Even the very best of scientists can exhibit some sort of scientific sleight-of-hand and bamboozle their lay audience with absurdities. Actually, this approach often is just taking a lazy way out. Explaining things in sufficient detail, to avoid the absurdities, would either be too involved or take up too much text. At least I hope that’s the case. If some scientists actually believe what they write, then something is rotten in academia.
You know there are really times I think some physical scientists spend way to much time wrapped up in their own tiny little academic world, embracing highly intricate mathematical equations, think these formula have some actual connection with reality, interacting with likeminded colleagues, attending conferences of the likeminded – preachers preaching to the converted, and writing texts that contain, well, commonsense absurdities. There are times when perhaps they should just stand back, try to view the entire forest, instead of focusing on just one tiny leaf. Or, if they can’t do that, at least proofread some of the bovine fertilizer they write, especially for the layperson, and somehow come to terms with what they postulate is so absurd, that they end up being laughed at, not only to the detriment of themselves, but of the science they represent and in fact the downgrading of public opinion in science and scientists in general.
For example, these are common points of view I’ve read again and again, and most involve either zero or infinity. I’m not talking here by the way about colleagues having discussions over alternative cosmologies; thinking above quantum gravity; speculations on String Theory; theorizing over the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, ideas surrounding the likelihood of extraterrestrial life; mulling over if we are really virtual reality; ramblings off the top of the head about the possibilities of time travel; “what if” statements about Dark Matter or Dark Energy. Should some scientists wish to ponder over how many angels can squat on the head of a thumbtack, that’s okay too as far as I’m concerned. But I take issue with “and that’s the way it is” nonsense statements. Truisms - truisms that are nonsense. Extraordinary claims that are nonsense.
Particle Physics: Elementary particles are point particles that have zero dimensionality hence zero volume. Now if that were really the case, one couldn’t have particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider that collide, well say protons together. You have to have some sort of dimensionality bulk if you are going to slam into something else – which must have bulk. Further, you are composed of those dimensionless (zero) point particles. In basic maths, zero plus zero plus zero plus zero (extend this millions of times on) equals zero. If all the stuff that makes you up is dimensionless, then you are dimensionless, you have no height, no front-back length, no left-right width, therefore no volume, which if true, ruins your breakfast and your sex life! Another point overlooked is that one of the fundamental properties of particles is spin – angular momentum. Now it has to be obvious to even Blind Freddy that something cannot spin unless it is spinning around a centre (axis of rotation – that’s normally the up-down dimension) and through the left-right and front-back dimensions – like a spinning ice skater. So, if something spins, it has to have a spatial extension, like a planet or a bicycle wheel or a baseball. That an elementary particle has zero volume – that’s an extraordinary claim!
Radioactivity’s Lack of Causality: If there is one thing that you absolutely rely on every day in every way it is causality. If A happens; B happens. If B happens; C happens. Everything happens because something previously happened. Ah, but take radioactivity. A pair of unstable radioactive atoms sits side-by-side. After say one hour, one decays; the other doesn’t, yet their environmental surroundings are the same; absolutely identical. What caused one to go poof but not the other? Who knows? All scientists say is that there was no causality involved. Personally, I think such a statement resides in fairy-dairy land along with the person who uttered it. Einstein summed it up best when he suggested that God does not play dice with the Universe. If one atom when poof and the other didn’t, well IMHO there was a reason for that. There was a cause why one did and one didn’t. Invoking the absence of cause-and-effect in a physical happening – that’s an extraordinary claim!
