Relativity - my brain is hurting. Help !

Why bring religion into it?  Science = Truth, Religion = Dogma.

Semantics sometimes get in the way, so let me try to clarify what I said above and expand on it a little.

The Universe is the way it is.

We don’t know the way it is, nor why it is the way it is

and perhaps  I should have added something along the lines of "We don't know its fundamental origins or why it exists"

I used the words "the way it is" to try to convey the idea of how the Universe works. Science is an organised way of trying to figure out how, or in what way the universe works. Whether this is out of pure curiosity or for the benefit of mankind isn't important (at least IMHO). To me, figuring out how the Universe (including plant and animal life) works is a good thing.

At the moment, IMHO, we don't know how or in what way the Universe works. We have a lot of ideas and theories. Many of them are useful predictors. But we don't know how much or how accurate our understanding of the Universe is. IMHO most of our scientific theories are approximations of the way in which the Universe (and its content) functions. Some scientists can be pretty dogmatic about which theories are closer to reality. Overall I agree, science and engineering are searching for the truth about the way the Universe functions.

Approximately 87% of the global population adhere to a religion of one sort or another. 13% of the global population are aetheist or non-religious. Like it or not, we can't ignore religion. Religion provides a variety of theories about why the universe exists and why the universe is the way it is. More fundamentally, it provides theories about the origin of the Universe. Some religious leaders and their religions are dogmatic about this"why". Usually it can be summarised as "because God said so, and we know God said so, because Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammad or somebody told us what God said".

Quite a few religions (not all by any means) have updated their interpretations of what Abraham etc told us, often in line with so called scientific developments. This strikes me as indicating a willingness to search for the truth, rather than being totally dogmatic. That's why I suggested the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury could discuss the "whys" of the Universe.

Both the Scientists and the Religious Leaders could discuss the "Hows and Whys" of the fundamental origins of the Universe, including pre the Big-Bang. And if the religious leaders stick with "Because God said so", then they need to look for the origins of God.

Now, I hope you will have noticed that I am struggling for words to describe the situation pre the existing Universe. eg has something always existed? did something emerge from nothingness Is there some other concept of existence ? semantics isn't my strong point.

Enough of my ramblings for one night. I hope it still makes sense to me tomorrow. I accept it won't make sense to many people today, tomorrow, or ever !

Before I forget about GPS, it is worth mentioning that it is used in many countries as the basis of their SatNav systems. Its also used worldwide for aircraft navigation.

The good old USofA government provides the satellite constellation free of charge to its national and international  users. I am not sure if other nations contribute towards its capital cost, operation, maintenance, replacement or enhancement costs. Anybody ?

There are two systems!   GPS is the US system (and the first), there is also GLONASS which is the Russian system and I think there may be (or will be) a European system.  My handheld Garmin does both GPS and GLONASS not sure at all about the European system.

btw it is my understanding that the Russian system was first developed by the Soviet Union to target nuclear missiles!!!!!!!

You are right about the Russian GLONASS system - slightly different orbits etc but essentially the same. Not sure whether they keep updating the satellites and their equipment or adding to the number in the constellation. The American GPS system now has about 32 satellites in the constellation and I understand they are developing GPSIII for launch in the next couple of years.

The European system was to be called Gallieo. Again, i'm not sure how far this programme has advanced. I think they have 4 satellites in orbit and have used these to function test the system. More satellites to follow and full operation in the next couple of years. Looks like they intend to charge for the use of the precision side of the system - typical !

The GPS Reference Frame is Earth-centred fixed relative to the stars. The orbit time is 11:58 so that the satellites orbit 2xDay with respect to the stars, the remaining 4 minutes being the time the earth needs to rotate 1 degree more to re-align with the Sun. All relatively simple.........

There are many problems with religion:

To use Richard Feynman's saying how science works:

(a) Invent a theory, just think up any old rubbish,

(b) think up some experiments to test this theory, and

(c) if the experiments disagree with the results from theory then start the process again

Religion is the first part unsupported by the rationality of the second and third.

Personally I'm ignostic.  Since there's no accepted definition of 'God', or of what His/Her/Its properties are, then I see no point in trying to discuss His/Her/Its existence.  Indeed some religions define god as undefinable: now there's an oxymoron.  On the other hand, the subatomic entities definitely exist and their properties can be defined increasingly precisely as science progresses.  Similarly the properties of gravity and it's interaction with time are defined and known.

