Some time back, amid the torrential flood of X-criticism, thalo and I gave a reverential nod to the artistry inherent in the universe. After seeing this story and pictures, I found myself once again awed by the sheer beauty of the universe. I feel small compared to the grandeur of it all, but extremely lucky that I have the mental faculty to revel in the beauty. Enjoy. I wonder if those planets had any life?

You might find this difficult to believe, but my collection of space and NASA images rivals my porn collection.

I don't believe it. Nothing can rival the great Nelson Porn collection.

Hey, that article talks about "Twin Peaks" and things being swallowed. There's a natural convergence between the two subjects (globular clusters also comes to mind).

But seriously, folks, while the thought of planets being obliterated by an expanding red giant is intriguing, the actual photos themselves are wondrous in their own right, whatever they portray.

Here is some more interesting stuff on the origins of the universe to ponder. From the article:

The universe may have been created by an explosion within a black hole, according to a new theory by two mathematicians recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A.

"It's a mathematically plausible model which refines the standard model of the Big Bang," said Blake Temple, professor of mathematics at UC Davis and co-author of the paper with Joel Smoller, professor of mathematics at the University of Michigan.

In the standard model of cosmology, the universe burst into existence with the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago. Since then, the universe, which contains an infinite amount of matter and is infinite in extent, has been expanding in all directions.

In the new model, the Big Bang is an actual explosion within a black hole in an existing space. The shock wave of the explosion is expanding into an infinite space, leaving behind it a finite amount of matter. The universe is emerging from a white hole. The opposite of a black hole, a white hole throws matter out instead of sucking it in.

The shockwave and the universe beyond the black hole lies in our future. Eventually, the universe will emerge from the black hole as something like a supernova, but on an enormously large scale, Temple said.

The equations that describe a black hole were written by Albert Einstein as part of the General Theory of Relativity. Einstein's equations work equally well if time runs forward or backwards. But explosive shockwaves, which include an increase in entropy, are time-irreversible. The new theory satisfies Einstein's equations while allowing the universe to expand.

Whether the matter emerging from the white hole came from matter that previously fell into another black hole is an open question, Temple said.

"It is natural to wonder if there is a connection between the mass that disappears into black hole singularities and the mass that emerges from white hole singularities," Smoller and Temple wrote.

I wonder if that means every black hole is the opening to a new universe? Would that mean multiple matter-based universes exist at the same time, but in different dimensions? Or in the same dimension but the light from one white hole expulsion is too faint to be seen by another?

quote:

---

I wonder if that means every black hole is the opening to a new universe? Would that mean multiple matter-based universes exist at the same time, but in different dimensions? Or in the same dimension but the light from one white hole expulsion is too faint to be seen by another?

---

Sometimes it just seems that science is catching up with science fiction. The thing about "the universe" is that if you can make one then why not others? Another interesting question would be whether the new universes that are burped out of the white holes (or was that the black hole?) have their laws of physics squooshed up - the slate erased, its memory reset - while in the black hole and when regurgitated again you get a brand new set of physics.

Sometimes I have a hard time believing anything those guys say. They are trying to explain how the universe is formed but they can not even give a definitive answer to what causes gravity. If they can't explain gravity with their equations then how to do they expect me to believe some story about white holes and black holes. The universe is a big place. What if black holes are just areas where there is no light. And why are they always looking back in time to the origins and not paying more attention on where we are going. It is like driving a car down the freeway by looking at what is in the rearview mirror. You can not see the bend in the road until it is to late. Their crutch of mathematics is skeptical as well. Mathematics will evolve so what they think is correct mathematically will change in the future. Straight lines only occur within the mind. The greeks got that right. Doesn't just about every mathematical equation rely on Pi in some form. Pi is some infinitely expanding number. 20,000 light years sounds like some unfathomable distance. I say that's just the limits of mathematics talking.

That Hubble has produced some extraordinary images. Simply amazing. I saw a lecture by a painter that was using Hubble images as his motif. It was funny because he never came out and said it till I asked.

Rico, I think your skepticism of modern scientific theories-of-the-week is not misplaced. Some of those theories are amazingly well thought out – such as the supertramp theory (a Loverboy, once set into motion, can not be stopped). Oh wait…I meant superstring theory. Some of these theories are amazingly complex, imaginative, elegant, intuitive and relatively non-bloated (seriously…no segue coming). And yet they may bear no relationship to reality. Time will tell…umm…unless, of course, as Hawking and others are theorizing, time itself is an illusion.

quote:

---

Sometimes I have a hard time believing anything those guys say. They are trying to explain how the universe is formed but they can not even give a definitive answer to what causes gravity. If they can't explain gravity with their equations then how to do they expect me to believe some story about white holes and black holes.

