JEROME - Life and Linear Time

[arthwollipot]

In another thread, I asked JEROME DA GNOME to clarify what he believed about the origins of life and the universe. His response was:

Concerning the origin of life? I support the idea that life has always existed, as science, at this point, only evidences life coming from life. In addition I know that our western concept of time is derived from religion and as such I do not accepted it without evidence.

I replied:

Let me attemt to understand where you're coming from here. You claim that life has "always" existed? Do you mean on this planet, or in the universe? And secondly, I would like to further understand what you mean by the "western concept of time". What do you mean by this?

He replied:

Yes.

Universe.

We have no evidence of linear time on the universal scale, we have no evidence of a beginning of time. Think eternity backwards as well as forwards.

At that point I decided to start a new thread, rather than derail the existing one. I would appreciate it if a moderator could step in if the topic strays too far from those listed in the thread tags.

So here's my first topic for Jerome:

Einstein's theories of Special and General relativity, and astronomical observations, show that the universe is expanding, and must therefore have had an origin. Einstein's equations are the most accurate mathematical description of the universe we have - they are spectacularly successful in describing the way the observed universe works. Furthermore, according to Einstein, time cannot be separated from space. All that can be described is a four-dimensional spacetime. If space had an origin, time must therefore have had an origin as well.

Jerome contents that the universe has always existed - it is eternal both into the past and into the future. This idea contradicts the most accurate mathematical description of the universe we have. If Einstein was correct (and as far as we can tell, he was), then the universe cannot be eternal.

I open the floor to discussion.

 

[Slimething]

I don't mean to play semantic games but, if even if all known matter once existed inside a singularity, JdN would still be correct. We can't apply the concept of time until the point beyond the event horizon when matter coalesced into a form that was associated with time. Or that's the way I understand it. So, if time began with matter, then matter has always existed.

Please be gentle if I'm completely deluded.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't mean to play semantic games but, if even if all known matter once existed inside a singularity, JdN would still be correct. We can't apply the concept of time until the point beyond the event horizon when matter coalesced into a form that was associated with time. Or that's the way I understand it. So, if time began with matter, then matter has always existed.

Please be gentle if I'm completely deluded.

Okay, I think I know what you're saying. If time had a beginning, then the term "always" can only be applied up until that beginning point. I do not believe that this is what Jerome was claiming. He was saying that there was no beginning - that time is eternal, or cyclic, or something. Perhaps he can elaborate.

 

[wollery]

Jerome's problem in tackling this subject is that he repeatedly dismisses the evidence for the Big Bang on the basis that it relies on the initial premise that there was a beginning.

He dismisses the idea that there was a beginning on the basis that time is not linear, which he ascribes as a tenet of Western religious thought.

The fact that the Big Bang is a conclusion, not a premise, is something which he continually fails to respond to.

 

[arthwollipot]

And I hope to address these issues if and when Jerome joins us.

 

[The Man]

I don't mean to play semantic games but, if even if all known matter once existed inside a singularity, JdN would still be correct. We can't apply the concept of time until the point beyond the event horizon when matter coalesced into a form that was associated with time. Or that's the way I understand it. So, if time began with matter, then matter has always existed.

Please be gentle if I'm completely deluded.

He was saying that there was no beginning - that time is eternal, or cyclic, or something. Perhaps he can elaborate.

Exactly, and some of us have given Jerome specific references (Loop Quantum Gravity) that could be used to argue for some form of circular time. Unfortunately, even this does not buy Jerome what he wants, because life could not exist immediately before or after the transitions in that “circular time” (big bounce). It seems he wants the best of both worlds, circular time and eternal past. The former maybe possible (under some considerations) but the latter is clearly erroneous. Unfortunately, he gives little, if any, elaboration, so he can always fall back on one or the other. So, please elaborate, Jerome, because your propositions are mutually exclusive.

 

[sol invictus]

Forget about relativity and fancy physics for a moment.

Look in any direction through a big telescope, and you'll see galaxies moving directly away from us - always away, never towards. The further away you look, the faster they are moving away (with a speed proportional to the distance). And whichever direction you look, you see more or less the same number and type of galaxies.

Now imagine a bomb exploding. Some particles fly away from the bomb quickly, some more slowly. If you survive the blast and are sitting at the center (where the bomb was) some time later, you'll observe stuff all around you, all moving away, and the further away something is, the faster it's moving (with a speed proportional to distance).

