• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Gravitational Waves detected for the first time; Cosmic Inflation theory validated

14,092
Posts
14
Years
  • Spoiler:


    Spoiler:

    This was pretty big news when it broke a few days ago, and has far-reaching implications for our accepted model of the creation of the universe - should the results hold up, the big bang/cosmic inflation/relativity theories (which are scientific theories, mind you) moves closer to being fundamental truths, instead of being true in theory.

    Huffington Post
    Scientific American
     

    £

    You're gonna have a bad time.
    947
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • Sweet. I heard Stephen Hawking won a bet about this too. If I were a brilliant scientist I'd be making bets like that all the time. Not that I don't make bets anyway, heh.

    Oh, we need a debate, right? That's alright I can deal out two sides and we can all have a jolly good argument:

    Side A:
    Hi I like this science I think it's very interesting that this supports the Big Bang theory and I feel enlightened by these findings. I look forward to further exciting discoveries.

    Side F:
    Hey I didn't read that because it made no sense it's completely wrong because I'm an excellent scientist. I got a B+ in my science class this time and I felt well clever, mate. Anyway my science senses were tingling of course, and this guy who has the special power to know the past because he's definitely reliable and well studied told me the world was actually created like a thousand or so years ago. Science? Evidence? Nah, now you're just being silly!

    Pick your side wisely. There will be A's. There will be F's. I'm gonna grab some proverbial popcorn.
     

    Sir Codin

    Guest
    0
    Posts
    I thought the big bang/cosmic inflation/relativity were already accepted by the scientific community as fundamental truths. Oh well, more proof is good proof after all. Of course, I'm definitely ignorant about a lot of things about astrophysics because it isn't my field of study, but mad props to those guys.
     

    Blu·Ray

    Manta Ray Pokémon
    382
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • I thought the big bang/cosmic inflation/relativity were already accepted by the scientific community as fundamental truths. Oh well, more proof is good proof after all. Of course, I'm definitely ignorant about a lot of things about astrophysics because it isn't my field of study, but mad props to those guys.

    A scientific theory is only the truth as long as the majority of scientists believe it to be so. We could potentially be wrong about a lot of things like atomic theories, but these theories are just the ones that are the most probable and fit into our way of looking at physics.
     

    Corvus of the Black Night

    Wild Duck Pokémon
    3,416
    Posts
    15
    Years
  • Sweet. I heard Stephen Hawking won a bet about this too. If I were a brilliant scientist I'd be making bets like that all the time. Not that I don't make bets anyway, heh.

    Oh, we need a debate, right? That's alright I can deal out two sides and we can all have a jolly good argument:

    Side A:
    Hi I like this science I think it's very interesting that this supports the Big Bang theory and I feel enlightened by these findings. I look forward to further exciting discoveries.

    Side F:
    Hey I didn't read that because it made no sense it's completely wrong because I'm an excellent scientist. I got a B+ in my science class this time and I felt well clever, mate. Anyway my science senses were tingling of course, and this guy who has the special power to know the past because he's definitely reliable and well studied told me the world was actually created like a thousand or so years ago. Science? Evidence? Nah, now you're just being silly!

    Pick your side wisely. There will be A's. There will be F's. I'm gonna grab some proverbial popcorn.
    I know you're trying to be funny but honestly I don't think anyone really knows what it is, so I can't wait to see when other results pour in. Since it's such a tiny disturbance and possibly one that could be ruled as error, they're gonna test this again for sure. This is super cool if it turns out to be the case though! I wonder what kind of effect that Gravity Waves would have on earth if they were big enough.

    They could happen. When two black holes merge (or even neutron stars), they produce "gravity waves" which takes energy away from the system, causing them to near each other. If this measurement proves that they can exist I wonder what the implications further out are.

    Space is awesome!
     

    £

    You're gonna have a bad time.
    947
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • I genuinely thought there'd be people here who'd assume this was false just because it adds to a contradiction to something they already know. I'm either impressed or not impressed depending on whether they've left because they have had an enlightening experience reading the topic or because the topic was too difficult to understand, heh.