---

Actually, there are a number of different explanations as to what gravity may be, but none have risen to the level of solid theory. Even if they could never explain the root cause of gravity, does that mean everything else we know about the universe is false? Is the sun not a fusion reactor because we can't explain gravity? Do the earth and other planets cease to move in an elliptical orbit around the sun as well? Is the theory of a round earth now thrown out the window? There are a number of phenomena that can't be explained with current knowledge and/or theory. That doesn't invalidate the entirety of human knowledge up to this point. Furthermore, it does not behoove anyone to accept any cutting edge theory as fact until it has withstood rigorous testing over time. That is the function of science. To formulate theories that can be tested, thus strengthening or weakening them as they are tested against real observation. The ones that can explained by mathematical models, based on observation mind you, certainly have a stronger chance of being real.

quote:

---

And why are they always looking back in time to the origins and not paying more attention on where we are going. It is like driving a car down the freeway by looking at what is in the rearview mirror. You can not see the bend in the road until it is to late.

---

Do you understand physics at all? If you mean what is beyond the visible edge of the universe, then we most likely can't "look" at the things ahead of us because their is nothing ahead to "see". "Ahead" of us is a seemingly blank void, or, if not, we do not have the technological capability to detect what exists in front of "us". In terms of "seeing" other stars and galaxies within the known universe that are ahead of us, well, since we are separated by great distances and energy has a particular set traveling speed, we will only see light that was generated some time ago. We will never see a current snapshot of what is "ahead" of us because of the time it takes for the light to travel back for us to see. Does it surprise you that the sunlight you are seeing right now took 499 seconds, 8.3 minutes, to reach us? That means we are always observing what goes on in the sun 8 minutes in the past. We can never see the actual events on the sun in real time, unless we get closer.

Furthermore, the universe is not static, it is always moving, changing. Why can't you predict or "see" your future? Why can you only "see" your past? We can't see what is going to happen ahead of us because it involves a time component, and as of yet (and most likely never), we cannot manipulate time.

quote:

---

Their crutch of mathematics is skeptical as well. Mathematics will evolve so what they think is correct mathematically will change in the future. Straight lines only occur within the mind. The greeks got that right. Doesn't just about every mathematical equation rely on Pi in some form. Pi is some infinitely expanding number. 20,000 light years sounds like some unfathomable distance. I say that's just the limits of mathematics talking.

---

Mathematics is most certainly not a crutch. But the description of a phenomenon by a mathematical formula is only as good as the variables used to make up the formula itself. And those variables are derived from observation. If you lack critical pieces of information, the mathematical model itself will be incomplete, and, thus, not an accurate description of whatever phenomenon you are trying to describe. That is why correct observation is crucial to help refine the mathematical model. Mathematics per se is not flawed. But how it is employed often can be. Furthermore, mathematics is not restrained by the concept of infinity, but our technology and mental faculty currently cannot reasonably handle the concept in its immensity or minuteness, depending on which way you are talking about infinity. Mathematics can handle space that is infinite, finite, straight, curved, multi-dimensional, unidimensional, filled, void, etc. But our powers of observation are likely limited in those regards as our mental faculty evolved to function in a four-dimensional, Newtonian space. And, many phenomena are outside our physical powers of observation. Thus, we can only make inferences based on indirect evidence. That in itself can be problematic (think of the parable about the three blind men describing an elephant).

Look, much of cutting edge astrophysics takes as much faith as believing in a god. Except that the science is continually challenging itself to be wrong with the hopes that those theories that meet the challenge are correct. Is the Big Bang theory right or wrong? Is the black hole theory right or wrong? Is the expanding/contracting brane model right or wrong? I don't know, but I do love competing theories. By examining each weakness and building on each strength, the right model will eventually emerge.

Darrstein said:

quote:

---

There are a number of phenomena that can't be explained with current knowledge and/or theory.

---

quote:

---

Mathematics is most certainly not a crutch. But the description of a phenomenon by a mathematical formula is only as good as the variables used to make up the formula itself. And those variables are derived from observation. If you lack critical pieces of information, the mathematical model itself will be incomplete, and, thus, not an accurate description of whatever phenomenon you are trying to describe.

---

Actually, I'm not sure any theory really does explain anything. Look out the window this morning and you won't see any mathematical equations. What you'll see is phenomena. Mathematics is used to predict and model behavior of the phenomena but the mathematics and theories themselves are not the phenomena, they simple give us the power to use nature, although the congruency between the two surely means something, is suggestive of something.

Science and mathematics take it for granted that things are but does not explain why things are. As soon as they try and do this is when they run into the same problems that religion runs into (although religion and philosophy are much more mature disciplines in this regard). The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory is very much a philosophical musing on the whys of reality which, at least to me, clearly overreaches what the mathematics tell us. It makes a reasonable enough philosophical interpretation based on observed behavior but philosophical interpretations, no matter how tightly couched in scientific theory, are still ranging in the area of metaphysics.

