post

Timeout: The Good, The Bad, and The Ridiculous

June 15, 2012 by 3 Comments

“Ukuleles are like your children. The first one, you obsess and protect. By the fourth one, you let them eat high-fructose corn syrup and run with power tools.” — The Interwebs

So what do you suppose we should say about a universe that contains something called The Ukelele Orchestra of Great Britain–with seven ukes?!   Here is a little ditty–with copious apologies to Ennio Morricone–that is particularly dear in the hearts of me and my poker buddies.  I won’t explain why, because that in itself is beyond ridiculous.  But this should tide you over until the next sublime post, which is still incubating.

Filed Under: Ridiculous, video Tagged With: , , , ,
video

Quantum Weirdness 101:  The Double-Slit Experiment

“Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.”–

Neils Bohr

With apologies to Douglas Adams–don’t panic!  Although an understanding of a few basic concepts of quantum mechanics will be helpful in following some of the Millennium Conjectures, it’s actually not that hard to grasp.  No math is needed.  The following video gives a clear and entertaining description of the wave-particle duality of the sub-atomic world.   If you weren’t already familiar with the concept, this should give you what you need to “get it.”   What it won’t allow you to do is come to grips with it, or even believe it.  But you’d better believe it.  Quantum theory is one of the most rock solid, experimentally verified fields in all of science.   And whether you believe it or not, don’t even think of explaining it.  The world’s most brilliant physicists have been debating the implications for decades and are nowhere near a consensus.   If you’d like a little more after the video, including a description of some of the leading explanations, here is a text primer.

 

post

Timeout: With Friends Like This…

June 9, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Outside of a dog, a book is man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read.
– Groucho Marx

Let’s get this straight.  In case you were getting the impression that this blog is the ranting of an intellectual snob, I present contrary exhibit A. 

Would a snob of any kind have a friend like this?

Here’s the story.  As I emerged from the Milford Indoor Tennis club after a regular Sunday morning game of doubles, I noticed that one of the guys in our group, Bob Dolan, had parked his minivan in an unusual manner.  It was facing down a slight incline, backed up to the curb, with a wooden block placed in front of the rear left wheel.

“What’s with the block,” I inquired..

“My parking brake doesn’t work.,”  Bob replied.

“What about your PARK gear?”

“That doesn’t work either!”

“Wow,” I said, “what did you have to do to park on that incline? Have two guys hold it in place while you put the block there?”

At which point, I took the following video, narration by Harvey Ellis.  Another of my buddies, Bruce Marien, observed that this won’t go viral, but it might go fungal!

(by the way, to add to the insanity, that thing tied via bungee cord under the front bumper on the driver’s side, is the cars’ computer!)

Would someone please send this to Car Talk before they go off the air?

Filed Under: Ridiculous, video Tagged With: , ,
quote

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

–Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

post

Conjecture #1: Infinity (Part One)

June 5, 2012 by 4 Comments

 I conjecture:  The concept of infinity could not exist in a finite universe.

“I am incapable of conceiving infinity, and yet I do not accept finity.”

 Simone de Beauvoir

.

Pure philosophy?  It might be.  It’s probably not provable in any scientific manner; but it’s certainly conjecturable.  So let’s discuss the implications, as many of the Millennium Conjectures to come herein presume the universe—or multiverse, if you please—to be infinite in some shape or form.  As most religions require a belief in god as a given, my worldview based on science needs to take a stand on infinity.

As best as can be determined, the ancient Greeks seem to have invented the mathematical concept of infinity.  (Okay—with the possible exceptions of baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet—what didn’t the ancient Greeks think of first?)  So the question begs, did we humans discover infinity or did we invent it?  It’s certainly conceivable that we could have invented it, at least in the mathematical sense.  Let’s look briefly at two other possible dimensions of infinity—time and space.  Of course, Einstein asserted that time and space are a single four-dimensional continuum, but let’s separate the two for the purposes of this metaphysical discussion.

