Deep questions answered

Jose, Hartford, CT — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 03:31:36 GMT

How does time work at the edge of the universe, which is expanding at the speed of light? Also, what is on the "other side" of the edge of the universe?

Deep questions answered

Brent N. - Denver, CO — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 03:55:08 GMT

Not really a comment but I've always wondered: If the farther we look into space, the farther back in time we are looking... then shouldn't we be able to see our own galaxy in the past?

Lastly.. Hawking... you're awesome.

Deep questions answered

Karen Loos, Missoula, Montana — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:08:15 GMT

Dear Dr. Hawking,
Regarding strings in tiny circles (string theory), tubular super strings that "sing gravity" as they loop and decay, and the possible multiple-dimensionality of gravity: Is it possible that "strings" are sections of "tube-strings" that interconnect the multiple dimensions of the cosmos?

I'm thrilled to be able to ask this! I've been wondering how to ask someone who could give a probable answer, and many times thrilled that it could be you.

Sincerely,
Karen Loos

Deep questions answered

Zuuumie White — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:11:14 GMT

If you knew the science, how would you apply it for the aid of mankind?

Deep questions answered

James N Coppock — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:26:26 GMT

I believe that M-Theory is doing much to explain a good portion of questions such as these. Mathematically, M-Theory has discovered that 10 or possibly 11 dimensions exist in our universe and that we simply are able to detect four of those. It goes far at accounting for the missing 95% of the "missing" - or almost undetectable - matter/energy in the universe (70% Dark Energy and 25% Dark Matter) which is likely the key to solving the "Theory of Everything," or GUT (Grand Unification Theory) if one exists.

The first experimental evidence supporting or refuting M-Theory involves the nature of the graviton particle and will be tested in the new particle accelerator this year in Europe. It is a fascinating subject which elevates the mind and enthralls the soul of curious people everywhere.

Deep questions answered

Frank Way, Grass Valley, CA. — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:28:35 GMT

Dr. Hawking:

Given that energy can be transmitted through gravitational fields from one body to another as is shown in the following examples, why can’t some of the red shift in light coming from distant galaxies be accounted for by losses of energy through the gravitational fields in space to various stars and galaxies through which these photons travel during the billions of years these photons of have been traveling?

Example 1.
Photons of light exhibit a measurable red shift when traveling up from a deep mine shaft as the photons lose energy to the gravitational field of the earth.

Example 2.
Photons of light can lose all their energy to the gravitational field of a black hole.

Example 3.
Our moon gains energy and thus increases the diameter of its orbit while at the same time exerting a drag on our earth and slowing down it’s rotation thus increasing the length of our day.

Sincerely,
Frank Way

Deep questions answered

Wayne McCoy — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:31:04 GMT

Why is the in vacuo velocity of light finite, and why the particular value of about 3x10^8 m/s? What constrains light to this velocity?

Deep questions answered

Alan Boyle — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:32:03 GMT

Unfortunately, I've already sent off the definitive batch of questions for Dr. Hawking, so I'm afraid we're on our own from here on out.

Jose: As mentioned above, Hawking is not of the view that the universe has an "edge," and thus we could not directly perceive what's on the "other side." Time would work the same for every moment of the universe's existence. I forgot to mention that Hawking uses the concept of "imaginary time" to get around the idea of a big bang singularity. Here's a link to Wikipedia's explanation of imaginary time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time

Brent: As we look farther back, we see things as they were farther back in time, until we reach the big bang's afterglow and the "dark ages" of the early universe. We wouldn't see our own galaxy, just because our observations of space and time are bound up the way they are.

Karen: There is indeed talk that the "strings" involved in string theory are actually multidimensional membranes, or "branes." This is what "M-Theory" is all about. I hope this item is helpful: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9315135/

And Zuuumie: Dr. Hawking has been speaking out on issues such as global warming, informed by his understanding of the science. So he's using his celebrity and scientific acumen to draw attention to global issues that need addressing.

Deep questions answered

Bruce Faubel, Ladd Illinois — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 05:21:03 GMT

Considering the time spans that you deal with on the cosmic scale, do you ever ponder the timing of your life that alowed you to be born at just the exact instance when technowledge existed that would enable you to continue your work inspite of being handy capped? No disrespect intended. Just a thought that GOD must have been very determined that you be alowed to make your contribution.

Deep questions answered

Marek, Toronto, ON — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 05:25:53 GMT

Alan, to add to your answer to Jose: No matter how fast and how far along a "straight line" into the universe one would travel obeying the laws of physics, one would always find self, according to one's perception, at the very center of it and it would be still expanding at the same rate in all directions. There is no edge visible or accessible from within the universe, as in the surface of the globe analogy. But just as the surface, which is without edges while one is on it, if a hypothetical observer (itself not a part of the universe) existing in more dimensions looked at the universe, it would see an "edge" just as we can observe the limits of a globe looking at it from above.

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 05:41:06 GMT

You know, despite what MSNBC news anchors always say about you Alan... You're not such a bad guy... Ha-ha! I was blown away by many of the questions. Talk about brainstorming!

I was also very happy to see Steven at the advancing of the "doomsday clock" today. His presence there brings a lot of weight as do his past statements. It just seems that a confrontation with Iran is becoming inevitable rahter than just being something to worry about. Will there be a "this time" next year?

Deep questions answered

Jane Doe — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 06:59:34 GMT

Are you happy?

Deep questions answered

james rogowski — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:56:22 GMT

is it possible for there to be more than 1 universe occupying the same space ?? could God be in the different one ??

Deep questions answered

Sheila Reynolds, Plymouth, Mass. — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:12:14 GMT

Gamma radiation kills human brain cells and until just recently doctors thought that brain cells do not regenerate, but have found that they do regenerate but at a much slower rate than other human cells. Knowing that nothing can stop gamma waves, though lead shielding can slow it, How can our space exployers survive long voyages to Mars or man stations on the Moon for long periods of time? Thank you in advance of your answer. You are a great American.

Deep questions answered

mark mayne, st marys, wv. — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:55:47 GMT

Do you really believe the speed of light cannot be breached, or is mankind just setting limits again, it is a bad habit we have,sailing off the end of the earth,not flying,not breaking the sound barrier,ect

Deep questions answered

Stephen Samborski — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:46:47 GMT

Who is going to get more wet? Person A, running from poin to point A to point B, or person B walking the same path from point A to point B?

Deep questions answered

David Benson, Virginia Beach, VA — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:01:07 GMT

I am of the belief that the existence of entropy in this universe negates the existence of a Supreme Being or indefinite consciousness (one’s soul after death). Both human beliefs would require ordered consciousness to increase, or at the very least, stay the same in the universe as new biological life forms are born and then die. Furthermore, a universal consciousness, or so-called Supreme Being, could never lose order.
Entropy, on the other hand, guarantees the eventual and complete deconstruction of all forms of ordered existence. It this is true, its very definition cancels out the possibility that there is life, or any other form of self-awareness, after death. It boils down to the simple deductive argument: If this is true, than that cannot be. Is this a valid argument?

Sincerely,
David Benson

Deep questions answered

Ken Dolan Hudson, NH — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:30:55 GMT

The universe is so grand, so old and the number of worlds so large that it seems infinitely improbable that, assuming there is other life elsewhere, that a human being could find it or travel to it. Unless humans evolve enough physically and mentally in the next million years. And what is with the size of the universe? Why are we so small and the universe so big?

Deep questions answered

Doug Vader, Death Star, Space — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:10:37 GMT

Lets say we can develop a spacecraft that achieves the speed of light. Couldn't someone onboard this craft travel from the rear of the craft to the front, in effect, traveling faster than the speed of light? I'm thinking along the lines of how someone in a aircraft can do this, in effect, walking faster than the plane is traveling. Just wondering if this could happen, and if not, why. Thanks.

Deep questions answered

Jack Deremiah, Monticello, Illinois — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:30:33 GMT

In my own little (undereducated) head, I have a theory that black holes are actually like the end of straw stuck deep into the milkshake that is our universe. The matter of our galaxies is drawn in and used for another purpose in some unknowable dimension. We are, therefore, simply bacteria on a bit of cosmic strawberry waiting to be sucked up at some point in the future. It just seems so simple. and answers (in my head at least) so many questions. The problem is, it is not an answer anyone is hoping for and is therefore dismissed out of hand (usually with a self important chuckle). Am I completely nuts?

Deep questions answered

Wayne Mims — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:56:50 GMT

I am interested in seeing what Mr. Hawkings says about intelligent design (God). My personal belief has always been that we are here for a purpose and that whoever designed us did so within the bounds of science and mathematics as we know them now. As our understanding of our time encapsulated existence grows, as we discover new dimensions and our ability to move in those dimensions, will we finally be able to put a definition on the term "eternity"?

Deep questions answered

Kevin Hermann, Virginia Beach, VA — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:35:23 GMT

I read a theory about the inflationary period right after the big bang where space expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light. The person explaining this theory posed that no laws of physics were being violated, because space itself was expanding, and the matter within it was still traveling at sub-light speeds. My question is this - if an object is moving away from you, how can you tell whether its because the space between you is expanding or if the object is traveling at a velocity away from you? From an observers standpoint is there any real difference?

Deep questions answered

Bill wilson — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:48:38 GMT

the speed of light is constant. But! relative to what???

Deep questions answered

Justin Merrifield, Fort Worth, TX — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:50:40 GMT

I can answer this question. "If the farther we look into space, the farther back in time we are looking... then shouldn't we be able to see our own galaxy in the past?" If light is arriving to our vantage point from 1000 light years away then we are effectively seeing the source as it was 1000 years ago. Since we are in the Milky Way ourselves most of the light is traveling away from Earth, the oldest light we could receive is light from the furthest edge traveling towards the Earth. Whatever that is in light years is how old the light would be. So, if you wanted to see the Milky Way 1000 years ago you would have to travel 1000 light years away from it and since you can't travel faster than light.... Well, you get the idea.

Deep questions answered

Kirk, Las Vegas NV — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:19:48 GMT

I consider myself to be pretty smart, in certain ways, but I can't claim to truly understand the things Mr. Hawking theorizes or explains. I cannot dispute his obvious intelligence, and I certainly cannot say he is right or wrong about anything, but I find myself having problems with a lot of things that some scientists present as absolute. I value science, and certainly appreciate what it has done to make life what it is and what it will be, but all science is not necessarily true or right. Just like the Bible, the word of science is written by man. We are fallible, quite prone to arrogance, and typically more than happy to jump to a conclusion and call it law or absolute.

Something as popular as traveling at or near the speed of light, for example. People claim it simply cannot be done, the laws of physics say so, the laws of this or that theory make it impossible. These are the laws written by the same race who cannot predict earthquakes, tornadoes, or even make up their minds about what is or isn't a planet. Every law of physics we put in place is only good until the next genius relizes that the previous ones were slightly off on this detail or that. Until we learn enough to realize that our few thousand years of scientific learning is nothing compared to billions of years of existence, we are going to have people today say that doing this tomorrow is just impossible.

The earth used to be flat, there was no doubt about it, the grand horizon had a final place from which none could possibly return. The scientists then simply could not see beyond what they did not understand. Greater than light speed travel, the ends of the universe, alternate dimensions, God, and a great many things about our own planet are just simply beyond our ability to understand at this time. They are not impossible, they are just inconceivable right now.

Deep questions answered

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:45:41 GMT

CLARIFICATION?
Here's a quote from Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos", beginnintg of Chapter 3. "Some discoveries provide answers to questions. Other discoveries are so deep that they cast questions in a whole new light, showing that previous mysteries were misperceived through lack of knowledge. You could spend a lifetime--in antiquity, some did-- wondering what hppens when you reach earth's edge, or trying to figure out who or what lives on the earth's underbelly. But when you learn that the earth is round, you see that the previous mysteries are not solved, they're rendered irrelevant." From my earlier comment on what does space exand into, such questions may be seen as seeking a black cat in a dark cellar when the cat isn't even there.

Continuing in Greene, "During the first decades of the twentieth century Albert Einstein made two deep discoveries. Each caused a radical upheaval in our understanding of space and time. Einstein dismantled the rigid, absolute structures that Newton had erected, and built his own tower, synthesizing space and time in a manner that was completely unanticipated. When he was done, time had become so connected with space that the reality of one could no longer be pondered separately from the other."

For those seeking absolutes in our universe and to discredit the idea that Einstein's Special Relativity show "everything is relative", here's an excerpt from Greene, "Space and time are individually relative, spacetime is an absolute entity." (Special Relativity)

Greene's book is an easy read for the most part; so, it can be recommended to all, at least in the early pages. to find answers to many questions proposed to Dr. Hawking.

For Wayne McCoy
Dr. Hawking nor anyone else can answer your questions scientifically at the current stage of our scientific knowledge. Even if our knowledge leads to explaning theories, "Why" questions can never be answered ultimately because one can always ask "why" to any answer, One might answer your "why" questions by saying in order for humans to exist, then comes "why should humans exist". Religious (those who believe in or know God) people can't get off the "why" hook by saying because God made it that way because one can then ask why did God make it that way. All this should remind you of my point, in the faith and science comments, about nothing can be defined ultimately; one can always ask, if you, for example, define length as distance, what is distance. Parents in despair from their child's "why" questions may declare "because I say so".

Strictly, science is about answering "how" questions, not "why" questions; however, scientists find "why" questions inspirational and maybe exciting. "Why" questions fit more readily into religion or philosophy.

Deep questions answered

John Carroll, Riverton, CT — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:12:37 GMT

"the speed of light is constant. But! relative to what???"
Bill wilson, the answer to your question is: "The speed of dark."

Okay, it's an old Steve Wright joke.

There's hope for humanity as long as we continue to have rockstars of science come along like Einstein, Sagan, Leakey, Gould...Hawking to inspire us in turn to play at king of the hill on their shoulders.

Deep questions answered

Esther Osayande — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:16:11 GMT

Dr. Hawkings. I came across "Deep Questions Answered" by accident. as I was reading some of the questions people were asking I became acutely aware how ignorant I am of this science "of the universe. "being human" I do wonder about many things. would you have time to explain to someone who has never even studied algebra , what the "statement made about there being 10 to 11 other deminsions existing" does that mean different lifeforms in a different reality ? sorry if this sounds ignorant, Im sure you know what it is I am asking. thankyou, if you have time for a question like mine.

Deep questions answered

BG, Scottsdale, AZ, USA — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:25:18 GMT

Wow....cool stuff. Thanks Alan & Stephen!

Deep questions answered

Jason, Carthage, MO — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:39:33 GMT

It is MY belief that the only thing that can not be limited or ruled is our ability to imagine. In that respect anything is possible. Even if someone says it isn't. Sometimes I feel we all over-complicate things.

Deep questions answered

Jim Wilmer — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:56:39 GMT

Are there gravity mirrors just as there are gravity lens? The Hubble telescope was used to peer through a gravity lens as a means of looking back in time at galaxies. Is it possible that strong gravitational fields or extreme warping of space could bounce light back to the observer? Could we look at our galaxy or solar system as it existed thousands or even millions of years ago?

Deep questions answered

Wayne McCoy — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:08:34 GMT

There seems to be some misunderstanding about the velocity limit imposed on moving massive bodies. This is not a man-made limit but one that the universe itself has imposed. The Theory of Relativity just recognizes that the limit seems to exist. The problem posed by the Special Theory of Relativity -- and pretty well borne out by experiments -- is that it requires increasing amounts of energy to continue to accelerate a moving body to higher and higher velocities. As the velocity of the body approaches that of light, the amount of energy to further close the gap increases to infinity. This is not to say that we might not ever find a way around it: it's that the physics that we know and that has been verified by experiment indicates that we won't do it any time soon. We don't know where to get infinite energy. The idea of tachyons -- particles that always move faster than light -- exist is theoretical. One difficulty would be in detecting them. Physicists use the term "tachyon" to refer to concepts or constructs in theory that lead to absurd results, such as infinite energy.

Deep questions answered

Pat W, Shortsville, NY — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:32:13 GMT

I have heard it said that matter falling into a black hole "disappears" from our universe. Does that mean that it no longer exists in our universe, or just that we can't see it? If it no longer exists in our universe, we should no longer feel the effects of its gravity. It has not "disappeared" any more than a person who goes into a closet and closes the door "disappears" because we can no longer see them. Black holes are also sometimes suspected of being gateways to other locations in our universe, or to other universes. But the gravity of a black hole seems to be directly related to the amount of matter that originally formed it, or has fallen into it since. Doesn't that also imply that all the matter that is in the black hole is just matter from our universe that we can't see anymore?

Deep questions answered

David, Tulsa, OK — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:10:28 GMT

Dr. Hawking... if life is a form of energy, wouldn't all scientists have to consider the possibility of an eternal life, if that energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only change form? Aren't all scientists limited to simply discovering through the application of the scientific method the laws of the Universe and then further limited to combining or assembling only what is available in the Universe that can be successfully combined in accordance with the laws? Wouldn't the only scientist who can "play God" be the one who figures out how to create a Universe out of nothing? Finally, if someone says they believe God created everything... wouldn't this entity be responsible for the creation of the Universe and all laws of physics, biology, etc. that scientists make observations of and test until they eventually accept the observation as a possible reality? Why is there a battle between science and faith?

Deep questions answered

W.Barnes — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:16:59 GMT

Dr. Hawking.
Since no one has asked yet, and I'm sure EVERYone wants to know, I'll ask the big question: What is Homer Simpson REALLY like?

Deep questions answered

Paul L, NJ — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:50:27 GMT

Does Mr. Hawking believe in God and if so is it based purely on faith or does he have possible scientific evidence or a grand being?

Deep questions answered

Joseph, Birmingham AL — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:07:11 GMT

Question:
the speed of light is constant. But! relative to what???

Answer:
Relative to wherever you are measuring it from.

Example:
A 100ft long translucent rocket ship is flying by the Earth near the speed of light. An alien in the back of the ship turns on a flash light and measures the time it takes for the light to hit the far wall 100 feet away. Based on his calculations, the beam of light was travelling at about 1 billion feet per second.

At the same time, a human on Earth measures this same beam of light. During the time it took the beam of light to travel from the back of the ship to the front of the ship, the ship moved 90 feet. So from the point of view of the human, the light has travelled 190 feet. The funny thing is, the human also calculates the speed of the light as about 1 billion feet per second.

So how could the speed of the light beam be the same for both the alien and the human when the alien is using a distance of 100 feet, but the human is using a distance of 190 feet?

Our course the answer is time.

Speed = Distance / Time, or
Time = Distance / Speed

For the alien, Time = 100 feet / 1,000,000,000 feet per second = 0.0000001 seconds.

For the human, Time = 190 feet / 1,000,000,000 feet per second = 0.00000019 seconds.

But how could the time duration of the same event be different just because you change your point of view. This is why the theory of relativity is so difficult to grasp, it's so counter-intuitive to our daily existence.

Deep questions answered

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:09:01 GMT

regarding the universe expanding answer: in other words, it would've been easier for you to have said "I don't know", or "your guess is as good as mine"...

Deep questions answered

AnneB, Arlington, Texas — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:10:35 GMT

I am naive to the "Doomsday Clock" and MSNBC ran this twice on their website, one week prior to your group announcing that you had an importantand critical announcement, then yesterday the hands of the clock moved forward 2 minutes which now is set to five minutes to midnight. Do you think this will happen in our lifetime, is this what your group has determined and the reason no one is talking about this even further I would assume is because of the panic it would create?

Deep questions answered

Wayne McCoy — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:11:25 GMT

@Carleton Lane

My question of "why" on the velocity of light was not a philosophical question, but whether or not there is anything in current theory that might explain why there is an impedance to photons traversing the vacuum. Might it be due to fields (e.g., Higgs) interacting with the photons, or the structure of spacetime itself (e.g., Wheeler's foam)? It was an entirely scientific question.

Deep questions answered

John S., Lexington, SC — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:40:03 GMT

There is one question I have never heard asked concerning time and space. As a fifty-something person who swears as all "older" people do that time sure seems to be speeding up the older we get, I wonder if time could actually be speeding up. Granted that time is a human concept, a minute of time years ago is the same measure we use today. And I have never heard a child utter that "it seems like time is passing quicker today than before," since children don't have a long enough time of existence to be able to notice the change. Also, as Mr. Hawking believes, the universe is actually expanding quicker today than earlier. Given the above facts, I propose the idea that time is indeed speeding up. Does this seem possible? I hope someone smarter than me says it just seems that way because we are all facing our own demise quicker than we would like, but how come EVERYONE feels this same way? It is my wish that this idea might get someoene thinking further on the relationship between time and space. I submit my humble idea for your consideration.

Deep questions answered

Chris, Yuma, AZ — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:00:45 GMT

Is it possible that solar systems are in fact giant atoms making up some greater bit of matter residing in the next layer of existence (dimension?) while the atoms that make up all matter in our level of existence are host to yet another level of existence, and so on and so on? If so then would it be conceivable that light emitted from the nucleus/stars in the various levels would travel at different speeds? Could the key to time travel be in linking up with the light speed in alternate dimensions?

Deep questions answered

David Call, Lenoir N C — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:33:12 GMT

Dear Mr Hawking
What do you see as the next big discovery in physics other than the usual subjects ie theory of everything.Thank you

Deep questions answered

Paul Clifford,Albuquerque,New Mexico — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:28:29 GMT

Do you think in the not to distant future it will be possible to link the human brain to a computer and download all the knowledge in it? This could be put into a robot and used to send the human species on voyages to the farthest reaches of space. A robotic crew could then use genetic material to bring us back to life.

Deep questions answered

Chris, Ottawa Lake, MI — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:33:37 GMT

Dr Hawking,

Why do a bunch of people who seem to have (or at least pretend to have) a vast knowledge of science not realize that these posted comments are not intended to reach you?

Mr. Boyle,

Even after your earlier clarification on this, people continue to post questions "to" Stephen Hawking.

Perhaps you overestimate the intelligence of your readers.

I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Hawking, and his less heralded contemporaries, whether or not I believe all (or any) of what they have to say.

Deep questions answered

Alan Boyle — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 01:01:59 GMT

Hi, Chris: I think it's because folks just naturally love the idea of being able to have a brush with greatness ... so much so that they may not read the fine print. That's what motivated me to try to answer some of the extra questions posed to Dr. Hawking ... and I'm hoping other folks will take it upon themselves to answer some questions (as long as the answer makes sense, of course). And who knows, maybe the good doctor will look in on these entries as well. We can always dream, right?

