In today's thrilling blog post, I look at the anthropic principle, why it's sometimes trivial-but-useful, but sometimes a complete load of hooey.
The weak anthropic principle basically states that the Universe is the way it is because things happened the way they did. It's unfortunate, and completely unnecessary, that it's more often stated to be about sentient life, because it really isn't. The idea is that by knowing the contents of the Universe, you can constrain the processes that must have happened to form such contents. It really doesn't make any difference if you choose to explain the existence of turkeys, sand, or clouds - using sentient life only sounds mystical if you think there's something fundamentally special about it.
The strong anthropic principle ties in with the idea that the Universe is so carefully fine-tuned to support intelligent life that there must have been a designer. This is wrong every way you look at it. There are so many fundamental parameters that fine-tuning is a myth - if you just alter one, then sure you'll screw everything up and the Universe won't support life anymore. But if you alter two or three...
Moreover, the idea that the Universe looks designed specifically for us, rather than intelligent life in general, looks decidedly ropey to me. Most of the Universe is a complete hell-hole as far as human life is concerned. Even the Earth is often an incredibly hostile place to live - we survive in spite of our environment as much as because of it.
Not that the lack of fine-tuning in any way diminishes the astounding fact that we exist at all. Our existence may be incredibly unlikely, but that in no way requires the hand of a designer.
Placeholder post intended to be replaced with a better summary.
Monday 30 March 2015
Sunday 22 March 2015
Science Friction
Science Friction
Love the title. DjSadhu Rockt's article about his new video and our recent conversation.
"Since I am not a scientist, my job and funding are not on the line, and I can make videos about whatever I want, even if that means mixing personal beliefs with scientific-looking stuff."
Yee-ess... though I'd add here another statement of mine from our conversation :
"When stuff like this goes viral, it undermines a lot of very hard work that has gone on in trying to understanding the Universe. Which is something we don't do for fame (unless you're Tyson or Cox, you won't get any) or money (even less chance of that), but because we think it's worth doing. It typically takes around 7 years of higher education before you start making meaningful contributions in astronomy, let alone coming up with ground-breaking results. Moreover, it's based on exactly the same proven physics that's led to things like rockets, radios, telecommunications, microwaves, radar, satellites, electrical power... pretty much the entire basis of the modern world really. So, if a non-scientist comes along and makes a fancy video with some rudimentary, but easily correctable errors, claiming to have overturned an extremely basic fact of a subject that tens of thousands of people choose as a career for the sole reason that they think knowledge is worth knowing.... well, you can imagine how we feel about that. Instead of communicating our latest hard-won discoveries to the tax-paying public, we have to spend time convincing them about things that were established beyond all doubt centuries ago."
I'd also have added that not only does astronomy not pay well, but it's still at least as competitive as any other sector. It's also pretty much as detached as it's possible to be from any real-world political influences; galaxy evolution doesn't care if you're left-wing, a fascist, or a small turtle. There are no campaigns to ban dangerous chemicals or decide people's rights based on the size of the Orion nebula. It is, as much as is humanly possible, seeking knowledge for knowledge's sake.
"The sun does not lead the planets! That may be the case. I’m open to the idea that it does, but I have yet to find absolute proof for it."
It is not the case. Even the old, pre-telescope geocentric models had everything in the same plane. The cone-shaped model is the equivalent of saying, "a wizard did it, because he'd lost his favourite purple feet". It doesn't make any sense at all.
That the Sun doesn't lead the planets is a fact. It cannot be disproved, ever.
"Regardless of my other opinions, this new “Solar System 2.0” image could easily be widely accepted. "
I'd actually go further. I'd say this "helical paths" business is also an indisputable fact. See my twirly-finger analogy.
"I believe aliens and UFO‘s exist, the moon landing was a hoax, most vaccines contain mercury and are bad for you..."
I simply cannot let that pass. Vaccines are not bad for you; this may not be a statement that's a certain as saying, "Owls exist", but it's pretty frickin' close. To say otherwise is to put lives at risk, and I can't tolerate that.
https://thenib.com/vaccines-work-here-are-the-facts-5de3d0f9ffd0
"But, like I said, my personal beliefs are not on trial here – the helical model is."
Quite right - as far as the video goes.
http://www.djsadhu.com/research/solar-system-2-0-science-friction
Love the title. DjSadhu Rockt's article about his new video and our recent conversation.
"Since I am not a scientist, my job and funding are not on the line, and I can make videos about whatever I want, even if that means mixing personal beliefs with scientific-looking stuff."