Cosmological Singularities: Infinite density has been the state of affairs often attributed to the state of the singularity, an entity which exists in two places. Firstly, a singularity is postulated at the time of the Big Bang event. Secondly, you’ll find the term singularity attributed to the inside of a Black Hole. So what’s this all about? If you cram a lot of mass into a tiny volume, you’ll get a singularity. The Big Bang event contained all the mass there is in our Universe, and because the Universe is expanding, one can run the film backwards to the beginning, and that’s postulated to end up as a rather tiny volume – I say theoretically postulated since it’s theoretically impossible to see what happened until roughly 300,000 years after the Big Bang actually happened. Okay, so we have a Big Bang singularity. The Black Hole singularity is straightforward – a Black Hole by definition contains enough mass, therefore enough gravity, to prevent even light from escaping its grasp. Now that’s a lot of mass. Also, a Black Hole is a relatively small object as astronomical objects go. So, that combination of lots of mass in a small volume arises again. Now mass and associated gravity are within the realm of General Relativity. Tiny volumes are the realm of Quantum Mechanics. The fly in the ointment is that the equations of General Relativity aren’t compatible with the equations of Quantum Mechanics. Physics breaks down when it comes to describing a singularity. Lazy physicists just take the easy option and say that as more and more mass is squeezed into smaller and smaller volumes the density rises and rises until it hits infinity! Lazy physicists fail to engage their wetware and come to terms with what an absurd phrase ‘infinite density’ is. Density is mass per volume. To have infinite density you’d need either infinite mass, and that’s nonsense since the mass inside a Black Hole is hardly infinite nor is the mass of our entire Universe infinite, or zero volume, and that’s equally nonsense. You can’t cram an infinite amount of stuff into zero space. Infinite density – that’s an extraordinary claim!
Infinite Gravity: If, any only if you had infinite mass gathered together in zero volume would you generate infinite gravity. The Universe doesn’t have infinite mass so infinite gravity bites the dust on that basis alone. You can’t have zero volume that contains something, so infinite gravity also bites the dust from that perspective. Any finite amount of mass contained in an extremely tiny volume will generate extreme gravity, but there’s a universe of difference and distinction between extreme gravity and infinite gravity. That’s more soiled underwear for any scientist prone to use the phrase ‘infinite gravity’. There’s no such animal in the zoo of physics. Infinite gravity – that’s an extraordinary claim!
The Big Bang’s Infinite Temperature: At the time of the Big Bang, the temperature therein was no doubt extreme. Any explosive event generates heat, be it a firecracker, an H-Bomb, or a supernova. But no temperature can be infinitely hot. Why? Heat is energy. ‘Infinitely hot’ is therefore something requiring an infinite amount of energy necessary to generate something that’s ‘infinitely hot’. Temperature is also just a measurement of the average velocity of matter/energy. If one had an infinitely hot temperature, the average velocity of the matter/energy would be infinite. One cannot have an infinite velocity since the cosmic speed limit is the speed of light which is 186,000 miles/second. Therefore, the scientist who uses the phrase ‘infinite temperature’ is talking pure bullshit, and I’ve read accounts by some of the greats using that very phrase. Infinite temperature - that’s an extraordinary claim!
The Big Bang’s Creation of Matter and Energy: It’s rammed down the throats of students starting in junior high school that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only changed from one form to another form. No argument there, from me at least. However, modern cosmologists postulate exactly that at the moment of the Big Bang event – matter and energy were created, a clear violation of basic conservation laws. That’s an extraordinary claim!
The Big Bang’s Creation of Space and Time: Now the question is, can space and/or time be created? Standard model cosmologists say “yes”, space and time were literally created at the moment of the Big Bang event. Space and time had no meaning and no existence prior to that event. The common analogy given is that to ask if there was time and space before the Big Bang is akin to asking if there is something south of the South Pole. In other words, it’s a nonsense question. However, IMHO, it’s those standard model cosmologists who advocate the nonsense. It’s quite easy for them to say that time and space was created. It’s nearly infinitely more difficult for them to write the cookbook that gives the actual recipe. They haven’t; they can’t, because they are advocating the creation of “something from nothing”. Applying Occam’s Razor, that “keep it simple, stupid” rule, it’s way more believable that space and time have always existed and that the Big Bang event happened inside existing space and time. That somehow space and time can be created, was created at the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago – that’s an extraordinary claim!
To be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment