaluate models for the past.
In a single word: "Empiricism."
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed radical new approach to understanding the universe |
01 Jul 2006 12:53:53 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
From the present to the past (Jun 30)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/6/16
Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking and his CERN colleague Thomas Hertog
have proposed a radical new approach to understanding the universe that
studies it from the "top down" rather than the "bottom up" as in
traditional models. The approach acknowledges that the universe did not
have just one unique beginning and history but a multitude of different
beginnings and histories, and that it has experienced them all. But
because most of these other alternative histories disappeared very early
after the Big Bang to leave behind the universe we observe today, the
best way to understand the past, they say, is to trace our knowledge
back from the present (Phys. Rev. D 73 123527).
Top down? Isn't that basically the same approach that string theory
has been using all these years?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed radical new approach to understanding the universe |
01 Jul 2006 03:10:18 PM |
|
|
Igor wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
From the present to the past (Jun 30)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/6/16
Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking and his CERN colleague Thomas Hertog
have proposed a radical new approach to understanding the universe that
studies it from the "top down" rather than the "bottom up" as in
traditional models. The approach acknowledges that the universe did not
have just one unique beginning and history but a multitude of different
beginnings and histories, and that it has experienced them all. But
because most of these other alternative histories disappeared very early
after the Big Bang to leave behind the universe we observe today, the
best way to understand the past, they say, is to trace our knowledge
back from the present (Phys. Rev. D 73 123527).
I'm getting a picture of my wife trying to drive a stick shift, jerking
forward, then in reverse, repeatedly, over and over.
Now try that with a Markov Chain and you'll get the idea.
Well, I like Mr. Hawking - but if I had a chance, I would probably ask
him to explain:
He knows, based on his own prior work, that the universe is not
deterministic. There is a certain amount of disorder (or randomness,
uncertainty) inherent in the dynamics of the cosmos. Why then do we
seek to try to rewind it all the way back to the big bang, or rewind it
at all, knowing that it's evolution was less than %100 deterministic ?
It seems that the very fact that the universe is not deterministic
renders it impossible to rewind it as if it were a Newrtonian clock.
The only way around this is to understand the relationship between
order/disorder and scale, and hope that the relative scales of things
will even allow such a reckoning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed radical new approach to understanding the universe |
02 Jul 2006 12:37:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Igor wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
From the present to the past (Jun 30)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/6/16
Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking and his CERN colleague Thomas Hertog
have proposed a radical new approach to understanding the universe that
studies it from the "top down" rather than the "bottom up" as in
traditional models. The approach acknowledges that the universe did not
have just one unique beginning and history but a multitude of different
beginnings and histories, and that it has experienced them all. But
because most of these other alternative histories disappeared very early
after the Big Bang to leave behind the universe we observe today, the
best way to understand the past, they say, is to trace our knowledge
back from the present (Phys. Rev. D 73 123527).
I'm getting a picture of my wife trying to drive a stick shift, jerking
forward, then in reverse, repeatedly, over and over.
Now try that with a Markov Chain and you'll get the idea.
Well, I like Mr. Hawking - but if I had a chance, I would probably ask
him to explain:
He knows, based on his own prior work, that the universe is not
deterministic. There is a certain amount of disorder (or randomness,
uncertainty) inherent in the dynamics of the cosmos. Why then do we
seek to try to rewind it all the way back to the big bang, or rewind it
at all, knowing that it's evolution was less than %100 deterministic ?
It's not that simple. The terminology that you're using can have
different meanings in different areas. There is a basic difference,
for example, between randomness in classical mechanics, where it arises
from the interactions of multiple bodies, and randomness in quantum
theory, where the dominant paradigm is that randomness tends to be
fundamental. Even quantum mechanics, which most assume to completely
non-deterministic, has elements of determinism within it. That they
don't fit into our everyday Newtonian picture of the world is our own
problem.
It seems that the very fact that the universe is not deterministic
renders it impossible to rewind it as if it were a Newrtonian clock.
The only way around this is to understand the relationship between
order/disorder and scale, and hope that the relative scales of things
will even allow such a reckoning.
Nobody is pretending that it is a Newtonian clock. No model of the
universe, be it Newtonian or Relativistic, can predict the exact
location and momentum of every object contained therin. To say that
there's just too many of them would be a tremendous understatement.
That's why cosmologists tend to use thermodynamic-type terms, such as
temperature, pressure, and density to describe the universe in the
large. And so far, this has proven quite useful.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
