One probably should read science, philosophy and history for-oneself. If so one may learn about the tenuous grasp on existence humanity faces today with numerous self-generated challenges that may end human anytime. The future has dystopian vectors proliferating. Hard science fiction today tends to run behind the pace of actual science. If one mentions spirit and the paradigm of the existence of the cosmology of the Universe as a sort of virtual field, the establishment narrative vociferously defends their worldly turf as if in reaction to salt touching a slug.. It is like the parable of the crabpots were crabs could not escape because other crabs pulled them down as they tried to climb out of the trap. Tegmark's 'The Mathematical Universe' was just one non-standard approach to cosmological investigation- there are numerous others.
I read some of Sagan's works like Dragon's of Eden and have a fairly good idea of his public information having lived through that era. Democrats prefer ad hominems and straw men. You may regard a two-dimensional universe as silly and uninformed, yet it is a real scientific idea. Here is a paper from 2009 in Physics Letters B https://www.sciencedirect.com/…/pii/S0370269309009204
My casual reference to a quantum cosmology paradigm that is fairly well known seemed scientifically uneducated to some. Well at least google AI knows about it- a consolation for me if you have a bad opinion… "The idea of two dimensions underlying the entangled universe suggests that quantum entanglement, a phenomenon where two or more particles become linked in such a way that they share the same fate, might be connected to the existence of extra dimensions beyond our 3 spatial dimensions and time. This connection proposes that entanglement could be a manifestation of interactions happening in higher dimensions, perhaps even acting as a form of "geometric glue" holding spacetime together, according to some theoretical models. "
Sagan didn't prove anything in philosophy or theology to support his appearance of atheism (he may have been an agnostic). Unfortunately he is regarded as a media forerunner of Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins; scientist that have taken Sagan's 'I have no proof for the God hypothesis' to a public atheist militant posture.. I didn't write anything about theologians or philosophers being dilettantes. I have read a lot of philosophy and theology and would not be so inclined. Perhaps you don't know the definition- "a person who cultivates an area of interest, such as the arts, without real commitment or knowledge". Sagan's science was solid enough. Scientific knowledge really does not encompass philosophy, theology and metaphysics. It seems to me unscientific to use science as a support for faith in atheism.
I read all of those cosmology books like Weinberg's (an atheist) 'The First Three Minutes' etc back in the day. John Barrow's 'The Book of Universes' was interesting, as was Tegmark's 'The Mathematical Universe' and several others that I read. Watson and Crick were fairly new when I was a kid as were Penzias and WilsonIf Fred Hoyle and his static Universe hypothesis still was an acceptable alternative minority theory. If scientists stick with science their work is credible. There are several that write popular books on cosmology and physics that I like and other such as those by Sean Carrol that toss in a few gratuitous shots at people of faith like Ken Follet would toss in a gratuitous sloppy sex scene in his otherwise good reading fiction books.
A lot of people are ill-informed about the Bible, including people identifying as Christians, much less scientists. It takes a lot of time to be well read in various disciplines and people are specialists and mostly unaware of depth content in other fields. Someone could program an AI to interrogate specialist in science and other fields to ask Socratic questions of them to demonstrate their ignorance. There is real depth in theology, the Bible and especially the paradigm of God that people are often dismissive of as if it were part of 'the demon haunted world'.
Clarence Darrow and the Scopes trial, Charles Darwin and the monkey trial paradigm was an excuse for many to dismiss faith in God. Knowledge however increased in the field of Christianity as well as in science. The Bible was ever independent of the people that made hermeneutics from it. George LeMaitre was a Belgian priest, Gregory Mendel an Augustinian friar. If God were evolving the Universe, or shaped it in stages with his thought, who would know in the scientific community today?