The Possibility of Infinite Time

In 1949, using Einstein’s equations of general relativity, Kurt Gödel provided a proof  that a certain type of rotating universe would be static and spatially finite, but temporally infinite in a rather unnerving form: it would contain closed time loops that would permit time-travel into the past. While evident that it did not exactly describe our universe, which is indeed expanding, Einstein himself admitted it raised disturbing questions about the nature of time in our universe.  Gödel later expressed a philosophical argument that this  proof suggests that time in our own universe does not exist, either as Einstein described it or as we intuitively experience it.1

Kurt Gödel

More recently, philosopher-scientist Julian Barbour has taken complete issue with Einstein suggesting that time is an illusion created by change–that it in fact does not exist at all.  He asserts that time does not flow, but is a series of distinct, static and timeless instants that we experience as “flowing” time.2      David Deutsch, took this once step further in his book The Fabric of Reality, when he asserted that time not only does not flow, but each  instant we experience represents an alternate universe, each deterministic.  He essentially argues that our consciousness moves  from alternate universe to alternate universe and that it is this which is the source of perceived in-determinism and free will.  [For now, don’t worry about the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics if you don’t understand it.  I’ll provide some simple primers on these concepts in “asides” between the main posts.]

So let’s leave it at this: nobody really knows for sure exactly what time is, or if it even exists in anything like the form in which we experience it.  So let’s move on.  Next up is a discussion of space as a possible “infinite” dimension of reality.  And don’t worry–there will be some intervening silliness if only for comic relief.

Notes:

  1.  Gödel universe, The Encyclopedia of Science (online)
  2. Barbour, Julian, The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics (1999) Oxford University Press p.9
  3. Deutsch, David, The Fabric of Reality (1997) Penguin Books,  Chapter 11, Time: the First Quantum Concept, pp. 259-288.
Filed Under: Millennium Conjectures, Sublime Tagged With: , , , , ,
quote

“I’m astounded by people who want to know the Universe when it’s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown.”

–Woody Allen

I’m having a rough enough time just finding the way to my next post, but consider this a preface.

post

Now for something completely ridiculous

Okay. You were promised ridiculous as well as sublime, so here goes. But be forewarned: sublime posts are speculative; ridiculous ones are not.

The Millennium Conjectures are speculations, guesses, wild assumptions. The Sackler Laws are not. They are not conjectures. They are not theories, nor hypothesis, nor speculation, nor guesses.

They are absolutely immutable laws of the universe. So you have been warned, and with that I present Sackler Law #1:

The Law of Bumper Sticker Activism

A person with one political bumper sticker on their car is a person with a cause.

.

A person with two political bumper stickers on their car is an activist.

.

A person with three or more bumper stickers of any kind on their car is a complete nut case!

As previously stated, this law is absolute, immutable, and not open to debate. It matters not the persuasion: liberal, conservative, moderate, authoritarian, libertarian, religious, atheist, vegan, cannibalistic, tea party, green party, toga party. It’s all the same. I have spoken. End of discussion. Next question please! (For a complementary, but not competing view on the subject of bumper stickers, click here.) Text in this post ©2012 Mark Sackler

post

Introducing The Millenium Conjectures

May 28, 2012 by Leave a Comment

“..in reality, scientific theories are not ‘derived’ from anything.  They are guesses—bold conjectures.”

—David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity

 

David Deutsch

In his provocative and stimulating tome The Beginning of Infinity, the British astrophysicist David Deutsch describes the role of science as one not so much as describing reality as explaining it.  It does this, he asserts, through conjectures which then may be tested by experiment.   But this leaves substantial problems in today’s complex and technical world, as there are many conjectures about reality which we cannot test, or at least, cannot test yet.  The existence of exo-planets—planetary systems around stars other than our sun—was only a conjecture until the technology existed to actually detect such bodies. Many mathematical conjectures were not provable for centuries until the advent of sufficient computing power to do so.  Many other scientific ideas—from simple speculations to profound interpretations—cannot be tested with today’s technologies; in some cases, we cannot even imagine how ever to test them.  The “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics is one of these.   This is a subject I will deal with specifically in a later post.  But the point is: my concern here is with ideas we cannot yet, or maybe never can prove.

Edge.org

Why bother?  One of the most interesting books I have ever read is the 2005 volume What We Believe but Cannot Prove. Published by edge.org,one reviewer expressed its content quite succinctly:

John Brockman, writer, publisher and events manager for the science elite, has asked a hundred researchers the question, What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it? The answers are posted at his e-magazine Edge (www.edge.org), and they exert an unquestionable morbid fascination—those are the very ideas that scientists cannot confess in their technical papers.  –JAVIER SAMPEDRO, Madrid,  EL PAIS, February 20, 2005

We all need a worldview.  And while some scientists and philosophers may simply say, “that’s just the way it is, no explanation is needed,” I cannot live with that.  My worldview is based on science, but it needs explanations.