Moving on to a comparison to Grand Unification:

Different religions have various aspects where they are fundamentally irreconcilable, to accept one must exclude the other.

The contradictions between GR and QM are in areas that are not core to each.  Rather they occur in the implications of each theory and most probably relate to factors that we are yet to understand.  I'm sure Grand Unification will be achieved (at least mostly, as there'll always be nuances to discuss!).

Finally, when you understand Schrodinger's original proposition, the cat isn't both alive and dead, it's state is indeterminate until observed, but any theory must allow for either state to be possible, so both have the appearance of truth at the same time.

An interesting analogy could be when artists painted scenes without understanding perspective.

If you were to look out at a view stretching out from you and then look at a blank canvas , you would at first rely on memory and instinct but later realise that an understanding of how forms excist in space is needed to make a convincing image.

In an art historical context abstraction occurred at the same time as quantum theory as a way of reflecting on the paradox of active/passive observation and if there could be a way of resolving the issue.       A paradox was always seen with some scepticism when Art , Religion and Science where historical bedfellows (without some blood,sweat and tears), and the most recent theories on a "Multiverse" seems to be taking a more multi disciplined approach towards and against .

I think the relationship between the farther reaches of modern cosmological theory and religion are not so distant. The scienctific method summed up by Feynman above breaks down when theories invoke forces, dimensions and mathematical constructs that are not just way beyond current experimentation but may always be. Will mankind ever be able to examine proposed curled up extra dimensions at the Planck scale? If not we may have to trust the maths, a language only accessible to a tiny number of high priests.....

Faith, belief and dogma have input into QM too.

Bruce

'It’s funny; the people who think there’s a contradiction between science and religion generally don’t really know what science is, or they don’t know what religion is, or both.'

Guy Consolmagno, Jesuit monk and professional scientist who works at the Vatican Observatory, interviewed by the BBC in 2010.

I think he's absolutely right, and some of the comments above in this thread illustrate his statement nicely.

Mark

Are you sure Tobes? Unless you're talking about "old" quantum theory (eg Bohr), abstract art is much older. It starts with artists such as Whistler and Turner, for whom sensation was more important than the depiction of objects; then through Cezanne and onto Picasso and Braque, with the reduction of objects into organisation of flat planes, and then onto the first truly abstract artists, Malevich, Kandinsky and, slightly later, Delaunay and Mondrian.

Malevich, who started creating abstract canvases around 1910/11 or so, was probably the most important because he sought to free art from the tyranny of representation; rather than abstracting from the "real", external world, he abstracted from the ground up.

Cubism (and earlier, Cezanne) was certainly an attempt to resolve the problems of an observer looking at a representation of a three-dimensional world on a flat canvas, but "pure" abstraction in the Malevich/Kandinksy mould is not IMO, for the reasons outlined above.

Forces are detectable by how they affect matter and other forces.  Mathematical constructs are provable.  These are within the purview of Feynman's principles.  Dimensions other than the common three plus time, are certainly more challenging, see below.

Probably only by indirect influence.

There are plenty of valid examples of this, such as the detection of black holes by their gravitational effects and exo-planets by occlusion of their parent star

The fact that only a few can understand the maths to the necessary complexity, does not make it dogma.  The mathematical principles and methods used are testable; those who can understand them don't have to just accept them as articles of faith.

That's a particularly dogmatic view, intentionally excluding a large number of very intelligent and capable people; and, given the position of the person quoted, surprisingly close to arrogance.

Maybe not Bruce. Priests, as history teaches us tend to be very protective of their power and position within a hierarchy, which is why so much of what they do is wrapped in arcane ritual.

Most advanced mathematics is not "protected" in the way a priest protects his texts, rituals and sacraments. It' simply that the vast majority of us find it too difficult to understand.

There is a difference.

I would also say that maths does not demand special treatment or strict obedience, as the Koran or Bible do. All is required is that "it works", that the equations balance and that there is an internal logic there. Much QM cannot be "proven" in the traditional physical or empirical sense so we have to rely on the maths.

Although I don't profess to understand it at any more than a fairly superficial level, QM seems to be a very effective - if often counter-intuitive - way of explaining the universe we see today. Apart, of course, from that dog in the manger, gravity; which is why so much brainpower is expended on reconciling QM with relativity (which is in many ways a theory of gravity).

