| In Dark Matter, New Hints of a Universal Glue |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Briandc ® 01/08/2002, 15:57:30 Author Profile Mail author |
Related link: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/08/science/08DARK.html |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: In Dark Matter, New Hints of a Universal Glue Re: In Dark Matter, New Hints of a Universal Glue -- Briandc Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
01/09/2002, 22:54:04
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you for bringing up this topic. Actually, the solution to the "missing mass" problem as it pertains to cosmological structures through the reiteration of assumptions -- boundary conditions -- is not something which surprises me. The reduction of our measurements of the mass and mass-density to 1/3 our previous numbers also coincides better with the current state of unified field theories. And the positional correlation of luminous and non-luminous matter leaves the door open for a 'non-exotic' explanation of dark matter.
I personally think the problem of dark energy will fall the same way. One possibility for the affect of an accelerating expansion is the simple bias to negative pressure in the structure of spacetime -- if true, it would be the first indication the universe possesses a 'flaw'.
But this raises another issue which I find of some importance. I have noticed a disturbing trend in modern particle physics and cosmology -- the trend to 'invent' artificial solutions to problems which are necessarily the result of flawed reasoning or incorrect past formulations. I find this 'correction' indicative of a too liberal application of new ideas.
Aaron
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Can you give an example Re: Re: In Dark Matter, New Hints of a Universal Glue -- Aaron V. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Snowy Shaw ®
01/10/2002, 03:04:13
Author Profile Mail author
Obviously the greatest thing for a scientist is to discover something new or correct a falsehood by discovery. Perhaps in their zeal for self glory there is a tendency to, as you say, invent solutions.
I wonder what kind of shape this takes. I would say that science develops through coming up with new theories and sometimes ridiculous ideas that after a little while we don't seem to think are so ridiculous anymore. Science Fiction has a tendency to fantasize about science, but I do feel in a very beneficial way.
Hence my question: Can you give an example of these artificial solutions and why its wrong. I'm interested to see what you've run into.Snowy Shaw
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Can you give an example Re: Can you give an example -- Snowy Shaw Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
01/10/2002, 21:05:33
Author Profile Mail author
Historically speaking, good theories are usually originated through a derivation of previous theories, or such a derivation and the use of experimental evidence. What I take issue with is the artificial implementation of ideas which have no direct relationship to the original formulation before a sufficient consideration of the original material has been completed. This has the effect of leading astray trends in research traditions and slows actual progress. But it is no matter to me how outlandish a theory is; I am a proponent of some unusual considerations, myself (Many Worlds and Nonlinear Quantum Mechanics come to mind). I am also a proponent of Science Fiction-type thoughts on science -- in the proper context. Indeed, many contemporary theoretical technologies would not have happened were it not for the genre. And certainly it helps stir the imaginations of individuals into an interest in science -- me, for example.
But on to your question; I can provide you with two examples, one each for Cosmology and Particle Physics.
In Particle Physics, there has been much interest in recent decades into string and membrane theories, and I find they suffer from deep metaphysical problems. I've already written my views on the subject in Forum 1 at 1reviews -- I'll provide a link at the bottom of the page. But obviously, they are only my conclusions.
In cosmology, we can go back into 'dark energy'. Here, a certain portion of the scientific community has thrushed a solution to the observation of accelerated universal expansion known as Quintessence. The Quintessence is reportedly a new variety of Quantum Field responsible for a great deal of negative pressure and as much as 70% of the universe's constituency. But at this point, Quintessence is little more than a conjecture based on assumed, arbitrary initial conditions -- boundary conditions. And the article which Brian provided the link for pretty much demonstrates the Quintessence is a falsity by showing the positional correlation of luminous and nonluminous matter, and the reduced exotic mass-energy sources of the universe. Both of these considerations contradict Quintessence theories.
Regards,
Aaron
(On String Theories: http://www.1reviews.com/forum/read.php?f=3&i=3130&t=2915)
Modified by Aaron V. at Thu, Jan 10, 2002, 21:19:15
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Great post, Aaron! Re: Re: Can you give an example -- Aaron V. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
01/11/2002, 04:13:39
Author Profile Mail author
As you probably know from my earlier posts in Forum One on the old site, I, too, share your distaste of rushing to invent new hypotheses and theories before the considerations that give rise to them are reasonably well confirmed. I may even view such things more askance than you! While I can certainly understand the intense curiosity and the love of intellectual challenge that drives some scientists to these premature speculations, I believe you are probably correct when you state that they may actually hinder scientific progress.
