Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
>   I have read somewhere that it's considered that even if the entire
> Universe was concentrated in a singularity at the beginning, it's hard
> to say anything about its nature because anything prior to the first
> unit of planck time did not obey any current laws of nature (in other
> words, laws of nature break up when we go back in time more than one
> planck time unit after it all started).
>

I think that's the fundamental limiting factor as to how (if ever) we will ever
understand 'the beginning.' Most cosmological theories I've read about limit
themselves to the period 'immediately following' the genesis of the
universe--something like 1^-43 second afterward. In fact, AFAIK, it's *at* the
point of singularity where Einstein's gravity equations break down (as well as
who-knows-what else); until an answer can be found to that little conundrum,
we're essentially searching in the dark.

Of course, any and all science is built upon basic tenets; in the case of
cosmology, it would seem to be 1) the red-shift/distance relationship, and 2)
that most physical processes (including time and gravitational force) haven't
changed their 'qualities' over the course of the previous billions of years. But
what if these aspects of nature *have* changed? (I've read that very precise
tests have actually been done to see if some of these qualities change or not
with the passage of time; so far, no important changes have been seen--but how,
for example, does one actually measure a change in the passage of time itself?)

Cosmology is a fascinating subject that I find myself thinking about all the
time--as a layman, of course ;-) What fundementally bothers me about current
theories is that, we as humans may not have evolved sufficient intelligence to
truly understand what's going on. My own feeling is that we are still
cave-dwellers, in a manner of speaking, scratching pictures on cave walls in an
attempt to understand the most profound questions of nature. Sure, mathematics
(as a language of logic) is currently our tool of choice; but it all makes me
wonder if we are, in fact, using the correct 'language' to do so. (Not that I
have any alternative idea!) Perhaps something like, sqrt(Christmas tree)/pow(my
mother's mustache, pi) = the 'true' nature of gravity  ;-P

The history of science is full of examples of scientific theories that seemed
correct *at the time* (because they more-or-less agreed with observation and
experiment.) But better theories always come along, which relegate old theories
to the dustbin (or else build a better framework upon them.) Perhaps the Large
Hadron Collider at Cern will clarify some things about the fundamental nature of
matter--but I have a feeling it will produce more questions than answers. Every
time we go looking deeper into the mysteries of nature, we come up with more
mysteries. Which, of course, is how science progresses!

Ken

Post a reply to this message