Yee-ess... though I'd add here another statement of mine from our conversation :
"When stuff like this goes viral, it undermines a lot of very hard work that has gone on in trying to understanding the Universe. Which is something we don't do for fame (unless you're Tyson or Cox, you won't get any) or money (even less chance of that), but because we think it's worth doing. It typically takes around 7 years of higher education before you start making meaningful contributions in astronomy, let alone coming up with ground-breaking results. Moreover, it's based on exactly the same proven physics that's led to things like rockets, radios, telecommunications, microwaves, radar, satellites, electrical power... pretty much the entire basis of the modern world really. So, if a non-scientist comes along and makes a fancy video with some rudimentary, but easily correctable errors, claiming to have overturned an extremely basic fact of a subject that tens of thousands of people choose as a career for the sole reason that they think knowledge is worth knowing.... well, you can imagine how we feel about that. Instead of communicating our latest hard-won discoveries to the tax-paying public, we have to spend time convincing them about things that were established beyond all doubt centuries ago."
I'd also have added that not only does astronomy not pay well, but it's still at least as competitive as any other sector. It's also pretty much as detached as it's possible to be from any real-world political influences; galaxy evolution doesn't care if you're left-wing, a fascist, or a small turtle. There are no campaigns to ban dangerous chemicals or decide people's rights based on the size of the Orion nebula. It is, as much as is humanly possible, seeking knowledge for knowledge's sake.
"The sun does not lead the planets! That may be the case. I’m open to the idea that it does, but I have yet to find absolute proof for it."
It is not the case. Even the old, pre-telescope geocentric models had everything in the same plane. The cone-shaped model is the equivalent of saying, "a wizard did it, because he'd lost his favourite purple feet". It doesn't make any sense at all.
That the Sun doesn't lead the planets is a fact. It cannot be disproved, ever.
"Regardless of my other opinions, this new “Solar System 2.0” image could easily be widely accepted. "
I'd actually go further. I'd say this "helical paths" business is also an indisputable fact. See my twirly-finger analogy.
"I believe aliens and UFO‘s exist, the moon landing was a hoax, most vaccines contain mercury and are bad for you..."
I simply cannot let that pass. Vaccines are not bad for you; this may not be a statement that's a certain as saying, "Owls exist", but it's pretty frickin' close. To say otherwise is to put lives at risk, and I can't tolerate that.
https://thenib.com/vaccines-work-here-are-the-facts-5de3d0f9ffd0
"But, like I said, my personal beliefs are not on trial here – the helical model is."
Quite right - as far as the video goes.
http://www.djsadhu.com/research/solar-system-2-0-science-friction
Sunday 8 March 2015
The next Einstein, or not
Oh goodie, another email from a loon who thinks they've got a "better" explanation for dark matter...
This one appears to be (for as usual it is badly written) something about the speed of light being massively slower in intergalactic space because of Bose-Einstein condensates. Inside our galaxy, everything's normal, but outside (because of the lower temperature) light travels a million times more slowly.
This, claims the author, will solve the "problem" of Andromeda being more massive than the Milky Way (it's not a problem, it's a frickin' observation !), make Hubble's Law invalid, etc.
"Let’s now ask the question “Which of these two alternative deductions has more merit?” Firstly, “Is deducing that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are solely responsible for huge amounts of apparently missing universe?”, or secondly, “Is deducing that the speed of light is not an absolute universe-wide and, as a result, the universe is smaller and less heavy."
What kind of mind thinks it's somehow less radical to slow down the speed of light by a factor of a million instead of invoking dark matter ? All without mentioning rotation curves or gravitational lensing...
"I wrote an article which I have been developing and refining over the years."
Oh God, I hope not.
"I now feel it needs peer review."
No, it needs to burned and the ashes scattered to the four winds.
Aaargh.
This one appears to be (for as usual it is badly written) something about the speed of light being massively slower in intergalactic space because of Bose-Einstein condensates. Inside our galaxy, everything's normal, but outside (because of the lower temperature) light travels a million times more slowly.
This, claims the author, will solve the "problem" of Andromeda being more massive than the Milky Way (it's not a problem, it's a frickin' observation !), make Hubble's Law invalid, etc.
"Let’s now ask the question “Which of these two alternative deductions has more merit?” Firstly, “Is deducing that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are solely responsible for huge amounts of apparently missing universe?”, or secondly, “Is deducing that the speed of light is not an absolute universe-wide and, as a result, the universe is smaller and less heavy."
What kind of mind thinks it's somehow less radical to slow down the speed of light by a factor of a million instead of invoking dark matter ? All without mentioning rotation curves or gravitational lensing...
"I wrote an article which I have been developing and refining over the years."
Oh God, I hope not.
"I now feel it needs peer review."
No, it needs to burned and the ashes scattered to the four winds.
Aaargh.
Sunday 1 March 2015
Mexico City's Hydrogen Sky
After a long hiatus I'm finally ready to finish this off. This is the last such scene I'm planning to do. Now to compile them all into an award-winning YouTube video...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
In the last batch of simulations, we dropped a long gas stream into the gravitational potential of a cluster to see if it would get torn... -
Another day, another paper on how exciting Ultra Diffuse Galaxies are. At first, these large, faint galaxies were just wholly unexpected, a...
-
Of course you can prove a negative. In one sense this can be the easiest thing in the world : your theory predicts something which doesn...