In the standard orthodox Christian 0utlook, an "afterlife" is claimed to exist, mostly based on selected passages of scriptures. However, no one has actually taken videos of such, and NDEs hardly count since they're only ersatz evidence not bona fide (also many NDEs can be explained by appeal to hallucinations that arise because brain electro chemistry goes awry as the assorted bodily systems ...including respiration, blood circulation, and synaptic firings ..collapse. In addition, the orthodox Christian claims one actually enters some abode at death, either rewarded with a Hell or Heaven.
The nature of the first is more or less in dispute with some 55 million Pentecostals and Evangelicals leaning to the old "fire and brimstone" version, but most Catholics and Catholic theologians leaning to the more subtle torment of simple "pain of loss", as in non-ability to participate in the divine nature. (This pain is fully understandable when one recalls how painful it is be to be separated from a loved one). Meanwhile, the nature of Heaven ranges from childish notions of floating on clouds and playing harps to a more sublime concept of enhanced sense of cosmic unity and experience of part of the divine consciousness. ("Beatific Vision")
Again, none of these has been proven to any skeptic's satisfaction, and the most we can say therefore, is that all the preceding either represent wishful thinking, or non-thinking directed by mere adherence to a bible passage or two. As far as the atheist is concerned, the issue is settled, and when you die, that's it - lights out! Permanently! We go into nothingness. Mature adults accept this, but delusional infants (like most Americans) don't.
In Tipler's case, both physics and modern biology (genetics) are used to impart a scientific patina to all these issues. This is one of the more difficult aspects of his work so I will work through it piece by piece.
We begin with human resurrection.
In his chapter on this, Tipler writes (p. 78):
"...every human being who has ever lived will one day be resurrected, never to die again. Since this is the central claim of Christianity it is important to consider why this is true."
He then proceeds to use modern information theory in conjunction with an ultimate fate of the cosmos, presumed to be collapse. He notes the upper bound (Bekenstein Bound) to the information coded in a human being is ~ 10^45 bits, and for the entire visible universe this is ~ 10^125 bits. It is further known that the information content is the logarithm of the total number of possible states a human or universe can be in, viz.:
I = ln (g)
where g denotes the possible states, and as Tipler notes (ibid.)
"if we were to exponentiate these numbers, we would have the number of distinct humans and visible universes there cuold possibly be. These numbers are enormous, but nevertheless finite"
Checking this we find:
for humans: n(s) = exp (45) = 3.4 x 10^19
for universes:
n(s) = exp(125) = 1.9 x 10^54
Thus, he concludes "there is a finite complexity to a human being and to a visible universe at the present time"
He then argues that :
"as the universe collapses into the Final Singularity, the amount of complexity in all the universes of the multiverse increases without limit. Not the overall complexity but the amount of information coded in the computers of the biosphere increases without limit. Therefore there will come a time in the far future when the amount of information required to reproduce, as a computer simulation (one exact down to the quantum state) every human being who has ever lived is insignificant with computer capacity."
In other words, to ensure the resurrection of humans, Tipler is predicating his reality on the basis of a simulated universe! Readers of this blog may recall that I previously examined such an entity in three instalments, viz.
1)http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-universe-simulation-i.html
2) http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-universe-simulation-ii.html
3) http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-universe-simulation-iii.html
also predicated on a sophisticated quantum computer.
Thus, according to Tipler, any and every being that has ever lived (I am not sure about animals but suppose this includes them) will be resurrected in an infinitely advanced virtual reality. In the subjective time frame, all those inhabiting that last instant (in proper time) will experience a reasonable (virtual) facsimile of eternity. It is important to note that all these resurrected beings are simulations, not beings in solid material form (i.e. human bodies). Nonetheless, these simulations, much like those in a high-level virtual reality computer program(like the SIMS), can interact.
He clarifies this virtual basis of existence (p. 80):
"Our resurrected bodies will be in the form of computer programs which are spiritual entities....In computer language, our future bodies will be augmented versions of our current bodies but at a higher level of implementation"
What Tipler seems to be demanding here is that the information capacity at "resurrection" nearly eliminates all entropy (H). Recall the information capacity C = I - H, where the information I is in bits processed per second. Thus, the putative resurrected beings would have C ~ I (and H -> 0)
More importantly we need to recall the words of Seth Lloyd (‘Programming the Universe’, p. 154):
“A quantum computer that simulated the universe would have exactly as many qubits as there are in the universe, and the logic operations on those qubits would exactly simulate the dynamics of the universe.”
And further (ibid.)
“Because the behavior of elementary particles can be mapped directly onto the behavior of qubits acting via logic operations, a simulation of the universe on a quantum computer is indistinguishable from the universe itself”
In other words, at root the simulated cosmos is a physical construct, not a "spirtual one".
Another problem that arises, which Tipler ignores, is what happens in terms of quantum entanglement? If the whole multiverse is a unitary quantum computing simulation then what is to prevent quantum information entanglement between parallel universes, say some of the 'evil' in our universe seeping into other less evil ones? Or even into the putatively perfect one? Or, is the divine computer programmer able to contain or limit entanglement to single universes, and if so, how?
A more serious issue is that the resurrections of beings in our universe (to reach an ultimate minimal state of complexity) requires collapse, or all the mass-energy of the cosmos being annihilated in a new superdense state at the "final singularity". However, the existing evidence shows that this isn't going to happen! (What we would call a "re-collapse", since it occurs after a prolonged expansion.)
Universes that re-collapse (decelerate), expand forever with zero limiting velocity (e.g. v uniform) or expand forever with positive limiting velocity (accelerate) are called in turn: 'closed' (can have curvature k = +1); 'critical' (k=0)or 'open' (can be k = -1), respectively Now, to determine whether any cosmological template leads to deceleration or not, we need to find the cosmic density parameter:
Omega = rho / rho_c
where the denominator refers to the critical density.
Thus if: rho > rho_c (c = critical)
then the cosmic density is able to reverse the expansion (e.g. decelerate it) and conceivably usher in a new cycle. (New Big bang etc.) The observations that help determine how large rho is, come mainly from observing galaxy clusters in different directions in space and obtaining a density estimate from them.
Current data, e.g. from Boomerang and other satellite detectors (See e.g. 'Balloon Measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background Strongly Favor a Flat Cosmos', p. 17, Physics Today, July 2000) shows that Omega~ 0.3 or that:
rho = 0.3 (rho_c)
I.e. that rho< rho_c so there is no danger of the cosmos decelerating. If it doesn’t decelerate, it means there'll be NO end singularity. But if this is so, then there can be no resurrections of the type Tipler forecasts, leading to enhanced values of C = (I - H).
Next: Tipler's version of Hell, Satan and demons.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Physics of Christianity? (2): The Problem of Evil
The so-called "Problem of evil", which underscores the basis of theodicy, is perhaps the central reason why so many original religious believers become atheists. Their perennial question is: IF God is all loving and also infinite and all-powerful, why does he not choose to stop - or at least diminish evil- where and when it occurs? In the case of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, maybe that would have meant some level of interference that spared half those lives, as opposed to all perishing. In the case of the human evil of Hitler's holocaust, maybe enabling 1 million of the 6 million to survive, as opposed to 6 million dead. Since nothing stopped all that unfolding evil, the atheist conclusion is that there is nothing there in the first instance. People are indeed on their own, whether a massive earthquake strikes (as in Haiti) or in the case of a genocide. Thus, why the need to invoke a God?
Frank Tipler in his proposal for a "Physics of Christianity" comes at this from a totally novel direction, also different from that of Bernard Haisch (which I examined earlier), cf.:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/04/bernard-haischs-god-theory-i.html and,
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/04/haisch-god-theory-ii-atheist-complaints.html
According to Tipler, in his chapter on the Problem of Evil:
"God is not powerless, and He does not lack foreknowledge. It seems He could have stopped the tsunami had He wished, or at least warned us had He wished. The question then is: Why did he not wish, if He indeed loves us as a Father? Many people resolve this conundrum by concluding that God does not exist. Indeed, this Problem of Evil is the main cause of atheism not only today but throughout history.
If God does exist there can be only one reason why He allows evil to exist: it is logically impossible for Him to remove all evil from reality. Even an omnipotent God cannot do what is logically impossible."
Now, WHY is it "logically impossible? for God to subdue evil? Inquring minds want to know! From physics, actually the same advanced physics as postulated by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mludnow in their book, The Grand Design, Tipler postulates the multiverse concept. In the multiverse (see diagram) there are an infinite number of parallel universes which I already described in technical detail here:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-on-multi-verse-concept.html
Note, and this is very important, the version of multiverse portrayed above derives from Hawking's and Mludnow's proposal that via D-brane interactions in the initial (negative energy) vacuum other universes are also spawned especially as part of the exponential cosmic inflation phase of expansion (see, e.g. 'What is the Multiverse?') p. 44, in Scientific American, January, 2010). This is very important, for this version of the multiverse is distinct from Tipler's which invokes the "Many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. Thus, while Hawking and Mludnow's basis derives from the vacuum expansion or cosmological dynamics, Tipler's derives from one of several quantum mechanics' interpretations (more on this later- but I don't want to seriously break readers' trains of thought now!)
In Tipler's words, as per his multiverse (p. 239):
"In the multiverse, all universes consistent with physical law actually exist. All human-caused evils could have been avoided, beause human-caused decisions to act one way or another are only made after the constraints of physical law are taken into account. ....Therefore, there is a universe in which Hitler never rose to power and the Holocaust never happened. There is a universe where none of the evil empires that have murdered people in our universe ever arose. There is no evidence that any human caused evil is required by physical law.
Therefore, there is at least one universe in which no human evil ever occurred....Evil arose on Earth much earlier than the human species, so that it was present by the time of the Cambrian Explosion. So we can apply the same argument to nonhuman beings and conclude there must be a universe in which no evil caused by living things ever arose"
These are weighty remarks indeed! Because, if true, it means that one of the infinite number of parallel universes is and remains totally perfect: the "Garden of Eden" of Genesis myth, or in Tipler's words "the best of all possible worlds (universes)". Of course, in this "best universe", there'd be no need for a Savior, since no "sin-ransom" sacrifice would be required, as the universe is already entirely perfect!
