Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 3, 2014 Author Share Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) Acme, on 22 Feb 2014 - 03:10 AM, said: I like the way you use your personal experience as : - An OBSERVATION as a means to formulate a contribution to THE CENTRAL PARADIGM which could cause a PARADIGM SHIFT . Whether this then ever becomes The World view remains very much to be seen ? a pattern or model".[1] The historian of science Thomas Kuhn mike . There is a hint abroad that a PARADIGM SHIFT may be about to hit the science / physics field. Eg there was not a [ Big Bang with massive inflation?] There was a before the Big Bang ,! There was not NOTHING. Before the Big Bang Tonight Horizon BBC 4 TV [3/3/2014 ] Showed many of the famous scientists from the Perimeter Institute in Canada saying the above . I will try and put a link on when it is available over the next day or two. Here is the Link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vdkmj/Horizon_20102011_What_Happened_Before_the_Big_Bang/ Mike Edited March 4, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 13, 2014 Author Share Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) . There is a hint abroad that a PARADIGM SHIFT may be about to hit the science / physics field. Questions on the Big Bang itself ! There was a before the Big Bang ,! There was not NOTHING. Before the Big Bang ..BBC HORIZON Here is the Link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vdkmj/Horizon_20102011_What_Happened_Before_the_Big_Bang/ Mike To me this has been a most thought provoking set of statements from well recognised Physics scientists for some time! . VIEWING -------- ENDS TODAY Mike Edited March 13, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 To me this has been a most thought provoking set of statements from well recognised Physics scientists for some time! . VIEWING -------- ENDS TODAY Mike Alas your link displays a message saying "Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only, but all BBC iPlayer Radio programmes are available to you." I'm in the US so no telly 4 me. What physicist said [paraphrasing] "the big bang is just one of those things that happens from time to time"? I could have misrememberated I suppose. Anyway, I have tried searching for the quote source and get a mountain of links to the US television show titled Big Bang Theory. D'oh! Culture bias takes the day on both sides of the pond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 13, 2014 Author Share Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) Alas your link displays a message saying "Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only, but all BBC iPlayer Radio programmes are available to you." I'm in the US so no telly 4 me. What physicist said [paraphrasing] "the big bang is just one of those things that happens from time to time"? I could have misrememberated I suppose. Anyway, I have tried searching for the quote source and get a mountain of links to the US television show titled Big Bang Theory. D'oh! Culture bias takes the day on both sides of the pond. I had no Idea BBC i player not available in USA . I will try and find bits elsewhere - Documentary Documentary 102 Comments They are the biggest questions that science can possibly ask: where did everything in our universe come from? How did it all begin? For nearly a hundred years, we thought we had the answer: a big bang some 14 billion years ago. But now some scientists believe that was not really the beginning. Our universe may have had a life before this violent moment of creation. Horizon takes the ultimate trip into the unknown, to explore a dizzying world of cosmic bounces, rips and multiple universes, and finds out what happened before the big bang. Neil Turok, Director of Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, working with Paul Steinhardt at Princeton, has proposed a radical new answer to cosmology’s deepest question: What banged? Answer: Instead of the universe inexplicably springing into existence from a mysteriousinitial singularity, the Big Bang was a collision between two universes like ours existing as parallel membranes floating in a higher-dimensional space that we’re not aware of. One bang is followed by another, in a potentially endless series of cosmic cycles, each one spelling the end of a universe and the beginning of a new one. Not one bang, but many. Sir Roger Penrose has changed his mind about the Big Bang. He now imagines an eternal cycle of expanding universes where matter becomes energy and back again in the birth of new universes and so on and so on. This is just a preview. The full documentary is not available at this moment. scientists taking part in discussion :- Michio Kaku...Himself - The City College of New York (as Prof Michio Kaku)Andrei Linde...Himself - Stanford University (as Prof Andrei Linde)Laura Mersini-Houghton...Herself - University of North Carolina (as Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton)Bob Nichol...Himself - University of Portsmouth (as Prof Bob Nichol)Roger Penrose...Himself - Oxford University (as Prof Sir Roger Penrose)Param Singh...Himself - The Perimeter Institute (as Dr Param Singh)Lee Smolin...Himself - The Perimeter Institute (as Prof Lee Smolin)Neil Turok...Himself - The Perimeter Institute (as Prof Neil Turok) ULTIMATE QUESTION: What happened before the Big Bang?Ten years ago cosmologists embraced the theory of the Big Bang. Over the past few years however, physicists, scientists and philosophers have begun to challenge and change their beliefs radically. There are now at least six theories that aim to address the question of what happened before