Deep questions answered

ron-toronto-canada — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 01:11:22 GMT

Great site,I will visit often.

My question:since there are countless numbers of stars and galaxies,could there also be countless numbers of these things we call The Universe,each one separated from the other by distances so vast that they will remain forever undetected?

Deep questions answered

richard fick wadswoth ohio — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 02:28:14 GMT

dear stephen, will the discovery of the god particle (matter), annihilate the atheist particle (antimatter) ?

hope you get that antigrav airplane ride !!!!!

Deep questions answered

Michael W. Christy, Gilbert, South Carolina. — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 03:01:53 GMT

When I was a teen, I watched a short cartoon that affected my outlook on time and space. it started as a local political rally in a small town square. The speaker was speaking a non-language type giberish, posibly to make the inpact universal. The speaker was shouting and a butterfly flew around his head and he angerely swung at it constantly. The observing "camera" backed away and the picture observed was looking down at the town square from a distance with the town in the forground. It kept receding, first to see the town among other towns, then the state among other states, it backed off to show the earth, and then the earth among the local planets. Furthur and further it went with the colors swirling and changing in hypnotic ways, untill it backed up one more final time and "everything" was on the wing of a buterfly that then just flew away. It may not explain anything, but it is an interesting explaination of the Universe. What do you think?

Deep questions answered

Steve Payne, Santa Fe, NM — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 03:08:44 GMT

Wonderful discussion! Any way to morph this into a forum??

Deep questions answered

Alan Boyle — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 03:22:06 GMT

Well, Steve, I've set up a discussion board for "deep questions" that you're welcome to use.

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx
?BoardID=792&ThreadID=173297

It's not a threaded forum ... If you feel the forum needs to be threaded and this discussion board doesn't serve, perhaps someone will volunteer a forum for follow-up questions. I won't be able to look in on the board all that much, but please feel free to use it.

Deep questions answered

Stephen Bennett, Encinitas, CA — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 03:44:02 GMT

Harvesting stem cells from human embryos is more like taking a heart or liver from a condemned criminal than it is transplanting from an accident victim. We're going to put them to death anyway, right?

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:52:44 GMT

AnneB, I rarely heard about the doomsday clock myself but I was aware of it. This is the first time that I’ve seen it reset and unfortunately it was pushed forward. I don’t necessarily think they are trying to keep it quiet. In fact, I think they would really want us to talk about it more than we do. Unfortunately, the only thing likely to cause a mass panic these days is the cancellation of the American Idol… Ha-ha!

Part of the overall problem in society’s lack of attention on such topics is all the other “less realistic” claims of pending doomsdays. Everything from black holes eating up the earth to alien invasion to robot revolution to the gravity of the other planets ripping us apart when they are aligned… have caused a general numbness on the subject. I also think that people are apt to let important issues like climate change slide until more realistic solutions become obvious. I’m also not sure it’s such a good idea to only focus on climate change as the only potential problem we face. Living efficiently is a good idea for many other important reasons like our health, nature’s beauty, our national security, and our own pocketbooks too. When things are done right, with everything factored in, you’d be surprised out how all such issues can be addressed with what would seem to be very simple “cut-to-the-chase” solutions. We just have to expand our thinking to find solutions that address the most broad array of problems. Local self-sufficiency, for example, would be key in almost any doomsday scenario, economic downturn, or bird flu event!

Deep questions answered

John Savant, Lake Charles, Louisiana — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 06:38:20 GMT

So the photons hitting your eye are actually frozen in time since they are traveling at the speed of light. They don't age on their journey so you see an exact moment in time. My question is if this is so then if a galaxy is 13 billion light years away then 13 billion old. How can it be so far away with expansion rates as they are. My question is actually a feable attempt to understand space time. Those darn tachyon emmisions!

Deep questions answered

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:36:39 GMT

For Some Others AND Joseph of Birmingham

Joseph begins by saying the rocketship is 100 feet long. Special Relativity considerations require one to state with respect to what reference frame (state of motion) the 100 feet is determined. If Joseph felt it was obviously with respect to the alien, then Earth observers will not agree on the 100 feet nor Joseph's 190 feet he declared for them. The length contraction of Special Relativity shows that, in our universe, the Earth observers will see the alein's 100 foot spacehip as having pracically zero length because it is moving with respect to Earth at close to the speed of light as set up by Joseph. Joseph, also, seems to neglect the time dilation between the clocks coming from Special Relativity. These length contractions and time dilations (slowing) are what keep the speed of light the same for ALL observers in our universe so that Joseph's answer to his first posed question is correct and what Special Relativity demands.

Deep questions answered

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:57:44 GMT

For Others and Wayne McCoy

As stated in my earlier comment, "Why?" can not be answered ultimately because, once one gives an answer, the questioner can always ask "Why?" for the answer. Bona fide scientists are aware of this difficulty and how its pursuit would make scientific efforts look foolish. "Foolish", those who engage in attempting to answer questions knowing in advance that they have no ultimate answer. Bona fide scientists (physicists anyway) do not define, for example, length or time; they establish OPERATIONAL "definitions" instead (methods of measuring). Said "time" and "length" in physics are taken as PRIMARIES (UNDEFINEDS), something with which it is assumed one has adequate experience.

For those who have not seen some of my earlier comments, I feel compelled to repeat a part of them here lest some new readers think such a situation is hopeless and useless (a la B. Russell's "We don't know what we are talking about."). While one is not able to stop some from thinking "it's all useless", we all can see, if don't turn only a blind eye, that, even if we don't know, ultimately, what we are talking about, we find great benefits, pleasures, joys, etc. along the way by thinking about "primaries" (things left as undefinables in science). Electric charge is a primary in physics (physicists don't define it other than operationally, of course); yet, even though scientists don't know what electric charge is, they have given us TV, cellphones, etc.. Even though undefined, in physics, length, time, and mass have led, through Einstein's Special Relativity, to the amazing nuclear energy which may provide us a chance to reach other galaxies, planets, etc..

I'd like to add, in order to have a self-consistent, of equal scientific opportunity, discoverable, etc. universe such as ours, the maxmum speed of light in our universe cannot be reached, let alone exceeded and needs to be finite (there is no Special Relativity and all its great accomplishments if the speed of light is infinite, the view of Classical Physics). A simple example of self-consistency depending on not exceeding the maximum speed of light in our universe may be seen by considering the following. A lightning flash seen by a California observer to strike in California may not ever be seen by an observer leaving New York on a spaceship, moving away from the California flash at a speed greater than or equal to the maximum speed of light and this fact makes our universe inconsistent (certainly not of "equal opportunity") because it has said lightning flash exist for some observers and NOT for some others in their "equal opportunity" descriptions of what is going on in or the facts of our universe. Of course, the oft told story of going back in time and killing your mother before you were born, if one could move at speeds in excess of the maximum speed of light, would surely raise havoc with consistency and discoverability (predictions of science etc.).

The actual value for the maximum speed of light in our universe may be dependent on the matter in and "size" of our universe; but, current theoretical physics is not able to discover it therefrom or even if it is connected thereto. The value for the charge of an electron is in a similar situation, but String Theory may have an answer here someday.

W. McCoy speaks of light traversing a vacuum. Said "vacuum" went the way of the prerelativistic aether. The old "nature abhors a vacuum", today, becomes "there is no vacuum in our universe", fields are everywhere in our universe. Further, as far as a photon is concerned (from photon viewpoint) it does not "traverse" any space or vacuum because it is everywhere in our universe at once (at the maximum speed of light distance and time intervals are all zero). Omnipresence? Maybe God is a photon? It is a bit awkward to say "the maximum speed of light in the fields of our universe", but it avoids the conceptually misleading "speed of light in a vacuum". Now, there's another ASOLUTE for our universe, "the 'vacuum' does not exist". So, those who say God does not exist (a self-contradictory statement if God is equated to something absolute), might like to equate God with the vacuum. It is, however, more POSITIVE to equate God or a manifestation of God with a photon if one wishes to convey some idea of omnipresence to a non-believer.

Finally, can't resist an attempt to restore some hope, from Special Relativity, to those who believe in prayer, but who MAY have been discourged by claims God simply can't have time to answer all the prayers offered. If God is like a photon, then His "clock" stands still (there is no time as we know it) and He can, therefore, by Special Relativity, answer a prayer in, say, a billion years from now. by your clock and have you get the answer NOW, by your clock, because "now" and a "billion years from now" are one and the same time on God's "clock".

Deep questions answered

JohnQ — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:07:53 GMT

The speed of light?

If I were a photon of light traveling through space at the speed of light, and I passed another photon of light traveling in the opposite direction, would my reletive speed actually be two times the speed of light?

Are there any photons of light that do not travel at the speed of light. Are there stationary photons?

If a photon of light was traveling at the speed of light (relative to time?) and passing by a black hole, I would assume that the photon of light would be slowed by the gravity of the black hole. Time however would also be slowed. So, would the actual speed of light remain constant as it passed the black hole even if it took longer to do it?

Deep questions answered

john peterson — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:26:24 GMT

the universe will always be expanding forever . it will never stop.just someone with common sence here.so stop complaining about it...

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:06:04 GMT

JohnQ asks, "Are there any photons of light that do not travel at the speed of light. Are there stationary photons?" I believe the correct answer to both is yes. The traditional value for the speed of light (186,000 mps) is the speed of light in a vacuum only. This changes depending on what the photo is traveling through. I'm not sure what it is, but it's much slower (perhaps not noticeably) when it travels through our atmosphere. Furthermore, recent experiments - that were testing one of Einstein’s predictions - actually slowed a photon of light down to 30mph, if not far slower by now - maybe even getting it to stop. They achieved this "jaw dropping" slowdown by sending the photon into a molecule that was chilled to near absolute zero.

Deep questions answered

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 04:22:57 GMT

Hi, Alan -- good blog, Dr. H. should be proud of your efforts to get ordinary people involved. I suspect he would have neither the "Time" nor the available "Space" to look after all of us, even the ones who think we "know" whereof we speak. Like me.

Lightspeed. It seems most people think of 'photons' as separate units only, instead of as part of the entire spectrum of electromagnetic waves, acting as either or both particle and wave to move energy from one place to another. There must also be some mass involved - witness solar sails. Also light travels in a straight line unless it is bent by gravity or by passing through liquids and solids - witness the rainbow produced by a prism. If you are waiting for pickup by a spaceship coming in at half-lightspeed and it turns on its headlights, you will see that light at normal lightspeed, not that speed plus half from the spaceship, although it will be red-shifted in its wavelength.

Relativity -- An interesting experiment if you can rustle up the equipment -- set up a turntable, a big one like they use in Detroit for their car shows -- set up a videocam in the rafters above the scene -- set up a table and two chairs opposite each other on the turntable -- attach a second videocam to the back of one of the chairs -- get two friends to sit down on the chairs and roll a bowling ball back and forth between them across the tabletop -- start the turntable revolving slowly -- start the two videocams -- camera A in the rafters will show the turntable revolving, carrying the two friends around and around, and the bowling ball rolling in a CURVED line between them -- but camera B on the chair will show the frends sitting in their chairs, stationary, and rolling the ball back and forth in a STRAIGHT line. You see exactly the same scene on both cameras but the difference depends on your point of view.

The Doomsday Clock dates from the time of the Cold War and showed the waiting time left to the world as nuclear war came closer and closer, then retreated, only to advance again, getting closer and closer to midnight - 'the clock is ticking.' Now it's all about global warming. Though just as terminal.

Entropy -- An easier way of saying that everything eventually runs down, expending all energy to seek an even temperature everywhere. But tain't necessarily so. That scenario would lead to a balanced burnt-out universe. More likely, everthing will ultimately be consumed in a super-black-hole, including those black holes which exist now, and become part of a sub-sub-sub-nuclear particle, a singularity which will re-populate space in the next Big Bang, expanding into infinite space (no edges in infinity) and repeating the process, ad infinitum.

Deep questions answered

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:32:55 GMT

For Others, John O, and C. Eldridge
To begin, Special Relativity makes it clear that one has to specify speed with respect to what observer (John O failed to do this essential. If two spaceships are on a straightline, collision course and each, individually, has a speed close to the maximum speed of light, "c", as verified by a third observer at rest with respect to the ships (for brevity let us assume the speed of each ship is so close to "c" that we can use "c" for the speed involved instead of saying the lengthy "close to the maxcimum speed of light" knowing that it cannot be exactly "c"), each will experimentally measure the speed of the other as "c" and so will the "third observer". No one gets 2c for the experimentally found speed. It might be instrucive to some to note that "speed of light in a vacuum" is misleading in today's physics because a "vacuum" does not exist as a currently physical quantity (it went the way of the aether of Classical Physics). The Special Relativity speed (velocity) addition formula finds "c" for all three observers involved, not the 2c of Classical physics (prior to Special Relativity.

However, there is still use for 2c in the case at hand as the GAP CLOSING SPEED, not the speed of any observer for the other (remember our example has two observers with speed "c" measured by a third with speed zero measured by the third observer claiming "rest" for himself and speed "c" is also measured by each spaceship observer (and each can claim he is at rest with respect to the other spaceman if he wants).

Now to get 2c into the act. Let us assume that the third observer is at the midpoint of the collision course of the spaceships and it takes light one hour by the third observers measurements to cover the distance between the initial separation of the two spaceships. How much time does the third observer have to get away from the midoint collision position? A little less than one half an hour. If his belief that nothing material can exceed the maximum speed of light, "c", misleads him to thinking that he has an hour to get out of the way, he's squashed (if the spaceship captains make a similar error in figuring the amount of time allowed them before a need to change course, BANG again). Again, how can this happen? The goal(mile)posts were moved. If one spaceship stood still and the other had speed "c" then the one hour computation is O.K., but when the other spaceship is not standing still at its initial separation position but moves toward the other it moves the initial goalposts. The GAP closing speed is indeed 2c and 2c is bigger than c, but in the process NOTHING moves faster than c. Special Relativity is intact.

Here's an easier way, perhaps, to see how you can "beat" light speed. If a light message is sent to you from Uranus, it will take about two and a half hours to reach you on Earth. How can you get the message sooner, "beat" light time? Easy, get in your spaceship which can move at a speed close to "c" and head towards, say, Saturn from Earth (which will take you about one hour and fifteen minutes) just as the message is sent from Uranus gets there and, hence, will reach Saturn (about halfway between Earth and Uranus) in about one hour and fifteen minutes, just as you arrive at Saturn; so, you get the message in one half the time it would have taken had you stayed on Earth and waited for light to bring it to you at "c". Did anything material move at a speed greater than "c" let alone 2c?

Finally, photons do not exist in our physical universe when at rest because their mass (energy, E = mass times the square of "c") becomes zero. Somewhat like some sharks that "die" if don't keep moving.

Deep questions answered

carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:13:02 GMT

Disaster for Those Wanting to Travel at "c" (the maximum speed of light in our universe) or Attempt to Exceed "c" (travel to past)

At speed "c" your mass (weight) becomes INFINITE (enough reason in itself for keeping you from attaining "c"). With infinite mass you have infinite gravitational attraction (Einstein's General Relativity); so, the entire universe collapses onto you (by the way, watch out for all those BLACK HOLES running into you, you "mother" of all black holes). Thanks to its self-consistency and wisdom of avoiding suicide, our universe is designed (whoops, there's that "dirty" word or "political incorrectness") so you (or someone bent on suicide, or some terrorists?) nor anything else will have the power to destroy it with all its beauty and wonder. Let's not forget its self-consistent idea of protecing all those possible worlds (planets) with beings that all see or avoid the error of thinking rhat the destruction of others or our universe is a sure ticket to heaven or in line with the self-consistent design (whoops) of our universe. Einstein's Special Relativity discovery, which showed us the "c" speed limit, helped us to uncover a powerful way to distnguish that which is relative from that which is absolute. It's crystal clear demonstration that some things prior science thought absolute were actually relative (time and length, for examples) and found many absolutes in the science of our physical universe, physics (spacetime and the "c" speed limit, for examples).

Maybe we can convince some terrorists that their ultimate dream may be realized by attaining speed "c" rather than nuclear bombs. Maybe they won't know, as we do, that our universe is designed so that THEY can't get to c (heaven?) :-).

Deep questions answered

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:23:16 GMT

Dr. Hawking: Where do you feel the universe is headed based on all that is known or believed at present? Is all the energy at the big bang actually locked up in both normal matter and dark matter/energy? What is happening to that energy and where is it going?

Deep questions answered

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:49:39 GMT

Alan -- Forgive me, I goofed. The stationary camera will record the turntable moving, carrying the chairs and their occupants in a circle, and the bowling ball travelling between them in a STRAIGHT line. The camera fixed to one chair will record the chairs and the occupants as stationary, while the bowling ball moves in a CURVED line, making the recipient reach sideways to catch it. The whole experiment, even reported incorrectly, still illustrates relativity, depending upon point of view.

Deep questions answered

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:49:56 GMT

Light is a particle/wave? I personally believe the lightwave is a stream of particles traveling in a wavelike pattern (the experiments that show light exists in particle form destroy the lightwave) If it's not too late, I would like to ask Dr. Hawking to comment on this.

Deep questions answered

JohnQ, Fort Drum, NY — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:02:10 GMT

Des said, "The camera fixed to one chair will record the chairs and the occupants as stationary, while the bowling ball moves in a CURVED line, making the recipient reach sideways to catch it."

Additionaly, the bowling ball would slow down until it reached the apex of the curve and then speed up again due to centrifugal forces.

Deep questions answered

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 05:34:58 GMT

True, JohnQ, centrifugal force would send the ball flying off the table. The experiment I saw, however, had the turntable moving quite slowly and the ball massive enough to hold its own against the spinning effect. Slow and steady still wins some races, I expect.

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:21:23 GMT

Why do photons travel in waves vs. a straight line? What law is that photon mimicking that it does not travel in the most direct path? I'm sure "people in the know" are probably rolling their eyes as it was something they learned in their first year, but it just isn't an explainable path in my book. Is it just the way they describe it (all the changes in polarity etc)? I also used to think of a photo as a pucker or ripple in space/time. If everything is indeed one thing in other dimensions than a pucker in a unified fabric would be a better explanation that separate objects moving to and fro.. Maybe this could also explain its 'wave-like' action... Anyway...

Deep questions answered

Alan Boyle — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:53:43 GMT

Chris: The conventional Einsteinian wisdom is that photons and other things in a gravitational field follow the shortest path through space-time, which can be "curved" due to concentrations of mass. The common analogy is to a "great circle" airplane route (say, Seattle to London), which may not appear to be the shortest path on a two-dimensional map projection but is clearly the shortest path on a globe.

The issue of particle vs. wave is slightly different. Electromagnetic radiation can be thought of as particles (photons) or as waves. These are two convenient but incomplete concepts that physicists use ... the reality is that light is really neither a literal wave on the ether nor a collection of point particles. Is light composed of cosmic strings? Branes? The true nature of our universe is still wrapped in enough mystery to keep us going for a long, long while.

http://superphysics.tripod.com/quantum_theory.html

Deep questions answered

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:02:28 GMT

Right Alan
We don't know what a photon is. It's a "mystery". We do know that if we perform certain experiments on light, it behaves like a wave while in other experiments it behaves like a particle. Asking "Which is it?" is like asking which Special Relativistic constant velocity observer is correct when each claims the other's clock is running slowly compared with his own. Einstein's Special Relativity says both are correct and a mysteryof our univere appears. Also, if both are in same length (measured by themselves, say, both measure their own ship and find length 100) spaceships moving at about 87% the maximum speed of light with respect to each other they will claim the other ship to have length 50. So, are the spaceship lengths 100 or 50? Answer, again, both 100 and 50 are valid lengths in our universe depending whether you are at rest with respect to the ship or moving at about 87% the maximum speed of light with respect to it. Measuring when at rest gets 100; measuring at speed gets 50; one method gets one thing the other method gets another. Similarly, measuring or looking at photons by one method sees waves while another method sees particles.
Which is correct (are photons waves or particles); both are depending on experimental set up. Some call photons "wavicles", but that doesn't solve the mystery. In observing (experimenting with) photons we try to force position and speed (velocity) onto them because that is the way we see and try to explain our universe. Position and velocity come from our way of experiencing our universe, not the way, say, a photon experiences our universe. If we can find a different way to describe our universe, we might be able to see photons in a different light (pun intended) and have a more "unified" idea of them. Meanwhile, the dichotomy plagues us and mystery remains a great incentive for further discovery ad ifinitum?

Finally, there are mysteries of our universe that science will never answer without resorting to that's the way the creator (God, force?) made our universe. For example, our universe is so constructed with the physical absolute that no one can tell if they are at rest or in motion or it is something else in motion at a constant velocity (speed, loosely). There is absolutely no physical (scientific) way to distinguish between these two states. Many experience this fact (ABSOLUTE) of our universe when momentarily fooled as to whether our own car is moving (and side-by-side ar at rest) or the side-by-side car is moving (and we are the ones at rest). This ABSOLUTE (fact) of our physical universe is also confirmed by all the successes of Einstein's Special Relativity and Classical Newtonian physics. It's on a par (or better than par) with the ABSOLUTE (fact) of our universe that GRAVITATION is an ATTRACTION (not a repulsion); electrical charges repel if same sign and attract if opposite sign, etc.. Science might eventually be able to show that this relativity of motion is a requirement of having a self-consistent universe or an equal opportunity universe (no favoritism for discovering physical laws (absolutes) of our universe), but mystery will remain as to why self-consistency or equal opportunity is required in our universe. As mentioned in an earlier comment, the question "WHY?", when answered, can always be followed by the "WHY?" for that answer ad infinitum.

Deep questions answered

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 04:50:28 GMT

Carlton Lane is a good teacher. Chris Eldrige is very enthusiastic. Ron Janet is a knowledge seeker. John Q is a questioner. Alan is an expert moderator. But everyone contributes to this blog. And that's a good thing, as Martha would say.

A basic premise to keep in mind as we think (cogito, ergo sum) is that the universe we live in is finite, but space, into which the universe is expanding, is infinite. And infinity, like the quantity zero, is not an understandable concept; if there were an infinite number of oranges around, there would be no room for apples; and look at your hand, envisioning a nullity of apples. Or would that be oranges that you aren't holding?

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:27:47 GMT

Well... I promised myself I'd come up with a new theory of everything by morning so here it is - Ha-Ha! "...amateurs..." Anyway, thanks for all the feedback and the link. I was more than surprised to see that not only photons but ALL atoms can act as waves too! I’ve definitely seen that experiment done with the slits that shows the property of the wave, though I’m not sure where. Obviously our universe is much more dynamic than this local condensation of “3D stuff” appears. I guess I was also a bit shocked to learn that as basic things as a photon is still such a mystery.