I think there's certainly the idea that all we're lacking is better observations and information and mathematics will know the world. Don't get me wrong (heh heh), mathematics is useful. Writing this post on a computer right now confirms this. But we shouldn't mistake the mathematics for reality itself.

quote:

---

Mathematics can handle space that is infinite, finite, straight, curved, multi-dimensional, unidimensional, filled, void, etc. But our powers of observation are likely limited in those regards as our mental faculty evolved to function in a four-dimensional, Newtonian space. And, many phenomena are outside our physical powers of observation.

---

And that's where all this becomes very "interesting." We can mistake our mathematics for reality and come up will all kinds of weird theories that might work mathematically but might not actually represent the real world.

quote:

---

Look, much of cutting edge astrophysics takes as much faith as believing in a god. Except that the science is continually challenging itself to be wrong with the hopes that those theories that meet the challenge are correct.

---

I agree. And I think many times science and scientists aren't aware of how far they often travel in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics.

Bradus Aquinas said:

quote:

---

Actually, I'm not sure any theory really does explain anything.

---

Actually, there are many theories that explain exactly what they have been formulated to detail. For instance, take the "theory" of how digestion works. It explains quite accurately what the process entails and how it is effected. The fact that some phenomena cannot be explained by theory, yet or possibly never, or that some theories cannot explain their phenomena entirely, yet or never, does not mean that all theories are incapable of explaining anything fully.

quote:

---

Look out the window this morning and you won't see any mathematical equations. What you'll see is phenomena.

---

How do you know what I see? Are you relying on what you see as a measure for what I see? That could be dangerous, especially when I see OSX as an excellent system and you see it as a piece of crap. But is what you "see" actually reality? After all, the images in your head are likely algorithms run by the collection of neurons making up your optical cortex. What if the processing capabilities of your noggin aren't wired appropriately? Would what you see be an accurate reflection of reality? What is the proof that what is in your head is actually reality, your own experience? You think, therefore it must be?

Also, the machinery in your optical cortex cannot reflect reality in its entirety, as the input devices are severly limited in their ability to register all that is capable of being input, i.e. that which can reflect light in the visible spectrum. How do you know that there aren't mathematical equations beyond your visual ability, a la the Matrix?

quote:

---

Mathematics is used to predict and model behavior of the phenomena but the mathematics and theories themselves are not the phenomena, they simple give us the power to use nature, although the congruency between the two surely means something, is suggestive of something.

---

I didn't say otherwise. I said mathematics is a description of phenomena, and it is only as good as the observation on which it is based. Never said mathematics WAS the phenomena. The register of reality in the mind, which you would like to imply is a direct reflection of reality, is merely a description of phenomena too. Is one better than the other? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the limitation of mathematics is that it must conform to the possibly flawed human observation.

quote:

---

Science and mathematics take it for granted that things are but does not explain why things are.

---

The role of science is not to explain why, so it is difficult for me to see why you would fault science for that. Science is merely a convenient tool to explain how things are, but I don't think science takes for granted that anything actually is. It does assume that because we can observe things through our senses, they likely exist, but it doesn't take for granted that they exist in the way we necessarily think about them. The knowledge that we have gleaned over the centuries has been a hard fought battle. Often it means overcoming biases and prejudices that have been implanted by societal norms. And scientists are human. No doubt they will try and stretch theories into the realm of metaphysics. But in the tradition of science, they should be made to answer for that.

quote:

---

I think there's certainly the idea that all we're lacking is better observations and information and mathematics will know the world.

---

Well, if we knew EVERYTHING, then we WOULD know the world. That requires better observations and more information.

quote:

---

And that's where all this becomes very "interesting." We can mistake our mathematics for reality and come up will all kinds of weird theories that might work mathematically but might not actually represent the real world.

---

But theories have to stand up to direct challenge. If they can't be proven correct by real world observation, they never advance beyond theory. The beauty of a theory is that it CAN be anything, as far as the human imagination allows. But if it is to be accepted and applied against our observation of reality, a theory must make it through many challenges of its soundness and veracity. No honest scientist believes because a solution is mathematically correct, it must be an accurate description of the phenemona it seeks to describe. And the great thing about a challenge is that anyone, scientist or nonscientist, can lauch one and force the theorist to defend the theory with concrete evidence. I love the current battle over intelligent design and irreducible complexity. It is forcing many scientists to think about other explanations, but it also subjects the other side to the scrutiny and challenge of theory development. Of course, there are religious detractors of the theory as well, which is unusual. In terms of science, there are very few pursuits attempting to explain reality that are subject to as much rigor.

quote:

---

I agree. And I think many times science and scientists aren't aware of how far they often travel in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics.

