Science and philosophy gave him something he never thought he’d find… respect for religion |312|

#81
This is one of the big issues that makes me wary of modern science! Astronomy never really tried to deal with this issue, except in the sense that they tried to stop Halton Arp getting telescope time to pursue his work! Halton Arp got telescope time in other countries, continuing to improve his statistical evidence. The issue is statistical because you need to compare the number of high red shift galaxies adjacent to large closer galaxies, and compare them with the numbers at other points in the sky. There should be no correlation because of the huge distance (space and time) between such objects (based on conventional theory). Halton Arp's statistical evidence continued to improve.

It goes without saying that this would trash an enormous amount of research on cosmology, but science built on sand is worth nothing.

David
When you say Astronomy never really tried to deal with the issue, what do you mean by that?

I was curious so did a bit of digging. I'm not going to take a position on which position is correct but I found a couple of recent papers that seem to take the issue seriously. From what I understand their arguments are that when studied in a sufficiently large sample (which modern advancements now permit) the statistical deviations noted by Arp dissappear. These papers also site other papers examining Arp's hypothesis.


Absence of a Periodic Component in Quasar z-Distribution

Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data


That's not to say that there might not be issues to resolve, but I'm more interested in how we determine when a fringe position should be considered to have been taken seriously.
 
#82
When you say Astronomy never really tried to deal with the issue, what do you mean by that?

I was curious so did a bit of digging. I'm not going to take a position on which position is correct but I found a couple of recent papers that seem to take the issue seriously. From what I understand their arguments are that when studied in a sufficiently large sample (which modern advancements now permit) the statistical deviations noted by Arp dissappear. These papers also site other papers examining Arp's hypothesis.


Absence of a Periodic Component in Quasar z-Distribution

Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data


That's not to say that there might not be issues to resolve, but I'm more interested in how we determine when a fringe position should be considered to have been taken seriously.
Those are two interesting links - but unfortunately I am not an astronomer, and can't say that much.

The first link seems to relate to another suggestion of Halton Arp - that the red shifts are quantized.

The second was published in 2005, and Halton Arp presumably responded to that - because he continued to pursue this idea to the end of his life.

Unfortunately, there is no way that I can plough through that paper to discuss it further. Halton Arp certainly went on publishing beyond 2005 - so he clearly didn't think the issue had been settled.

http://www.bourabai.kz/arp/index.html

Since EthanT seems to be around, it would be nice to discover if he can add something.

David
 
#83
Those are two interesting links - but unfortunately I am not an astronomer, and can't say that much.

The first link seems to relate to another suggestion of Halton Arp - that the red shifts are quantized.

The second was published in 2005, and Halton Arp presumably responded to that - because he continued to pursue this idea to the end of his life.

Unfortunately, there is no way that I can plough through that paper to discuss it further. Halton Arp certainly went on publishing beyond 2005 - so he clearly didn't think the issue had been settled.

http://www.bourabai.kz/arp/index.html

Since EthanT seems to be around, it would be nice to discover if he can add something.

David
I'm in the same boat as you in terms of interpreting these studies. It only took me a few minutes to find two cases which describe a history of scientists testing Arp's ideas. You seemed to be suggesting above that other astronomers were ignoring his hypotheses. But don't these papers (and the ones they site) suggest that significant work has gone toward assessing and testing Arp's ideas? And if not, then what level of attention are you looking for?
 
#84
Aroet,

It might be worth watching this (which I think was recorded much later than 2005).


I think I'd feel more comfortable with the conventional view, if someone actually explained how it is that Halton Arp (in that lecure) presents one piece of evidence with a probability of being due to chance of 1 in 10^7 (start listening at about 9.00 mins - but ideally listen to it all).

Also note comments at 21 mins in! Listen to it all Arouet - it isn't too technical. Notice also some of his asides about his social interactions with his colleagues!

I suspect Tang, Shuang and Zhang did not make use of all the detail that HA has available.

Notice also that Halton Arp was a sufficiently famous astronomer that a whole set of galaxies are named after him - Arp nnn - he isn't some sort of amateur!

David
 
#85
I'm in the same boat as you in terms of interpreting these studies. It only took me a few minutes to find two cases which describe a history of scientists testing Arp's ideas. You seemed to be suggesting above that other astronomers were ignoring his hypotheses. But don't these papers (and the ones they site) suggest that significant work has gone toward assessing and testing Arp's ideas? And if not, then what level of attention are you looking for?
Well I agree it is hard to take this further.