On this day where notice of Pope Francis dying was made, and I am not Catholic, I will say I don't believe Carl Sagan is a demon haunting the world. I have made an effort to explain some of the paradigm I mentioned above in a few free ebooks. https://www.lulu.com/shop/garrison-c-gibson/christianity-evolution-and-digital-universes/ebook/product-wnddgd.html?page=1&pageSize=4
Regarding time warps- there is actually a theory that time does not exist as it is presented in the unified space-time paradigm of General Relativity. A woman physicist published a paper recently on time being generated as a phenomena of quantum entanglement. I am not too well read on the concept right now. I did go over related ideas about faster than light travel in other ways than the GR paradigm for wormholes in an essay post I made a while ago. I will post that below. I read an interesting book a few years ago named ‘Faster Than the Speed of Light’ by Dr. Joao Magueijo- he speculated that the speed of light may be variable.
The wormhole idea may have started with Einstein and Rosen (ER) critiquing quantum mechanics; they regarded it as an incomplete theory.. They believed that quantum entanglement could hypothetically be explained by a wormhole between entangled quantum particles. Plainly that opens the way to fiction paradigms for star trek transporters sending people through shaped quantum wormholes.
A modern theory that may surpass the Lamda Cold Dark Matter CDM model is one that has space-time and all of the contingent-entangled Universe being comparable to an illusion that occurs on or from an underlying timeless realm. Today some believe it could be explained by the four-dimensional universe being somewhat like a physical projection or phenomenon from an underlying two-dimensional field. That is the Universe of four dimensions is comparable to an illusion or phenomenon made because the field fluctuations of the two dimensional field yield waves that become entangled at points as particles and so the extra dimensions exist in the entangled state. The new criterion would allow star-trek style transporters to relocate travelers anyplace in the Universe instantly. In a sense they would exploit quantum entanglement to disentangle themselves from local spacetime and reappear in another. More about that below.
ER=EPR stimulated, as I understand it, further ideas about wormholes between black holes and white holes. I hate to think about the way time is affected between the black hole and white holes in the wormholes. Some opinion based on ER is that the black white hole vector is the only form that wormholes could exist in space-time. One need put an asterisk next to many “only place” ideas obviously for they are difficult to prove.
There are other theories today about gravity and black holes instead of quantum gravity theories. One is that singularities don’t really exist in black holes and instead they stop reducing at a certain size and spew out their mass through the wormhole and white hole on the other end.
Quantum entropy is a new explanation for gravity that obviously isn’t proven yet. Yet it could provide another opportunity for faster-than-light-travel theory. One should be able to use a star trek transporter to reduce an individual to an unentangled state and bounce the information down to the timeless two-dimensional place that uplifts the contingent universe of four dimensions. Space-time in that timeless two-dimensional realm is quite different (no time and no distance in comparison to the four dimension realm). Then one need return the disentangled quanta to a different location in the Universe.
Here is some information about quantum entropy gravity theory summarized by Gemini-
“The "quantum entropy theory of gravity" is a framework that proposes that gravity can be derived from quantum relative entropy, a measure of how different two quantum states are. This approach attempts to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity by treating gravity as an emergent phenomenon arising from the differences in information content between spacetime and matter.
Entropy and Gravity:
The core idea is that gravity isn't a fundamental force but rather a consequence of the increasing disorder (entropy) within a system. In this framework, the geometry of spacetime is related to a quantum operator, and the difference between the natural spacetime metric and the metric induced by matter fields is quantified by quantum relative entropy.
Bridging Quantum and General Relativity:
By linking gravity to quantum information, this theory aims to reconcile the two seemingly incompatible theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Modified Einstein Equations:
The entropic action leads to modified Einstein equations that, under certain conditions, reduce to the familiar equations of general relativity. However, it also predicts a small, positive cosmological constant, which aligns better with the observed accelerated expansion of the universe than other existing theories.
The G-field:
The theory introduces a G-field, an auxiliary field acting as a Lagrangian multiplier, which plays a crucial role in the modified gravity equations and potentially offers new insights into dark matter.
Emergent Gravity:
This approach suggests that gravity might be an emergent phenomenon, meaning it arises from the collective behavior of smaller, more fundamental constituents of spacetime.”
No comments:
Post a Comment