Space and Time

[Resha Caner]

The definition of a second is merely a specific measure of time. Time remains, mathematically, a fourth dimension in the General and Special Relativity equations. The bang doesn't define time.

OK. I'd be happy to leave big bang time as a mere mathematical parameter. But I got the impression others believed it to have real manifestations. As such, it needs to be measured somehow.

BTW, one of the cool ideas I've seen is that time collapses to a temporal dimension near the beginning. In other words, 3-space+time becomes 4-space (Or is it that 11-space+time becomes 12-space?). I could see that providing a basis for measurement, but I didn't know how it might work.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

OK. I'd be happy to leave big bang time as a mere mathematical parameter. But I got the impression others believed it to have real manifestations. As such, it needs to be measured somehow.

BTW, one of the cool ideas I've seen is that time collapses to a temporal dimension near the beginning. In other words, 3-space+time becomes 4-space (Or is it that 11-space+time becomes 12-space?). I could see that providing a basis for measurement, but I didn't know how it might work.

You're not following. Big bang time is real. The particular measure we currently used is based on Cesium decay - which merely defines an arbitrary unit, which we can use to measure the progress of the big bang.

I think you're very confused about this.

 

[Resha Caner]

You're not following. Big bang time is real. The particular measure we currently used is based on Cesium decay - which merely defines an arbitrary unit, which we can use to measure the progress of the big bang.

I understand that Cesium is an arbitrary choice. There are other possible candidates we could use for the definition of a second which seem to have consistent patterns. I'm not familiar with the details of why cesium was chosen - maybe because it is easier to measure or because it is less likely to be corrupted by interactions with other elements or something else.

I am asking if any of those other candidates existed during the inflationary period. Was there any motion within the inflationary period that can be considered as consistent, and which we could still measure now?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I understand that Cesium is an arbitrary choice. There are other possible candidates we could use for the definition of a second which seem to have consistent patterns. I'm not familiar with the details of why cesium was chosen - maybe because it is easier to measure or because it is less likely to be corrupted by interactions with other elements or something else.

I am asking if any of those other candidates existed during the inflationary period. Was there any motion within the inflationary period that can be considered as consistent, and which we could still measure now?

Cesium is an element, no elements existed during the inflationary epoch. The expansion rate wasn't precisely consistent during this period. I don't know what you mean by "measure it now". It's over. We can reconstruct it, of course, mathematically.

 

[Resha Caner]

Cesium is an element, no elements existed during the inflationary epoch. The expansion rate wasn't precisely consistent during this period. I don't know what you mean by "measure it now". It's over. We can reconstruct it, of course, mathematically.

Hmm. We seem to be going in circles. One time it seems you say that all we know of the inflation is what we reconstruct mathematically. At other times you say it was real. This is actually a digression from what I'm trying to get at it, but what makes you think it was real? It's predictive power for current events?

With respect to the elements, I realize none existed. I am asking if there is something within the inflationary period that would serve as a consistent measure. Suppose I can only use what exists during the inflationary period to measure the inflationary period. Is there anything I can use to define a measure of time? I have no idea what it would be. Would bosons or quarks or some other thing work as a measure of time? Since the cesium measure outside of inflation is linear, I am asking if there is something inside that period that could also be used to create a linear measure.

 

[JonF]

I am then asking: is space-time just a model or does it correlate to something physical? If I could take all the stuff out of space-time (or at least clear a small section of it), is there something I could measure within that empty space-time?

Is this the time question you are asking about? The answer is it's a model. All math at best is a model if we want to relate it to the real world. The reals can be used a model of distance or time - that's it. Basically if a given physical system matches the mathematical axioms of a math system we assume the two behave the same way. So take the reals and distance. We observe that distance is complete (which is sort of like saying there are no holes), well-ordered (any distances can be compared for which is further), field (arithmetic like the standard addition and multiplication). Because of this we assume the reals (which by definition are a complete well-ordered field) models distance. But if we were wrong about any of observations about distance, if completeness for example wasn't completeness in the math sense, our model would be off.

 

[Resha Caner]

Is this the time question you are asking about? The answer is it's a model.

My latest question started in the last paragraph of post #17. But we have to wind our way through a long hall to get to the answer.

To quickly bring you up to speed, my view of science is that it is all a model. It never describes the "thing in itself" as Kant would put it. But if I make mention of such things, it launches tirades that cloud what I'm trying to ask. So, questions like the one you quoted are designed to help me understand the phenomenological correlations that go with these models. It's not that I agree all these things are "real", though I did agree with one earlier comment that some of these models have such powerful predictive capability that it is very tempting to think they must be pretty close to describing what is real.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

My latest question started in the last paragraph of post #17. But we have to wind our way through a long hall to get to the answer.