    Also @CarcharOdin: The wonderful thing about science is that good scientists are prepared for everything they know to be proven wrong. Our so called universal speed limit was shown to be wrong, for instance! While the BBT is very credible and all the evidence supports it making it pretty solid, even a small finding could end up being a curveball and could result in the theory being modified drastically! God I love science.
     

    Tek

    939
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • Shouldn't the title of the thread read "Cosmic Inflation Theory May Be Validated"? The validation, as Krass, Guth, and Kovac all stated today on PRI's Science Friday program (as have several other posters here), has not yet occurred. Not trying to split hairs, it's really a very important distinction.

    As fascinating as the implications of the possible existence of gravitational waves present in the early universe are, I'm even more fascinated by what is not explained by these observations. And I absolutely love that this is yet another scientific development which leads us to the same conclusions drawn by the long line of men and women who have peered deeply into the nature of their own awareness.

    So what does the existence of these waves NOT tell us? It does not tell us what it was that expanded rapidly, nor does it tell us how and when that mysterious thing came into existence.

    Currently, we assume that there is a real boundary between the nothingness that we think preceded the universe and the somethingness that we call 'the universe'. It is a fallacy to think that 'nothing' can exist without 'something'. Not only is the standalone nothingness imaginary, so is the dividing line between it and somethingness. Thinking that boundaries exist in nature is also a fallacy.

    What has happened in both the inward-looking study of awareness (mysticism) and the outward-looking study of objects (science) is that when we look for these boundaries or lines of separation, they invariably vanish. Boundaries appear to be a product of the human mindbrain rather than an property of nature (except to the extent that the human being is a product of nature itself; The point is that boundaries are not a concrete and actual, but abstract and conceptual).

    I am always delighted to see the old mystics validated by scientific discoveries due to the current disdain in the community for mysticism, and the popular fashion of regarding all non-rational thought as pre-rational thought, vehemently denying the existence of anything that transcends mere logic. A quotation from Henry Stapp: "An elementary particle is not an independently existing unanalyzable entity. It is, in essence, a set of relationships that reach outward to all other things". And a much older quotation from the Buddhist doctrine of the Dharmadhatu (Universal Realm or Field of Reality): shih shih wu ai (Between every thingevent in the universe there is no boundary).

    Something else to note is that many people, including whoever wrote that NYT article, incorrectly think that the Big Bang theory describes the beginning of the universe. What it actually describes is what happened directly after this alleged beginning, for which we still lack direct evidence. And here again, modern Western thought begins to resemble ancient Eastern thought, regarding the role of spontaneity in our origin story.

    One of those three men on the program, Krauss, I think, has written a book that postulates a theory, stating basically that a universe begins spontaneously, for no reason at all (similar to the spontaneous generation of particulate matter known as the quantum foam). This is exactly what practitioners of the Eastern methods of introspection (Zen Buddhists, among others) have been saying for thousands of years: the world comes into existence for no reason, and precisely because there is no reason for it to do so.

    To conclude, when we discuss the beginnings of the universe, we are essentially talking about the boundary between nothingness and somethingness. The reason that it has taken the West thousands of years longer to reach the same conclusions about the role of spontaneity and the unity of all things in the universe? The East never took boundaries seriously. They saw boundaries for what they are: useful and limited abstractions.

    But the West fell in love with these products of our own minds, because of their incredible usefulness; we forgot that they were never actually there to begin with. The beauty of reason is that it is through more science that science's early mistake is becoming obvious... I would venture to say perhaps the most important contribution of reason to mankind is that truly rational minds question all assumptions, including their own.

    Thus do we collectively begin to transcend rationality, as we once transcended mythology, and as we transcended magic before that, in the ever-repeating nature of an evolving universe.
     
    Last edited:

    Sage Ebock

    Squirtle Squad 4 life
    45
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • Shouldn't the title of the thread read "Cosmic Inflation Theory May Be Validated"? The validation, as Krass, Guth, and Kovac all stated today on PRI's Science Friday program (as have several other posters here), has not yet occurred. Not trying to split hairs, it's really a very important distinction.