Tipler's next question is logical and one any atheist would ask (ibid.):
"The question then is 'Why didn't God limit His creation to this best of all possible universes, which does in fact exist'?"
He goes on to address it by pointing out the answer is connected to the even more fundamental question: "Why did God (the Cosmological Singularity) create even one universe, much less the multiverse?"
Of course, this returns to the fundamental Leibniz paradox of why there is something rather than nothing? For if "nothing" - meaning only the perfect God in a physical vacuum - be the more perfect state, why add imperfection via creation to it, even if the imperfection is effectively fractional. Tipler's answer is:
"Because He created the universe as an object for His love".
To this end then, he not only created a universe but a multiverse. Thus:
"not only did He create some creatures but He created all possible creatures that could fit"
Thus, in a multiverse, there is no reason why all possible plants and animals - as well as all possible humans - must exist! As well as all possible planets, both perfect (no earthquakes, or tidal waves, or massive destructive storms, tornoadoes) and imperfect ...with all the preceding. Of course, all possible humans encompasses evil ones as well, so following Tipler's logic, it is irrefutable that evil humans had to exist in at least one of the infinite universes, and it happens that is ours! There is no possibility that all the infinite universes or cosmi could not include at least one version permeated with evil. The reason is that in a multiverse situation all the possibilities must come forth. None can be precluded!
Tipler doesn't use the word "evil" as an absolute objective entity, but rather as synonymous with the more objective term, "disabled". And he notes that just as a loving parent loves all his children, including the disabled, so also the God of the multiverse loves all his universes, including the disabled ones. (Of course, there may be other universes more disabled than ours, or less!)
As Tipler puts it: "He loves the universes in which evil never appeared, as well as those in which it did"
He must love all because his creation mandate enabled all.
More importantly (p. 263), having a subset of "evil" or "disabled" universes allowed for divine expression, to assume a human (or alien-form, i.e. incarnation) to undergo death and resurrection in order to save the humans on that world, or in that universe. Thus, in Tipler's words: "the Cross would be necessary in a universe of maximum potential, which necessarily means allowing evil to exist".
But one can also look at this from a bit different perspective: that it is, the disabled universes in their imperfection act as "energizers" to allow the goody-two shoes variants to exist! I mean, without these energizer-"evil" cosmi, there'd be no reason for divine incarnation which is the effective substrate (according to Tipler) to actually imbue the multiverse with direct divine energy! A good analogy is the Star Trek episode that showed Kirk split by a transporter accident into evil and wholly good personae. Once split, the evil persona went on numerous rampages and was uncontrollable, while the "good" Kirk withered, becoming passive, never engaging in or doing anything. In other words, the "evil" Kirk was necessary to energize and restore the 'good" Kirk to functionality. In the same way, one might argue the "evil" universes of the multiverse are essential to preserve its full functionality. Kind of like a bi-polar dynamo!
What is another feature of dynamic universes? Well, as the philosopher N.M. Wildiers pointed out, they EVOLVE! The very nature of evolution is a dynamic process, whereas if a universe were wholly "good" there'd be no need to evolve! It would already have peaked at some level of "perfection". But as Wildiers added: "An evolving universe and a perfect universe are mutually contradictory, because evil is part and parcel of a world or universe in evolution". That is one of the most profound insights there is, and that anyone can have, though doubtless most theists would look askance at it.
Now, some problems!
The major one is an error all too frequent nowadays, which is to conflate the Many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, with the multiverse concept of cosmology. The 'Many worlds' interpretation of QM is NOT THE SAME as the multiverse theory. The former refers to the infinite quantum state potentialities attendant on an observation or measurement, which according to Eugene Everett (the original proponent) causes the universe to "split" into infinite independent "realties" in which alternative outcomes are played out. Meanwhile, the latter refers to actual alternative universes separated by small differentials of space-time, particle embodiments, physical constants etc.. The cosmological multiverse, in other words, is not contingent on any human observations or measurements to manifest, while the multi-"worlds" ("universes" - but really quantum probability states) of Many worlds are.
The problem is that the "many worlds" interpretation (orginally devised by Hugh Everett, in 1957) breaks down by virtue of its own excesses! Thus, in its original form as enunciated by Everett (which I take to be the only honest form) an infinite number of "universes" (engendered by an actual observation, say of an electron hitting a screen) each splits into infinitely more universes each second! This contrasts with the actual multiverse postulate, in which an infinite number of parallel universes are engendered by brane collisions and exponential inflation, but these remain a unitary stability - as shown in the diagram - they don't subsequently split into secondary or tertiary infinites in a never-ending regression.
Thus, a quantum construct is being confused with a macroscopic one by Tipler. How does this affect his whole interpretation? Well, in principle it doesn't, since the macroscopic multiverse (spawned by the original cosmic vacuum) can still be one in which infinitely diverse potentialities arise, or as the Star Trek mantra goes: Infinite diversity in infinite combinations. Thus, again, it is reasonable to suppose there are universes in which the JFK assassination never occurred - and Lee Harvey Oswald was a hero who prevented it, and also no Hitler or Holocaust occurred, nor the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami killing over 200,000. In like manner, there will be universes where John McCain was elected instead of Obama in 2008, and one in which mass alien invasions transpire on Earth in 2010.
Thus there can still be all potentials realized, including a perfect universe, and less less than perfect ones, such as ours. But ALL are essential to the integral operation of the multiverse.
Last, I want to deal with Tipler's claim that his 'many worlds' version of QM "must" be the one because otherwise one would require an outside deity to observe the cosmos, to make it go into superpositions. However, if a holographic principle applies (as shown by David Bohm in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order), then the sentient observers within the multiverse itself would be capable of engendering any superpositions. This would include a superposition of the entire universe via the collective holographic action -consciousness of its sentient participants.
Once again, one can say that such superpositions are a direct result of a specific feature of a certain subset of the multiverse in which one can have mutually interfering observables. Most often these would emerge when the condition of non-zero Poisson brackets enters, via non-commuting variables x, p:
[x, p] = -i h/ 2 pi
where h is the Planck constant of action. If two variables a, b commute, then one has:
[a, b] = (a*b - b*a) = 0
if not, then: [a,b] = (a*b - b*a) = -1
and we say a and b are 'non-commuting'.
On inspection, it makes sense the non-commuting case ([a*b]=0) would apply to the perfect universes, and the latter, to the imperfect ones. Correspondingly, these are also the ones for which the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would apply! (Also known as the "Principle of Tolerance" in the words of Jacob Bronowksi).
Would tolerance be needed in a perfect universe? Doubtful! However, it is needed in those less than perfect ones that comprise the multiverse, like ours. Maybe this is the feature that really escaped Tipler.
Next: How demons, "Satan" and Hell enter Tipler's Physics!
Frank Tipler in his proposal for a "Physics of Christianity" comes at this from a totally novel direction, also different from that of Bernard Haisch (which I examined earlier), cf.:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/04/bernard-haischs-god-theory-i.html and,
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/04/haisch-god-theory-ii-atheist-complaints.html
According to Tipler, in his chapter on the Problem of Evil:
"God is not powerless, and He does not lack foreknowledge. It seems He could have stopped the tsunami had He wished, or at least warned us had He wished. The question then is: Why did he not wish, if He indeed loves us as a Father? Many people resolve this conundrum by concluding that God does not exist. Indeed, this Problem of Evil is the main cause of atheism not only today but throughout history.
If God does exist there can be only one reason why He allows evil to exist: it is logically impossible for Him to remove all evil from reality. Even an omnipotent God cannot do what is logically impossible."
Now, WHY is it "logically impossible? for God to subdue evil? Inquring minds want to know! From physics, actually the same advanced physics as postulated by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mludnow in their book, The Grand Design, Tipler postulates the multiverse concept. In the multiverse (see diagram) there are an infinite number of parallel universes which I already described in technical detail here:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-on-multi-verse-concept.html
Note, and this is very important, the version of multiverse portrayed above derives from Hawking's and Mludnow's proposal that via D-brane interactions in the initial (negative energy) vacuum other universes are also spawned especially as part of the exponential cosmic inflation phase of expansion (see, e.g. 'What is the Multiverse?') p. 44, in Scientific American, January, 2010). This is very important, for this version of the multiverse is distinct from Tipler's which invokes the "Many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. Thus, while Hawking and Mludnow's basis derives from the vacuum expansion or cosmological dynamics, Tipler's derives from one of several quantum mechanics' interpretations (more on this later- but I don't want to seriously break readers' trains of thought now!)
In Tipler's words, as per his multiverse (p. 239):
"In the multiverse, all universes consistent with physical law actually exist. All human-caused evils could have been avoided, beause human-caused decisions to act one way or another are only made after the constraints of physical law are taken into account. ....Therefore, there is a universe in which Hitler never rose to power and the Holocaust never happened. There is a universe where none of the evil empires that have murdered people in our universe ever arose. There is no evidence that any human caused evil is required by physical law.
Therefore, there is at least one universe in which no human evil ever occurred....Evil arose on Earth much earlier than the human species, so that it was present by the time of the Cambrian Explosion. So we can apply the same argument to nonhuman beings and conclude there must be a universe in which no evil caused by living things ever arose"
These are weighty remarks indeed! Because, if true, it means that one of the infinite number of parallel universes is and remains totally perfect: the "Garden of Eden" of Genesis myth, or in Tipler's words "the best of all possible worlds (universes)". Of course, in this "best universe", there'd be no need for a Savior, since no "sin-ransom" sacrifice would be required, as the universe is already entirely perfect!
Tipler's next question is logical and one any atheist would ask (ibid.):
"The question then is 'Why didn't God limit His creation to this best of all possible universes, which does in fact exist'?"
He goes on to address it by pointing out the answer is connected to the even more fundamental question: "Why did God (the Cosmological Singularity) create even one universe, much less the multiverse?"