the Big Bang. Some contend that it never even happened in the first place. What we do know to be true is that the universe is cooling and expanding at an exponential rate. If this process is reversed in time, we end up with all the stuff of the universe condensed into an incredibly hot and incredibly dense ball. However, if we continue to reverse time, we arrive at the idea that everything somehow sprang from nothing — the so-called singularity. This is the biggest issue regarding the Big Bang. Knowing what happened immediately after the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, but nothing of what happened before, has become the most significant question in science and human discovery. What it has done is brought together some of the greatest minds from around the world who offer the following theories in an attempt to address the ultimate question. Professor Michio Kaku (City College of New York) Professor Michio Kaku addresses the problem of everything coming from nothing by suggesting that there are different notions of nothing. Nasa has constructed the biggest vacuum chamber in the world, which pumps and freezes out all the atoms over two days. The objective is to create a state of nothing that can be observed. However, Kaku points out that this state of nothing still has properties. It has dimensions and light can pass through it so that it can be observed. A state devoid of such properties, with no space or time, is termed “absolute nothing”. What has been observed is that in a perfect vacuum energy still exists, in which matter temporarily pops in and out of existence. Kaku theorises that the universe may have evolved from this pre-existing state. Professor Andrei Linde (Stanford University) Professor Andrei Linde agrees that the universe emerged from a pre-existing state; an energised vacuum devoid of time. However, he firmly believes that the Big Bang is a flawed concept. He contends that it cannot account for the similarity of different parts of the universe. Linde proposes a theory called “eternal inflation” — an eternal and exponential expansion of the universe. He believes the Big Bang can be cut out of the picture altogether or was, at the least, the end of something else. Theories of inflation appear very elegant in mathematical terms and accounts for the size of the universe and its rapid growth. It also suggests that there are multiple universes. The idea of a multiverse has been widely accepted, yet the theory of eternal inflation has been met with criticism. Doctor Param Singh (The Perimeter Institute) Doctor Param Singh believes that notions of the Big Bang are impossible, that it is impossible for everything to come from nothing. Singh believes that that our universe owes its existence to a previous one that collapsed in on itself. Before Singh, there was always a problem of marrying quantum mechanics with Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity at the mathematical level. They simply clashed. However, Singh has made progress towards combining the two systems. Recently, he discovered that his new maths predicted a very peculiar phenomenon: that attractive gravitational force becomes repulsive at the level of the very small. Therefore, the point of everything being nothing can never be reached. Rather, everything expands in the opposite direction when the point of the supposed Big Bang is reached. This has been termed “The Big Bounce.” Singh supports his theory by pointing to cycles found in nature, such as the seasons and the fact that planets orbit around stars. This cyclic nature may be true of the universe too, but it fails to address the ultimate question of what started the infinite bouncing in the first place. Professor Lee Smolin (The Perimeter Institute) Professor Lee Smolin takes his inspiration from Charles Darwin and asserts that our universe has an ancestor. He strongly believes that there was something before the Big Bang, but suggests that general relativity is an incomplete theory with more to understand. Smolin supports the idea of a multiverse and suggests that our universe may have been born inside a black hole. When a star runs out of fuel and supernovas, its particles begin to move towards a centre of gravity called a black hole. The star essentially collapses in on itself as more matter gets sucked into an infinitely dense black hole. Smolin theorises that within a black hole, matter contracts to the point where it explodes and expands, creating a Big Bang type explosion. This natural selection theory of the universe reproducing may either create new regions of our universe, or create an entirely new one on the other side of a black hole. In other words, what we think of as the Big Bang may have been the other side of a black hole in another universe. Professor Neil Turok (Director of The Perimeter Institute) In Professor Neil Turok’s paradigm, either time didn’t exist before the beginning and somehow sprang into existence, or, our universe originated from a violent event in a pre-existing universe. Turok supports the brane theory or M-theory (short for membrane) which is perhaps the most radical of the lot. He believes that we live on one of many extended, three dimensional branes in space. At least two of these branes are required to create matter by colliding with each other. Picture them as two, parallel, flowing curtains in space separated by a gap in the middle. Turok suggests that this gap is the 4th dimension of space in which finite densities of matter and plasma come into existence. In other words, these membranes collide and create other parts of the universe in another dimension. A final theory suggests that when