Slashdot Mirror
Constants Not Constant?
grytpype writes: "According to this story, a team of astronomers have determined (based on their observations of distant quasars) that [certain physical constants] may have been different in the far past of the universe. The discovery (if validated) is said to be good news for string theorists."
Lets see:
... who knows what we'll have learned in another 500 years, or another 5,000. Indeed, already we have answered far more questions through science in the blink of a proverbial eye than religion has in 6000 years and more general folklore has in 3,000,000. I wouldn't dismiss science just yet, merely because its results, while often truly dramatic, aren't instantaneous (and are subject to revision upon the accumulation of new knowledge, which is one of science's greatest strengths).
The universe is something on the order of 15,000,000,000 years old.
The earth has been around about 4,000,000,000 years.
Human beings are believed to have existed for approximately 3,000,000 years.
Human civilization as we know it is estimated to have begun around 10,000 years ago.
Modern monotheistic religions, purporting to have all of life's answers, have only been around for 5,000 years or so.
Modern science, which is actively searching for many of those answers, is only about 500 years old.
500 years. 1/100th as much time as (modern) religion has had to answer those questions. 1/6000th of the age of the human race. 1/8,000,000th of the age of the planet, and 1/3,000,000,000th the age of the universe.
I think claiming that, because science hasn't yet provided all of the answers after which it searches in a mere 500 years is akin to a child claiming that, because they were unable to learn those skills necessary to life as an adult in just two days, they will never learn.
Science may never answer the most fundamental questions of life. Then again, it just might. We are really only in the first moments of trying
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
how could we possibly know that we had, and that there wasn't some even better
description lurking just beyond our reach?
My theory is that we can never know the true nature of the universe
because we are part of it.
We can never be a true neutral observer.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
To me, it means:
Energy = mass * (speed of light) squared
This equation tells us how much energy we get from reactions that destroy mass, such as the radioactive decay of elements inside the Earth, or the nuclear fusion inside the Sun.
Now, if you want light in the past to travel, say, 6 billion (current) light years in the space of 6000 years, you need to speed it up one million times. In other words, you increase the amount of energy released by nuclear reactions by one trillion.
I'm not an astrophysicist, and the question "what would happen to the Sun if fusion released a trillion times as much energy" is a complicated one, but even if it didn't go nova I'd be surprised if Earth was still at a comfortable temperature.
I'm not a geophysicist either, but the question "what would happen to the Earth if radioactive elements released a trillion times as much energy" is a relatively (excuse the pun) easy one. Estimating the heat production of the Earth's core in this fashion at 4 * 10^13 watts, we can calculate the heat production of the early creationist Earth to be approximately 4 * 10^25 watts.
For comparison's sake, the Earth currently receives (1353 W/m^2) * pi * (6,360,000 m)^2 = approximately 1.7 * 10^17 watts from the Sun. So really, even if there was no Sun shining on Adam and Eve, they would still be getting about 230 times as much energy as we do today, raising the equilibrium temperature of the planet to a nice toasty 750 degrees Celsius. Maybe that explains Noah's flood, huh? All that water to cover the planet must have been in water vapor form before we cooled to under boiling temperatures.
Of course, if you want to explain just how *much* of those radioactive elements have decayed away in the multi-billion year old rocks we find lying around, you have to increase the rate of reaction (m, in the above equation) by another million fold. That brings our equilibrium temperature to about 5600 degrees Celsius... but wait, at that temperature all the rock is molten and radioactive decay products wouldn't get trapped next to their generating elements anyway.
I love creationist theories. My personal favorite are the wacky explanations of where all the water for Noah's flood came from ("vapor canopy"? anyone want to calculate the air pressure under something like that!?) and where it went.
For future reference, if you really think that Genesis is literal truth and God behaves like a parlor magician, then answers like "He created starlight already on it's way to Earth" and "he made ten million cubic miles of water teleport to deep space", however implausible sounding, are irrefutable. Once you try to explain miracles in terms of science, you're going to have to deal with its conclusions.
A theory - or indeed a "law" - of physics is *never* more than a model. Someone comes up with an idea about how the universe may work and then sees how useful that idea is in explaining some observed phenomenon. To be useful, it should also make predictions.
