Just Not Sure, And That’s Okay

“Introducing The Universe”  (1993©)  —  book review
Today’s book review is for “Introducing The Universe“, written by Felix Pirani (writer) and Christine Roche (illustrator).  While copyrighted in 1993, my version is a re-publication from 1999.  (Dear Readers, I apologize in advance for the length of this review, which may seem longer than the book.)
I have a reasonably long history (ten to twenty years) of reading these “Introduction / Introducing” series of books about a host of different topics.  The benefit of the series is you (generally) get a very quick (under 200 pages filled with mostly comics illustrations) and very general overview of whatever the specific topic is for the book.  The negatives are reduced a number of important sub-topics, lack of breadth and depth for a specific sub-topic, and (occasionally) even I find the illustrations tedious (if not demeaning).  Be that as it may…
This book is about cosmology (the science and study of the universe).  Obviously, theories about the universe and creation pre-date “civilization”, and certainly pre-date reading and writing, let alone the start of modern science.  This book covers all of this… up to publication date.
So, the two main theories of the universe are:  1) it has always existed pretty much as it is now;  and, 2) the universe sprang into being at some point.  The first theory is known as the “Steady-State” theory.  The second is more popularly known as the “Big Bang” theory.  Pre-1960(-ish), 1965 to be precise, the Steady-State theory held the reigns because there was no physical evidence to believe otherwise and it let scientists avoid the chicken-n-egg question of: “If the universe was created, that implies there was both reason for creation and a creator / intelligent designer.  So, who was it?”  This moves from the “hard” science which scientists like to think about, to the practice to philosophy – which may be logical, but is rarely scientific (from my experience anyway).
I call theory #2, “The God Theory“, because creation implies creator and it pre-dates modern science (as we know it).  I call theory #1, “The Science Theory“, because not only do we not know what happened, it seems unlikely we will ever know.  If you are comfortable with doubt and dealing with the unknowable, you can be comfortable with science.
Well, in 1965, a couple of radio guys at Bell Labs were looking at space and they found some background noise (aka “Cosmic Microwave Background” or CMB) which could not be easily explained.  It seemed to fall under the predictions for residue background radiation from a terrific explosion.  Hence: “The Big Bang“.  With this data, and a corresponding space-race to the moon between the United States and the U.S.S.R., a lot of money was being poured into the coffers of universities (and companies) which would study these phenomena.  (Note:  the theory pre-dates the CMB evidence.  The CMB, however, serves as the primary evidence supporting the theory.  When I was a child and first learning about all of this, the Steady-State was THE primary theory for cosmology and the Big Bang was just beginning its ascendancy.  It was a paradigm shift in cosmology based on new data, post theory.)
The problem is for pretty much all of the last 60 years, more and more study has produced more and more confusing results, and, in turn, more and more convoluted twists in the Big Bang theory to explain the exceptions to the predicted data.  For example: we believe the universe is expanding, but we can’t identify a point of origin.  All points seem to be moving away from each other at the same rate.
And, another: the stuff of the universe, which we can see, behaves in a way which predicts there should be a LOT more stuff.  The mathematics works out that for the universe to function the way the theory says it should, there’s probably 90% or more of the stuff in the universe which is, as yet, unseen.  Nobody knows what it is or where it is or why we can’t see (detect) it.  And it’s not just “stuff”.  The same seems to be true for “energy” which we also cannot detect.  The scientists have named these two unseeable and unmeasureable things: “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” (cause they’re original that way).
Basically, the real and measurable data we’ve been gathering seem to contradict the Big Bang theory, but we’ve yet to come up with a theory to explain the data which the data could support (some theory other than the Big Bang theory and / or the Steady-State theory).  The result is we are stumbling along with the philosopher Thomas Kuhn’s “normal science” while awaiting a new theory or “paradigm” which explains the evidence in terms of supporting the Steady-State theory.  (Hence, String Theory / Super-String Theory and multi-dimensions and multiple universes.)
So, is this book any good?  Is it interesting?  Before I answer those two questions I must state:  I am NOT a scientist and I entered the book with only the most high-school level knowledge of cosmology (let alone math / physics).  Having said this:  Yes, and YES!  This is not a book which most physicists, math folks or cosmologists will find useful.  Between the non-linear / non-chronological presentation and the use of mostly comic-book style illustrations, I imagine they would find it trivial if not insulting.  I don’t know enough about the subject to find it such.
Final recommendation:  strong!  I am sure the target audience, the format and the length of the book precluded the author and illustrator’s ability to present as much as they might have liked to.  Never the less, as a novice seeking a general overview which could be gained in a couple of hours of light reading, I felt the book covered the topic and reading it was a useful experience.
.
On This Day In:
2019	The Right Questions
	Day 3: Still Difficult
2018	A Thought For Those Continuing To Support President Trump
	Day 36: Pushing On
2017	Imagining Humor
2016	So Go On And Deal With It
2015	From A Letter To A Friend
2014	Your Part (Here)
2013	Complements
2012	Sound And Light
2011	Two Politicians Visit A Farm…
2010	Labor Day And Honorable Men