However, note that in the last video he is refering to a lot more recent work that he did. He also quotes p= 1 in 10^7 for just one of his studies. I think given the importance of this subject, and the prominence of Halton Arp, it would be nice if someone explained just how he is wrong.

He also describes a lot of the angst in the field about these observations (admittedly from his perspective). This is also shown in the following brief discussion:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/arps-theories.272259/

David
 
#86
Aroet,

It might be worth watching this (which I think was recorded much later than 2005).
This opening screen says that its from 2000.

I think I'd feel more comfortable with the conventional view, if someone actually explained how it is that Halton Arp (in that lecure) presents one piece of evidence with a probability of being due to chance of 1 in 10^7 (start listening at about 9.00 mins - but ideally listen to it all).

Also note comments at 21 mins in! Listen to it all Arouet - it isn't too technical. Notice also some of his asides about his social interactions with his colleagues!
I listened to the two bits you noted, but honestly, for me to even begin to try and figure this stuff out I need written sources, with citations. While I still won't be able to understand all the technical niceties, it at least allows me to track sources, seek different views, etc.

For example, he states that a certain paper of his got not attention. Without a citation, I can't even make a rudimentary investigation as to whether that is true. Regarding the 1 in 10M stat - we don't have nearly enough information in that short clip to evaluate that.

As I'm not knowledgeable enough to evaluate these claims on my own, my approach in these types of situations is to try and find a variety of sources that discuss it, and try and determine the gist of the debate. I find in lectures people aren't usually as specific as they are in papers as well.



I suspect Tang, Shuang and Zhang did not make use of all the detail that HA has available.
It's also possible that the reverse is also true. Here is how they describe their methods:

In an attempt to resolve these issues, we turn to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) (and also 2dF QSO Redshift Survey (2QZ) occasionally) to carry out this study, which have the largest homogeneous sample of data as well as the spectroscopic sub-classification of galaxies.

They also cite 3 of Arp's papers.

In looking at the papers that have cited Tang et. al, it appears that Arp addressed it in:
THE 2dF REDSHIFT SURVEY. I. PHYSICAL ASSOCIATION AND PERIODICITY IN QUASAR FAMILIES

This seems to be Arp's primary issue with that paper:

Tang & Zhang (2005) make it clear that periodicity results are null when using well-controlled samples that are up to 15 times larger than previous studies. We maintain that the primary difficulty in analyzing redshift fields based on an ejection hypothesis is simply the overlap that exists between fields of quasars that are within reach of two or more galaxies. Our quasar family detection constraints overcome this difficulty and verify the quasar periodicity signal for the 2dF data set.​

There's a curious section that I'm not sure if I'm reading correctly where I'm not sure if it looks like they are determining what will be their primary data set post hoc? Maybe someone can clarify:

The constraint set produces fairly tight envelopes for all three fs data sets. The envelope for the fs = 0.9 data set is particularly tight all the way down to |zv|max = 0.010. We conclude that the increased robustness of that data set increases the number of unique quasar associations and reduces the number of false positive detections. We therefore consider the tests run against the fs = 0.9 data set to represent our primary results.​

It appears that Arb acknowledges Tang's findings that the large sample shows null results, but came up with certain "constraints" that he feels necessary which produces results more closely in line with his hypothesis. He suggests certain other testing that should take place.


[/quote]
Notice also that Halton Arp was a sufficiently famous astronomer that a whole set of galaxies are named after him - Arp nnn - he isn't some sort of amateur!

I didn't suggest he was. Of course neither are his critics. It is not unusual for professional scientists to have different views that they champion. We shouldn't confuse being wrong with being incompetent. Scientists pursue all sorts of dead ends. That part of the process.
 
#87
Well I agree it is hard to take this further.

However, note that in the last video he is refering to a lot more recent work that he did. He also quotes p= 1 in 10^7 for just one of his studies. I think given the importance of this subject, and the prominence of Halton Arp, it would be nice if someone explained just how he is wrong.
Well, a good start is probably those papers I cited above. Here's a blog post that discusses the Tang paper.

He also describes a lot of the angst in the field about these observations (admittedly from his perspective). This is also shown in the following brief discussion:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/arps-theories.272259/

David
Meh: perceiving those with whom one disagrees as filled with angst is pretty common. I have no doubt that some scientists were jerks. Some people are jerks. But the published scientific work that I linked to treats him with respect.