Of course, this returns to the fundamental Leibniz paradox of why there is something rather than nothing? For if "nothing" - meaning only the perfect God in a physical vacuum - be the more perfect state, why add imperfection via creation to it, even if the imperfection is effectively fractional. Tipler's answer is:
"Because He created the universe as an object for His love".
To this end then, he not only created a universe but a multiverse. Thus:
"not only did He create some creatures but He created all possible creatures that could fit"
Thus, in a multiverse, there is no reason why all possible plants and animals - as well as all possible humans - must exist! As well as all possible planets, both perfect (no earthquakes, or tidal waves, or massive destructive storms, tornoadoes) and imperfect ...with all the preceding. Of course, all possible humans encompasses evil ones as well, so following Tipler's logic, it is irrefutable that evil humans had to exist in at least one of the infinite universes, and it happens that is ours! There is no possibility that all the infinite universes or cosmi could not include at least one version permeated with evil. The reason is that in a multiverse situation all the possibilities must come forth. None can be precluded!
Tipler doesn't use the word "evil" as an absolute objective entity, but rather as synonymous with the more objective term, "disabled". And he notes that just as a loving parent loves all his children, including the disabled, so also the God of the multiverse loves all his universes, including the disabled ones. (Of course, there may be other universes more disabled than ours, or less!)
As Tipler puts it: "He loves the universes in which evil never appeared, as well as those in which it did"
He must love all because his creation mandate enabled all.
More importantly (p. 263), having a subset of "evil" or "disabled" universes allowed for divine expression, to assume a human (or alien-form, i.e. incarnation) to undergo death and resurrection in order to save the humans on that world, or in that universe. Thus, in Tipler's words: "the Cross would be necessary in a universe of maximum potential, which necessarily means allowing evil to exist".
But one can also look at this from a bit different perspective: that it is, the disabled universes in their imperfection act as "energizers" to allow the goody-two shoes variants to exist! I mean, without these energizer-"evil" cosmi, there'd be no reason for divine incarnation which is the effective substrate (according to Tipler) to actually imbue the multiverse with direct divine energy! A good analogy is the Star Trek episode that showed Kirk split by a transporter accident into evil and wholly good personae. Once split, the evil persona went on numerous rampages and was uncontrollable, while the "good" Kirk withered, becoming passive, never engaging in or doing anything. In other words, the "evil" Kirk was necessary to energize and restore the 'good" Kirk to functionality. In the same way, one might argue the "evil" universes of the multiverse are essential to preserve its full functionality. Kind of like a bi-polar dynamo!
What is another feature of dynamic universes? Well, as the philosopher N.M. Wildiers pointed out, they EVOLVE! The very nature of evolution is a dynamic process, whereas if a universe were wholly "good" there'd be no need to evolve! It would already have peaked at some level of "perfection". But as Wildiers added: "An evolving universe and a perfect universe are mutually contradictory, because evil is part and parcel of a world or universe in evolution". That is one of the most profound insights there is, and that anyone can have, though doubtless most theists would look askance at it.
Now, some problems!
The major one is an error all too frequent nowadays, which is to conflate the Many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, with the multiverse concept of cosmology. The 'Many worlds' interpretation of QM is NOT THE SAME as the multiverse theory. The former refers to the infinite quantum state potentialities attendant on an observation or measurement, which according to Eugene Everett (the original proponent) causes the universe to "split" into infinite independent "realties" in which alternative outcomes are played out. Meanwhile, the latter refers to actual alternative universes separated by small differentials of space-time, particle embodiments, physical constants etc.. The cosmological multiverse, in other words, is not contingent on any human observations or measurements to manifest, while the multi-"worlds" ("universes" - but really quantum probability states) of Many worlds are.
The problem is that the "many worlds" interpretation (orginally devised by Hugh Everett, in 1957) breaks down by virtue of its own excesses! Thus, in its original form as enunciated by Everett (which I take to be the only honest form) an infinite number of "universes" (engendered by an actual observation, say of an electron hitting a screen) each splits into infinitely more universes each second! This contrasts with the actual multiverse postulate, in which an infinite number of parallel universes are engendered by brane collisions and exponential inflation, but these remain a unitary stability - as shown in the diagram - they don't subsequently split into secondary or tertiary infinites in a never-ending regression.
Thus, a quantum construct is being confused with a macroscopic one by Tipler. How does this affect his whole interpretation? Well, in principle it doesn't, since the macroscopic multiverse (spawned by the original cosmic vacuum) can still be one in which infinitely diverse potentialities arise, or as the Star Trek mantra goes: Infinite diversity in infinite combinations. Thus, again, it is reasonable to suppose there are universes in which the JFK assassination never occurred - and Lee Harvey Oswald was a hero who prevented it, and also no Hitler or Holocaust occurred, nor the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami killing over 200,000. In like manner, there will be universes where John McCain was elected instead of Obama in 2008, and one in which mass alien invasions transpire on Earth in 2010.
Thus there can still be all potentials realized, including a perfect universe, and less less than perfect ones, such as ours. But ALL are essential to the integral operation of the multiverse.
Last, I want to deal with Tipler's claim that his 'many worlds' version of QM "must" be the one because otherwise one would require an outside deity to observe the cosmos, to make it go into superpositions. However, if a holographic principle applies (as shown by David Bohm in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order), then the sentient observers within the multiverse itself would be capable of engendering any superpositions. This would include a superposition of the entire universe via the collective holographic action -consciousness of its sentient participants.
Once again, one can say that such superpositions are a direct result of a specific feature of a certain subset of the multiverse in which one can have mutually interfering observables. Most often these would emerge when the condition of non-zero Poisson brackets enters, via non-commuting variables x, p:
[x, p] = -i h/ 2 pi
where h is the Planck constant of action. If two variables a, b commute, then one has:
[a, b] = (a*b - b*a) = 0
if not, then: [a,b] = (a*b - b*a) = -1
and we say a and b are 'non-commuting'.
On inspection, it makes sense the non-commuting case ([a*b]=0) would apply to the perfect universes, and the latter, to the imperfect ones. Correspondingly, these are also the ones for which the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would apply! (Also known as the "Principle of Tolerance" in the words of Jacob Bronowksi).
Would tolerance be needed in a perfect universe? Doubtful! However, it is needed in those less than perfect ones that comprise the multiverse, like ours. Maybe this is the feature that really escaped Tipler.
Next: How demons, "Satan" and Hell enter Tipler's Physics!
Monday, October 4, 2010
Is There a "Physics of Christianity"?
Physicist Frank Tipler: Has proposed a "Physics of Christianity" after a book by the same name.
It was philosopher George Santayana, in his Reason in Religion, who first noted that while "false physics" is compatible with false theology, true physics is fully compatible with true theology, or more exactly "true religion". If this is so, then Frank Tipler's theory of a "Physics of Christianity" must occupy center stage in terms of the latter! Or so he would have us believe!
But is it valid? Or to put it another way: Is Tipler's thesis sensible? If true, and that is a very BIG if as we'll see, it would mean that all the biblical miracles can be understood in terms of modern physics, and the most central event in Christianity - the Resurrection - can as well. What we'll do in this instalment is to begin to look closely at Tipler's theory, or better proposal (since actual theories are testable and his isn't) in terms of miracles, and then in later blogs examine problems of theodicy, then Tipler's theory of the afterlife, personal resurrection, "Heaven and Hell".
Before proceeding, after reading Tipler's book, The Physics of Christianity (Doubleday, 2007) I did come away regarding this as the last lifeline for hard core religious believers and bible punchers. Leave out all the bunkum concerning Anthony Flew's "conversion", or Lee Strobel's finding the light or any other distractions, this book is where "the bear sits with the buckwheat". For if Tipler's case is indeed made, as he insists, then Christianity has a solid physics basis to rest on, which will serve it in multifold ways - say against detractors.
But let's get to the nitty gritty. In his Chapter VIII, Tipler deals with the resurrection of Jesus head on. Let me say that, on reading his explanation, I was at first flabbergasted - to say the least! This is because he seems to have made a dramatic as "conversion" as Anthony Flew in eschewing his atheism for a nominal God belief. If one picks up Tipler's earlier work, The Physics of Immortality, and turns to page 310, one reads:
"....I emphasize again I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave. Furthermore, although I think that Jesus' disciples may have had a "vision" of him after his death, this "vision" was not in any sense an objective phenomenon. It could have been only a collective hallucination, had it occurred at all."
Contrast that with the following take in his Physics of Christianity (p. 199):
"De- materialization (vanishing from the appearance of his disciples) can be accomplished by electroweak quantum tunneling, which violates baryon number and lepton number conservation. The key reaction would be proton plus electron goes to neutrino plus antineutrino. This would convert all the matter in Jesus' body into neutrinos, which interact so weakly with matter that a person in a room with Jesus would see Jesus vanish".
Thus, what Tipler is really doing, is providing a physical basis for the resurrection, not a supernatural basis. (In other words, there's a definite natural explanation for Jesus de-materialzing)
Normal quantum mechanical tunneling can be represented as follows:
E
^
!
!--V
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !_______________________>X
with the "barrier" at height (potential energy) V, we visualize a particle on the left side of the E(Energy) axis, "tunneling" over to the right side - where it may have wave function, U(x) ~sin (kx + phi), where phi denotes a phase angle.
Note that if the barrier is not too much higher than the incident energy, and if the mass is small, then tunnelling is significant. Note that the penetration of the barrier is a direct result of the wave nature of matter! In effect, this wave nature - which is uniquely quantum mechanical in origin- allows a higher energy barrier to be penetrated by a lower energy particle, something totally without parallel in classical, Newtonian physics!
Tipler's version majorly differs since it employs or assumes baryon annihilation, and its inverse, via electroweak quantum tunneling. These are computed (using a probability algorithm) to be controlled by the cosmological end state of the "Omega Point" or what he identifies with God as the "Final Singularity" and which is somehow pre-determined before all time. He gets this to fit with physics since in physics it's just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz., the principle of least action, as from past to future.
In his book (ibid.) he argues:
"We must start with the probability that the tunneling process is so short that disciples would see it as 'instantaneous' (1/100 of a second). This probability is 10^-100. We must then raise this enormously small number to a power equal to the number of atoms in a human body,,....something like 10^29."
Tipler goes on to admit that if (as ordinary application of probability to random processes goes) then de-materialization will be observed by not a single person (not a single de-materialized atom will be observed). Well, this is reasonable, given we are being asked to expect that an original vanishingly small probability is suddenly enhanced by 129 orders of magnitude! This is like one minute having a monkey sit in front of a typewriter, with the odds of composing just a basic poem nearly 10^-100 (10 followed by 100 zeroes) and then in the next instant fully compose the entire Edgar Allan Poe poem 'The Raven' without one mistake (probability = 1).
How does Tipler get around this? Well, by mandating that the computed probability is no longer unrelated to the universe at large, but actually pre-determined by it, such that (ibid.) "the universe requires the de-materialization -materialization of Jesus to have occurred in order for the universe to evolve to the Omega Point. "
He adds, "then the probability is not a gigantically small number...but 1"
Well, uh yes, because you essentially jimmied the context to do away with all random probabilities in exchange for a certainty!
While we're on it, let's deal with this "Omega Point". Like it or not, the evidence (dark energy causing accelerated expansion of the universe) shows Tipler’s Omega Point cannot come into being the way he perceives it, and – if he wants to retain it at all- he will have to make it compatible with an indefinitely expanding (curvature k= 0, or 'flat') universe, and final “heat death”.
Tipler insists that Hawking “proved” this cannot happen, since otherwise black holes would evaporate, and information would be lost forever, violating “unitarity”. However, more recent findings disclose this is a crock. Indeed, since 1997 the general consensus of physicists is that the so-called “Hawking paradox” has been solved, information can be preserved and Hawking radiation is not entirely “thermal” but receives quantum fixes or corrections. In any case, Tipler’s invocation of “black hole evaporation” to nix indefinite cosmic expansion no longer holds up.
For an excellent insight into this, I recommend readers get hold of the BBC production ‘The Hawking Paradox’. It is interesting seeing how even the “cosmic master” himself has had to eat a bit of humble pie (though the story is he is working on a way to preserve his hypothesis. Most serious physicists, like Leonard Susskind, doubt this will occur, or at least Hawking will emerge from his enclave anytime soon with that wicked, elfish grin and holler 'Boo! I did it!')
Now, since the cosmos will gradually die out as its heat sinks overwhelm sources, it follows that life cannot be co-temporal or co-existent with it, as Tipler wishes to believe. More than likely, all life will perish long before the final cold whimper of the cosmos. Hence, there will be NO “omniscience” at any final singularity or Omega Point (since there won’t be any singularity to begin with) nor will there be any “omnipresence” by the end of time. In any case, the cavalier usage of such terms outside their normative religious context must cause one to look askance at Tipler’s whole thesis.
Of course, with the abolition of the Omega Point, there is also the abolition of Tipler’s version of omnipotence – and obviously also, “life everlasting” - meaning no personal resurrections at all for any sentient beings like humans.
Despite those few impediments, we move on to how Tipler explains "the eight nature miracles of Jesus". He is blunt, asserting (page 200) they can all also be accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling process.
To quote Tipler (ibid.):
"For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward. If we ourselves knew how to do this we'd have the perfect rocket!"
Okay, let's back up! What he's saying is that a suitable downward neutrino beam would be the equivalent of a rocket exhaust. Fair enough. So how many would we need and where would they come from? Well, the upper limit of the tau neutrino is estimated at 35 MeV (millions of electron volts where 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19 J). Essentially, if there are 10^29 protons say, in a human body, we'd need the equivalent mass of neutrinos directed downward to provide an upthrust just equal to the weight of a man ...to appear to be walking on water without falling into it.
Since a single proton has ~ 938.5 MeV, then that means 26.8 tau neutrinos is needed for every proton. In all, we'd need something like 2.7 x 10^30 neutrinos ...or more than are observed from the Sun in one month! So, if we understand this, Jesus could just automatically marshall all the neutrinos from the Sun for one month to be able to walk on water ...for maybe what....one minute?
Of course, if readers believe this is Tipler's biggest problem, they haven't yet seen how he deals with the problem of evil!
To come....!
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Looking at Solar Plasma Instabilities
While plenty of attention is going to be devoted to major solar flares and the instabilities that may incept them (as the current solar cycle amps up toward maximum) there are many variants and types of plasma instabilities on the Sun (often also connected to flares) that excape attention. In this blog I want to focus on some of these.
Conveniently, many of these instabilities are defined in terms of specific velocities. One of the more important of these is known as the electron drift velocity (v(d)):
v(d) = I/ n e
where I is the current, n the number density (per cubic meter, for example) and e the electron charge. Often v(d) is defined instead based on current density (J) where: J = I/A (current in amps flowing through a magnetic flux tube or channel of some cross-section area A)
So: v(d) = J/ A n e
In many other cases, where J, I are not so easily obtained, v(d) will be the electron drift velocity in a combined magnetic and gravitational field, i.e.:
v(d) = m_e g_S c/ eB
where B is the magnetic induction, e the electronic charge (1.6 x 10^-19 C) , g_S = 273 m/s^2 the gravitational acceleration on the Sun, c is the velocity of light (2.98 x 10^8 m/s) and m_e the electron mass (9.1 x 10^-31 kg) .
In the case of the ion-acoustic instability, the threshhold for its onset is when:
v(d) > 43 v(s)
that is, the drift velocity is at least 43 times the ion sound speed, where:
v(s) = (kT/ m_i)^1/2
where k is the Boltzmann constant (1.38 x 10^-23 J/K), T the (Kelvin) temperature and m_i the ion mass (e.g. 1m_i ~ 1.7 x 10^-27 kg).
Sen and White in a 1972 paper dealing with the role of the Hall effect in flares, showed that the two-stream instability is incepted when the drift velocity:
v(d) > v_(i)th
where v_(i)th is the ion-thermal velocity:
v_(i)th = 2 (kT/m_i)^1/2
(rms value = {3kT/m_i)^1/2)
Note also that the "plasma beam instability" is just the finite temperature analog for the two stream instability. In other words, if one has a "two stream instability" one de facto also has the beam instability.
In two-stream instability, when an electron flow is suddenly injected into a plasma – say for a coronal loop – the particles’ (Maxwellian) velocity distribution acquires a “bump” on its "tail" (higher velocity end of the distribution), consistent with two streams- an unperturbed one f_o(v) and perturbed one (f_eb ) applicable to the electron beam (See diagram).
In the region where the slope is positive (df(v)/d v > 0) there is a greater number of faster than slower particles so a greater amount of energy is transferred from particles to associated (e.g. Alfven) waves. Since f_eb contains more fast than slow particles a wave is excited, and there is inverse Landau damping such that plasma oscillations with v_ph (phase velocity) in the positive gradient region are unstable.
Resonant electrons (at v_ph > w_e/ k ; where w_e is the electron plasma frequency, k the wave number) are the first to be affected by the local wave-particle interactions and have distributions altered by the wave electric field, E1, such that the total energy balance:
E1(TOT) = ½ E1_ w + ½ E1_ k
referencing the wave and kinetic (particle) contributions respectively.
Thus, for E1(TOT) = const. then as the electron velocity decreases, the particle kinetic energy decreases and the wave energy density increases.
In Landau damping the exact opposite occurs, so the gradient df(v)/d v decreases, and with it the wave amplitude, while the particle kinetic energy increases- i.e. wave energy lost is fed to the particles (electrons) which gain energy.
Lastly, for the Buneman instability, the relevant condition is:
v(d) > v(e)_th
where v(e)_th is the electron thermal velocity:
v(e)_th = (2kT_e/m_e)^1/2
where T_e is the electron temperature and k the Boltzmann constant.
The rms (root mean square) value for v(e)_th is (3kT_e/m_e)^1/2
The objective for much better solar flare predictions is to be able to interpret which of these instabilities is near onset for a given solar plasma condition. This is not easy by any means, and probably requires much better optical resolution than available at present. However, solar physicists will "truck on" using all the resources they have to effect the best forecasts of which they are capable in this coming cycle!
Conveniently, many of these instabilities are defined in terms of specific velocities. One of the more important of these is known as the electron drift velocity (v(d)):
v(d) = I/ n e
where I is the current, n the number density (per cubic meter, for example) and e the electron charge. Often v(d) is defined instead based on current density (J) where: J = I/A (current in amps flowing through a magnetic flux tube or channel of some cross-section area A)
So: v(d) = J/ A n e
In many other cases, where J, I are not so easily obtained, v(d) will be the electron drift velocity in a combined magnetic and gravitational field, i.e.:
v(d) = m_e g_S c/ eB
where B is the magnetic induction, e the electronic charge (1.6 x 10^-19 C) , g_S = 273 m/s^2 the gravitational acceleration on the Sun, c is the velocity of light (2.98 x 10^8 m/s) and m_e the electron mass (9.1 x 10^-31 kg) .
In the case of the ion-acoustic instability, the threshhold for its onset is when:
v(d) > 43 v(s)
that is, the drift velocity is at least 43 times the ion sound speed, where:
v(s) = (kT/ m_i)^1/2
where k is the Boltzmann constant (1.38 x 10^-23 J/K), T the (Kelvin) temperature and m_i the ion mass (e.g. 1m_i ~ 1.7 x 10^-27 kg).
Sen and White in a 1972 paper dealing with the role of the Hall effect in flares, showed that the two-stream instability is incepted when the drift velocity:
v(d) > v_(i)th
where v_(i)th is the ion-thermal velocity:
v_(i)th = 2 (kT/m_i)^1/2
(rms value = {3kT/m_i)^1/2)
Note also that the "plasma beam instability" is just the finite temperature analog for the two stream instability. In other words, if one has a "two stream instability" one de facto also has the beam instability.
In two-stream instability, when an electron flow is suddenly injected into a plasma – say for a coronal loop – the particles’ (Maxwellian) velocity distribution acquires a “bump” on its "tail" (higher velocity end of the distribution), consistent with two streams- an unperturbed one f_o(v) and perturbed one (f_eb ) applicable to the electron beam (See diagram).