Your maturity of thought continues to impress me, Aaron!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I see what you're saying Re: Re: Can you give an example -- Aaron V. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Snowy Shaw ®
01/11/2002, 09:25:49
Author Profile Mail author
It's kind of funny somewhere. I think it's Science Fiction's job to stimulate science into progress. SF can come up with whatever (even without proving anything of it) but it might bring some new viewpoints that can get us and scientist thinking. However, if scientists start doing that themselves they stray from being scientists and are obviously more concerned with their personal fame and self importance at the cost of science. I must say you brought up an excellent point here. Snowy Shaw
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Can YOU give an example... Re: Re: Can you give an example -- Aaron V. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
01/11/2002, 13:43:31
Author Profile Mail author
...of Science Fiction stimulating the development of any "theoretical technologies [that] would not have happened were it not for the genre"? My experience is that:
1. real scientists don't read much science fiction,
2. technological vision follows, rather than stimulates, the discovery of the underlying science, and
3. scientists are better visionaries than sci-fi writers anyway.For every futurist that foresaw the information age, there were a thousand who anticipated an age of widespread personal space travel.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Can YOU give an example... Re: Can YOU give an example... -- Alf Omega Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Snowy Shaw ®
01/11/2002, 18:01:43
Author Profile Mail author
I'm impressed by your knowledge of what scientists do or do not read, but have no reason to believe that what you say is true. Your second point may very well be true, but I think it is inevitable that there would be a 2-way street going on there.
Your 3rd point is your opinion and I don't agree. It is not being a scientist or a writer that makes you a better visionary, so your statement is per definition ridiculous.
Now to answer your question.
I never said that things would never happen without SF, but I do say that SF has a lot of merit beyond it being nice fiction. So your question does not apply as you wrote it. However I shall humour you and go into the matter a little.I am not a scientist and don't claim to know what all goes on in the scientific world and perhaps you may be right somewhere. But I'm a SF fan and I've gradually seen more and more of what was considered ridiculous and impossible in SF become part of our daily reality. Things as simple as speaking computers and mobile phones would be examples. Maybe scientists came up with it first, maybe they didn't. I just think there is merit in SF because it makes people think about the future and realise that even the sky's not the limit.
Now apart from influencing scientists or not in their research by bringing up ideas, there is a lot to be said for SF literature in the sense that it helps people in general to accept all the technological changes by giving ideas to think about where it all may lead socially, ethically etc. I don't say only SF does that, but I think SF does do that. It has brought a lot of people to looking towards the future. Besides, science without artistic input would make a boring future in my opinion.
Snowy Shaw
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Can YOU give an example... Re: Can YOU give an example... -- Alf Omega Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
01/11/2002, 18:34:50
Author Profile Mail author
Sure. Do you realize there is an entire movement within the scientific community researching and developing 'Warp Drive' through general relativistic terms? But on to your points: 1. My experience has been just the opposite -- Stephen Hawking is an avid fan of Star Trek, for example. In fact, many scientists are also Sci-Fi writers.
2. I would say there is more a mutualistic relationship between technology and underlying science. Of course major fields are understood before they can be exploited, but the drive to perfect technologies and improve them forces those engineers to better understand the basic material. The drive for molecular computers has led to an entirely new sub-field known as mesoscopic studies, for example. Similar drives can be found throughout industry.
3. You may be right, but it isn't the Sci-Fi writer's job to be a visionary. Given the scale of work, I would say both are equally inept at predicting the future. Just look at 60's predictions for 2000.
And I think it's important to remember that many 'advanced' technologies do exist today, or the ability to construct such technologies -- as personal space travel (depending on how extravagant a vehicle). But because of economic limitations, politics, and demand, we don't see such products.
Modified by Aaron V. at Fri, Jan 11, 2002, 18:37:26
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Technological foresight Re: Re: Can YOU give an example... -- Aaron V. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
01/12/2002, 15:50:08
Author Profile Mail author
I may have misunderstood the modesty of the claim you were making. I thought you were talking about real technological developments following sci-fi prescience. The drive for molecular computers has led to an entirely new sub-field known as mesoscopic studies, for example. Similar drives can be found throughout industry.
It was less a drive for molecular computers than simple expansion of scientific frontiers that has led to exploration of manipulating materials at the mesoscale. If you haven't read it already, you may be interested in Richard Feynman's seminal 1959 lecture Plenty of Room at the Bottom.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page