I do not pretend to have any answers.  I don’t even have the viewpoint of a trained scientist.   My viewpoint is the journalistic approach of a layman generalist with a passion for science.  These are, in effect, my own interpretations of what I have read and learned about the present state of human knowledge of physical reality.  In some cases, I may be simply re-stating in my own terms, with my own views of the implications, ideas that may have been put forth or at least hinted at by others. Most of these subjects will involve issues we can’t really test now—maybe never.  I for one need a way of viewing reality that is based on science, but goes beyond what we can absolutely test.  I require explanations, but untestable explanations must seem at least scientifically feasible.  I cannot brook the mystical or supernatural—and yes, in some respects, the religious.  I am a non-theistic existentialist, and this is how I build my world view based on science.

So these are my conjectures.  They are indeed bold guesses.  They are not intended to be absolute assertions of reality—anything but.  They are my suggestions of things that might be true, that I imagine could be true, but that in many cases may not even be provable one way or the other.  What I am doing is asking: what are the implications of this viewpoint?  These are—essentially—what ifs.

UP NEXT:   #1 The Conjecture of Infinity

Text in this post ©2012 Mark Sackler

Suggested reading:

Filed Under: Millennium Conjectures, Sublime Tagged With: , , , , , ,
post

What is this?

May 23, 2012 by 2 Comments

These are my musings, both ridiculous and sublime.  I would have made “Ridiculous and Sublime” the primary title of this blog, but I am vain.  I want some semblance of uniqueness and there are many other bloggers using this theme.   But I will explain both title and subtitle before proceeding.

So what are Millennium Conjectures?  I’ll explain that in a bit as well.  But first, I present a word about the overall content and nature of my posts.  And why I, and my posts, are both ridiculous and sublime.

This is not a personal journal.  Who would be interested in reading my personal journal online?  I wouldn’t even be interested.  No, these are musings, observations and conjectures from a journalistic standpoint, a way of looking at things you might find interesting or funny.  You might also find some silly and trivial.  I do have some past background in both broadcast and print journalism, but that is not my professional livelihood these days; I do this for the satisfaction and outlet.

So—I’ll get back to the subtitle.

Let’s face it: I am both ridiculous and sublime.  To start with, the two most famous people whose birthday I share (October 2) are Mohandas Gandhi and Groucho Marx.

Gandhi

What could be more sublime and ridiculous than those two?  And to boot, the most famous thing, arguably, that happened on the very day of my birth (Oct 2, 1950), was the appearance of the very first syndicated Peanuts cartoon.  Good ‘ol Charlie Brown was born the same day as me.  He is most certainly a perfect blending of the two qualities we are talking about.  Wishy-washy? Maybe. But that is only because he is so torn by these conflicting aspects of the universe that surrounds him.  Yes, the silly and profound seem both to be bound into my DNA.

Content herein will then consist of both the trivial/silly (WheresGeorge.com, history of CT license plates, Pearls Before Swine) and the profound (Quantum Physics, Cosmology, Existentialism, Opera and the philosophy of science).  There will also be topics that engender a bit of both characteristics; baseball, for example, and especially baseball statistics.  Yes, Baseball is a game, but as George Will so astutely observed, “if baseball is just a game, then the Grand Canyon is just a hole in the ground.”   This will happen solely because my cluttered mind embraces all of these endeavors, and for some strange reason, I think that somewhere out there one or two people might be interested in my insights.

So, back to the Millenium Conjectures.  My posts will be marked as either Ridiculous or Sublime or Ridiculous AND Sublime.  The lion’s share of the Sublime category—indeed of all the content– will be a series I call The Millenium Conjectures.  These will deal with my views and speculations on the nature of reality, the universe and  scientific philosophy.  Everything else will be a time-out to blow off steam. But lest my head explode, let alone yours, this is enough for now.                                                   Text in this post ©2012 Mark Sackler

Filed Under: Ridiculous AND Sublime, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,
«Previous Page