    As fascinating as the implications of the possible existence of gravitational waves present in the early universe are, I'm even more fascinated by what is not explained by these observations. And I absolutely love that this is yet another scientific development which leads us to the same conclusions drawn by the long line of men and women who have peered deeply into the nature of their own awareness.

    So what does the existence of these waves NOT tell us? It does not tell us what it was that expanded rapidly, nor does it tell us how and when that mysterious thing came into existence.

    Currently, we assume that there is a real boundary between the nothingness that we think preceded the universe and the somethingness that we call 'the universe'. It is a fallacy to think that 'nothing' can exist without 'something'. Not only is the standalone nothingness imaginary, so is the dividing line between it and somethingness. Thinking that boundaries exist in nature is also a fallacy.

    What has happened in both the inward-looking study of awareness (mysticism) and the outward-looking study of objects (science) is that when we look for these boundaries or lines of separation, they invariably vanish. Boundaries appear to be a product of the human mindbrain rather than an property of nature (except to the extent that the human being is a product of nature itself; The point is that boundaries are not a concrete and actual, but abstract and conceptual).

    I am always delighted to see the old mystics validated by scientific discoveries due to the current disdain in the community for mysticism, and the popular fashion of regarding all non-rational thought as pre-rational thought, vehemently denying the existence of anything that transcends mere logic. A quotation from Henry Stapp: "An elementary particle is not an independently existing unanalyzable entity. It is, in essence, a set of relationships that reach outward to all other things". And a much older quotation from the Buddhist doctrine of the Dharmadhatu (Universal Realm or Field of Reality): shih shih wu ai (Between every thingevent in the universe there is no boundary).

    Something else to note is that many people, including whoever wrote that NYT article, incorrectly think that the Big Bang theory describes the beginning of the universe. What it actually describes is what happened directly after this alleged beginning, for which we still lack direct evidence. And here again, modern Western thought begins to resemble ancient Eastern thought, regarding the role of spontaneity in our origin story.

    One of those three men on the program, Krauss, I think, has written a book that postulates a theory, stating basically that a universe begins spontaneously, for no reason at all (similar to the spontaneous generation of particulate matter known as the quantum foam). This is exactly what practitioners of the Eastern methods of introspection (Zen Buddhists, among others) have been saying for thousands of years: the world comes into existence for no reason, and precisely because there is no reason for it to do so.

    To conclude, when we discuss the beginnings of the universe, we are essentially talking about the boundary between nothingness and somethingness. The reason that it has taken the West thousands of years longer to reach the same conclusions about the role of spontaneity and the unity of all things in the universe? The East never took boundaries seriously. They saw boundaries for what they are: useful and limited abstractions.

    But the West fell in love with these products of our own minds, because of their incredible usefulness; we forgot that they were never actually there to begin with. The beauty of reason is that it is through more science that science's early mistake is becoming obvious... I would venture to say perhaps the most important contribution of reason to mankind is that truly rational minds question all assumptions, including their own.

    Thus do we collectively begin to transcend rationality, as we once transcended mythology, and as we transcended magic before that, in the ever-repeating nature of an evolving universe.

    Well put friend. Lets be "real" about all this information (as close to 100 as can be achieved). I'm excited for the time when science starts to become those ancient ways once again. Not that I will still be around when it happens, but it seems like it would be an exciting time to be alive.
     

    Tek

    939
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • Well put friend. Lets be "real" about all this information (as close to 100 as can be achieved). I'm excited for the time when science starts to become those ancient ways once again. Not that I will still be around when it happens, but it seems like it would be an exciting time to be alive.

    Don't count your frogs before you croak! Honestly, I feel like we're living in a sort of 'inflationary period' right now. The things we've done and learned were generally not beyond imagination, but the pace at which we're growing and learning is breathtaking and more than a little frightening.

    I am very excited about the direction that such things may lead us, but I don't think at all that science will "become" the ancient traditions. Nor can I say I would want it to.

    What we are looking at, and what is far more incredible, is a synthesis and integration of these two highly developed modes of inquiry - the twin sciences of the internal and external worldspaces. It is only from such an integration that something deeper than either one alone can emerge.
     
    Back
    Top