For instance, Newtons "laws" describe the operation of the universe extrememly well, and are still used all the time. Early this century, Einstein had an alternative idea - General Relativity - that worked better than Newton's ideas as they continue to model the universe accurately in situations involving very high speeds or very large masses.
We know that there is a problem with General Relativity, however, since it conflicts with Quantum theory. That doesn't stop both Relativity and Quantum theory from being able to make very useful predictions. (Indeed, Quantum theory is about the most useful theory ever created).
I think that the confusion if partly due to the way science tends to be taught: students are usually handed these "laws" as though they are immutable, handed down on stone tablets on top of a mountain. They get used to thinking of them that way, and then get suprised when they're told that the laws have been found to break down in certain circumstances.
Perhaps terminology like "laws" doesn't much help either!
Of course there are numerous holes in such an argument, but that never stood in the way of religious righteousness before.
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
This article is talking about changes in something related to, but not exactly the same as, the speed of light.
Also the changes are much more minute than creationists claim.
But, given the history of creationist lies, it won't be long until we see this result being quoted out of context and being used to support completely unjustified conclusions.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
I know you meant this as a joke, but creationists don?t think the universe is only 6,000 years old ..
.. not mine.
Many of them most certainly do.
There were five creation periods before man?s arrival. In the Old Testament, these are referred to as days, but they were periods of undetermined length (some suggest these periods were about 1,000 years each).
Where does that number come from?
Assuming the 1,000 year theory, that would make the Earth at least 11,000 years old.
How is an 11,000 year-old Earth any less ludicrous than a 6,000 year-old Earth, from a scientific standpoint? The scientifically-accepted age of the Earth is around 4.5 billion years; you're talking about a difference of five thousand.
I find this humorous since the other theories of man and Earth?s origin, such as the Big Bang Theory, Darwinism, etc., require an equal dose of blind faith and inconsistent and impractical arguments and ideas.
There's an awful lot of hard evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory, most notably the expansion of the Universe (as witnessed by the recession of galaxies through redshift measurements) and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Interestingly enough, the CMBR wasn't discovered until well after the Big Bang was posited, though the BB certainly predicts its existence (the energy would be so far redshifted that it would have gone through the infrared and into the microwave portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.) To put the Big Bang theory on the same level as "YHWH just sort of poofed everything into place at some point in the recent past" is wishful thinking, IMHO.
The same thing goes for evolutionary common descent. You are certainly allowed to posit the idea that virtually all of the biological, botanical, archeological, and geological community are involved in a conspiracy of blind faith, inconsistency, and impracticality. However, that idea is your cross to bear
You've just described science and knowledge, my friend.
Everything is a crutch until we get a better description, ad infintum. From Aristotle to Galileo, to Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, to Feynman, Hawking, and Thorne. Each generation of scientists and mathematicians uses the truths of the previous generation, breaks it, and refashions it according to modern experiences.
It's the *strength* of science, not a weakness.
GPL Deconstructed
given the history of creationist lies
Before I go on let me say that I'm not a creationist and I don't really care how the universe was formed. (It was and I'm here and okay with that). I just have one question: How can you claim someone is lying when we are discussing theories? Being raised in a religious environment I must say that yes some creationist's are quacks, but some of them have done good research and have good evidence to support what they believe. On the flip side some evolutionists are quacks but some also have good theories. Just because at theory is main stream doesn't mean that it has to be true (like the theory that M$ products are great... we all know about that one :)). And religion aside, if someone did prove that someone or something created the universe wouldn't that be just as important scientifically to definitive proof that there was a Big Bang[tm] or that evolution occurs? I certainly hope there is otherwise we have some pretty biased scientists running around out there.
Basically though, please back-up your claims before running around calling people liars, thanks.
The Anti-Blog
More and more I think that theories in physics are nothing more than successive approximations and we'll never know the true nature of existence. With some of these theories it almost feels like someone is playing a trick on us and every time we see through it a new layer of tricks is added.
personal attacks hurt, especially when deserved
Now I know what non-computer people think when they hear us ranting about how MS's oppressive tactics are keeping the world from experiencing the best software available:
"Whatever buddy, in YOUR world maybe.."
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)