Not one to be afraid of wild speculation (or of looking foolish obviously), I’ve come up with this. Much as a wave moves through air and water, it seems light (and all matter) is moving through some unseen medium or fabric that pervades everything. Even empty space or a void has this fabric. What we see as atoms, other humans, and so on might just be a pucker, condensation, or a local intensification of what is essentially the same thing. There is no independent object moving from point A to point B and not even a packet of energy. A photo is just that ripple in the water – a sign – that something caused a disturbance off in some distant star. The properties that we see in light are trying to tell us all we need to know about the properties of this fabric (indeed the very nature of the universe). We are all interconnected! It would be literally “unscientific” for science to dismiss what so many spiritual people tell us: that they can feel the oneness when in deep meditation. Ordinary people tap into this with intuition too! Hope this helped a little!

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:35:09 GMT

And the Great Eldridgeski (emphasis on the ‘ski’) (…and YES, I really am VERY Polish) does it again! Theory of Everything 2.0: Gravity Revealed!

Ok… Above when I talked about a photon is not an independent particle or even a packet of energy I wanted to specify that it doesn’t have energy – it is only the fabric of space transmitting the energy much like waves transmit the energy of a far off storm. Yes, you can measure the energy of a light wave much like you can an ocean wave but it is not a independent packet. The analogy of the person holding one end of a rope while the other is connected to a wall may even be more literal than just a simple example. A distant star does not emit a photo it ripples the fabric of space which arrives here as a photo. A photon is a pucker in the fabric of space, not something separate or independent.

In the experiment when they shine light onto a metal surface and can count the electrons coming off of the metal – indicating that light was a particle – think of it as the wave hitting the barrier and imparting an identical energy pulse which to us seems as the particle hitting the metal and continuing on.

Gravity (no snickering) is not matter warping space but just a gigantic pucker of the material of space. In other words, each atom in earth is a individual pucker in the fabric. There is so many puckers in the earth that it pulls the surrounding fabric of space in its direction. Think of it like a table cloth. If you balled the cloth up in the center only, you’d see the fabric distorted – all the folds – as it got closer and closer to the ball of fabric in the middle. It’s not that mass warps the fabric of space, its just that mass gathers/bunches up so much of the fabric that you get everything heading in that direction!

Pretty impressed eh? I thought so! All in a days work I guess… :)

P.S. Thanks Des and Yes all the feedback from Carlton and Alan and literally the enthusiam of every poster is contagious!

Deep questions answered

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:54:26 GMT

For C. Eldridge and others

Einstein's Special Relativity showed that there was no medium (at the time it was called the "aether") needed for light waves as analogously like air for sound waves etc..

If there were such a "medium", the speed of light would not be the same for all observers (an absolute physial fact for our universe) but would differ for those moving with different speeds with respect to the "medium". It is an absolute physical fact of our universe that light has the same speed for all observers regardless of their own constant speed (the maximum speed of light is the same for ALL physically valid reference frames in our universe, another "sign" of our "equal opportunity" universe?).

Deep questions answered

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:38:07 GMT

For D. Emery and others

Our visible universe is finite, but there is no current scientific evidence able to show that there is nothing (including infinite in extent) beyond our physical universe. Some physicists think that the proposed INFLATION our universe suffered early on (VERY early on) made it possible for galaxies to form outside our visible universe. While it also, currently, not be denied, some physicists say "so what" it's of no scientific value because we will never see it. Others say that we may see it someday if we and our visible universe lasts long enough, but MEANWHILE there's enough to think about.

Finally, infinity IS an understandable concept. Georg Cantor showed us just how, many years ago. If any concept is not understandable, it is THE ABSOLUTE INFINITY which is an infinity larger than any of the other infinities. There is somewhat of a self-contradiction here using "infinity" in the term "ABSOLUTE INFINITY" because it is NOT an infinity like other things understood and called infinite. Cantor and others were not afraid to use the word "GOD" for ABSOLUTE INFINITY, but that's a long story and, perhaps, inappropriate here. B. Russell used the phrase "set of all sets" which he showed could not be a set, again finding a somewhat self-contraictory situation which it is expected will be seen as a manner of speaking (definition) or an attempt to tell what one is talking about
even when one does not know what one is talking about (true for all definitions in ultimate sense, ala Bertrand Russell). KEEP TALKING, however, such "talk" of things we don't fully ("ultimately") understand has led us to find many joys and wonders (how about Cassini's photos of Saturn and its moons?) of our univere with many more to come if the radical terrorists don't prevail. I'm with those who think our universe is so constructed that we can enjoy it and our universe will not let it's plan be destroyed. A reason for some to believe that there are other inhabited planets in case some "screw up"? There is plenty of "evil" along the way because our universe was lovingly crafted with FREE WILL present (a robotic, "stupid", universe can be imagined without any possibility for "screw ups"); however, I'm with those who think that our universe was wisely enough (not the "stupid" robotically way) crafted so that "good" (GOD?) would prevail.

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:03:38 GMT

Thanks Carlton! Now that you mention it, that name "aether" is familiar and I see where you are going by saying it's been disproved. I have to wonder about this new membrane/fabric theory thought... Isn't all matter/photons part of the membrane? The membrane folded and balled up many times over but still the same membrane? Maybe the multi-dimensional nature of the brane allows things to appear as if they are separate and heading off in different directions still interconnected.

Deep questions answered

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 05:06:22 GMT

Carlton Lane: I was trying to say that I believe light is both particles and wave at the same time (wave-particles duality). The stream of individual photons is moving so fast in a wave-like or up and down pattern that they appear to man as only a wave existing. So the wave is made of many photon particles existing and moving not one photon particle existing and behaving like a wave. I wanted to make myself clear on what I trying to say here and will move on to another discussion.

Deep questions answered

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:22:54 GMT

C. Eldridge, R. Janer and others

Ron, you are allowed to BELIEVE whatever you want and I'll always defend this right of yours, but some science may show some beliefs to be out of "sync." with our physical, scientifc universe. After all, one can "believe" that one can build a spaceship that will go faster than the maximum speed of light; one can "believe" that it is possible to trisect a plane angle with UNMARKED straight edge and compass; one can "believe" that 2 + 2 = 5 (even I can believe the latter if 5 is defined as 4) etc.. It is important for all to know that scientists are, now, able to isolate individual photons and set up exeriments that show INDIVIDUAL photons, one by one, can produce the same wave interference pattern that a wave makes. Please see Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos", Chapter 4, beginning on page 84 to see the difficulty current physics has with your belief. To say a photon can manifest wave properties in one excperimental setup and particle properties in a different setup does not endow the photon with the ability to be both at once. By strict physics definitions "particle" and "wave" are mutually exclusive entities. Thank you Ron for your kindness and, please, do not interpret anything in this reply from me as an unkindness from me; I'm only trying to keep the record straight and hoping that I don't let any mistakes of my own slip in.

Thank you Chris. String Theory, which leads to "branes" etc., has no supporting physical, experimental evidence yet. We'll have to postpone any scientific talk about this stuff until such confirming evidence is in. May not have to wait too long because the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) is expected (ala Alan Boyle's news) to be operational later this year. It may provide the needed evidence and it may not. Other experimental verifications seem to be years down the pike.

Deep questions answered

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:57:22 GMT

Carlton: You can't have it both ways when you very eloquently talk of the physical universe then throw in God to make it sound all fuzzy. When you do that, you are just interjecting your own exclusive opinion that has nothing to do with how all the physical theories and facts came to be. But, if you want to call it all the works of an intelligent designer and say that "He" made the universe for us to enjoy, I call a foul.

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 06:55:24 GMT

I'm guess I'm a bit confused... If there is no aether (or fabric of space that photon's travel through), then what is it that we see gravity bending when it bends the light from a distant galaxy around another? I'll assume that aether was once considered something different than space itself.

Deep questions answered

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:27:37 GMT

Criticism of T. Ashley and a Choice Tidbit in Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos"

T. Ashley either has not read my comments closely enough, not understood them, or perhaps wishes to have the word "God" stricken from the language. Careful reading of my comments will find them saying Georg Cantor (famous mathematician) used the word "God" and I used "God" in reporting Cantor's use. There was no suggestion that I was using it (God) instead of "absolute infinity" though I suggested that such use would remove the glaring self-contradiction of "absolute infinity" as a name because the terms "absolute infinity" is not an infinity in any sense used by Cantor. As to my other use of "God" it was in parentheses and followed by a QUESTION MARK. I'd also like to add that some scientists do "have it both ways" because there are probably MORE bona fide scientists who believe in both science and God (some even in religion). Einstein was not an atheist and often used the word "God" for easing understanding of the topic being discussed.

Reading Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" Chapter 7, pages 177 to 199 will let all see some of the deep mysteries of quantum theory that Einstein would have called "spooky" (meaning not deserving of the scientific label). Einstein has been shown to have been wrong here if the suggested definition of "spooky" is valid for him. While some of these findings in physics might have shaken Einstien's belief
in God, they might, instead, have only been cause for the deepening of his conviction
"God is subtle, but not malicious". Seeing the subtlety, rather than malevolence may have soething to do with optimism vs. pessimism.

Well, with the word "God" appearing so often herein, please, let me try to unruffle
any ruffled feathers, caused by insisting on my right to an appropriate use of the word "God", by suggesting those ruffled try reading these comments again and replace the word "God", whereever it appears after the first time, just now, and below, with ABSOLUTE (or THE ABSOLUTE if English so requires). Those who ascribe to "God does not exist" should be advised NOT to replace "God" in this sentence with "The ABSOLUTE" lest they display themselves to be self-contradictory ab initio.

Deep questions answered

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:42:35 GMT

Umpires may make mistakes when calling "foul" even when they are not self-appointed. We all need to notice that even the greatest of "umpires" are not infallible especially when making calls that are outside the game of their expertise. Dr. Hawking will most surely agree that he does not have all the answers. He is too intelligent and wise to say any such thing.

Deep questions answered

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 05:51:03 GMT

Carlton: The "greatest of all umpires"...please explain that. You seem to be wanting to mix issues of God and issues of this exclusive science communication. SH doesn't bother with notions of God or a creator. Why should he? It's not his thing. Any way you cut it, the notion of "God" is purely personal. Science of the world and universe is strictly non-personal. That is the way of science whether you speak of cells, CPU's or the Big Bang.

Deep questions answered

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 09:04:28 GMT

Carlton.. Here is something on what is being done at present to acquire a scientific basis for global consciousness by a Dr. Rodger Nelson of Princeton U. The Global Consciousness Project. It seeks to get a purely scientific or empiracle response to something outside us...something that may or may not exist. http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Deep questions answered

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:05:26 GMT

T. Ashby (and something others may not know about)

Here's a quote taken from Dr. Hawking's "A Breifer History of Time", page 142.
"If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the unverse exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we would know the mind of God."

Thank you T. Ashby for link and I hope this quote from Dr. Hawking will help you to better understand and remove your complaints about my earlier commentaries. Also, I write keeping in mind that some readers may have strong beliefs in and personal experiences wih God and it is nice to keep them reading
rather than immediately turn them away with innuendos or blatant claims that their God does not exist or that science can (when, in truth, it can't, Dr. Hawking is very clear on this fact) prove their God does not exist. Thanks for listening.