---

Hey, we are all a bunch of bullshit artists in the end.

quote:

---

The knowledge that we have gleaned over the centuries has been a hard fought battle. Often it means overcoming biases and prejudices that have been implanted by societal norms.

---

That's one of the most fascinating things about science to me. We chew on Apple pretty hard here precisely because they're supposed to be the experts in interface design. I can't really fault scientists for being human like the rest of us, but it always amazes me that in their field, the field of objectivity and truth searching, that biases and prejudices are still so solidly in play.

I think my main point is that mathematics gives us useful and predictable models but we should never mistake them for reality (whatever the hell that is). Another point – and this relates to bias – is that science has sort of gone overboard the last century or so in the purging of anything even resembling mysticism, religion or metaphysics. This has it's drawbacks, but it's nice to see that science may be getting back to asking questions – any questions:

quote:

---

…intelligent design and irreducible complexity

---

Those are very interesting fields.

quote:

---

The role of science is not to explain why, so it is difficult for me to see why you would fault science for that.

---

Because sometimes they do attempt to explain things that are beyond their reach, or at least they wander into the field of philosophy without forthrightly saying so. That's why I brought up the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Did you ever read that article over at Shalom Place that gave some other possible interpretations? I thought it also did a pretty good job of uncovering some deeply held scientific biases. It might have been an article by Jack Haught, I'm not sure. Phil, you out there?

I think pushing the boundaries of what science can even talk about is as full of land minds as pushing the buttons on X-Men about OS X. Homeopathic treatments, prayer healing, and a whole lot of other subjects, when looked at with an open mind, may contain repeatable, explainable elements – even if God or a cosmic consciousness are part of the explanation.

A small, but herculean, traveler has finally met its demise.

I love this comparison: "Since it left Earth in 1989, Galileo has managed to do quite a bit with a computer brain comparable to that of an Apple II." Talk about less is more.

quote:

---

I love this comparison: "Since it left Earth in 1989, Galileo has managed to do quite a bit with a computer brain comparable to that of an Apple II." Talk about less is more.

---

Indeed, the comparison is apt. I'm not sure if the thalowall protector that I use garbled the message, but I was stunned to read further down in the article:

quote:

---

To prevent the chance, however small, of any surviving terrestrial bloat in Aqua from contaminating the Mac or third-party software, Thalo.net decided to make sure the crap would not hit the store shelves.

During its final approach, Aqua entered the highly radioactive sea of charged particles swirling around Steve Jobs' RDF. Earlier trips inside the turbulent radiation belts had come at considerable cost.

---

Speaking of space and art, $50,000 and a new PowerBook if you can guess what this is. I suppose Darr is the only one who has a chance.

This is a sad day. The Hubble telescope has become the first casuality of Bush's new space initiative, see the CNN article here. The Hubble has been a workhorse for the scientific community and brilliant lens for us to see the artistry of the universe. I do hope the ole boy can hold out until a newer version is launched.

quote:

---

Speaking of space and art, $50,000 and a new PowerBook if you can guess what this is. I suppose Darr is the only one who has a chance.

---

Hey, I didn't see that before. Is it a new space art museum, or, perhaps a museum of flight?

I think it is a uranium mine.

Darr, look just to the right in the middle of the photo. Does that triangular hole remind you of anything? Sorry, Rico, but unless you live in Washington this is going to be tough to guess.

John Grunsfeld, NASA's chief scientist, said NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe made the decision to cancel the fifth space shuttle service mission to the Hubble when it became clear there was not enough time to conduct it before the shuttle is retired.

I've read elsewhere that they consider the Space Shuttle too dangerous for a mission to refurbish the HST. Granted, it's not a walk in the park, but apparently the Shuttle is safe enough to continue work on the space station? Huh?

My first thought was that this press release was the same hostage-taking scare tactics that local governments 'round here have used when Eyman's tax-cutting initiatives pass. "Oh, we'll just have to raise your taxes now or else the stop lights and Aunt Martha's kidney machines are going to have to be shut off." They are going to send up another telescope. But still, I wonder.

quote:

---

Does that triangular hole remind you of anything?

---

Uhm, are you hitting on me?

I have been racking my brain, but I honestly don't know. Maybe it's because I haven't been a Washington resident all that long. Don't tell me yet, though. Give me a few more days.

quote:

---

They are going to send up another telescope. But still, I wonder.

---

Well, if the space shuttles are so creaky, why were they sent up this long? I think part of the change in the shuttle program is "fear", we're scared to go up anymore. What, did a terrorist bring down the shuttle? Why do we have to fear with the technological capabilities of NASA? Why can't the shuttles, and the Hubble, be properly serviced until the replacements are ready? I know the argument is that we can save that money to build the replacements cheaper, but something smells fishy to me. The Hubble has been a boon to our advancement. Why treat it this way? Something is up, but no one is talking.