Read Full Post »

I’m Actively Irresponsible

To do real good physics work, you do need absolute solid lengths of time  …  it needs a lot of concentration  …  if you have a job administrating anything, you don’t have the time.  So I have invented another myth for myself: that I’m irresponsible.  I’m actively irresponsible.  I tell everyone I don’t do anything.  If anyone asks me to be on a committee  …  ‘no’ I tell them: I’m irresponsible.
—  Richard Feynman
Quoted by: Cal Newport
In his on-line article:  “Is Email Making Professors Stupid“
Appearing on the site: The Chronicle of Higher Education, located at: www.chronicle.com
[LOL!!!  It worked for me, too!  —  KMAB]
.
On This Day In:
2018	I Will Love You… Forever
2017	Pebbles In Your Shoe?
2016	Resolute Will
2015	Absorbed And Civilized
2014	Relax And Lead
2013	Location, Location, Location
2012	Are You Really Good?
2011	Relatively Objective, Anyway

Read Full Post »

Just Bake The Cake, Man

Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry…
―    Thomas Jefferson
.
On This Day In:
2017	Visible Proof
2016	Poor Enough Means
2015	Still Standing
	Follow Your Heart
2014	Just Reminded
2013	A Fine Balance
2012	One Measure
2011	Seeking The Common Ground
	In Brightest Day…

Read Full Post »

What If “c” Isn’t A Constant?

A reasonable percentage of the general public have heard of Einstein’s formula for equating Mass with Energy (E=mc²).  Now the way I was taught this, the “c” is merely a constant representing the value of conversion – so, a little mass will equal a lot of energy.
The value of the constant “c” is equal to the speed of light (commonly know as 186,000 miles per second).  So, when squared, you receive a tremendous amount of energy for a little mass.
But, what happens if “c” isn’t “just” a constant?  What if “c” is an actual “thing“.  That is, what if “c” is actually equal to space AND time (or what we understand these two things to be).  What then?
c² = E / m
Now, we (normal folks) think of things as lines (one dimension), planes (two dimensions) and cubes (three dimensions).  Move a cube through space (meaning over some length of time) and you are starting to get a fourth dimension (space in time).
Now, what is “c”?  It is the distance light travels through space in a set amount of time.
Ok.  But what does this leave us with?
Without high level math skills and a pretty high level of understanding of physics, I can only say, “I don’t know…”
My feeling is that we are fundamentally incorrect in our current understanding of the universe.  At the moment, we (“science”) believe we come from a Big Bang.  There seems to be residual radiation all around us and this is believed to be the after-glow of creation.
One problem with this understanding is that we appear to be in a universe which is growing greater (expanding) in all directions.  That is, all parts are moving apart, in all directions, and at ever accelerating rates.  Logically, if we all come from some fixed point of origin, we should all be moving away from that point equally.  This does NOT appear to be what is experimentally provable.
That’s a problem because either the data doesn’t agree with the theory (and the theory is incorrect); or, the logic is incorrect (the universe isn’t expanding from a central point of origin AND the theory is still incorrect); or, there is something wrong with the way we are measuring and gathering the data (in which case the theory may or may not be correct, but we can’t tell and won’t be able to until we can come up with a valid experimental measure).
Now, let’s suppose we had one or more places where mass could not exist (as we know it) because of tremendous energy forces – say for example, in a singularity (aka “A Black Hole”).  Energy can’t escape and additional mass is continuously being added.  Where is all this “stuff” going?
We don’t know…  Maybe to another “universe” or a parallel dimension?  We don’t know…  But, what if it’s merely being turned into space/time?  What if deep gravity holes “create” high gravity peaks?  What if at some related, proportional distance, “new” space/time is being created and this (new space/time) is what is actually driving all of the universe apart.  The creation of this space/time would almost of necessity create “friction/vibrations” (for want of a better term) between other points of creation.  This “frictional vibration in space” is what I would use to describe something more popularly know as energy.  In turn, compressed energy becomes mass (“matter”) in space/time.
Thus my little thought experiment has accounted for continuous creation of the universe (at least we now have no way to determine its age), the background energy (of the Big Bang) – it’s the “sound” of continuous creation, and what’s going on in singularities (they are converting – recycling – mass and energy into space/time).
There now remain three issues (aka problems): 1) theory, a math proof – a neat equation; 2) observation, experimental proof – confirming data; and, 3) a test – a workable experiment.  As I stated, I do NOT have the math skills to propose a workable equation, nor would I really know where to start mathematically.
The best I could do would be to ask: where is the background energy weak and strong?  Is there anything in either of those two types of areas?  Are “new” galaxies in or near the weak/strong points?  If yes, is there any commonality amongst them?  If no, where are new galaxies relative to the map of the background energy?
And these, folks, are the musings of a blogger wondering about the universe on a Fall evening…  “Just another disturbance in the time-space continuum”
.

Read Full Post »