To quickly bring you up to speed, my view of science is that it is all a model. It never describes the "thing in itself" as Kant would put it. But if I make mention of such things, it launches tirades that cloud what I'm trying to ask.

It may be the way you ask it. All we have are models which attempt, as well as they can, to describe "the thing itself". We refine our models to make them closer to reality, but we are aware that we can never get there. (A humility not generally shared by religion, I might add). So it's very clumsy to continue circumlocutions, such as "in the model, there would be no Cesium". We simply the language when talking to non-scientists.

So, questions like the one you quoted are designed to help me understand the phenomenological correlations that go with these models. It's not that I agree all these things are "real", though I did agree with one earlier comment that some of these models have such powerful predictive capability that it is very tempting to think they must be pretty close to describing what is real.

They are prized by science in accordance with their ability to predict observations. That's all. Did something happen at the beginning of time? Yes. Do we have adequate theories to explain what happened? Mostly. Are they "real"? Meaningless question, in this context.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

OK. I'd be happy to leave big bang time as a mere mathematical parameter. But I got the impression others believed it to have real manifestations. As such, it needs to be measured somehow.

BTW, one of the cool ideas I've seen is that time collapses to a temporal dimension near the beginning. In other words, 3-space+time becomes 4-space (Or is it that 11-space+time becomes 12-space?). I could see that providing a basis for measurement, but I didn't know how it might work.

And we do measure the bang. Indirectly. Through the current distribution of matter and the CMB. The better we get at measuring the CMB and current matter/energy distributions, the more we can measure the bang. And build theories.

 

[Resha Caner]

And we do measure the bang. Indirectly. Through the current distribution of matter and the CMB. The better we get at measuring the CMB and current matter/energy distributions, the more we can measure the bang. And build theories.

I'll take this as a "no" to my time question. But given your earlier comment (IANAP), I'll remain open to the possibility. It's a disappointing answer. I had hoped the answer would be yes, because I had a follow up to ask. But, if the answer is no, then it does become a meaningless question.

That leads to some epistemological issues, but your faith in science may not admit such a discussion, so ...

 

[Resha Caner]

We simply [use] the language when talking to non-scientists.

Oh, you make me laugh. But I'm sure the little people appreciate you lowering yourself to their level.

Might I ask your definition of a scientist?

 

[JonF]

My latest question started in the last paragraph of post #17. But we have to wind our way through a long hall to get to the answer.

To quickly bring you up to speed, my view of science is that it is all a model. It never describes the "thing in itself" as Kant would put it. But if I make mention of such things, it launches tirades that cloud what I'm trying to ask. So, questions like the one you quoted are designed to help me understand the phenomenological correlations that go with these models. It's not that I agree all these things are "real", though I did agree with one earlier comment that some of these models have such powerful predictive capability that it is very tempting to think they must be pretty close to describing what is real.

The theory is a model. The experimentation is meant to make sure the model matches the real world. In some sense you are right, science will never give us a perfect and complete description of the world. But as we refine the models, we get closer and closer. For example, even though we have a better model now than classic mechanics, classic mechanics still describes the real world well enough where it can be used in almost every, every day situation and give us an answer that is so close to correct you can’t observe the difference.

Oh, you make me laugh. But I'm sure the little people appreciate you lowering yourself to their level.

Might I ask your definition of a scientist?

She’s not being rude. Well at least she might not be being rude. Unless you’ve devoted some serious time and effort into science it needs to be brought down to a level where you can understand it. Most theories about the questions you’re asking take four semesters of calculus to even understand the notation they are written in. For example, what I was studying (maths) when I finished college you would probably need to study at least four years to even understand what the questions were asking, much less the answers. If you want to ask scientific questions without a formal scientific background you need to accept the answer you get will be simplified greatly.

But to directly answer you, I consider someone to be a scientist when they’ve been publish in a peer reviewed journal accepted at large by the people in their field.

 

[KCfromNC]

The theory is a model. The experimentation is meant to make sure the model matches the real world. In some sense you are right, science will never give us a perfect and complete description of the world.

And in that same sense, nothing else will either. It's not like using words instead of math to describe the big bang suddenly gets around the fact that any description of the first few hundred thousands of years that the universe existed is by definition going to leave some details out.

Can anyone give an example of anything which is a perfect and complete description of anything? If you can't, this limitation is hardly unique to science.

Most theories about the questions you’re asking take four semesters of calculus to even understand the notation they are written in. For example, what I was studying when I finished college you would probably need to study at least four years to even understand what the questions were asking, much less the answers.

Simple example of the math you need as a prerequisite to an intro level class on general relativity - Metric tensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Where I went to school, that's a 700 level course (i.e. advanced undergrad or more likely master's candidate). Speaking from experience you can get by learning as you go - but I'll back up the idea that you're more pushing symbols around rather than gaining an understanding what any of it means.

It's not condescending to point this out and simplify the answers - those of us who have suffered through it want to end the cycle of abuse . Having a class where 30% on a test gets curved to an A is an eye-opener on how inscrutable some of this is to non-experts.

But to directly answer you, I consider someone to be a scientist when they’ve been publish in a peer reviewed journal accepted at large by the people in their field.

Another possible definition - someone who uses the scientific method to get their job done. Kind of circular, but it highlights that the process of science is potentially more important than the results. Or at least more important than any particular single result.

 

[Resha Caner]

She’s not being rude.

Though we've only been talking for a short time, Rilke and I have a history. My personal history involves a heavy use of sarcasm ... and I was good at it. I was very effective at silencing people. But, I came to realize that disparaging people until they were quiet was a bad thing to do. So, I'm a recovering sarcasm addict. When talking with people who pepper their posts with polemical statements, I still slip sometimes. So, my apologies.

(edit: I forgot to add that I understand things must be simplified sometimes for those not educated in a particular discipline. But to tell someone you need to talk down to them so they can understand is not helpful. It was my conclusion that is what Rilke was saying because previously she told me I am not a scientist, and she used "we" in her statement. If that was not her intent, again I apologize.)

Unless you’ve devoted some serious time and effort into science it needs to be brought down to a level where you can understand it.

FYI, I have a master of science degree, and I have been published within my discipline (structural dynamics). I do not pretend, however, that I understand everything about recent physics. Were I talking to Hawking, and he were to say, "Well, you need to go take some QM classes before this discussion can proceed," I would accept his judgement on that as fair. Since Rilke has said she is not a physicist, I consider this a conversation between amateurs. She obviously doesn't like my view, and translates that into comments about my ineptness. Shrug. Doesn't bother me.

I've dined with the world experts within my discipline. Whether it was a mistake or not, I shot myself in the foot by noting (for one particular detail) that the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes. My intent was to move the discipline beyond the brick wall on which many foreheads have been bloodied, but my suggestion was rejected. As a funny footnote, one of those who rejected my suggestion called me recently for some advice because he's getting pretty frustrated with that brick wall.

Sorry for rambling, but the point is that though I am not educated in recent physics, I think I have the capacity to understand it - at least for a chat on the Internet. The problem is that I continue to ask these questions that people find very odd. Check out my avatar.

But to directly answer you, I consider someone to be a scientist when they’ve been publish in a peer reviewed journal accepted at large by the people in their field.

That's a very interesting definition. I've not heard that version before, but I noted above that I meet your criteria. Even hold a few patents (which is more important to practicing engineers than papers).

For a little further background on me, as of next week I will have a BA in history. My specialty is the history of science, and just this past spring I presented a paper at an undergraduate history of math conference on the relationship between American engineers and mathematicians.

 

[Resha Caner]

Can anyone give an example of anything which is a perfect and complete description of anything? If you can't, this limitation is hardly unique to science.

I agree. But as a fun little jab back, this doesn't mean that nothing exists as perfect and complete.

Having a class where 30% on a test gets curved to an A is an eye-opener on how inscrutable some of this is to non-experts.

I've had the same experience.

Another possible definition - someone who uses the scientific method to get their job done. Kind of circular, but it highlights that the process of science is potentially more important than the results. Or at least more important than any particular single result.

Also interesting. I think both your definition and Jon's have some key points in them about how we conceive of what a scientist is. FYI, I have a copy of the article where the word "scientist" was originally coined. The date of that article (1840) surprises some. If the word wasn't used before 1840, what do we say of the "science" that came before 1840? Is it fair to apply the word after the fact?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Oh, you make me laugh. But I'm sure the little people appreciate you lowering yourself to their level.

Might I ask your definition of a scientist?

I made a simple statement of fact: scientific disciplines - like engineering - possess specialized vocabularies. It's simply not possible for someone without familiarity in that field to understand all the nuances without translation. Heck, I have to translate my stuff for my father and the bf, and dad did the basic science behind the CAT scanner and the bf had a PhD in high-energy physics.

However, if you'd prefer to be insulted, that's your problem. I can certainly try to be insulting and sarcastic, if that's an idiom you're more comfortable with, but it won't help our discussion.

As for my definition of a scientist - well, I don't know that peer-reviewed papers is a great help. Prior to the modern age, we didn't have that mechanism to double-check work; but would we refer to Newton or Faraday as non-scientists?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Though we've only been talking for a short time, Rilke and I have a history.

We do? I hadn't noticed.

My personal history involves a heavy use of sarcasm ... and I was good at it. I was very effective at silencing people. But, I came to realize that disparaging people until they were quiet was a bad thing to do. So, I'm a recovering sarcasm addict. When talking with people who pepper their posts with polemical statements, I still slip sometimes. So, my apologies.

I've not been polemical that I can recall.