In the region where the slope is positive (df(v)/d v > 0) there is a greater number of faster than slower particles so a greater amount of energy is transferred from particles to associated (e.g. Alfven) waves. Since f_eb contains more fast than slow particles a wave is excited, and there is inverse Landau damping such that plasma oscillations with v_ph (phase velocity) in the positive gradient region are unstable.
Resonant electrons (at v_ph > w_e/ k ; where w_e is the electron plasma frequency, k the wave number) are the first to be affected by the local wave-particle interactions and have distributions altered by the wave electric field, E1, such that the total energy balance:
E1(TOT) = ½ E1_ w + ½ E1_ k
referencing the wave and kinetic (particle) contributions respectively.
Thus, for E1(TOT) = const. then as the electron velocity decreases, the particle kinetic energy decreases and the wave energy density increases.
In Landau damping the exact opposite occurs, so the gradient df(v)/d v decreases, and with it the wave amplitude, while the particle kinetic energy increases- i.e. wave energy lost is fed to the particles (electrons) which gain energy.
Lastly, for the Buneman instability, the relevant condition is:
v(d) > v(e)_th
where v(e)_th is the electron thermal velocity:
v(e)_th = (2kT_e/m_e)^1/2
where T_e is the electron temperature and k the Boltzmann constant.
The rms (root mean square) value for v(e)_th is (3kT_e/m_e)^1/2
The objective for much better solar flare predictions is to be able to interpret which of these instabilities is near onset for a given solar plasma condition. This is not easy by any means, and probably requires much better optical resolution than available at present. However, solar physicists will "truck on" using all the resources they have to effect the best forecasts of which they are capable in this coming cycle!
Saturday, October 2, 2010
The TEN Million Errors of the Bible
Atomic orbitals for hydrogen and quantum numbers. Does the Bible mention this anywhere? Clearly NO! Thus, a major error of OMISSION!
The problem with committing to an uncompromising stance in which a single flawed source is claimed to contain all truth is that it can come back and bite you in the ass. Case in point: the Bible. Under stress from secularism, it appears more and more Christian fundamentalists are given to making rash and hyperbolic claims that their “good Book” contains the essence of all the truth there is, INCLUDING scientific!
This is absolutely astonishing in its boldness, and chutzpah. Because science is not predicated on what some ancient camel driver or sheep herder scribbled down on parchments, but on actual testing of reality. Conducting experiments and measurements then calculating from first principles or a given theory whether the experiments, observations hold up. A recent case in point was been a column by Roger Marshall in The Barbados Advocate(‘Bible Ahead Of Science’, Feb 21) in which Marshall claimed his good Book had so much truth it was actually “ahead of science” and superior to it! He exclaimed that – as his God had inspired it- it couldn’t be wrong, plus had ALL the answers! In other cases, Marshall tries to show even when science got the answers his Bible actually beat Science to the finding - by already revealing it! Neato trick, but doesn't work in real life and for sober people.Three examples from Marshall’s pick list are the following:
1- Isaiah 40:22a predicted "the host of heaven cannot be numbered" long before Astronomy realized it.
2- Biblical authors knew of the Earth's sphericity long before anyone else. (cf, Isaiah 40:22 :“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."
3- There were Bible references to the Universe expanding long before Science discovered expansion.
But let's examine these in more detail, while clarifying that a few odd confluences of remote, generic similarity don’t mean diddly squat or disclose that the Bible makes accurate "pronouncements" on scientific matters, or that it confirms any scientific evidence, or that it can be remotely be substituted for an actual scientific paper or textbook.
1) Star counts:
Isaiah 40:22a makes no scientific assertion when it avers that "the host of heaven cannot be numbered". This is simply common sense that anyone who peers into the night sky (especially with a powerful telescope) can see for himself. The best we can do, even with the most modern photometric methods is make estimates of stellar numbers- say in open clusters (like the Pleiades) or galaxies (see, e.g. the image of star region in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud).
We can’t actually "count" each star and no professional I know of would be daft enough to even try! What one can do is make estimates of star counts using sophisticated “blink” techniques and computers. In the case of a whole galaxy, one can apply the Kepler form of the third law of planetary motion for an assumed semi-major axis and thereby obtain an estimated mass for the galaxy, say in solar masses. If one uses a solar mass as an individual stellar mass standard, one can then translate the solar masses into galactic star estimates. (This is how we arrive at 100 billion stars for the Milky Way and 200 billion for Andromeda)2) Circularity does not equal sphericity!
2) Spherical vs. Circular
Nor does the Bible break any remarkable ground when Marshall attests that its authors "knew the Earth was spherical". Indeed, the ancients knew about the sphericity of Earth since the time of Aristotle, Eudoxus and Eratosthenes, hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. Thus, any references made in the Bible were likely already in the Zeitgeist of the learned folk of the time, and would naturally have been included- if the Bible author (or more likely, later transcriptionist-translator) had any awareness at all.
Roundness (circularity) and sphericity are two different properties. One (circularity) applies to a simple two dimensional surface or geometry. Indeed, the property of circles was investigated by Sumerian and Egyptian mathematicians long before any of the biblical authors emerged from their caves.
As I pointed out also in an earlier blogs, the particular property of sphericity can only be determined by the use of mathematics. Without mathematics, people would believe the Earth is a round, flat space. How so? If one looks across a vast, flat horizon – either from the middle of a desert or the ocean- the perspective one obtains is that of a vast FLAT expanse with a circular boundary at the far periphery. Thus, the impression created in an ancient mind – without use of discriminating mathematics- would be that he or she inhabits the center of an enormous flat circle!
How did the ancient Greek astronomers (e.g. Eratosthenes) break out of this and arrive at sphericity? In Eratosthenes’ case, around 240 B.C., he had to first decide what exactly he had to measure to assess sphericity as opposed to circularity. This is where a key assumption entered: that the Earth was spherical and the Sun distant enough that its rays at Earth were essentially parallel.Eratosthenes thereby performed a measurement of the angle of elevation of the Sun at noon at Alexandria, and at Syene. This value could then be used to obtain Earth’s circumference, at 250,000 stadia or about 24,900 miles.
The repeat of the experiment from thousands of different directions, orientations, shows sphericity not just circularity. Why? Because if Eratasothenes (or any of his thousands or millions of followers – who repeat the experiment even today at assorted universities) were measuring a circle, they’d have to be on the circle’s EDGE to obtain its circumference . Cut out a circle from cardboard and examine it. Any distance on the circle itself would be a chord, not a circumference. One would have to stand or situate exactly ON THE EDGE to get the circumference.
No untrained, non-mathematical ancient mind would remotely contemplate this, because to him one would “fall off” at the edge. (Gravitational physics would need another 2500 years to be developed by Galileo and Newton)Thus, the very act of measuring a circumference using a shadow angle (and trigonometry) on any part or place of Earth implicitly presumes its sphericity , since the extension of all such measuring lines leads to a circle that can be oriented around any direction across Earth.
What then is the sphere? Technically – as we see from calculus, it is the integration of an infinite number of conic sections that are each circles – which results in a sphere (see diagram).Thus, mathematically, we take a circle – say defined by:
x^2 + y^2 = 4
And rotate it around the x-axis to generate a sphere (see Fig. 1). This is done by using calculus to integrate: pi(4 - x^2)dx from (-2) to +2. Thus, in the process of rotation an infinite series of circles is generated, to obtain a sphere with radius 2 and volume 33.427 cubic units. That the integration yields cubic units proves that the result is a sphere since circles lack volume as geometrically defined.The ancients had not yet processed sphericity and hence no rotation of Earth (to generate days and nights).
Thus, they beheld the situation as depicted in Fig. 2. They inhabited a flat circular Earth and the SUN moved across the sky each day to provide day and night. When the Sun went below the western horizon it was evening, then night. When the Sun appeared on the eastern horizon it was morning. To read Isaiah 40:22 and then assert the roundness is really sphericity and argue that there'd be no day & night without it, is therefore wrong-headed and turns the actual situation on its head. Remember, in the ancients' world view it was the Earth that was stationary and always at the center of the universe (geo-centric view) all else moved around Earth - including Sun, stars etc. This perception configures exactly with Fig. 2.
Thus one cannot assert or claim that a biblical quote such as Isaiah 40:22 – referring to a circle- actually implies a sphere. NO, it doesn’t. People read into those quotes what they want. They so much NEED the quotation to be accurate – to prove their spurious “divine inspiration” that they will torture and twist the meaning to make it so.
3) Expansion? Really?
Any biblical reference to the Universe "expanding" also can’t be interpreted as anything more than a generic, perhaps lucky bit of insight. The reason is that no details of the expansion are given, nor does the Bible indicate how the measurement was made (using red shifts determined from spectroscopy). For example, does the Bible say how long it’s been going on? Does it tell us the age of the universe deduced from it? Does the Bible anywhere state that this expansion is now accelerating owing to the presence of dark energy? By the way, IF the bible is so prescient on scientific issues, why doesn't it mention two key recent discoveries – dark matter and dark energy- anywhere? Inquiring minds want to know.
Errors can also be of OMISSION!
In any case, since all of the above constitute omissions, then they are also ERRORS! (One can have errors of commission or omission). If I have a chemistry text that is bragged on as being the “best ever written’ and yet it contains none of the known oxidizing agents, and the Periodic Table is missing twelve elements, then all of these constitute errors! All omissions are errors! Hence, in like manner all the omissions of detail we can tote up pertaining to any astronomical phenomenon only partially referenced are ERRORS! (We won't even go into detailing all the omissions to do with modern biology, chemistry and physics - which would easily add another 20-30 million errors by omission. After all, I see Newton's laws of motion mentioned nowhere in the Bible, or even the vague mention of chemical bonds!)
Let’s see: over 100,000 galaxies and clusters have been identified as expanding with specific red shifts. Does the Bible, King James or other, name any of them? No, it doesn’t! 100,000 omissions = 100,000 errors!
