Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Speck of a Universe be Physically Identical to the Great Expanse

  1. Sep 5, 2004 #1
    Let's just say this phrase from Greene could actually act like a koan given for introspective enlightenment. Making it to mystical might be a mistake?

    So maybe, if we translated this to mean, that a break through in mathematical formulation after deep introspective concentration, could actually set the stage for new thinking? Can happen, right?

    Smolin does it all the time in his summations. Witten did it when he had complex probems, he'd sit by a stream. I have heard tell that mathematicians actually sit in a greater contemplation, hoping for this great break through. :smile:

    Imagine ten years for breaking a mathematical formula, that has dogged current thinking, that you would recieve a reward for 1000000. for having done so? :smile:

    So taking this process if you might, and you apply it to the complex task of setting your sights on trying to understand these models that are trying to explain quantum gravity.

    You see, even a group thinking has materialized(all scientific thought), to ask the question, on how we shall describe this. Look at the diverse model construction. Amazing isn't it.

    So to me, this statement became somewhat paradoxal, in that how could such a statement make sense?

    So before I reply and back up what I had been thinking about, are there any others who might give there interpretation of what Greene was saying?

    Last edited: Sep 5, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 6, 2004 #2
    I think green was just refering to the "speck of a univerese" as the part of the universe we inhabit, and refering to the problem of basing all of our physics on all small section of the universe, and asking how the same laws could apply to the entire universe.
  4. Sep 6, 2004 #3
    I think your right Tom. :smile:

    So do you think this perspective helps one to organize the way in which they are viewing the universe? You must have read the greater context of this quote then?
  5. Sep 6, 2004 #4
    Actually i just read what you had put-- but I figured from reeading the book that was what he was talking about.

    Anyway it does bring up a valid point. How could one ever format a theory of everything for example if we don't even experience the physics of the entire universe. When you start to think about our place in the larger universe it really is just a speck if not smaller. We may never be able to know about the physics of certain parts of reality which is something we may just have to swallow one day.
  6. Sep 6, 2004 #5
    Why I started this thread Tom begs the questions of the implication of what Greene ask us to do in orientating our views on the universe. This is very important in my view.

    You had to understand the high energy end of the views the cosmos is telling us and what that information is relaying. It had to be consistent with a overall geometical view, and that high energy sector is only one end of it.

    Today we have a weak field meausre that we can do in our estimates of graviational experiments Marcus and myself talked about in that experiment thread.

    My statement is consistent with Greene's, and the quote I have selected of his based on the Q<->Q measure and how we measure gravity today. They are basically the same feature? :smile:

    Oh I am not volunteering anything anymore unless people ask. If they don't ask they won't know what I am talking about and they can sit on their pompous **** if they like and throw all kinds of ineundo's out there.

    I like Marcus's response the best. If it swings to far to string he automactically brings LQG to the table . I like that becuase it helps me to keep two things in focus. :smile:

    The fact is if people don;t ask, it's a conclusive understanding on my part of the nature they are exhibiting. To them that can't comprehend, they say gibberish. So be it. :smile:
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook