Apparently heretics are, on the aggregate, lazier than I suspected. I had the unusual pleasure of reading a blog post for completely independent reasons and coming across my own name — Ethan Zuckerman was reporting on a talk given by gerontologist Aubrey de Grey at the recent BIL Conference, in which he quotes my line from the Edge World Question Center that “Being a heretic is hard work.” (His other quote was from Gandhi.) It hadn’t occurred to me that such a sentiment was sufficiently unique to deserve being quoted, but as far as Google knows nobody else has pointed this out before. (While we’re at it, did nobody appreciate my previous Google joke?)
So I re-read my own World Question Center entry, and (to nobody’s surprise) I thought it was great. I’m my own most sympathetic audience. But in my post here about the WQC, I linked to the entry but didn’t reprint it in its entirely. Which I will hereby do now, because I’m a busy guy and you are busy blog readers who don’t always have the time to click on a link. Being a blogger is hard work.
———————————————
Growing up as a young proto-scientist, I was always strongly anti-establishmentarian, looking forward to overthrowing the System as our generation’s new Galileo. Now I spend a substantial fraction of my time explaining and defending the status quo to outsiders. It’s very depressing.
As an undergraduate astronomy major I was involved in a novel and exciting test of Einstein’s general relativity — measuring the precession of orbits, just like Mercury in the Solar System, but using massive eclipsing binary stars. What made it truly exciting was that the data disagreed with the theory! (Which they still do, by the way.) How thrilling is it to have the chance to overthrow Einstein himself? Of course there are more mundane explanations — the stars are tilted, or there is an invisible companion star perturbing their orbits, and these hypotheses were duly considered. But I wasn’t very patient with such boring possibilities — it was obvious to me that we had dealt a crushing blow to a cornerstone of modern physics, and the Establishment was just too hidebound to admit it.
Now I know better. Physicists who are experts in the field tend to be skeptical of experimental claims that contradict general relativity, not because they are hopelessly encumbered by tradition, but because Einstein’s theory has passed a startlingly diverse array of experimental tests. Indeed, it turns out to be almost impossible to change general relativity in a way that would be important for those binary stars, but which would not have already shown up in the Solar System. Experiments and theories don’t exist in isolation — they form a tightly connected web, in which changes to any one piece tend to reverberate through various others.
So now I find myself cast as a defender of scientific orthodoxy — from classics like relativity and natural selection, to modern wrinkles like dark matter and dark energy. In science, no orthodoxy is sacred, or above question — there should always be a healthy exploration of alternatives, and I have always enjoyed inventing new theories of gravity or cosmology, keeping in mind the variety of evidence in favor of the standard picture. But there is also an unhealthy brand of skepticism, proceeding from ignorance rather than expertise, which insists that any consensus must flow from a reluctance to face up to the truth, rather than an appreciation of the evidence. It’s that kind of skepticism that keeps showing up in my email. Unsolicited.
Heresy is more romantic than orthodoxy. Nobody roots for Goliath, as Wilt Chamberlain was fond of saying. But in science, ideas tend to grow into orthodoxy for good reasons. They fit the data better than the alternatives. Many casual heretics can’t be bothered with all the detailed theoretical arguments and experimental tests that support the models they hope to overthrow — they have a feeling about how the universe should work, and are convinced that history will eventually vindicate them, just as it did Galileo.
What they fail to appreciate is that, scientifically speaking, Galileo overthrew the system from within. He understood the reigning orthodoxy of his time better than anyone, so he was better able to see beyond it. Our present theories are not complete, and nobody believes they are the final word on how Nature works. But finding the precise way to make progress, to pinpoint the subtle shift of perspective that will illuminate a new way of looking at the world, will require an intimate familiarity with our current ideas, and a respectful appreciation of the evidence supporting them.
Being a heretic can be fun; but being a successful heretic is mostly hard work.
“He understood the reigning orthodoxy of his time better than anyone, so he was better able to see beyond it.”
Mmmm… a hidden pun? Galileo also produced the first 9x and 30x power telescopes, through which he observed the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter. He of course built on the work of Copernicus in that area. Galileo is known widely for that, but his work on the acceleration and motion of falling bodies was what Newton started with.
A nice discussion of special relativity and Maxwell’s equations is at Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem
“Special relativity, in which it is concluded that classical mechanics must be revised such that transformation of fields and forces in moving reference frames is consistent with electrodynamics and Maxwell’s equations.”