Does the bible say anything about the fifity thousand or so black holes, OR the two thousand quasars, OR about the 370-odd extra-solar planets we’ve discovered? No? Then all are omissions, and hence all errors! Does it mention DNA or anything that could be construed as such? What about genes and the human genome? Does it identify any of the 3,000 or so genomes already mapped by biological science? No? Then all omissions add up to all errors!
Does it mention EVOLUTION? The fact that the protein cytochrome –c in chimp and human are very nearly identical? That the two ape chromosomes 2p and 2q are fused in the human to yield chromosome ‘2’ (accounting for why we have 23 chromosome pairs vs. 24 in apes)? Does it give the dozens of evidences for macro-evolution? No? Then all of these omissions translate to errors!
Does it mention quantum numbers (e.g. n, m, l. m_s) assigned to atomic levels and probability distributions? We are talking about 4-7 levels in each atom of some 100 elements. Thus, all these are omissions, and hence errors. What about barrier penetration and tunnelling? (The putative basis for all solid state electronic devices.) What about even stellar spectra? Does the Bible mention anywhere that we can obtain a star's chemical composition from them? Does it even know (remotely) what chemical composition means? Has any Bible author identified ONE single chemical element? Again, compounding all these in concert leads to nearly two million errors of omission.
What about tectonic plates – mutual collisions of which (e.g. the North American and Caribbean plates) caused the Haiti earthquake? Does it mention those?Here’s something for Marshall and others of his ilk to take away: the Bible is not a book of science, and any conformity between odd biblical quotes and a generic, general scientific finding is pure fortuitous (and the most general or generic) happenstance – not a result of the “Good Book” getting it right before science found it out.
The danger with making a claim that a source or book (like the Bible) is completely consonant with Science is that if proven wrong, OR if INCOMPLETE -the believers in the book have egg all over their faces. Of course, they will never admit this, they'd have nervous breakdowns before admitting any part of their book is in error, OR incomplete. And you may be sure that just as they have tried to rationalize away the Bible's 14, 551 contradictions (for which one of each must at least be in error, since two statements on the same event - i.e. whether Jesus carried his own cross or not, can't BOTH be true!), they will try to find a way to rationalize away the millions of errors of omission. They'd rather go to all this effort than simply fess up their book is not "inerrant" and must be read in the spirit of the book, not by the literal word!
This is absolutely astonishing in its boldness, and chutzpah. Because science is not predicated on what some ancient camel driver or sheep herder scribbled down on parchments, but on actual testing of reality. Conducting experiments and measurements then calculating from first principles or a given theory whether the experiments, observations hold up. A recent case in point was been a column by Roger Marshall in The Barbados Advocate(‘Bible Ahead Of Science’, Feb 21) in which Marshall claimed his good Book had so much truth it was actually “ahead of science” and superior to it! He exclaimed that – as his God had inspired it- it couldn’t be wrong, plus had ALL the answers! In other cases, Marshall tries to show even when science got the answers his Bible actually beat Science to the finding - by already revealing it! Neato trick, but doesn't work in real life and for sober people.Three examples from Marshall’s pick list are the following:
1- Isaiah 40:22a predicted "the host of heaven cannot be numbered" long before Astronomy realized it.
2- Biblical authors knew of the Earth's sphericity long before anyone else. (cf, Isaiah 40:22 :“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."
3- There were Bible references to the Universe expanding long before Science discovered expansion.
But let's examine these in more detail, while clarifying that a few odd confluences of remote, generic similarity don’t mean diddly squat or disclose that the Bible makes accurate "pronouncements" on scientific matters, or that it confirms any scientific evidence, or that it can be remotely be substituted for an actual scientific paper or textbook.
1) Star counts:
Isaiah 40:22a makes no scientific assertion when it avers that "the host of heaven cannot be numbered". This is simply common sense that anyone who peers into the night sky (especially with a powerful telescope) can see for himself. The best we can do, even with the most modern photometric methods is make estimates of stellar numbers- say in open clusters (like the Pleiades) or galaxies (see, e.g. the image of star region in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud).
We can’t actually "count" each star and no professional I know of would be daft enough to even try! What one can do is make estimates of star counts using sophisticated “blink” techniques and computers. In the case of a whole galaxy, one can apply the Kepler form of the third law of planetary motion for an assumed semi-major axis and thereby obtain an estimated mass for the galaxy, say in solar masses. If one uses a solar mass as an individual stellar mass standard, one can then translate the solar masses into galactic star estimates. (This is how we arrive at 100 billion stars for the Milky Way and 200 billion for Andromeda)2) Circularity does not equal sphericity!
2) Spherical vs. Circular
Nor does the Bible break any remarkable ground when Marshall attests that its authors "knew the Earth was spherical". Indeed, the ancients knew about the sphericity of Earth since the time of Aristotle, Eudoxus and Eratosthenes, hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. Thus, any references made in the Bible were likely already in the Zeitgeist of the learned folk of the time, and would naturally have been included- if the Bible author (or more likely, later transcriptionist-translator) had any awareness at all.
Roundness (circularity) and sphericity are two different properties. One (circularity) applies to a simple two dimensional surface or geometry. Indeed, the property of circles was investigated by Sumerian and Egyptian mathematicians long before any of the biblical authors emerged from their caves.
As I pointed out also in an earlier blogs, the particular property of sphericity can only be determined by the use of mathematics. Without mathematics, people would believe the Earth is a round, flat space. How so? If one looks across a vast, flat horizon – either from the middle of a desert or the ocean- the perspective one obtains is that of a vast FLAT expanse with a circular boundary at the far periphery. Thus, the impression created in an ancient mind – without use of discriminating mathematics- would be that he or she inhabits the center of an enormous flat circle!
How did the ancient Greek astronomers (e.g. Eratosthenes) break out of this and arrive at sphericity? In Eratosthenes’ case, around 240 B.C., he had to first decide what exactly he had to measure to assess sphericity as opposed to circularity. This is where a key assumption entered: that the Earth was spherical and the Sun distant enough that its rays at Earth were essentially parallel.Eratosthenes thereby performed a measurement of the angle of elevation of the Sun at noon at Alexandria, and at Syene. This value could then be used to obtain Earth’s circumference, at 250,000 stadia or about 24,900 miles.
The repeat of the experiment from thousands of different directions, orientations, shows sphericity not just circularity. Why? Because if Eratasothenes (or any of his thousands or millions of followers – who repeat the experiment even today at assorted universities) were measuring a circle, they’d have to be on the circle’s EDGE to obtain its circumference . Cut out a circle from cardboard and examine it. Any distance on the circle itself would be a chord, not a circumference. One would have to stand or situate exactly ON THE EDGE to get the circumference.
No untrained, non-mathematical ancient mind would remotely contemplate this, because to him one would “fall off” at the edge. (Gravitational physics would need another 2500 years to be developed by Galileo and Newton)Thus, the very act of measuring a circumference using a shadow angle (and trigonometry) on any part or place of Earth implicitly presumes its sphericity , since the extension of all such measuring lines leads to a circle that can be oriented around any direction across Earth.
What then is the sphere? Technically – as we see from calculus, it is the integration of an infinite number of conic sections that are each circles – which results in a sphere (see diagram).Thus, mathematically, we take a circle – say defined by:
x^2 + y^2 = 4
And rotate it around the x-axis to generate a sphere (see Fig. 1). This is done by using calculus to integrate: pi(4 - x^2)dx from (-2) to +2. Thus, in the process of rotation an infinite series of circles is generated, to obtain a sphere with radius 2 and volume 33.427 cubic units. That the integration yields cubic units proves that the result is a sphere since circles lack volume as geometrically defined.The ancients had not yet processed sphericity and hence no rotation of Earth (to generate days and nights).
Thus, they beheld the situation as depicted in Fig. 2. They inhabited a flat circular Earth and the SUN moved across the sky each day to provide day and night. When the Sun went below the western horizon it was evening, then night. When the Sun appeared on the eastern horizon it was morning. To read Isaiah 40:22 and then assert the roundness is really sphericity and argue that there'd be no day & night without it, is therefore wrong-headed and turns the actual situation on its head. Remember, in the ancients' world view it was the Earth that was stationary and always at the center of the universe (geo-centric view) all else moved around Earth - including Sun, stars etc. This perception configures exactly with Fig. 2.
Thus one cannot assert or claim that a biblical quote such as Isaiah 40:22 – referring to a circle- actually implies a sphere. NO, it doesn’t. People read into those quotes what they want. They so much NEED the quotation to be accurate – to prove their spurious “divine inspiration” that they will torture and twist the meaning to make it so.
3) Expansion? Really?
Any biblical reference to the Universe "expanding" also can’t be interpreted as anything more than a generic, perhaps lucky bit of insight. The reason is that no details of the expansion are given, nor does the Bible indicate how the measurement was made (using red shifts determined from spectroscopy). For example, does the Bible say how long it’s been going on? Does it tell us the age of the universe deduced from it? Does the Bible anywhere state that this expansion is now accelerating owing to the presence of dark energy? By the way, IF the bible is so prescient on scientific issues, why doesn't it mention two key recent discoveries – dark matter and dark energy- anywhere? Inquiring minds want to know.
Errors can also be of OMISSION!
In any case, since all of the above constitute omissions, then they are also ERRORS! (One can have errors of commission or omission). If I have a chemistry text that is bragged on as being the “best ever written’ and yet it contains none of the known oxidizing agents, and the Periodic Table is missing twelve elements, then all of these constitute errors! All omissions are errors! Hence, in like manner all the omissions of detail we can tote up pertaining to any astronomical phenomenon only partially referenced are ERRORS! (We won't even go into detailing all the omissions to do with modern biology, chemistry and physics - which would easily add another 20-30 million errors by omission. After all, I see Newton's laws of motion mentioned nowhere in the Bible, or even the vague mention of chemical bonds!)
Let’s see: over 100,000 galaxies and clusters have been identified as expanding with specific red shifts. Does the Bible, King James or other, name any of them? No, it doesn’t! 100,000 omissions = 100,000 errors!
Does the bible say anything about the fifity thousand or so black holes, OR the two thousand quasars, OR about the 370-odd extra-solar planets we’ve discovered? No? Then all are omissions, and hence all errors! Does it mention DNA or anything that could be construed as such? What about genes and the human genome? Does it identify any of the 3,000 or so genomes already mapped by biological science? No? Then all omissions add up to all errors!