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldrige, Harrisburg PA — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:09:24 GMT

To be honest, that's what this world desperately needs right now: "...a complete theory understandable in broad principle by everyone. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason!"

We're about to blow ourselves up guys... time to hurry with some inspiration and true insight that makes us stand back and look at things anew. I’ll have to check out the link on consciousness myself. As I said before, it would almost be unscientific to discount what so many spiritual leaders have told us. There is something much more to our reality (that we are wired into) that science just can’t explain. We know things that are impossible to know… see things impossible to see… The unity of the universe is clear to those with a deep understanding of meditation and until science say’s “hey, wait a minute! Let’s look at this.” There will be nothing that unifies (or expands) our understanding and our own feeling of connectedness with the universe. Three-dimensional matter just cannot be self-aware without the perspective of another dimension. If that can be proven, we can begin to see where religion and science may find an awful lot of common ground! We are very near to a breakthough!

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:33:54 GMT

Much like our eyes arose because there was light to be seen, our brains grew in size because there was consciousness to be “felt.” I wouldn’t think it a dimension by itself but something that interconnects us and allows us to feel who we are nonetheless. The very nature of our ego (the sense of 'I') is an attempt by our physical bodies to clutch a part of it and say "this is me." Perhaps "TIME" is the dimension that gives us our perspective of self?

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:49:21 GMT

Time would allow us to look back and say “there I am,” right? I get the feeling that TIME is what intensifies 3-dimensional space into seeming like it is so many individual things all separate from one another but 3-d is simply space not individuality. Can the third dimension really be divided into separate atoms and components without time? It is time that would have separated everything from a unified whole at the moment of the big bang, not just 3-D space itself which would otherwise have no boundaries.

Deep questions answered

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:31:20 GMT

Carlton: Interestingly enough, "It has been said that this (A Brief History of Time) is the most widely unread book in the history of literature".

I wonder why? Also, SH has stated that there may in fact not be a single theory of everything. A multi-dimentional universe implies this. I personally think SH is appeasing the God crowd because he wants to sell books too!

I sure would like to see what a physics or cosmology text would look like written by an "intelligent design" author. Or any science text for that matter. Would it just be a clever re-writing of the bible complete with diagrams and equations?

Deep questions answered

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:44:33 GMT

If there is no aether, and space is not a substance of any kind, what exactly is science saying is curved when science says the space-time existing around the sun is curved by the sun's gravitational pull? Chris's confusion about this makes a lot of sense to me and I have often wondered how anyone who believes in the same space-time curvature could answer such a question.

Many scientists believe space is nothing existing(a illogical and conradictory belief)and are implying this same nothing is curved and has also expanded with the rest of the physical universe ???

What is space? If no one can give a definitive answer to this very important question we are a very long way from a proposed "theory of everything"

Deep questions answered

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 00:24:11 GMT

Ron Janer

Guess that I've not made the human problem with definition sufficiently clear. Let me say that "space" (you asked what is "space") in physical science is like "length"; it is scientifically taken as an undefinabled (taken as a given, something with which one is expected to have sufficient experience to know what is being talked about). Science does not know what "space" is or what "time" is or what a "photon" is (if one says a photon is a packet of light, then one has to say what a "packet" is and what "light" is.). or "electric charge" is etc.. If it helps you, one can say physical "space" is the separation between any two physical objects, but now we need to know what physical objects are and separation means (note that "separation" has reality, meaning, for us for our everyday experiences and is NOT required to have any SUBSTANCE itself.

Physical "time" is even more difficult to handle and scientists settle for operational definitions (telling how to measure something, not what the something is). Einstein's Special Relativity showed us that our exclusive physical experience (prior to his Relativity) with space and time which pointed to "space" and "time" as independent ultimate realities was WRONG. Only space-time (unification, not independence) has ultimate physical reality. Here's a crude analogy: like discovering the trunk of an elephant and then its tail and then finding there is more to the elephant. So, I hope you will not ask "What is space-time" and expect an ultimate answer, but you should still keep asking the question because it was Einstein's continual asking of what is space and what is time that led him and. eventually, us to the discovery that "space" and "time" are not ultimate realities (still difficult for us because our everyday experience makes us think wongly), but space-time is an ultimate reality. Perhaps saying "universal reality" might be better here than "ultimate reality", where "universal" means the same for all physical observers in our physical universe (individual "space" and "time" are "relative", not universal for our physical universe). There are some scientists who believe that our "physical universe" is all there is, was, and ever will be. There are others who know such a claim is a belief (opinion), not a bona fide scientific fact because it goes outside of the established scientific realm.

Try reading Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" to get a better grasp of what I am trying to do briefly here. In so doing you should see some problems brevity can yield and, thereby, get a much clearer picture (answers to your questions).

Deep questions answered

Carlton Lane,Kamuela, Hawaii — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 00:59:43 GMT

Answer to T. Ashby's question wodering why Dr. Hawking's "Briefer History of Time" is not widely read (my educated guess about T. Ashby's claim that it is "the most unwidely read book in the history of literature" is absolutely WRONG). It turns out that Dr. Hawking also wrote "A Brief History of Time" which was widely read, especially, by scientists and the later "A Briefer History of Time" was meant to be an easier read for those who had problems reading the earlier writings. The later book also had a few new things which could be seen without reading the entire book.

I do hope that those reading T. Ashby's personal opinion will see it clearly for what it is and that it should not be taken as at all accurate with respect to Dr. Hawking's integrity or honesty. I am especially concerned with this type of gimmick because it is so often seen in the press nowadays, thereby, making it difficult to make good decisions in our democracy where good dccisions are so very important. The trouble is compounded with the "Press" because of the fact that an individual's opinion is being presented as a fact. Worse yet, I suppose, is any admission or retraction
is like a judge telling a jury to "ignore some statements just made" (unfortunately, this "gimmick" is not restricted to lawyers). Like trying to go back and change history and we know what Special Relativity AND our universe has to say about that
in our physical universe.

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 03:12:12 GMT

I have to apologize for my limited understanding of aether and physics. I did the best I could to read what Wikipedia had on the subject (a lot) and I saw that aether was not considered to be the fabric of space itself but just a medium for light. In contrast, what I’ve been trying to propose is that ALL matter (which can also act as a wave just like a photon can) is a part of this same fabric of space just like light. We are a "united whole" with just localized intensifications. The Earth does not pass though this fabric, it is a part of it - a much larger ripple. If indeed true, you would not get the proposed 'drag effect' that plagued other aether theories. Furthermore, Wikipedia basically said that ‘if the aether was ‘still’ universally, the speed of light would NOT vary from place to place.’ Thus, I don’t think that this would violate the law Carlton cited which was that the speed of light must be the same for all observers (an absolute physical fact for our universe). I would think this especially true if we (the observer) were also part of it.

Wikipedia went on to say that “the intuitive appeal of a causal background for "relativistic" effects cannot be denied. Some physicists hold that there remain a number of problems in modern physics that are simplified by an aether concept.” The newest theories about aether never actually seemed to be disproven - just unneeded when using special relativity. I was surprised to learn that research is still ongoing by several scientists into the aether concept!!

Sorry indeed for all the writing, ranting and wild speculation! It’s just a lot of enthusiasm and a true hope to see a greater almost spiritual ‘oneness’ help add – not detract - from the direction of science!

Sincerely
Chris Eldridge

Deep questions answered

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 04:59:10 GMT

As I understand it, Einstein's whole mantra began with "what would things look like if I was to travel on a beam of light?" at about age 16. Gravity came later and the basic problem with Newton. Instantaneous action at a distance. This is implicit to Newtonian gravity. A physical force which Einstein famously refuted.

If the sun suddenly disappeared, the planets would stay in orbit at their respective light-distances then continue in a straight line one by one. Interestingly, this will never be observed because suns don't disappear, they explode or swell up and contract. Messing up the system in the mean time.

It would be a wonderful observation however if the outer planets in a planetary system could be seen in the death throws of the parent star.

Carlton: I appologize for being overly presumptuos about SH's basic "belief". If in fact that is accurate. Dealing with God and universe is always overly presumptuous.

Deep questions answered

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:42:04 GMT

Carlton: I was going to debate you line for line on your response to my post(time is undefinable? Einstein defined time as the movement of a clock and many scientists agree with his definition) and then I said to myself why would I want to do this? What would I accomplish by trying to prove this fellow wrong? A person who has a great deal of interest in science just like me. I look forward to reading all of your frequent postings and would never like to insult any of you.

Deep questions answered

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:02:47 GMT

Einstein, Physics, and Definitions

Ron Janer's offering for an Einstein definition of time is an operational definition, tells how to measure it not what time ultimately is, only what is it a clock seems to measure according to us. It leaves "clock" (are we talking about an atomic clock, the clock of the universe in sync with all other universal clocks, or what?) and "movement" (most dictionaries have many definitions for "movement") undefined. Physics defines speed as distance divided by time (time and distance being left undefined), but one could define time as distance divided by speed (speed and distance being left undefined; after all, speed is less "mysterious" than "time" for many humans), but Physics has not gone the latter route. Mathematics defines subtracion in terms of addition leaving addition undefined. Mathematics could have defined addition in terms of subtraction leaving subtraction undefined. Maybe this fact arose because the human race experienced addition first and more often compared to subtraction, thereby, causing subtraction to be defined in terms of addition. Those well trained in physics call length, time, mass, charge, etc. "PRIMARIES", meaning things that will taken as undefined and be used to define other things, related to and useful for physics. One is certainly allowed follow a different path (make a different choice for primaries) to attempt to discover the physics of this universe and maybe it will turn out (rather doubtful currently for many reasons based on our extensive discoveries thus far) to be a better way to go; maybe some aliens will show us a better way and why our currently accepted way kept us from discovering them rather than the other way around.

Finally, many physicists feel that operational definitions are the only way to go in physics and ultimate definitions are best left to philosophers and other human endeavors. Brian Greene, a physicist, in his "The Fabric of the Cosmos"
seems to be saying tht he doesn't want to leave so much fun to philosophers et al. Hope some are having some fun here too. I am and my sincere thank you's to you all for your ideas, patience, and kindness.

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:27:37 GMT

If what I said above was true:

"Can the third dimension really be divided into separate atoms and components without time? It is time that would have separated everything from a unified whole at the moment of the big bang, not just 3-D space itself which would otherwise have no boundaries."

Could "time" actualy be the fourth physical dimention? The perpetual motion it instills is a side effect of its division of 3D space.

Deep questions answered

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:39:00 GMT

What is length? How about length is the quantity of extension of physical size of one spatial dimension? Any comments?

Deep questions answered

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:59:57 GMT

For Those Reading, About to Read, and Having Already Read Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos"

Before resigning from this exciting topic, I should like to mention a couple of places in Greene's book that could cause some to go off in the wrong direction or get the wrong idea due to Greene's possible lack of clarity.

First, when Greene says that a clock moving at speeds close to the speed of light runs slowly, he fails to make the important stipulation the slowing is with respect to or observed by the one claiming said clock is so moving. Any observer moving with said clock will NOT observe any slowing (such an observer will claim it is the other's clock that is running slowly).

