- #1
dce
- 5
- 0
Now I'll be the first to admit I understand, for all practical purposes, close to nothing of theoretical physics. But I came across an article on "phys org" titled "Scientists Glimpse Universe Before Big Bang"(http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-scientists-glimpse-universe-big.html). Now from what I do know of physics, a singularity is a point from which our mathematics is not only unable to verify or delve into the realm into the phenomenon, but it is actually proven as an actually mathematically verified impossible task. But I suppose that's based on current scientific understanding, and with new verified knowledge, equations somewhere could be tweaked to yield actual knowledge and then the identifying the phenomenon as a singularity would be flawed. But I'm taking, from my perspective, a huge leap here with not knowing what I'm leaping over. I'll yield this fundamental understanding of mine as flawed and accept the implications of the article prosoped as possible.
After this leap, I accept that this article is suggesting a cyclic universe and that it is within the realm of possibility. But why are the implications that are proposed regarding this effect being suggested as a correlation to a cyclic universe? This article seems to make assumptions that have no epistemological value, however interesting as it may be. Honestly, I, unlike many other "serious" physicists, love the constant barrage of synthetic a priori knowledge, especially prevalent in physics books, proposed as a means of attempting to describe the literally unknowable through science (To many this will seem to many as irrelevant, but I do believe in God). Science seems to be based upon a very strict set of rules and the moment we take science to these unknowable areas of knowledge the topic would seem to not belong within science and venture into what many would call pseudoscience, usually having a negative connotation. But if we jump to this conclusion of a cyclic universe not only would we need to add additional parameters to our knowledge, we would need to, at the very least, make fundamental changes in our interpretation of some very basic knowledge of physics.
So lastly, Calibi-Yau geometry does seem to verify the possibility of 10-dimensional reality through variations of strings. Why would it be such a large step to assume that (from these observations through the article), though space-time seems to be an inherent component of are universe, our reality, including space-time, is within some sort of super-region of unknowable forces? Could this explain explain the effect observed in the article? Now I understand that theoretically it couldn't be predicted at this point, but I want to know where my flaws are in the idea. This is why I have grown so fond of physics it is to me the very essence of art where ideas of reality are adjusted, sometimes with gigantic leaps, to give the individual a new lens every time one of these theories is confirmed. I would really appreciate some feedback though on both the article and the epistemological role in science.
After this leap, I accept that this article is suggesting a cyclic universe and that it is within the realm of possibility. But why are the implications that are proposed regarding this effect being suggested as a correlation to a cyclic universe? This article seems to make assumptions that have no epistemological value, however interesting as it may be. Honestly, I, unlike many other "serious" physicists, love the constant barrage of synthetic a priori knowledge, especially prevalent in physics books, proposed as a means of attempting to describe the literally unknowable through science (To many this will seem to many as irrelevant, but I do believe in God). Science seems to be based upon a very strict set of rules and the moment we take science to these unknowable areas of knowledge the topic would seem to not belong within science and venture into what many would call pseudoscience, usually having a negative connotation. But if we jump to this conclusion of a cyclic universe not only would we need to add additional parameters to our knowledge, we would need to, at the very least, make fundamental changes in our interpretation of some very basic knowledge of physics.
So lastly, Calibi-Yau geometry does seem to verify the possibility of 10-dimensional reality through variations of strings. Why would it be such a large step to assume that (from these observations through the article), though space-time seems to be an inherent component of are universe, our reality, including space-time, is within some sort of super-region of unknowable forces? Could this explain explain the effect observed in the article? Now I understand that theoretically it couldn't be predicted at this point, but I want to know where my flaws are in the idea. This is why I have grown so fond of physics it is to me the very essence of art where ideas of reality are adjusted, sometimes with gigantic leaps, to give the individual a new lens every time one of these theories is confirmed. I would really appreciate some feedback though on both the article and the epistemological role in science.