Does it mention EVOLUTION? The fact that the protein cytochrome –c in chimp and human are very nearly identical? That the two ape chromosomes 2p and 2q are fused in the human to yield chromosome ‘2’ (accounting for why we have 23 chromosome pairs vs. 24 in apes)? Does it give the dozens of evidences for macro-evolution? No? Then all of these omissions translate to errors!
Does it mention quantum numbers (e.g. n, m, l. m_s) assigned to atomic levels and probability distributions? We are talking about 4-7 levels in each atom of some 100 elements. Thus, all these are omissions, and hence errors. What about barrier penetration and tunnelling? (The putative basis for all solid state electronic devices.) What about even stellar spectra? Does the Bible mention anywhere that we can obtain a star's chemical composition from them? Does it even know (remotely) what chemical composition means? Has any Bible author identified ONE single chemical element? Again, compounding all these in concert leads to nearly two million errors of omission.
What about tectonic plates – mutual collisions of which (e.g. the North American and Caribbean plates) caused the Haiti earthquake? Does it mention those?Here’s something for Marshall and others of his ilk to take away: the Bible is not a book of science, and any conformity between odd biblical quotes and a generic, general scientific finding is pure fortuitous (and the most general or generic) happenstance – not a result of the “Good Book” getting it right before science found it out.
The danger with making a claim that a source or book (like the Bible) is completely consonant with Science is that if proven wrong, OR if INCOMPLETE -the believers in the book have egg all over their faces. Of course, they will never admit this, they'd have nervous breakdowns before admitting any part of their book is in error, OR incomplete. And you may be sure that just as they have tried to rationalize away the Bible's 14, 551 contradictions (for which one of each must at least be in error, since two statements on the same event - i.e. whether Jesus carried his own cross or not, can't BOTH be true!), they will try to find a way to rationalize away the millions of errors of omission. They'd rather go to all this effort than simply fess up their book is not "inerrant" and must be read in the spirit of the book, not by the literal word!
Making a Huge Fuss over Nothing
The Andres Serrano photograph ("Piss Christ") that raised a hue and cry in 1987.
Some of the religious protestors in Loveland, who demand the lithograph by Chagoya be removed., despite the city attorney assuring it does not meet criteria for "public obscenity"
Leave it to the hardcore religious nitwits to get their panties in a snit, and themselves all worked up into a lather over nothing. One would think that, living in a still secular society, they'd at least finally realize they can't have everything their own way - and especially when it comes to what art or books one can be exposed to!
Last week, during The American Libraries Association "Banned Book Week" we got to see how many dozens of books have been oturight banned by religious or moralistic simpletons because the content doesn't meet their exact specifications. See also:
http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/bannedbooksweek/index.cfm
Some of the banned books that extremist would-be mind controllers have targeted include:
- Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885) by Mark Twain
-Andersonville (1955) by MacKinlay Kantor
- 'Catch 22' by Joseph Heller
- 'Catcher in the Rye' (1951) - by J.D. Salinger
- 'Fahrenheit 451' by Ray Bradbury (actually about burning books by future "firemen")
- 'Grapes of Wrath' (1939) by John Steinbeck
- Lord of the Flies - by William Golding
However, as energized as the book banning contingent gets, they're nothing compared to those who attack art and try to ensure no one can visit an art exhibit without being howled at by psychotic banshees. In 1987, in one of the most famous incidents, the religious fulminators became apoplectic over Andres Serrano's beautiful photograph "Piss Christ" - composed of a crucifix submerged in his own urine (See photo).
People lost it, many coming close to a nervous breakdown, merely because the photographer-artist had chosen to photograph his crucifix (I emphasize HIS) in a natural medium that would convey the softness and diffusion of features he desired to create. The usual words were flung out, like "blasphemous", and "sacrilegious" - despite the fact Serrano included not one derogatory or debasing comment about it. He simply designed an image and photographed it.
Most recently, in Loveland, Colorado - which now prides itself as a venue for flourishing modern and avant-garde art, people (mainly the religious crazies) are again in an uproar (see photo above) over a particular exhibit. This one is a 7 1/2" high, 90" wide lithograph entitled "The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals' by Enrique Chagoya of Stanford University. This lithograph is foldable, and is comprised of 12 separate panels which appear to show Christ receivng oral sex.
Despite outcries of "Smut, not art!" the lithograph is in no way comparable to anything remotely resembling porn or obscene imagery. Anything that is visible is more suggested than actually shown, thus the art viewer must make something of her own contribution and input with her own mind, vision. Does she want to see something lurid? Then, most likely she will! The fact that many other patrons perceive the work as beautiful discloses that people's reactions are more on a subjective level then objective.
Others perceive a complexity that can't be reduced to simple words. In the words of one patron, quoted in a piece in today's Denver Post ('Arguing Over Art'):
"It's very complex. I really can't describe simply what he's trying to get at".
But then, GOOD art often is open-ended, not neatly tied up like a gift package. People project their own psychological dynamics onto any controversial art, and this is what will lead to a general appreciation, or sense of violation and outrage - especially if the art seems to push the envelope (which by the way, good art should also do).
So, what is going on with those who want to shut down the exhibit? As I pointed out in a couple earlier blogs, I believe this desire for censorship is driven by a false morality that I call "moralism". Moralism is predicated in an unsubstantiated belief in a monotone, uniform human sensibility to all external stimuli, whether photos, art or books. In this way, moralism drives an imperative for conscious behavior modification...of OTHERS....and can thereby be exploited by any group that fancies it has political , economic or other leverage. (Which is why one also sees them coming out to mount boycotts against films they don't like - as we saw with 'The Golden Compass', and 'Angels and Demons', as well as 'The Last Temptation of Christ' - which portrayed Jesus in a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalen).
Apart from the public crazies who feel they've somehow been "offended"(despite the fact no one dragged them into the exhibit against their will), you can always bet some pol will jump on the moralistic bandwagon to try and snatch some brownie points with voters. It's a cheap way to try and garner cheap political capital. So, in Loveland, we have City Councilwoman Donna Rice yapping that she hopes "public pressure will get Chagoya's piece yanked" (Denver Post, ibid.) despite the fact that the city attorney has indicated his exhibit does not meet the criteria for public obscenity.
If the howling religious mobs do succeed in diluting the art exhibit, Loveland had better realize that it shot itself in the foot, as far as portraying itself as "an art lover's dream town" - by featuring diverse works through the years. Because if Chagoya's piece is ripped out, then Loveland becomes merely another backward, bigoted, Babbit-laden burg of which this country has gazillions.
Meanwhile, Loveland art aficionado and amateur painter Edwina Escheverria has the right idea when she opines:
"Sure there is going to be controversy. But we are a dynamic society and gosh, sometimes I think we need that!"
Not for the religious freaks, who prefer we all be like zombies, and inhabit their version of a zombie society - where the only book permitted is the Bible, and the only art is that which is religously approved. Preferably before hand!
Last week, during The American Libraries Association "Banned Book Week" we got to see how many dozens of books have been oturight banned by religious or moralistic simpletons because the content doesn't meet their exact specifications. See also:
http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/bannedbooksweek/index.cfm
Some of the banned books that extremist would-be mind controllers have targeted include:
- Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885) by Mark Twain
-Andersonville (1955) by MacKinlay Kantor
- 'Catch 22' by Joseph Heller
- 'Catcher in the Rye' (1951) - by J.D. Salinger
- 'Fahrenheit 451' by Ray Bradbury (actually about burning books by future "firemen")
- 'Grapes of Wrath' (1939) by John Steinbeck
- Lord of the Flies - by William Golding
However, as energized as the book banning contingent gets, they're nothing compared to those who attack art and try to ensure no one can visit an art exhibit without being howled at by psychotic banshees. In 1987, in one of the most famous incidents, the religious fulminators became apoplectic over Andres Serrano's beautiful photograph "Piss Christ" - composed of a crucifix submerged in his own urine (See photo).
People lost it, many coming close to a nervous breakdown, merely because the photographer-artist had chosen to photograph his crucifix (I emphasize HIS) in a natural medium that would convey the softness and diffusion of features he desired to create. The usual words were flung out, like "blasphemous", and "sacrilegious" - despite the fact Serrano included not one derogatory or debasing comment about it. He simply designed an image and photographed it.
Most recently, in Loveland, Colorado - which now prides itself as a venue for flourishing modern and avant-garde art, people (mainly the religious crazies) are again in an uproar (see photo above) over a particular exhibit. This one is a 7 1/2" high, 90" wide lithograph entitled "The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals' by Enrique Chagoya of Stanford University. This lithograph is foldable, and is comprised of 12 separate panels which appear to show Christ receivng oral sex.
Despite outcries of "Smut, not art!" the lithograph is in no way comparable to anything remotely resembling porn or obscene imagery. Anything that is visible is more suggested than actually shown, thus the art viewer must make something of her own contribution and input with her own mind, vision. Does she want to see something lurid? Then, most likely she will! The fact that many other patrons perceive the work as beautiful discloses that people's reactions are more on a subjective level then objective.
Others perceive a complexity that can't be reduced to simple words. In the words of one patron, quoted in a piece in today's Denver Post ('Arguing Over Art'):
"It's very complex. I really can't describe simply what he's trying to get at".
But then, GOOD art often is open-ended, not neatly tied up like a gift package. People project their own psychological dynamics onto any controversial art, and this is what will lead to a general appreciation, or sense of violation and outrage - especially if the art seems to push the envelope (which by the way, good art should also do).
So, what is going on with those who want to shut down the exhibit? As I pointed out in a couple earlier blogs, I believe this desire for censorship is driven by a false morality that I call "moralism". Moralism is predicated in an unsubstantiated belief in a monotone, uniform human sensibility to all external stimuli, whether photos, art or books. In this way, moralism drives an imperative for conscious behavior modification...of OTHERS....and can thereby be exploited by any group that fancies it has political , economic or other leverage. (Which is why one also sees them coming out to mount boycotts against films they don't like - as we saw with 'The Golden Compass', and 'Angels and Demons', as well as 'The Last Temptation of Christ' - which portrayed Jesus in a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalen).