Which brings me back to the broader point: whether or not Arp is ultimately vindicated, I find it difficult, given what I've seen and posted here, to maintain that his work has been ignored by mainstream scientists as you have asserted. There appears to be a regular serious efforts to assess his hypothesis and put it to the test. I'm not talking about jerks spouting off at each other, I'm talking about peer reviewed, scientific papers. Do you still maintain that his work has been ignored?
 
#88
I was very keen on science, going as far as PhD level in chemistry. I still am keen on science when it is applied honestly, but so often I think it has gone astray - particularly in recent years - because of money, power, and sheer arrogance. I also think there are too many people doing science nowadays, so that many of them are far less motivated by the urge to get at the truth.

David
I agree with you on some points; we are living through a scientific dark age in many ways since the early 20th century

But for me modern reductive materialism is an ideology - it is not Science
Modern reductive materialism is the effect of an inherent problem in human nature; it is not a failing of Science
It is people who go astray - not Science

What you say about too many people doing science today and the urge to truth is mistaken in my opinion
The real core of the problem is that science today is mostly controlled by corporations and the profit motive
Science has been coopted and become the handmaiden of the merchants

If you have been to Phd level then you will be aware of the corporatisation and financialisation of the academy
I would say that overall capitalism has a malign impact on science and truth

My point has always been that Science properly applied is the best method we have thus far developed for understanding reality
including the reality behind NDEs
 
#89
That is a great find - Halton Arp and Patrick Moore in their prime (both died recently). Patrick Moore specialised in TV broadcasts that explained astronomy in a serious way.

@David Eire This is one of the big issues that makes me wary of modern science! Astronomy never really tried to deal with this issue, except in the sense that they tried to stop Halton Arp getting telescope time to pursue his work! Halton Arp got telescope time in other countries, continuing to improve his statistical evidence. The issue is statistical because you need to compare the number of high red shift galaxies adjacent to large closer galaxies, and compare them with the numbers at other points in the sky. There should be no correlation because of the huge distance (space and time) between such objects (based on conventional theory). Halton Arp's statistical evidence continued to improve.

It goes without saying that this would trash an enormous amount of research on cosmology, but science built on sand is worth nothing.

David
David, I really do think that your attitude is very negatively reactive and unbalanced
I mean that as an observation - not an insult; I mean you no harm
You blame Science for what is clearly a failing in human beings (scientists) not in Science

Matters of deep space cosmology are almost entirely high octane speculation
The literature and consensus is constantly in upheaval with little turf wars going on all the time
The consensus theories shift every few years
this is the way human beings with all their personal flaws do science - imperfectly and messily
with all kinds of politicking etc

There are many individuals in all scientific areas who become theory mavericks
Sometimes the mavericks turn out to be right; mostly not

This is not the fault of Science; and is not good reason to turn against Science
...to throw the baby out with the bathwater
It is a good reason to understand how Science is done by human beings
and all the problems that entails on account of human nature

Science itself stands as the best method we have thus far developed for acquiring understanding of reality
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#90
I tend to favour Idealism too, but one puzzle for me is that matter contains so many fundamental particles - 6 x 10^23 molecules per gram mole! (Supposedly there are about 10^80 protons in the universe (with an equal number of electrons) - but in view of the above discussion of Halton Arp, I guess that should be taken with a pinch of salt!) Does some conscious entity control all that, or is there illusion involved even at that level. I really do wonder if when someone does a quantum experiment, MAL (or whatever) simulates that to match Schroedinger's equation, but the rest of matter is simulated in a broad brush way! After all, we can never see 10^23 of anything - basically we count a few and scale up!

David
I do think there's something intriguing about looking at the universe in this way - it's a technique used in computer graphics - render only the visible stuff in exquisite detail. Heck, at least one game has used something like this for AI - battles far away are resolved with less intensive algorithms than battles the player themselves would be more likely to observe or participate in.

However, the flip side is it gets us into "Satan put the fossils in the ground" territory...

It'll be interesting to see what evidence comes out that supports the idea that we're hitting limits to processing power. There's some stuff based on the Asimov debate Steve posted but from what I saw it was very preliminary.
 
#91
Well I'm not an Idealist. My only point was that Idealism doesn't necessitate that everyone else is an illusory construct of one's mind.

As to the difference between Idealism and Dualism I don't think Dualism refers to vortexes/structures but rather a separate substance that interacts with non-mental matter.

Does it matter? In an academic context I'd say so, outside of that I don't know if it does.
People who know something of physics do refer to material objects as energy vortexes
They know that the appearance of materiality is relative and deceptive; matter is mostly empty space etc
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#92
People who know something of physics do refer to material objects as energy vortexes
They know that the appearance of materiality is relative and deceptive; matter is mostly empty space etc
But is that dualism? I guess I'm not sure I see the connection between Dualism and these vortices?
 