the universe we know of reaches the end of its life, all that will be left are photons (single particles of light). This mass converts to energy creating an energised vacuum spoken of. At this point in this cyclic system, notions of time and mass disappear, leaving an endless sea of space in which anything is possible. I feel I let the side down . Do not understand why it is so difficult to get this sort of information out there. The BBC Horizon program was put together with Dignity . Mike Edited March 13, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I had no Idea BBC i player not available in USA . I will try and find it elsewhere as its really good . Here is Prof Lee Smolin with just his bit . I will look for more Prof Lee Smolin link mike Prof Lee Smolin , one of many famous scientists at Perimeter Institute in Canada, Researching " Begining of Universe " next link text only :- Documentary scientists taking part in discussion :- The second video is blocked by BBC. I watched the first. The guy seems to be describing a sort of hybrid multiverse/big-crunch idea. In any regard, he and the rest of your fellas are just kicking the can down the road as it were because you/we will naturally just ask "well, what was before that stuff?" What island did it All begin on? To paraphrase my earlier unattested paraphrase, "sometimes shit just happens". Don't beat yourself up over it. So I recommend having fun, because there is nothing better for people in this world than to eat, drink, and enjoy life. That way they will experience some happiness along with all the hard work ...~ Ecclesiastes 8:15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 /snipped I feel I let the side down . Do not understand why it is so difficult to get this sort of information out there. The BBC Horizon program was put together with Dignity . Mike It is paid for from the licence fee; therefore the Beeb feels it right and proper that UK licence fee payers should get the opportunity of viewing it again, but that our transatlantic cousins have to wait till one of their networks shells out enough money to BBC worldwide to be able to transmit it. Quite a lot of the Beeb's funding comes through the sale to foreign networks of their content - and whilst it would be nice that quality programming was free to the whole world it does have to be paid for somehow. That is all aside from the fact that no breaking science has ever been debuted on Horizon. Horizon tends to be either very worthy and out of date or very hip and completely ignorable. Scientists are only human; no matter if you are at DiamondLight, Cern or the Perimeter, put em in front of a camera and promise millions of viewers and some of em will say anything to get their ten minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 In situations like this there's not a lot distinction between solidly-confirmed science and flights of fancy that have only the faintest bit of theoretical support. My own anecdotal observation is that the theorists tend to oversell how much confidence there is in ideas that have not been experimentally confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 It is rare in discussion of science that Randall hasn't already made a very telling point I don't doubt that most TV programmes start off production the with the final pane of that cartoon and end up after editing with former 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 14, 2014 Author Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) It is rare in discussion of science that Randall hasn't already made a very telling point I don't doubt that most TV programmes start off production the with the final pane of that cartoon and end up after editing with former O.k. But the coast of this island that I would suggest we now need to think of leaving figuratively , by a paradigm shift in our view of the beginning , middle and end of the universe, is certainly indicated by some famous named scientists. Listed . THE FOLLOWING SCIENTISTS EXPRESSED THESE NEW MINI PARADIGMS Michio Kaku...Himself - The City College of New York (as Prof Michio Kaku)Andrei Linde...Himself - Stanford University (as Prof Andrei Linde)Laura Mersini-Houghton...Herself - University of North Carolina (as Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton)Bob Nichol...Himself - University of Portsmouth (as Prof Bob Nichol)Roger Penrose...Himself - Oxford University (as Prof Sir Roger Penrose)Param Singh...Himself - The Perimeter Institute (as Dr Param Singh)Lee Smolin...Himself - The Perimeter Institute (as Prof Lee Smolin)Neil Turok...Himself - The Perimeter Institute (as Prof Neil Turok) LEAVING THE ISLAND AT THE JUNCTION OF SEA AND SAND Illustrated here as my artist impression of a venture into complexity via a phased transition at the point of breaking from the solidity of the coast to the froth of the ocean. Note little paradigms are appearing in the edge( a highly creative area , similar to those appearing at symmetry breaking regions) Mike Edited March 14, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 15, 2014 Author Share Posted March 15, 2014 (edited) The second video is blocked by BBC. I watched the first. The guy seems to be describing a sort of hybrid multiverse/big-crunch idea. In any regard, he and the rest. 15[/i] One of the contributors is prof Lee Smolin Famous for loop quantum gravity theory among other things This interview with the BBC HARD TALK programme .. explains the dilemma facing physics currently . . Link :- http://www.youtube.com/watch?V=1_Fg8kRVwkQ Yes it does it's called :- lee smolin on string theory (full version) On YouTube ! I give up Mike Edited March 15, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 17, 2014 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) The paradigm shifts are essential for the journey into NEW PHYSICS. As much as legs are ok on land and essential , whereas arms for rowing or skills for sailing are on a seaward journey. LEE SMOLIN presented the case very well in the interview with HARD TALK BBC UK. . However ALL of the previously identified physics experts in the Perimeter Institute Canada are All working very hard to generate these new paradigm shifts in physics ideas. And they constantly have visiting experts like Stephen Hawkings and others . They urge this shift in order for physics to make major breakthroughs in our scientific endeavour on a par with Einstein type breakthroughs. Mike Edited March 17, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted April 5, 2014 Author Share Posted April 5, 2014 Lee Smolin introduced many interesting ideas about space as it relates to matter, , both at the infinitely small and the cosmological large. I think he may well be one of those who make a breakthrough with quantum gravity. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 20, 2014 Author Share Posted May 20, 2014 (edited) Mike My Goodness me , I Can see this Vast new landmass leading into the distance ......................................................... {oh my giddy aunt.. its absolutely huge} , full of all sorts of unknown Goodies. ......................... It is like nothing we have known before ................................................. Its so wonderful and beautiful !....................................................................................................... Its all full of Stars........................... .................................. mike Edited May 20, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 21, 2014 Author Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) My Goodness me , I Can see this Vast new landmass leading into the distance ......................................................... {oh my giddy aunt.. its absolutely huge} , full of all sorts of unknown Goodies. ......................... It is like nothing we have known before ................................................. Its so wonderful and beautiful !....................................................................................................... Its all full of Stars........................... .................................. . . . Wow ! You have got to be kidding. My wife will put on my grave stone " him and his "b... " science, cosmos, and everything . " problem is , I genuinely think " science as it is at the moment is ' stuck in a rut ' . It has got totally hung up on rigidity , exactness, predictability, determinism' I believe this is trapping science in an area of knowledge that is limiting progress. The universe is NOT ALL about exactness, predictability, determinism, mathematics. Yes half definitely so ! Otherwise things would fall to bits from having no bedrock , BUT IT IS HALF non deterministic , non-predictable, non exact . That is why it is able to work , because half , or some other fraction , may be 90 percent for all I know , or 10 % but it is staring us in the FACE , it is working from another prospective . IF IT WORKS, KEEP IT, IF IT DOES NOT , DO NOT KEEP IT trial and error, feedback, MOULD ORIENTATED, that's what I am trying to say with all this ISLAND , mumbo jumbo , we need to get off the island, not that the island is not home . It is , it is bed rock , but there is so much more to discover OUT THERE . I am screaming at everyone COME ON THERE IS SO MUCH OUT HERE , but many think that I have gone off my trolley. The bed rock is fine 90 percent of scientists are beavering away on it BUT Many REFUSE to say to themselves there is another sort of science existing out there , that is NON deterministic, PROBABLEISTIC, BASED on , trial and error , they give lip service to it with statistics , but that is not enough , I am sorry to go on about it . But it is staring us in the face , but we ( majority of scientists ) will not let go of this " NO exactness not science , no maths not science, no exact predictions not science ". We have built up a modern world , that will crack , because it is not adaptive enough, bit like the dinosaurs , too big , it took the little mammals to take another tack to survive . Science must adapt to survive. This is heresies to a lot of maths based , deterministic, predictive scientists. I am fully aware , and reaping their ire . I have been trying to hint at it. But many just think I am luny tunes. Give us the maths, give us the predictions. That's the very thing , the other half of science DOES NOT WORK ON , non Mathematical, non predictive , non deterministic . BUT ..FLEXIBLE, ADAPTIVE, EMERGENT . USING THE MOULD OF THE UNIVERSE THAT IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE . HELP ! Is there anybody out there . I can see land , but I am sinking fast ! Mike Edited May 21, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 12, 2014 Author Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) . . . Wow ! You have got to be kidding. My wife will put on my grave stone " him and his "b... " science, cosmos, and everything . " problem is , I genuinely think " science as HELP ! Is there anybody out there . I can see land , but I am sinking fast ! mike Edited June 12, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 17, 2014 Author Share Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) INTRODUCTION OF A PARADIGM SHIFT IN THINKING on TIME ( There is only NOW, " the present " thats ALL there IS ) by . ..Prof Lee Smolin TIME REBORN Link :- The