Apart from the public crazies who feel they've somehow been "offended"(despite the fact no one dragged them into the exhibit against their will), you can always bet some pol will jump on the moralistic bandwagon to try and snatch some brownie points with voters. It's a cheap way to try and garner cheap political capital. So, in Loveland, we have City Councilwoman Donna Rice yapping that she hopes "public pressure will get Chagoya's piece yanked" (Denver Post, ibid.) despite the fact that the city attorney has indicated his exhibit does not meet the criteria for public obscenity.
If the howling religious mobs do succeed in diluting the art exhibit, Loveland had better realize that it shot itself in the foot, as far as portraying itself as "an art lover's dream town" - by featuring diverse works through the years. Because if Chagoya's piece is ripped out, then Loveland becomes merely another backward, bigoted, Babbit-laden burg of which this country has gazillions.
Meanwhile, Loveland art aficionado and amateur painter Edwina Escheverria has the right idea when she opines:
"Sure there is going to be controversy. But we are a dynamic society and gosh, sometimes I think we need that!"
Not for the religious freaks, who prefer we all be like zombies, and inhabit their version of a zombie society - where the only book permitted is the Bible, and the only art is that which is religously approved. Preferably before hand!
Friday, October 1, 2010
Planet Gliese 581 g: Time to Take a Deep Breath!
A speculative depiction of a possible inhabitant of the planet Gliese 581-g, adapted to survive in the planet's relatively high gravity and rocky terrain.
Currently the astronomical hot lines are amped up to capacity at word of the discovery of an “Earth –like” planet orbiting a red dwarf star (the Sun is a yellow dwarf) about 20.5 light years away. In terms of astronomical distances, while not exactly the “next door neighbor” it is at least “down the block”.
The discovery follows eleven years of painstaking observation using the Keck telescope in Hawaii, and in particular using its advanced spectrometer which measures the radial velocities of stars. When these display a kind of wobble it's possible to infer the presence of additional nearby masses and actually also the mass of the inferred bodies (if the mass of the central star can be estimated). We use what's called "the binary mass function".
The Gliese 581 system, named after the central star, actually has three planets in its system discovered thus far: one of them is too close to the red dwarf and has temperatures too high to support life, while another is too far. Meanwhile, planet ‘g’ is at just the right distance – in a habitable zone- or what astronomers call one of the “Goldilocks planets” since it occurs in the favorable “Goldilocks” zone. However, I suspect we shouldn’t get our hopes up too high to find any life forms there, and it’s time to get a grip on reality.
First, particulars on the estimated physical properties: the planet is estimated to be 1.2 to 1.4 times the diameter of Earth (let’s say it’s 1.3), and its mass is three to four times that of Earth. These two quantities are critical because they allow us to gain an estimate of the acceleration of gravity on the planet’s surface, or ‘g’.
Specifically:
g = GM/ r^2
where G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, 6.7 x 10^-11 N-m^2/kg^2 and r is the radius, which at 1.3 times Earth’s works out to: r = 8.3 x 10^6 m. The mass, at three times Earth’s is: M = 1.8 x 10^25 kg.
When we insert these into the above equation, we arrive at a g-value:
g = 17.4 m/s^2
This compares to the mean Earth value (averaged over all locations) of 9.8 m/s^2
This means the acceleration of gravity on the planet is nearly double what it is on Earth. Now, since the weight (a measure of the attractive force on a planet, for a given g) is w = mg, then a 200 lb. astronaut would weigh out at nearly 400 lbs. there. (Remember the mass can be as much as 4x larger which would yield g = 23.3 m/s^2)
What about any life forms? In this sort of gravity you can be sure if they are there they won’t look like us but are more likely to be oblate monstrosities and adapted to the temperatures with averages between -10F and 55F. (See attached hypothetical image for an inhabitant, based on what we know about Gliese 581 g)
Another aspect that hasn’t been mentioned too often is that the planet appears to be tidally locked into its orbit with the dwarf star, yielding an orbital period of 37 days so that its year is about one tenth of a year on Earth. In addition, the tidal locking means one side of planet ‘g’ is always facing toward its Sun – the other side toward darkness. No creature in its right mind would live directly in either of these extreme zones, since it would freeze in one and boil in the other. Thus, the only place to live would be exactly within a razor thin terminator zone straddling the extreme dark and light hemispheres. This zone would likely be about 100 miles wide at most, and so any intelligent life would have to confine their cities, civilization within this strip - no spreading out.
Further, some atmospheric modeling of this bifurcated world has yielded contradicting results. For example, under one modeling all the atmosphere freezes on the night side, which means it wouldn't be very much on the day side. However, the heavy gravity -much more than Earth- lends credence to the possibility that the atmosphere is fairly evenly distributed. Toss in a planetary greenhouse effect (which doesn't need humans to incept - look at Venus) and there could even be equable warming which moderates the extremes somewhat.
My take is that while the discovery of Gliese 581 g is an encouraging find, and now we have discovered nearly 500 worlds in other solar systems- we would do well to look further for planets that genuinely possess Earth type conditions, with much higher probabilities of something living there. Indeed, if there were advanced life forms on Gliese 581 g they’d surely have contacted us by now given that signal- bearing radiation from our planet has been beaming out into space for the past 70 years or so, more than ample time for them to receive it and execute a response. Of course, if they're advanced but lack appendages, digits ( like the monstrosity shown) that are necessary to construct appropriate detectors - they'd not be able to receive our incoming commnications, far less respond to them!)
Yes, there may well be more primitive life forms there- but again, let’s keep a tempered outlook here. Also, do we really want to meet up with hypothetical aliens as depicted in the attached image? Well, we can always hope Pastor Mike gets there first to save them with some water (maybe thawed from an ice cap) and his KJV. He'd indisputably have more luck with his "witnessing" than for atheists on Earth! (Though he might want to hope they don't have an appetite for uppity humans!)
The discovery follows eleven years of painstaking observation using the Keck telescope in Hawaii, and in particular using its advanced spectrometer which measures the radial velocities of stars. When these display a kind of wobble it's possible to infer the presence of additional nearby masses and actually also the mass of the inferred bodies (if the mass of the central star can be estimated). We use what's called "the binary mass function".
The Gliese 581 system, named after the central star, actually has three planets in its system discovered thus far: one of them is too close to the red dwarf and has temperatures too high to support life, while another is too far. Meanwhile, planet ‘g’ is at just the right distance – in a habitable zone- or what astronomers call one of the “Goldilocks planets” since it occurs in the favorable “Goldilocks” zone. However, I suspect we shouldn’t get our hopes up too high to find any life forms there, and it’s time to get a grip on reality.
First, particulars on the estimated physical properties: the planet is estimated to be 1.2 to 1.4 times the diameter of Earth (let’s say it’s 1.3), and its mass is three to four times that of Earth. These two quantities are critical because they allow us to gain an estimate of the acceleration of gravity on the planet’s surface, or ‘g’.
Specifically:
g = GM/ r^2
where G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, 6.7 x 10^-11 N-m^2/kg^2 and r is the radius, which at 1.3 times Earth’s works out to: r = 8.3 x 10^6 m. The mass, at three times Earth’s is: M = 1.8 x 10^25 kg.
When we insert these into the above equation, we arrive at a g-value:
g = 17.4 m/s^2
This compares to the mean Earth value (averaged over all locations) of 9.8 m/s^2
This means the acceleration of gravity on the planet is nearly double what it is on Earth. Now, since the weight (a measure of the attractive force on a planet, for a given g) is w = mg, then a 200 lb. astronaut would weigh out at nearly 400 lbs. there. (Remember the mass can be as much as 4x larger which would yield g = 23.3 m/s^2)
What about any life forms? In this sort of gravity you can be sure if they are there they won’t look like us but are more likely to be oblate monstrosities and adapted to the temperatures with averages between -10F and 55F. (See attached hypothetical image for an inhabitant, based on what we know about Gliese 581 g)
Another aspect that hasn’t been mentioned too often is that the planet appears to be tidally locked into its orbit with the dwarf star, yielding an orbital period of 37 days so that its year is about one tenth of a year on Earth. In addition, the tidal locking means one side of planet ‘g’ is always facing toward its Sun – the other side toward darkness. No creature in its right mind would live directly in either of these extreme zones, since it would freeze in one and boil in the other. Thus, the only place to live would be exactly within a razor thin terminator zone straddling the extreme dark and light hemispheres. This zone would likely be about 100 miles wide at most, and so any intelligent life would have to confine their cities, civilization within this strip - no spreading out.
Further, some atmospheric modeling of this bifurcated world has yielded contradicting results. For example, under one modeling all the atmosphere freezes on the night side, which means it wouldn't be very much on the day side. However, the heavy gravity -much more than Earth- lends credence to the possibility that the atmosphere is fairly evenly distributed. Toss in a planetary greenhouse effect (which doesn't need humans to incept - look at Venus) and there could even be equable warming which moderates the extremes somewhat.
My take is that while the discovery of Gliese 581 g is an encouraging find, and now we have discovered nearly 500 worlds in other solar systems- we would do well to look further for planets that genuinely possess Earth type conditions, with much higher probabilities of something living there. Indeed, if there were advanced life forms on Gliese 581 g they’d surely have contacted us by now given that signal- bearing radiation from our planet has been beaming out into space for the past 70 years or so, more than ample time for them to receive it and execute a response. Of course, if they're advanced but lack appendages, digits ( like the monstrosity shown) that are necessary to construct appropriate detectors - they'd not be able to receive our incoming commnications, far less respond to them!)
Yes, there may well be more primitive life forms there- but again, let’s keep a tempered outlook here. Also, do we really want to meet up with hypothetical aliens as depicted in the attached image? Well, we can always hope Pastor Mike gets there first to save them with some water (maybe thawed from an ice cap) and his KJV. He'd indisputably have more luck with his "witnessing" than for atheists on Earth! (Though he might want to hope they don't have an appetite for uppity humans!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)