Put it another way - imagine running the universe back in time. All those distant galaxies would be flying towards us, and they will all arrive at the same time (since their speed is proportional to their distance) unless something stops them. But gravity is an attractive force - it actually makes them fly together faster (just as it slows the expansion going forward in time). That moment in the past - when all that stuff crunches down on top of us - is called the big bang.

If you believe in an eternal universe, you've got quite a job to do to explain how all of that is wrong.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Look in any direction through a big telescope, and you'll see galaxies moving directly away from us - always away, never towards. The further away you look, the faster they are moving away (with a speed proportional to the distance). And whichever direction you look, you see more or less the same number and type of galaxies.

Now imagine a bomb exploding. Some particles fly away from the bomb quickly, some more slowly. If you survive the blast and are sitting at the center (where the bomb was) some time later, you'll observe stuff all around you, all moving away, and the further away something is, the faster it's moving (with a speed proportional to distance).

In your bomb analogy, does the energy from the bomb accelerate in its expansion over time or slow? The universe seems to be accelerating its expansion. Is this not contrary to what we know about physics? Is is possible that our perceptions are being interpreted incorrectly?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Exactly, and some of us have given Jerome specific references (Loop Quantum Gravity) that could be used to argue for some form of circular time. Unfortunately, even this does not buy Jerome what he wants, because life could not exist immediately before or after the transitions in that “circular time” (big bounce). It seems he wants the best of both worlds, circular time and eternal past. The former maybe possible (under some considerations) but the latter is clearly erroneous. Unfortunately, he gives little, if any, elaboration, so he can always fall back on one or the other. So, please elaborate, Jerome, because your propositions are mutually exclusive.

Not mutually exclusive if neither of your possibles are correct.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome's problem in tackling this subject is that he repeatedly dismisses the evidence for the Big Bang on the basis that it relies on the initial premise that there was a beginning.

He dismisses the idea that there was a beginning on the basis that time is not linear, which he ascribes as a tenet of Western religious thought.

The fact that the Big Bang is a conclusion, not a premise, is something which he continually fails to respond to.

No, the Big Bang was a conclusion that made a prediction and based upon that prediction it is confirmed in the minds of men as the correct conclusion.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I don't mean to play semantic games but, if even if all known matter once existed inside a singularity, JdN would still be correct. We can't apply the concept of time until the point beyond the event horizon when matter coalesced into a form that was associated with time. Or that's the way I understand it. So, if time began with matter, then matter has always existed.

We have no evidence that all matter even could have existed inside a singularity. We can not even explain this thought without making excuses as to why the math and physics than are known do not work. We know that matter and energy are constant in respect to the amount which exists. Until such time as we can evidence that matter and energy can be destroyed or created than we must assume that it has always been.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Einstein's theories of Special and General relativity, and astronomical observations, show that the universe is expanding, and must therefore have had an origin. Einstein's equations are the most accurate mathematical description of the universe we have - they are spectacularly successful in describing the way the observed universe works. Furthermore, according to Einstein, time cannot be separated from space. All that can be described is a four-dimensional spacetime. If space had an origin, time must therefore have had an origin as well.

Albert disagrees with you.
Albert Einstein

The development during the present century is characterized by two theoretical systems essentially independent of each other: the theory of relativity and the quantum theory. The two systems do not directly contradict each other; but they seem little adapted to fusion into one unified theory. For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation. (Albert Einstein, 1940)

 

[aggle-rithm]

In your bomb analogy, does the energy from the bomb accelerate in its expansion over time or slow?

In a vacuum, the expansion would be constant.

I'm not sure I like the bomb analogy, because the Big Bang and the resulting Universe are not an explosion -- they are an expansion of space-time.

The universe seems to be accelerating its expansion. Is this not contrary to what we know about physics?

It suggests that our physics are incomplete -- which is wonderful! It means we still have something to strive for.

Interestingly, the accelerating expansion seems in some ways consistent with Einstein's cosmological constant, the "fudge factor" that he considered his greatest blunder. He had postulated an unknown force which, unlike gravity, grew stronger with distance rather than weaker. This is consistent with an accelerating expansion.

Is is possible that our perceptions are being interpreted incorrectly?

Physicists ALWAYS take this possibility into account, but when our observations are so consistent with theory, it's hard to justify throwing them out.