Philosopher Lucretius also pondered the nature of things . ... .In his works " lucretius de rerum natura " Link :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura Thank you Lee Smolin and Lucretius.....That was a near thing ! Mike. ...... Don't listen to me. Listen to the comments of Prof Lee Smolin and Lucretius This is ,' be kind to mike fortnight ' as he has had a battering . Kind words and gracious awards needed to mend wounds. mike Edited June 17, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 . " problem is , I genuinely think " science as it is at the moment is ' stuck in a rut ' . It has got totally hung up on rigidity , exactness, predictability, determinism' I believe this is trapping science in an area of knowledge that is limiting progress. The universe is NOT ALL about exactness, predictability, determinism, mathematics. The problem is Mike, that you understand science so little that any comments you make about it are fatuous at best. Will you not consider devoting some of your undoubted enthusiasm to learning some science properly? Perhaps you would consider taking an OU course. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 18, 2014 Author Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) Prof Lee Smolin of Princeton University offshoot The Perimeter Institute. In Canada ( home of a lot of forward thinking scientists ) , Has reasoned that the axiom that ' the laws of physics are constant across all space and time ' , where the passage of time is considered an illusion, is wrong on both counts. He reasons that although there can exist a certain degree of continuity across time and space. That this is not necessarily so. Time is moving forward across a cusp of NOW. What is Now has the ' current evolved set of laws', governing what happens at this cusp of the present. Time moves into a past condition and is set and the moment is gone. The future can be imagined, predicted, and anticipated but at the present moment this is not certain. The past is certain as it has happened. He does allow for an amount of reversibility at very small atomic scales, but reasons that this is not true for non atomic scales. mike The problem is Mike, that you understand science so little that any comments you make about it are fatuous at best. .........But this is precisely what Smolin is saying. We must use this time to think and say audacious ideas. Imaginings that sound audacious. He reasons that had we as a race not played with fire, ( used our imagination for the uses of fire ) ,rather than be safe and avoided fire , we would never have learned to use fire to keep wolves at bay . So my comments are often by design ( not always ) deliberately audacious , which you interpret as fatuous or not thought out. Unless I and a fair number of others are mistaken, now is the time to take risks with ideas, not being afraid to think and speak audacious ideas. To sail the dangerous waters of inter island voyages. I genuinely believe there is a massive region of a 'new science ' just over the horizon . I believe we cannot reach this island unless we adopt some new way of reaching out ,researching out ,imagining out , toward an area of 'science' that none of us ,at the moment really know what it is , but have a deep hunch that it is there for the picking. It is exciting, a bit frightening , but nothing more than daring explorers have done before us. Mike Definition: ... audacious :- recklessly bold or daring . Imprudent or presumptuous . ( Latin audax bold ) Abstract illustration time moving from the bottom of picture ( .past ) through middle region ( present ) to future ( top region ) Edited June 18, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 But this is precisely what Smolin is saying. We must use this time to think and say audacious ideas. Imaginings that sound audacious. He reasons that had we as a race not played with fire, ( used our imagination for the uses of fire ) ,rather than be safe and avoided fire , we would never have learned to use fire to keep wolves at bay . So my comments are often by design ( not always ) deliberately audacious , which you interpret as fatuous or not thought out. Unless I and a fair number of others are mistaken, now is the time to take risks with ideas, not being afraid to think and speak audacious ideas. To sail the dangerous waters of inter island voyages. Mike - let me be blunt. Lee Smolin is entitled to make audacious remarks about science; you and I are not. Our ignorance disbars us. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 19, 2014 Author Share Posted June 19, 2014 Mike - let me be blunt. Lee Smolin is entitled to make audacious remarks about science; you and I are not. Our ignorance disbars us.Well I appreciate your caution on both our parts. But he is suggesting we all should join in a new age of discussion, imagination, open conversation of audacious ideas. He is saying ,we should open the windows of closeted discussion only among high brow professors. I am sure he is pointing to a bygone era , when scientists walked with one another, had coffee in Swiss cafe,s ,argued in public . Much as to some extent you are openly disagreeing with me , in public. ( you could be kind to me occasionally ! ) However , unless I am terribly mistaken ( I am reading his book ' Time Reborn' ) , he is himself audaciously saying , We all must, if we are to deal with " the economy, the climate , human civilisation, physics understanding, and a host of Big Subjects " must all not be afraid , and be given the space to air audacious ideas , lest we miss out on some good thoughts, due to reluctance to step outside the strictures of the established protocol . I have followed Lee Smolins ideas over the years , as he developed ideas around the cosmos as a whole, particles , quantum gravity, and currently time . I find his approach , a breath of fresh air , greatly needed. Let's fling open the doors of scientific discussion , of course being mindful of the need to keep established science preserved and well documented. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share Posted June 20, 2014 (edited) Those interested in the development of Prof. Lee Smolin,s proposal on the Nature of Time as a Paradigm Shift ( From Nateuralism 1 to Naturalism 2 ) LECTURE A Lecture given recently link :- Mike Edited June 20, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physica Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) Well I appreciate your caution on both our parts. But he is suggesting we all should join in a new age of discussion, imagination, open conversation of audacious ideas. He is saying ,we should open the windows of closeted discussion only among high brow professors. I am sure he is pointing to a bygone era , when scientists walked with one another, had coffee in Swiss cafe,s ,argued in public . Much as to some extent you are openly disagreeing with me , in public. ( you could be kind to me occasionally ! ) The thing is that you're bypassing the main point Ophiolite made which is that your understanding of science is limited. Discussion is great but can be a double edged sword which can lead to cyclic discussion and frustration. The Dunning-Kruger effect demonstrates this well. I am coming into my third year of physics, quantum mechanics is very hard (i'm reading my third year material over the summer holidays to give myself a chance). when I was 18 I was formulating ideas about the world all the time. Now I certainly don't feel qualified to come up with ideas of my own and I know a ton more than what I did back then. We look at this thread and others you're involved in, there are streams and streams of your thoughts. Reading a few books will not lead to fruitful discussion. If you are talking more than or equal to the amount that you are reading then that is a worrying sign. Scientists who make reputable contributions to science take years to come up with an idea because you have to understand the background material very well. In contrast in the last 5 months I've lost count of how many ideas you've come up with. You're clearly enthusiastic. Channel that enthusiasm in the right way. Trust me your mind will be blown with what's already discovered and you will be stunned by the mathematical beauty and elegance that describes it. A good philosophy I have is that if you think you can add to the knowledge base of an area then you haven't read enough. If there is no more to be read then you can begin your own work. Edited June 24, 2014 by physica 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) ----- ------ Nobody is perfect but a team can be . ------ ------An educational physocologist friend of mine once introduced me to the following article when I questioned the radically differences of approach people take !Link :- http://www.vscht.cz/document.php?docId=8286 . . originally from the ObserverIt not only enabled me to reconcile my approach , but also to learn to accept others with their diagonally opposite approach.A particular introductory paragraph ,in discussing managers , explains well, why how we are all different :-Quote " "Any attempt to list the qualities of a good manager demonstrates why this person cannot exist: far too many qualities are mutually exclusive. They must be highly intelligent and yet not be too clever. They must be highly forceful and at the same time sensitive to people's feelings. They must be dynamic but also patient. They must be a fluent communicator and a good listener. They must be decisive but also reflective; and so on. And if you do find this jewel among managers, this paragon of mutually incompatible characteristics, what will you do when they step under a bus or go to live abroad, or leave to take up a better job with your principal competitor?" " UnquoteMike PS. I have been in University for 8 years, in and out of industry/business for 30 years, teaching for 10 years. I have a library of mostly read ,scientific books by leading proponent of Scientific thought both here in the U.K. and another in Italy . I am 70 years of age, If I do not have anything to offer, a few worthwhile ideas on the understanding of the Universe by now I want shooting. Perhaps that is not a bad idea ! Edited June 25, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 @physica: Perfection. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) This weeks New Scientist is Titled . . " The Inelegant Universe " The cosmos makes more sense if it's not quite perfect The beautiful, ugly truth . Better to see the the cosmos as it is, rather than how we'd like it to be. " the great tragedy of science " as Victorian biologist Thomas Huxley observed " is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis , by an ugly fact."............... Scientists of today would have agreed more than ever. The beautiful idea at hand, ..- The universe looks much the same no matter which direction you look in , and no matter where you are .-.. The Ugly fact : It doesn't . Our hope that the universe is symmetrical , or homogeneous , at very large scales, just doesn't seem to be coming true. ( see page 32 New Scientist )..... "The Universe is under no obligation to satisfy anyone's aesthetic preferences " New Scientist 28th June 2014 Moving on from the Island of Human Endeavour Mike . Edited July 1, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now