(edit: I forgot to add that I understand things must be simplified sometimes for those not educated in a particular discipline. But to tell someone you need to talk down to them so they can understand is not helpful. It was my conclusion that is what Rilke was saying because previously she told me I am not a scientist, and she used "we" in her statement. If that was not her intent, again I apologize.)

The "we" in my sentence was inclusive of you. But as I say, if you'd rather be insulted, I'll work on that.

FYI, I have a master of science degree, and I have been published within my discipline (structural dynamics). I do not pretend, however, that I understand everything about recent physics. Were I talking to Hawking, and he were to say, "Well, you need to go take some QM classes before this discussion can proceed," I would accept his judgement on that as fair. Since Rilke has said she is not a physicist, I consider this a conversation between amateurs.

One of my undergrads is in physics. I know a little about it.

She obviously doesn't like my view, and translates that into comments about my ineptness.

Since I haven't made any, you're just being a bit hypersensitive. And I'm pointing out the parts of your "view" that seem confused, rather than those parts that are interesting, because I thought you were asking questions for information.

Shrug. Doesn't bother me.

Then you shouldn't bring it up.

I've dined with the world experts within my discipline. Whether it was a mistake or not, I shot myself in the foot by noting (for one particular detail) that the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes. My intent was to move the discipline beyond the brick wall on which many foreheads have been bloodied, but my suggestion was rejected. As a funny footnote, one of those who rejected my suggestion called me recently for some advice because he's getting pretty frustrated with that brick wall.

This is too vague to inspire comment, except of a meta-comment type.

Sorry for rambling, but the point is that though I am not educated in recent physics, I think I have the capacity to understand it - at least for a chat on the Internet. The problem is that I continue to ask these questions that people find very odd. Check out my avatar.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions. But asking questions that seem to relate to the basic concepts behind how science works generate puzzlement.

That's a very interesting definition. I've not heard that version before, but I noted above that I meet your criteria. Even hold a few patents (which is more important to practicing engineers than papers).

As I mentioned above, I'm not sure it's a good definition - it excludes too many historical scientists.

For a little further background on me, as of next week I will have a BA in history. My specialty is the history of science, and just this past spring I presented a paper at an undergraduate history of math conference on the relationship between American engineers and mathematicians.

So in your mind is it inappropriate to call Newton a scientist?

 

[Resha Caner]

It is clear that you are not a scientist.

The "we" in my sentence was inclusive of you. But as I say, if you'd rather be insulted, I'll work on that.

Don't trouble yourself. It is obvious I misinterpreted your intent in a series of quotes like the first one. Knowing that your "we" was meant to be inclusive reframes how I will take such statements from you.

Then you shouldn't bring it up.

Other posters seemed to be lacking some context for my comments, so I was only trying to help. I won't say any more about it.

As I mentioned above, I'm not sure it's a good definition - it excludes too many historical scientists.

I never said it was a complete definition, only that it had some interesting points about how people perceive what scientists are.

So in your mind is it inappropriate to call Newton a scientist?

Hmm. Only if one makes an attempt to understand him in his historical context. Newton called his Principia a work of "natural philosophy". He played with alchemy. The man was brilliant, but not everything he did was based on the modern meaning of "scientist".

 

[JonF]

And in that same sense, nothing else will either. It's not like using words instead of math to describe the big bang suddenly gets around the fact that any description of the first few hundred thousands of years that the universe existed is by definition going to leave some details out.

Can anyone give an example of anything which is a perfect and complete description of anything? If you can't, this limitation is hardly unique to science.

I don't see how anything I said implied otherwise? I painted science in fairly positive light I thought.

Simple example of the math you need as a prerequisite to an intro level class on general relativity - Metric tensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is a tad bit of a exaggeration. You think you need a class specifically on metric tensors for an intro to relativity class? You should be able to handle most of the intro math with a strong calculus background and some modern algebra.

That's a very interesting definition. I've not heard that version before, but I noted above that I meet your criteria. Even hold a few patents (which is more important to practicing engineers than papers).

For a little further background on me, as of next week I will have a BA in history. My specialty is the history of science, and just this past spring I presented a paper at an undergraduate history of math conference on the relationship between American engineers and mathematicians.

I’ve observed that’s when the scientific community seems to accept you as a member. When you publish. It’s also why I don’t claim to be a mathematician, I’ve never been published for math.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't see how anything I said implied otherwise? I painted science in fairly positive light I thought.

I was using something I agreed with as a place to jump off from, not arguing with you at all.

This is a tad bit of a exaggeration. You think you need a class specifically on metric tensors for an intro to relativity class? You should be able to handle most of the intro math with a strong calculus background and some modern algebra.

You can do special relativity without this, but we definitely used a lot of tensor algebra in the intro GR class I took way back when. I think it was a junior or senior level class, and the prof definitely thought we needed at least a strong linear algebra background to cover what he wanted to during the semester.