It’s always disturbing to hear science described in religious terms. Heresy implies some kind of religious authoritarian structure to science (sort of like what existed in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia). Galileo and Copernicus were accused of heresy against Scripture – but now we use science to explain physical phenomena, not religion or ideology. Einstein’s opposition to quantum mechanics, for example, could be called heresy – but that implies that people’s opinions, not experiments and observations, determine such questions.
I can’t resist adding a crank theory. I call it volumetemperature. I propose temperature is simply another parameter of volume. Say that if the volume of a space is increased, the temperature of the energy contained within is reduced by a relativistically precise amount. An example would be the universe. As it expands in size, the temperature of the CMBR drops. It makes at least as much sense as saying time and distance/space are interchangable.
The basic gas law is
$latex
PV~=~NkT
$
for pressure, volume and temperature clearly represented, and N = # molecules and k Boltzmann’s constant.
Lawrence B. Crowell
John Ramsden on Mar 7th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Heresy implies some kind of religious authoritarian structure to science (sort of like what existed in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia). Galileo and Copernicus were accused of heresy against Scripture – but now we use science to explain physical phenomena, not religion or ideology.
————–
Galileo was a bit of the early 17th century Feynman, and there is a thread on St. Rich here on CV. Galileo was a bit of a smart ass and he pulled on the beards of Papal authority. Not that I would uphold the standards of his age, but in a way Galileo got what was coming to him. The Pope and the ecclesiastical academe had accepted Copernicus and Galileo’s finds as an acceptable alternative and as with the rusty wheels of the Church you just have to wait.
There have been very few scientists who have been killed or put under legal sanctions for their findings. It is not unheard of, but it is remarkably rare. In the case of religion most often religious authorities go after the throats of other religious upholders.
Lawrence B. Crowell
Lawrence,
Thanks for the math. Cranks like myself are not so good at that.
Neil, we don’t “suspect that most orthodoxy” is correct; we understand that certain results and theories are well-established, and others remain speculative. And we are all looking for things that don’t fit! That’s the fun part of the job. But most things that don’t fit are just temporary misunderstandings (of data or theory), and separating out the lasting ones from the ephemera is a crucial part of being a successful scientist.
David G. — Sure, I will try to update the blogroll soon. Congrats on the new venture!
Lawrence, in #29 you misattributed a quote by John Merryman to me.
However, staying bang on topic for a change, I’d just add that there is a significant connection between heresy and gas thermodynamics.
Econophysicists (!) compare the distribution of wealth with that of energies of gas molecules, and use the same type of maths for both. See http://www.saha.ac.in/cmp/econophysics/abstracts.html for example.
As anyone who has read Freakonomics knows, the vast majority of drug dealing profits end up in the pockets of a few bosses, while the foot sloggers gain only small change, and the same applies in most unconstrained collective endeavours just as most molecules in a gas have a similar energy but relative to that there are a few “fast flyers”.
Likewise, it’s a harsh truth that science and art and any creative activity is advanced disproportionately by a few geniuses and the rest follow on and fill in the details.
So where does heresy fit in you ask. Well for centuries religious authorities searched out heretics wherever they could, treating all on the same footing whether famous or obscure.
It was some while before they twigged that a far more effective tactic was to concentrate on the high flyers, learned and influential priests and suchlike. If these bellwethers could be silenced or discredited, then the rest of the sheep would fall into line. So it’s the same gas thermodynamics principle, but applied in reverse.
John Ramsden,
That’s an interesting point. Does the range of activity apply to all thermal media, or mostly in those situations where a change of temerature is occurring, so that some are initial carriers of the energy gain/loss? It would seem this is the situation you describe in the political and economic situations, where ideas and energies start with a few and are transferred to the larger body. Of course the muffling effect is inherent to this comparision as well, since the heat can easily be lost, if there is no continuous application. (Alexander didn’t conquer Asia because he cut the Gordian knot, but because he had the Greek armies to back him up.)
As to my implied point that time is a measure of motion, similar to temperature; In a higher energy environment, such as a gravity field, atomic activity is faster, ie. higher temperature, and so time is more rapid.
The distribution of molecules in a gas or material with a temperature is well understood. For temperatures which are comparatively high the distribution is given by Boltzmann’s distribution law, while for low temperatures the states of the constitutents fall into either Bose-Einstein statistics or Fermi-Dirac, depending on whether their spin is integral or half integral units of the unit of action = hbar.