Yes PR I agree with most of what you say apart from "I don't think religion has to be a dogmatic affair".  Religion is by definition dogma, whereas science isn't   As Don said "some scientists are dogmatic" but rather than say dogmatic we should say 'stubborn' I think.

I am at a loss as to why people are talking about "Why?", why should there be a Why?  There is NO proof that there is a Why.  Religion says there is but provides NO proof that there is, so that is no help at all.  QM, Relativity, String Theory, Theory of Everything etc really does not say anything about the Why.  So that is not much more help either.

One day we will all find out the truth and I am happy to wait.  I just hope that Heaven, if it exists, is not populated with Islamic Fundamentalists who get their kicks from hacking peoples heads off or dressing young girls in suicide belts.  I would rather take my chance with Old Nick.

No they don't!  If someone comes along with a theory that better fits the experimental evidence then QM goes out of the window.  But a religion will never forsake its central dogma.

Can't you see this?

I agree Huge. It's a rather pat, and self-serving, statement. A cynic might say of Consolmagno, "He's a monk who works in the Vatican, so he would say that, wouldn't he?"

+1.

For everyone who says that science is a form of faith (or, conversely, those who believe it's all about truth), you are wrong. Science, above all, is not fixed, it exists in a permanent state of doubt. That is why it moves on, adding layers upon previous discoveries, or throws out existing orthodoxies.

Science is always in flux. Religions, unless subjected to rigorous exegesis, tend towards stasis.

Huge I never thought I would ever agree with you, but here you are 100% correct.

Kev I would like to say two things:

(I) Amen to your post, why cannot people see this, and

(II) You are awfully pretty, I have never fancied anyone called Kevin before!  I must be on the turn.

Oh just one little point Kev.  I think Science is all about truth because lies will never 'stick' but yes it is in a "permanent state of doubt", but that is not lying.  btw I like that expression!

Ah yes, doubt.  There is a possible parallel here; According to Tillichian theory, along with love, true faith also requires doubt.  Without this you have only blind faith which is a sure road to existential disappointment.

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics - Richard Feynman

For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. - Niels Bohr

Yes it's a tricky topic.

OK, I was twisting the tail of this thread a bit but I think there is a genuine point to be made about the 'provability' of more esoteric scientific theory.

In biological systems we discuss proof by means of probability, not absolutes, and I wonder if the same may be true about complex physical systems. I think we are indeed proposing such bizarre and obscure solutions in string theory and its extensions that we may never reach a satisfying level of proof in terms of experimental evidence. Circumstantial evidence would not be accepted as proof in other fields to this extent I would suggest.

I accept the point made about dogma but the history of science is legion with examples of using experimental 'truths' to confirm dogmatic theory in the face of other evidence to the contrary. Yes, science has the framework of challenge and re-discovery that moves us forward, and that is a defining feature but science just like religion is not above manipulation and playing power with the information it generates.

I also have no doubt that followers of religion believe they have evidence of proof too.

Bruce

What a grand, and unified, thread this is. We've even had some Paul Tillich from Richard!

Bruce I assume that when you talk about 'proof' in biological systems you are talking about statistical analysis?  You often hear people say that you can prove anything with statistics, the only thing that statement proves is that the person who made it knows nothing about statistics.  When you carry out an experiment and you measure some property then you need to carry out a stat. analysis on the results but you will only get confirmation (or not) at a certain probability level - 95% 99% but never 100%.  Stats never proves anything, it allows you to test a hypothesis at a certain level.  If you accept a Hypothesis at the 95% level then there is a 1 in 20 chance that the result you are happy with is due to random fluctuations.  1 in 20 ain't much.

I was watching Uni Challenge the other night and the answer to a Chemistry question was Tautomerism and I can remember studying this in Chemistry many years ago.  There were two schools of thought, both right and both wrong at the same time.  The thing is that both forms of the compound, the keto and the enol form existed in equilibrium with one another, so both camps were correct.  Where the were wrong was in saying that the other camp was wrong and I guess you can say they were both being dogmatic.  But when evidence came along to show the true situation then all the aggro disappeared - see not really dogma at all, just stubbornness.  And yes as you say the history of Science shows the fallacy of individuals.  It's Human Nature, if we are involved in research then we always want to be on the 'winning' side, but in scientific endeavour truth will out eventually.  Sometimes we end up on the losing side - believe me I know!

Yes many followers of religions may well believe that they have proof of their beliefs but many don't, believing that Faith does not require proof.  The ones that do believe they have proof are of course, wrong!