Greene makes it clear that Einstein's General Relativity CONFIRMS Newton's idea that mass (hence, energy also due to equivalence shown in Special Reativity) attracts other mass in our physical universe, but General Relativity shows pressure is involved, Newton's gravitation shows No pressure involved, (positive pressure makes for attraction and negative pressure makes for repulsion).
Calling the repulsion due to negative pressure "gravitational repulsion" can be misleading, especially if one is steeped in gravitation as an attration. Before Einstein, gravitation was only defined between masses, pressure was not expected to be involved until Einstein's equations discovered this fact of our phyical universe. It is still correct to hold that "gravitation of masses is an attraction and an absolute fact of our physical universe", but one should recognize that General Relativity shows there are other ways to influence masses than just by masses themselves. Calling this "other way" "gravitational repulsion"
can lead to muddying the waters, somewhat like absolute infinity
does in mathematics. It might, therefore, be better and clearer if physics reserved the definition of gravitation for what goes on between masses (and energy) and find a new word for the influence of negative pressure.

As I check out ("resign"),let me respond to Ron's last reply attempting to define length (or space). Defining "length" as "extension" has the problem physics avoids by not defining "length" other than operationally, circular definition -- length is extension; extension is length; length is extension ad infinitum. Mathematics does not define "set". If one says a set is a collection; a collection is a set, here we go round and round again. It took science and mathematics a long time to come to the realization that not everything can be defined. Before, I've mentioned Betrand Russell's epigram "mathematics (and science) is a subject where we don't know what we are talking about" makes this point. Finally, again, we should be wonderfully amazed at the great things we have done and discovered even if we don't really (ultimately) know what we are talking about. The ardent lover makes our point when saying "words can not tell you of the love I have for you". Adding "because we really don't know what 'love' is" (saying "love" is just a glandular response leaves "glandular" and "respone" undefined) would be self-defeating if not self-contradictory. Consider the wonders that "love" accomplishes or can accomplish even if we really don't know what it is.

Deep questions answered

Ron janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:24:31 GMT

On second thought: Length can be defined as the quantity of horizontal extension of the physical size of an object in one spatial dimension.

Carlton Lane: I agree with what you said. Einstein's "definition" did not address the metaphysical question what is time itself? Einstein was very proud of his partially correct definition (that any sixth grader could also come up with), and did not admit or know(!) that his "definition" did not address the ultimate question like you pointed out. And some scientists have actually credited Einstein with finally "solving" the great mystery of what is time? !!! So when you said science does not know what time is, I wanted to point out that many scientists do think they know what time is. So if a atomic clock slows down this would not mean time slowed down?

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 04:14:53 GMT

In connection with the posts above, the more I think about this statement:

“Could TIME actualy be the fourth ‘physical’ dimention? The perpetual motion it instills is a side effect of its division of 3D ddspace.”

…the more it seems plausible. Here’s why: When Carl Sagan held up what he called the 3D shadow of a four-dimensional object (a hyper cube), I was in awe. He said we could not see the real hypercube because we are limited to three dimensions. The 3D hypercube he held up may seem real enough, but all of its sides are not equal in length and all of its angles are not right angles. But then I began to wonder about how time and space are described as one and how they are indeed considerd to actualy be a ‘fourth’ dimension: just not the fouth “physical” dimension. My argument would be that space-time really is – and we are living in – the fourth “physical” dimension. Space and the perpetual motion we call time are the ‘side effects’ of how the fourth physical dimension has tried to carry forth, broaden out, rip apart, or extend the third dimension. Things certainly seem like only three dimensions to us at this scale. However, the wave properties of matter and light seem to show that matter is being ‘stretched from’ a ‘singular 3D fabric or brain.’ Things appear separate, but much like the hyper cube’s outermost dimension, we are really just a broadened extention of the same thing. Trying to broaden the third demension is what causes perpetual motion and space to exist.

It has been great to participate in this thread! I realise that scientists only have the word of Native Americans, martial artists, yogies, and spiritual leaders to tell them that we are interconnected, but at some point I hope it will be ‘proven’ as well. Thanks for listening!

Deep questions answered

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 06:50:31 GMT

A few remarks. We live in three dimensions, length, width and height. But technically there is also 'duration' or 'time.' That 'fourth' dimension can be defined as the distance between events. We can imagine dimensions lesser than our own, but not those that are greater, as a two-dimensional creature could not visualize a third dimension extant with it.

Gravity is the fabric of space, and mass distorts, or puckers (tnx, Chris) it. Everything that exists has mass, all of which came into its present being at the time of the Big Bang. Mass sorts and re-sorts itself but never loses its essential being. (The glass of water you drink contains some molecules that passed through Caesar into the Tiber River, the Mediterranean sea, the Atlantic, clouds, rain, your reservoir, your tap, and your glass.)

A book that explains the noosphere, although a somewhat difficult read,is The Phenomenon of Man, by Teilhard de Chardin. One of the memorable points he makes is that we (the human race) operate like rising bubbles in a downward stream. The Princeton experiments are very enlightening (tnx Thomas Ashby).

Speaking of a stream of water, Ron of clarendon Hills should try to imagine the molecules of water flying out of the nozzle of a hose, as photons fly out of a flashlight. When you turn the nozzle from left to right, Ron, are you making the stream curve, or do the individual molecules each move in a straight line? As they say, looks can be deceiving.

Deep questions answered

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:40:29 GMT

Second and Last Resignation

When this comment is ended it will NOT have defined "space" untimately but only with many words left undefined. I'm rescinding my first attempt at resignation because I'm hoping to help Ron and any others who may not have grasped my earlier attempts to show the problem of ultimate definition. What is about to follow is NOT an ultimate definition of space, rather just an attempt to give some the feeling for what physicists are talking about when they use the word "space".

Non-ultimate definition of"space": "Space is the concept (ultimate is immediately destroyed because the word 'concept' is being left undefined) physicists (physicists also being left undefined) use to tell others something about somethings they wish to talk about namely, the 'somethings' are not juxtaposed." (do I need to add "juxtaposed" is being left undefined as well as "something", "somethings" etc.). While such a long-winded-not-ultimate definition may be helpful in clarification of what one is talking about for some, it still relys on others having "experience with or feelings for" all the words used in the (not ultimate) definition. Perhaps for some
one might get by with "space is a concept". There is no need to say "human" concept except for those who believe that the waves in air (sound) generated by a falling tree
don't exist unless there are humans around to hear them. Of course, one is free to define such waves as requiring humans in their chosen definition. :-)

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 08:00:32 GMT

Des, I very much agree that we seem to live in only three dimensions, but that does not mean that atoms (or those puckers of the fabric of space) aren’t themselves 4-dimensional. For all we know we could all be made up of four-dimensional matter. If this is the case and matter is essentially stretching and pulling on the fabric of space (brain?), I wonder if this would be the essence of gravity. That fabric is beginning to pull back from being stretched since the beginning of time. I guess this would imply a testable hypothesis and that would be that gravity would actually increase as time went on. If gravity did not remain constant over long periods of time, this could be part of the explanation behind what they now call the effects of dark energy. The rapid inflation of the universe was only possible because gravity was far less at that time.

Again, a lot of this goes on the general assumption that the true third dimension (the original occurrence) would not be dividable into individual 3D components. What force would break it apart as such? What would it be broken into and what would void would divide it (that question everyone’s been asking “what is space expanding into”)? It’s almost like what Des was saying. Time is the “distance between events.” So if you have 3D space, any attempt to divide it would require time to be introduced (another dimention). Thus although it seems very 3Dish to us, we are very much living 4D entities with Time as a side effect of the continual expansion of an original 3D brain.

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 09:00:33 GMT

One could say the opposite in that gravity might actually be weakening as the consistency of the fabric expands past its elastic points...

Deep questions answered

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 14:57:48 GMT

Carlton: If no one can answer the hard questions in science, then the same science is almost certainly wrong. What is time? What is space? What is light? What is length? What is thought? Why existence rather than nothing? What is nothing? No one can answer this? Then I might as well spend my time paying golf and forget this science nonsense. (I "need" a new driver)

Deep questions answered

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:11:20 GMT

Des Emory: Des, Sir Issac Newton also beleved light was a stream of particles: He believed the stream of particles followed each other (horizontally) and moved in a straight line. I am saying the stream of particles moves like the cars on a roller coaster and the wave they make up also moves in a straight line.

Deep questions answered

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:45:39 GMT

i just showed up at the party and everyone(?)is leaving? What a wonderful discussion! I never heard of primaries before. Or operational. It's a shame it has to end here.

Deep questions answered

Des Emery, Carborundum Chronicles, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 02:31:39 GMT

Hey, Ron Janec -- I'm not leaving yet, at least not of my own accord. Alan Boyle will have to kick me out, and he could, of course -- it's his blog, after all.

Your questions are of a philosophical nature (what is existence, etc.) and science has not always kept up with its big brother. Our ancestors undoubtedly wondered like O'Casey's bewildered Irishman "What is the stars, what is the stars?" long before they figured out some of them were stars, some were planets, some comets, some meteors. Science deals with knowledge ('scio' - 'I know') and knowledge is hard to come by - asking questions gets an 'A' in school (or should) even if the teacher has to say "Well, I don't know." Keep asking.

You're right, Chris, gravity, the 3D fabric of space, must be somehow elastic, capable of being stretched and/or shrunk. Although if time and space are connected as space-time, maybe there is no 'edge' to the universe, being 'invented' as required by the expansion or contraction of the universe in the infinity of space. Maybe 'infinity' is the fourth (or fifth) dimension.

Another point for Ron to think about - if you had a perfect laser and fired it "west" the light would move in a straight line in that direction. Then swing the laser so it points "north" and the light moves in a straight line in that direction. It only takes a nanosecond for you to swing your end of the light, the laser, in a quarter of a circle, but if the original target was 100 lightyears away and the final target likewise, the beam would have to be curved at the far end to move from target to target.

Deep questions answered

Carlon Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 02:47:55 GMT

Ron's 9:57 Feb 3, message requires a reply so that all reading it may avoid the despair that seems to concern Ron. My earlier comments treated this problem before, but some may be "just tuning in"; so, here we go again.

Science, indeed, does not know the essence of what it is talking about, but this difficulty does NOT stop science from finding wonderful, amazing, helpful, useful, exciting, etc. things. Science, like mostly all human endeavors, is based on human experience with and feelings for things in our universe (physical universe for physics). We may even start with experiences and feelings that later are shown to be wrong, like the many errors exposed by Einstein's Special Relativity; yet, even with a start that was later seen to be in error we still managed to get to, for example, Einstein's Special Relativity and all its wonders. Dr Hawking, nor Dr. Einstein know or knew "what time is"; yet, both saw how to use "time" (and measure it) to great advantage. K. Godel, a very famous mathematician, said "time" is an illusion and that surely fits the bill for showing the difficulty we all face. We can enjoy and dedicate our life to science by seeing all the joy it brings along the way inspite of our not ultimately knowing "what it is" we are talking about while considering the human experiences with and feelings for things around us, like, motion, time, love, etc.. Apparently, our connection to our universe is not just hocuspocus. Bona fide science uses the faith that good, worthwhile, things will come about in spite of not knowing the "essence" of the things we use and possible dangers that may, thereby, be involved. Such "faith" may be seen to be well founded in physical science from the fantastic accomplishments physical science has made and may continue to make. It is often difficult to see such confirmation of "faith" in other human endeavors, but some manage to accomplish it. For the so called "atheist", indeed, it all may seem a bunch of foolishness (including playing golf); but, when being candid some "so called atheists" will admit to hoping (have the faith?) that they will be shown to be wrong by someone and, thereby, dispell their deeply felt despair.

It should be clear that many non-atheist claimers leave or see a door open toward hope rather than despair. Check out bona fide scientists and, for the most part, you will find people with great hope, Hope that tames the mentioned, possible, despair.

Become a bona fide scientist and find the joy it may bring to you even if it isn't able to tame all despair. If you are one who finds religion more helpful to you in this matter, then remember that bona-fide science allows you to stand your ground with its recognition that sccience does not, nor does it claim to, know everything. Even if physical science finds T.O.E. (The Theory of Everything) for physical science, bona-fide physical science knows that physical science is NOT everything or knows everything, especially with so many undefined terms (primaries). :-)

I'm almost certain some will say I should have stayed "resigned" while I might have been able to be ahead and I can see this answer for Ron can open up a hornet's nest (can of worms?), but I just could not let such possible despair, indicated by Ron, be left without calling attention to the possible far greater hope and joy. :-)

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 06:30:45 GMT

How can things like tied electrons be “instantaneous” if they’re not interconnected (one in the same)? Hum….

Ron, I think it was in a Smithsonian magazine from about 18 years ago that I read “nothingness” was essentially unstable and exploded. I think I have less of a problem with the concept of nothingness than I do with eternity. Nothingness may be one of the best lessons of life. Everything seems so involved and feverishly ongoing and them whoosh, its gone just like that! The concept of “impermanence” and not trying to become attached to things that are only temporary is something we must all try to learn. I think the concepts of nothingness and eternity are mutually exclusive in that you can only have one or the other.? Now, will that be a four iron or a six??

I have no idea where the concept stands now, but a while ago they thought there were gaps in time itself (10 to the -43 in duration).

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge, HBG PA — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 07:01:25 GMT

How can things like tied electrons be “instantaneous” if they’re not interconnected (one in the same)? Maybe for things to gain a charge, that in itself requires another dimension and is the embodiment of it. Much like Carl’s example of the apple talking to the poor flatlander who felt not only heard a voice from inside a closed room but from within too, the added dimension of electricity and of tied electrons could seem to appear and reappear without having to physically travel though these lower dimensions.

You know, we could be living right in the midst of all 11 dimensions and not even know it. Maybe they’re not veiled and mysterious as if a lowly human is incapable of seeing them. Maybe each subsequent shell of an atom is its own dimension?

Doesn't this at least sound cool to think about?

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 18:42:54 GMT

THE DIMENSION OF ELECTRICTY: Electricity is a “reactive/flowing quality.” Since the original/true third dimension was not separateable, another dimension was needed: the fourth (4th) allowed for this separation and its perpetual motion began – that’s what we call time. Even this fourth-dimensional stretch of the initial fabric has extreme limitations, however, and still more dimensions are needed before you get to the building blocks of the world that we see. The “individual” separations of the 3D fabric (those puckers or puckeri, of course) are still too basic. When yet another dimension is added over top of this fourth ‘puckeristic’ dimension, each pucker in the fabric will have to be represented in a still broader way. This next fifth (5) dimension, therefore, adds more and more separation. The further that the original 3D fabric is pushed and strained, the more reactive it becomes. Those puckers become smaller and much more numerous.

Much like the tied electron seems to be moving instantaneous somehow behind the scenes and the laws of our dimension, the dimension above that of the puckers is what allows these much more numerous and highly refined puckers to “freely flow” past and through each other despite being part of the same fabric. THIS CREATES FLOW IN THE FABRIC! We are one step closer to the ‘charge’ that we call electricity but sill below the everyday reality we experience, which must be on a much higher level.

It makes sense that if electricity is indeed in a lower dimension than us, than tied electrons could appear to be moving instantaneously through a much more basic fabric despite the fact that we can’t see it or replicate it. Our dimension (6th?) is too complex and intermixed for motion like that. The fabric at this point is too frayed to see the common thread which is the illusion of instantaneous motion. When we see a neutron magically turn into an electron, that too implies it is in another lower dimension.

The further that this ‘5th’ lower dimension tries to separate things are essentially one in the same, the more static builds up in the system. At this time, I’m thinking of it like a mesh of spaghetti. The puckers are still attached to the same fabric but are now being intertwined and intermeshed to such an extent that they occasionally snap (or jump) back. I’ll have to work on why charges repel and attract…

Everything seems to hint that the third dimension is the key. The first two dimensions are essentially nothingness with just a name but the third cannot be as dynamic as we witness without further dimensions.

NOTHINGNESS: Thinking of time not like some indefinable law but just as the perpetual motion of individual items, seems to be a bit more understandable for me. Is not a stopped machine still a machine even if time is not there to measure its motion? This would essentially negate the idea of there ever being total nothingness AS WELL as the idea of infinity based on time because time is not different than a machine.

P.S. I’m glad this tree has plenty of limbs, cause I’ve been out on all of them :) The puckitoristic nature of space is indeed wonderful! Has anyone suggested atoms and electricity as lower dimensions than us?

Deep questions answered

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:09:52 GMT

Thank you everyone for your comments: Chris, a state of nothingness existing(a complete absence of everything and everyone existing) can only exist INSIDE the mind (except of course for the same existing in any discussion about this) Why? No possible existence of any kind could ever exist to exist. Man makes this state exist just by talking and thinking about this but this state can't exist INDEPENDENT of man doing this("unstable and unexploded") This is a very big mistake in science: or nothing existing or a state of nothingness existing spatially outside the mind(again, except for the same existing in word symbol or discussion form, which is not the same existing in the classical meaning of the words.) Another way of looking at this: Nothing existing outside the mind, can only exist INSIDE the mind, except for nothing existing outside the mind in word symbol or discussion form.

Deep questions answered

DesEmery,The Carborundum Chronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 06:30:30 GMT

Ron -- sorry, you lost me on that last blog. I think I can see where you're going, but I'm not sure... Anyway, eternity is the same as infinity, except the first refers to time, and the second to space. Einstein joined them together. The human mind cannot comprehend either concept. If our universe is expanding, then it is expanding into infinity. And, of course, if it is expanding now it must have been smaller previously, leading back to the Big Bang. And before that event? Another Big Bang, an expansion, a pause, a contraction into a Big Bang. And on and on. We'll never know. Nothingness, Chris, is what fills up eternity and infinity between Big Bangs. Mathematicians may utilize symbols for extra dimensions, but those are only symbols of what's in their minds, not something that can be handled or seen or experienced the way that reality here always exists in three dimensions of physicality, with duration which exists with Newton's laws in that physicality can be substituted for energy.

Deep questions answered

Ron Janec Clarendon Hills Illinois — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:05:32 GMT

Des: I was trying to say that nothing existing is all in our heads. An absence of existence can't exist on it's own(nothing existing outside the mind, or nothing "itself" literally existing somewhere): No possible existence of any kind could ever exist to exist. What existed before the first existence?(or first group of simultaneous existence) Nothing existed? This can only be true as a observation existing in the mind TODAY (there was no existence existing before the first existence) This can't be literally true: Or nothing/nothingness/no existence existing was literally existing "itself" before the first existence began to exist("unstable and unexploded") Man can make the "impossible" exist just by talking and thinking about it, but the same nothing existing can't really exist INDEPENDENT of man doing this. If there is no thing existing(theoretically), there can't be any thing existing, and this would include nothing existing or nothing "itself" existing. Des: I hope I cleared this up a little(tough subject)

Deep questions answered

DesEmery,TheCarborundumChronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 05:52:49 GMT

Ron -- you aren't reading Shakespeare, are you? "To be, or not to be? That is the question -- whether 'tis nobler of the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or, by opposing, end them?"

And, in proving his own existence, Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." Which echoes young Moses asking who was speaking to him from the burning bush, and being told it was "I am."

The ancient philosophers knew all substance was composed of "atoms," all one like the other in essence. They were almost correct. Einstein found the theory that substance and energy were identical in mathematics. Now, a team in Vancouver is using his quantum mechanics in a new way. All of us are using our computers to join this blog and I presume we all know the "switches" we use are arrayed in either "on" or "off" mode to accomplish our communication. The Vancouver team has found a way to make those switches operate simultaneously in both 'on' and 'off' mode.

All the above to say that to be or to exist is as difficult now as it was then though we have more knowledge now. Just remember, "There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio."

Deep questions answered

Chris Eldridge — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:49:51 GMT

"The Vancouver team has found a way to make those switches operate simultaneously in both 'on' and 'off' mode." I'm not following this. Do you have a link?

Deep questions answered

DesEmery,TheCarborundumChronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:55:48 GMT

Hey, Chris -- I found this item on the news, try cbc.ca and sub-heading 'Science and Technology' and it was the first thing on the list of news items. OR - try googling under 'www.dwavesys.com' which is D-Wave Systems Inc. of Burnaby, B.C. All I can say is that normal computers operate on Newtonian physics rules, while the new computer uses Einsteinian quantum physics to make the 'bits' or 'switches' work as if they are 'on' and 'off' or at 'zero' and 'one' at the same time. Let me know if you're successful and I'll try something else. See, Ron? I told you there are more things in Heaven and on Earth....... There appears to be nothing absolute in nature, except absolute zero. Maybe. We don't know yet.

Deep questions answered

Chris E. — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 06:47:22 GMT

Interesting! Such computers could be astronomically faster ... and unlike all other such claims, they have the computer to prove it :) Not just 60,000 calculations per second, but ‘simultaneously.’ Beats me why you'd even want a bit to be different for one calculation and not another. It must be more of the inner machine logic (how the chip actually goes about doing what you tell it) that works faster. Thanks!

Deep questions answered

Kevin Windsor , Cornelius , NC — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:26:41 GMT

If everything has an equal or opposite reaction, then will universe stop expanding one day and start contracting?

Deep questions answered

Ron Janec Clarendon hills Illinois — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:47:31 GMT

Yes, many of the galaxies are moving away from us, but if no one can properly define what space is, how can anyone say with any degree of confidence that the universe(the galaxies AND space)is expanding? Maybe space is static (from the beginning) and the big bang theory is wrong. (Space is expanding? WHAT is expanding? If you don't know what something is, how can you say it's expanding???)

Deep questions answered

Tony, Nottingham, England — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:07:19 GMT

if we had a telescope as big and as powerful as the universe what would we see?

Deep questions answered

arvin lande northwood iowa — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:22:12 GMT

can someone prove that time exist? and that it is not a man made tool to measure the aging process.

Deep questions answered

James Stoll, Monterey, CA — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:07:31 GMT

On the subject of Time Travel....
....IMPOSSIBLE! For the simple reason that there is a finite ammount of matter/energy in the universe. It can not be created or destroyed. It may only change states.
If one was to go back in time, there would be more than 100% of matter/energy in the universe at the destination time, and less than 100% in the time that you left!
"Traveling backwards in time will NEVER be possible".

Any comments are certainly welcome.

Deep questions answered

michael emery,london,spalding — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:00:51 GMT

if theres no gravity or air resistance out in space why cant a rocket achieve the speed of light? whats stopping it from going any faster?

Deep questions answered

john Germantown M.D. — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:24:04 GMT

if light flattens out and dosen't have the same speed will it not have the energy to break through the electromagnetic field of the known universe and even seeing a red shift will it not bend and possibly turn and might it's path be it twisted be to the biggest black hole where it's electrons would be stripped and replaced by anti matter?