For low temperatures there is all sort of really interesting things that go on with Fermi surfaces or condensates and … . Really interesting stuff, and I think these physics play roles in cosmology and quantum gravity as well, particularly in the role of symmetry breaking by inflatons or phi^4 dilaton fields in conformal gravity. Though going into that would chew up a lot of bandwidth here.
Lawrence B. Crowell
” . . . finding the precise way to make progress, to pinpoint the subtle shift of perspective that will illuminate a new way of looking at the world, will require an intimate familiarity with our current ideas, and a respectful appreciation of the evidence supporting them.”
Speaking of a shift of perspective, what are “current ideas” about the word “space”? As a crank amateur nonphysicist searching for gems, I wonder about the conflict between “space” as empty distance and “space” as a completely full vacuum; or between a body of matter occupying space and a point particle not occupying space. Is there not a problem in the idea that “space” is what is occupied, the assumption being that what occupies “space” is “not space” – so there are two separate components to the imagined universe, one being “space” and the other being “not space”, yet the component that is “not space” is a body made of point particles that do not occupy space? Does this arise because the mathematics requires objects – to be studied as occupying a “mathematical” space? Perhaps in order to grasp mathematically what may not be graspable?
Running the universal film backwards, “reigning orthodoxy” appears to stop at the CMB, and the early history of the universe is speculation. And this speculation appears to be based on the assumption that the universe was always cooling down, because “space” was expanding due to – what? Radiation pressure? Then at the earliest possible time, the universe was extremely hot and dense, being enclosed in a very tiny “space”. As “space” expanded the universe cooled and “particles” condensed.
But what if the universe was not enclosed, and was not extremely hot and dense, and “expanding space” is due not to radiation or other pressure but is the initial condition? Then “space” and “energy” are synomous, and also synonymous with “expansion”. So “space” could be described as an expanding energy-filled (space-filled) field, expanding at a constant rate dictated by its own nature. I find that such a field, expanding at its maximum constant rate, cannot add space (volume) as quickly as its own nature requires. In other words, within the field, the field’s energy cannot create space to its full potential. Therefore it creates pressure. This pressure causes some regions within the field to rotate. Rotating space is what is then called “particles”. The apparent difference between “space” and “not space” is only that some space is rotating space, and some other space is not rotating, or is rotating at a slower rate.
I think this is a different perspective. Is it a current idea?
John Ramsden– Sorry, but I did not offer to read papers that people send me. Again, if you are actually interested in making a contribution to physics, your first step should be to master the kind of physics curriculum that a typical graduate student learns.
Lawrence,
Temperature is a very interesting concept, encompassing the full spectrum of activity, from absolute zero to the speed of light. It would seem, in some respects, that time is a component of temperature, just as three dimensions are a model of spatial volume, not the basis for it.
ngeo,
Our crank thinking seems to be working along similar lines. I see it as a convection cycle of expanding energy and collapsing mass, defining the relationship between the being of mass/energy and the non-being of space/void.
In that, space is infinite, but the curvature caused by expansion creates a horizon line, since sources are increasingly redshifted by a compounding effect and beyond 13.7 billion lightyears appear to recede faster then light. Since radiation from beyond this horizon line is no longer in the visible spectrum, it is the faint black body spectrum of CMBR.
The interesting point about geometry is that points don’t have zero dimension, but a virtual dimension, otherwise they wouldn’t even exist as a location point. The real zero for geometry should be empty space, not a virtual point.
I’ll spare the pros any more nonsense for the moment. I should read more on it, but separating the wheat from the chaff requires an objectivity which is beyond me and following the current credit meltdown has my spare attention at the moment.
On the relationship between time and temperature:
John Merryman on Mar 8th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Lawrence,
Temperature is a very interesting concept, encompassing the full spectrum of activity, from absolute zero to the speed of light. It would seem, in some respects, that time is a component of temperature, just as three dimensions are a model of spatial volume, not the basis for it.
————-
In quantum field theory it is a common practice to Euclideanize time by letting time go to t —> it. This time turns out to be related to temperature by
$latex
t~=~frac{hbar}{kT}.