 

[aggle-rithm]

No, the Big Bang was a conclusion that made a prediction and based upon that prediction it is confirmed in the minds of men as the correct conclusion.

Where else would it be confirmed, in the minds of wombats?

The Big Bang is simply the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of the Universe. If you argue a static universe, you have to explain why it doesn't collapse in on itself. If you argue an eternal universe, you have to explain why we don't see light older than 14 billion years. If you argue a steady-state universe, you have to explain where the new matter is coming from.

If you have a better explanation that fits all the observations, I would love to hear it.

ETA: The argument about linear versus circular time is equivocation, since physics has to do with "clock" time and you are talking about psychological time.

 

[sol invictus]

In your bomb analogy, does the energy from the bomb accelerate in its expansion over time or slow?

If the only force acting on it is gravity (with no cosmological constant), the overall expansion of the bomb (or the universe) will gradually slow.

The universe seems to be accelerating its expansion. Is this not contrary to what we know about physics? Is is possible that our perceptions are being interpreted incorrectly?

The simplest explanation for that is the presence of a positive cosmological constant. But that's really a red herring - the acceleration is a small effect which only matters in the current (and future) stage of the universe. Run back in time a little and it becomes totally negligible. it was only measured quite recently, using very sensitive tests. But the gross fact of the expansion as I presented it was observed by Edwin Hubble way back in 1920's.

So forget about fancy things like late-time acceleration - just think about the fact that in every direction, galaxies are moving away from us, with a speed (roughly) proportional to distance. That is not at all a steady state, and it immediately implies that something drastic happened in the past - a big bang, or at least a "bounce".

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Jerome,

Is change possible within the universe?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

In a vacuum, the expansion would be constant.

I'm not sure I like the bomb analogy, because the Big Bang and the resulting Universe are not an explosion -- they are an expansion of space-time.

There is no true vacuum. As such the force of the bomb will always slow to some degree, it will never accelerate.

An expansion of space-time, yes, that is the current thought.

It suggests that our physics are incomplete -- which is wonderful! It means we still have something to strive for.

Interestingly, the accelerating expansion seems in some ways consistent with Einstein's cosmological constant, the "fudge factor" that he considered his greatest blunder. He had postulated an unknown force which, unlike gravity, grew stronger with distance rather than weaker. This is consistent with an accelerating expansion.

A gnome is needed to explain the accelerated expansion. Should this not call into question our perceptions of the data?

Physicists ALWAYS take this possibility into account, but when our observations are so consistent with theory, it's hard to justify throwing them out.

Consistent if a gnome is added.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Where else would it be confirmed, in the minds of wombats?

The Big Bang is simply the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of the Universe. If you argue a static universe, you have to explain why it doesn't collapse in on itself. If you argue an eternal universe, you have to explain why we don't see light older than 14 billion years. If you argue a steady-state universe, you have to explain where the new matter is coming from.

The Big Bang is assuming an origin.

Please explain how we have come to the conclusion that light can be measured for age.

 

[sol invictus]

Please explain how we have come to the conclusion that light can be measured for age.

Light doesn't really have an age. S/he meant that the source of the light was that old.

Here's how it works: stars don't produce pure white light. They produce a complicated spectrum with peaks and valleys (i.e. lots of some colors, not much of others). When a light source is moving away, the colors all get shifted towards the red end of the spectrum by an amount that depends on the speed of the source (this is very well known; it's seen and measured every day in countless experiments). That's called Doppler shift; it's the same effect that makes the pitch of a car horn or siren change when the car moves past you at high speed.

So if you pick a particular peak in the spectrum of light from some star and measure its wavelength, you know how fast that star was moving towards or away from you when it emitted the light. Furthermore you can also measure the distance to the star (that's actually harder to do, but it's possible - for example the farther away it is, the dimmer it will appear).

So we've measured the distance and velocity of lots of stars, and we notice that they are related linearly - the further away they are, the faster they are moving - and they're always moving away from us, never towards (not counting very nearby stars like those in our own galaxy). Symbolically, v = H*d, where v is velocity, d is distance, and H is a constant called the Hubble constant.

 

[arthwollipot]

Albert disagrees with you.
Albert Einstein

The development during the present century is characterized by two theoretical systems essentially independent of each other: the theory of relativity and the quantum theory. The two systems do not directly contradict each other; but they seem little adapted to fusion into one unified theory. For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation. (Albert Einstein, 1940)

I don't see how that is disagreeing with me. Can you explain further?