#94
As regards QM and General Relativity, it is widely recognised that the two theories are incompatible

Well, superstrings and M theory, currently popular, unites them and Witten has said general relativity is a prediction from these.

I agree that consciousness could be involved in messing with quantum waves esp. in Dean Radin's expts., and I contend, from what I've read that there is real waviness in quantum physics.

I don't doubt, esp. as I said above, consciousness is in there and could be fundamental. Something about paranormal phenomena implies breaking known physics ... FTL signalling etc. Maybe the tip of an iceberg hinting at this MAL. To cut to the chase, you'd expect this if there's God. Saying that, this Entity could be necessarily hidden, otherwise monstrously overwhelming to finite beings, basically my honest take on this ... but not so much as to be uncontactable. That seems to be sensible. We don't realise how much we are the beginning ... 1 mm with maybe 10 km to go?
 
#95
right. RV is another one. how about a man-on-the-moon effort to perfect it. Michael Persinger is another example... and he's someone who still has links to the materialist camp... his technology is 2-3 generations away from being a potential game changer.
It would be great if there was such an organised effort on RV. Re related techno (not Persinger) , I just remember a "Consciousness app" and maybe some device/phone app. Julia Mossbridge is working on to do with pre-sentiment effects. Not sure how far they've got ... Maybe been covered on Skeptiko.
 
#96
Another advantage of my dualist perspective is that it removes the spectre of a god who has to manage every little proton
(protons understood to be mental events in the mind of god)
God only has to create the physical universe; not to manage, or think, every little thing
Once the physical matrix is created the ways in which it functions (the laws of physics) are emergent not imposed
The laws of physics emerge out of the created nature of the physical matrix
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#97
Another advantage of my dualist perspective is that it removes the spectre of a god who has to manage every little proton
(protons understood to be mental events in the mind of god)
God only has to create the physical universe; not to manage, or think, every little thing
Once the physical matrix is created the ways in which it functions (the laws of physics) are emergent not imposed
The laws of physics emerge out of the created nature of the physical matrix
This is also possible in Idealism though?

Is the Universe a Vast, Consciousness-created Virtual Reality Simualtion

Two luminaries of 20th century astrophysics were Sir James Jeans and Sir Arthur Eddington. Both took seriously the view that there is more to reality than the physical universe and more to consciousness than simply brain activity. In his Science and the Unseen World (1929) Eddington speculated about a spiritual world and that "conscious is not wholly, nor even primarily a device for receiving sense impressions." Jeans also speculated on the existence of a universal mind and a non-mechanical reality, writing in his The Mysterious Universe (1932) "the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine."

In his book QED Feynman discusses the situation of photons being partially transmitted and partially reflected by a sheet of glass: reflection amounting to four percent. In other words one out of every 25 photons will be reflected on average, and this holds true even for a "one at a time" flux. The four percent cannot be explained by statistical differences of the photons (they are identical) nor by random variations in the glass. Something is "telling" every 25th photon on average that it should be reflected back instead of being transmitted. Other quantum experiments lead to similar paradoxes. To explain how a single photon in the two-slit experiment can "know" whether there is one slit or two, Hawking and Mlodonow write:

In the double-slit experiment Feynman's ideas mean the particles take paths that thread through the first slit, back out though the second slit, and then through the first again; paths that visit the restaurant that serves that great curried shrimp, and then circle Jupiter a few times before heading home; even paths that go across the universe and back. This, in Feynman's view, explains how the particle acquires the information about which slits are openŠ.

It is hard to imagine a more absurd physical explanation. We can think of no way to hardwire the behavior of photons in the glass reflection or the two-slit experiments into a physical law. On the other hand, writing a software algorithm that would yield the desired result is really simple.

A digital reality whose laws are software is an idea that has started to gain traction in large part thanks to an influential paper in Philosophical Quarterly by Oxford professor Nick Bostrom. Writing in the New York Times John Tierney had this to say:

Until I talked to Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University it never occurred to me that our universe might be somebody else's hobby. But now it seems quite possible. In fact, if you accept a pretty reasonable assumption of Dr. Bostrom's, it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else's computer simulation.

An alternate view (and more optimistic view) is that there exists a great consciousness whose mind is the hardware, and whose thoughts are the software creating a virtual universe in which we as beings of consciousness live.
 
Top