$
This time is not exactly the same as the Lorentzian time, what we measure on a clock (or might we say what a clock “produces”), but is really a measure of the time where quantum fluctuations may be observed. Sometimes the term quantum fluctuations causes trouble, so it really is more the distance in a Euclidean 4-dim space where an instanton (a tunnelling state etc) with a certain magnitude can appear. As this temperature becomes very small the fluctuation time becomes large and the strength of the fluctuation, if we qualitatively invoke the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
$latex
Delta EDelta T~=~hbar/2
$
and consider this instanton time t as this uncertainty in time. As the temperature heats up it also means that the fluctuation is stronger or its coupling is made larger and a phase transition will ensue.
This gets into some fascinating stuff! The Lorentzian time implies that the moduli space is not separable. Two moduli, points in the space of “gauge equivalent connections,” are not separable in a Hausdorff point-set topological definition. The topology is Zariski. I can go write more about this if needed, but this gets us into some rather serious stuff. So there is the Lorentzian time and there is this Euclidean time and there is a Wick rotational map between the two. So distinct fluctuation in the Euclidean case which have moduli that are Hausdorff, separable and “nice” correspond to a set of moduli in the Lorentzian case which are not. Physically this means there is some scale invariant physics (again to go into would require a bit of writing work) of phase transitions associated with the correspondence between fluctuations at various pseudo-time scales (or temperatures) and their Lorentzian versions.
This correspondence and the phase transition is a quantum critical point, which have been observed with High temp superconductors and in the physics of Landau electron fluids in metallic crystals in the actinide plus transition range. This also shares some aspects of physics with the Hagedorn temperature of strings.
Lawrence B. Crowell
Lawrence B. Crowell:” This time turns out to be related to temperature by t=h/kT…As the temperature heats up it also means that the fluctuation is stronger or its coupling is made larger and a phase transition will ensue… This correspondence and the phase transition is a quantum critical point.”
Give me ref., please.
Regards, Dany.
Lawrence,
I would think that it would be meaningless to consider a point in time, if time is a measure of motion, like temperature, since there would be no motion at a point. Sort of like the Uncertainty Principle; Can’t have both position and momentum. A point would be cessation of time, like absolute zero is a cessation of temperature. So would this cause problems with measuring units of time as between two points? Is this what you are getting at in the above quote? That the “nice,” distinct Euclidian time breaks down in Lorentzian time, where it is actually being ‘produced’ by the motion of the clock.
Dear John Merryman,
I’m not sure about what you are saying. I was trying to say that space exists as a physical entity, not that it does not exist. I will take one more swing at this and absent response I will leave the physicists to their theories.
According to the current orthodoxy, the universe is “made of” a diminishing percentage of matter and an increasing percentage of “dark energy”, whether that means “negative pressure fluid”, “vacuum energy”, “cosmological constant”, based on apparent accelerated expansion. Whether this apparent expansion is actually occurring (in view of a recent “iron whiskers” observation I remain skeptical), somehow the bodies of matter of the universe are moving further apart. This means that either more real space is being made or that there is simply an increase in the measurable distance between them, according to whether “space” exists or not. (It would be interesting to get a response on that – is it unscientific to ask the question?)
So the orthodox end of the universe is to be effectively empty of matter. So matter is a kind of transient phenomenon in a system of a finite “energy bank” of mass/radiation-energy and a potentially infinite vacuum/negative pressure-energy, which somehow according to the orthodoxy must hang together mathematically – it is just a matter of figuring out the right formula, and voila – the end (and maybe even the beginning) of the universe will be “explained”, maybe even translatable to the back of an envelope for a barmaid.
However, to the unschooled, this is a dismal prospect, particularly in view of the obvious purpose (growth) that permeates the universe. When Time magazine in 1999 tells me how the universe will end, I rebel, particularly since I already have an idea how the universe can expand and evolve, continually creating matter (emerging property) by entropy pumping. This requires an infinite “amount” of energy.
To keep it short: if you take all the mass-energy out of the expanding universe, leaving the “dark energy”, and then limit the “dark energy” to an expansion of c (as opposed to an early 58c, slowing to a current 3c directed by Lineweaver and Davis), this natural limit of c (initial condition expansion rate) creates pressure within the universe, and you end up with shells of rotating space, separating an inner space pushing outward and an outer space pushing inward; the energy or pressure is absorbed by rotation: a proton shell (rotates at ~10^23 hertz), electron shell (~10^20 hertz), and other natural phenomena which the physicists can investigate.
ngeo,
An interesting point to consider on whether space is expanding, or objects are moving apart in stable space is that the speed of light is presumed to be stable, such that if the universe were to double in size, two objects x lightyears apart would become 2x lightyears apart. So space as measured by C doesn’t expand, rather the distance in lightyears is increased.
This does pose a problem for an expanding universe hypothesis, since the geometry of redshift would mean that we are at the center of the universe. That’s why the original expanding universe theory was amended to say that space itself is expanding, not just that the objects in space are flying away from each other.
If space has a negative curvature in between gravitational wells, effectively opposite the positive curvature of these wells, the potential effect might be the redshift that is observed. (As if the light had to run up the down escalator.) So that space does expand between gravity wells, but it also collapses into these wells, neutralizing the overall effect. Since the overall universe isn’t expanding, this expansion of space would result in pressure on these gravity wells, as you mentioned. I’ll leave it at that, since I’ve bored many of the people here with it already.
Dany on Mar 9th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Lawrence B. Crowell:” This time turns out to be related to temperature by t=h/kT…As the temperature heats up it also means that the fluctuation is stronger or its coupling is made larger and a phase transition will ensue… This correspondence and the phase transition is a quantum critical point.”
Give me ref., please.
Regards, Dany.
H. von Lohneisen, A Rosch, M. Vojta, Rev. Mod. Phys., 79, 1025 (2007)
S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions, Cambridge U. Press (1999)
This correspondence and the phase transition is a quantum critical point.”
Give me ref., please.
Regards, Dany.
I should also say that there are parts here which is where I am working. The quantum critical point is where the mass of the quasi-particles, or in the case of Landau fluids in solids the quasi-electron, diverge. There have been experimental demonstrations that there is a critical point and there is close to there a divergence. Yet near the quantum critical point there is appearance of new states of matter, and indications this is connected to high Tc. A divergence of this sort always points to some sort of new physics lurking beyond the “horizon.”
Lawrence B. Crowell
To J.M. and ngeo,
What you need to do is to understand the meaning of a co-moving frame in relativity theory.
The percentage of so called dark energy will increase and asymptotically approach 100%. The spacetime will also asymptotically approach a pure deSitter spacetime. This is of course unless there is not some unexpected physics or cosmological principle which might “kick in” in the future. The Hawking-Gibbon effect also indicates that the cosmological event horizon at a radius
$latex
r~=~sqrt{3/Lambda},
$
or the reciprocal of the square root of the cosmological constant, will receed away as it emits a Hawking type of radiation similar to black hole radiance. This means that over a supendous time period the universe will approach being a spacetime that is a Minkowski spacetime. This is a perfect void, or the final “heat death,” or the attractor point in the phase space of solutions to the Einstein field equations.
It might seem to be a dismal end, and it does point to a future universe that will ever more slowly wind down. Yet we are in a sort of “sweet spot” in the whole spacetime, where we can observe the universe’s distant past, but are not too close. In another few 10’s of billions of years things will be too redshifted for observers to measure the CMB or to seem much beyond their local galactic neighborhood. But I’d suggest not becoming like Woody Allen in “Annie Hall” where he worries about the universe breaking up. It is maybe better to sing or whistle the Monty Python song, “Look on the Bright Side of Life,” from their movie “Life of Brian.”
Lawrence B. Crowell
Lawrence B. Crowell:” I should also say that there are parts here which is where I am working.”
First of all, thank you. You are welcome to add arxiv ID and refs on your relevant publications, however I am interesting neither the universe distant future nor the universe distant past.
Regards, Dany.
We should also be open to new ideas (hypotheses), for nothing is sacrosanct in the domain of science. I thoroughly enjoyed the comments too, specially that of Lawrence B. Crowell.
Lawrence,
We still have this dark energy pushing everything apart and all that stuff falling into black holes?
What led me through the mirror and down the rabbit hole in the first place was that Omega has to be very close to one. If gravitational contraction and universal expansion are in general equilibrium, it still seems like half a cycle. Something is pushing space apart, but something else is pulling it together at an equal rate.
I know I’m thick, but what am I’m missing?
Amiya Sarkar wrote:
>
> I thoroughly enjoyed the comments too, specially that of Lawrence B. Crowell.
Yes, I second that. He does a cracking good job here, much appreciated, and doubtless in other forums besides. What’s more he’s written several books on physics, as a quick search on Amazon reveals.