| Previous page of Issue |
Formalising The Heavens (Part 3)
| SERIES: Formalising The Heavens AUTHOR: Jim Schofield |
STRANDS: PHYSICS |
ABSTRACT: This series was elicited by an article in New Scientist (2682) in which the author was putting forward a new explanation for the finding of supernovae “beyond” the extent of the Big Bang Universe. The previous “fix” for such anomalies had been the idea that the expansion of the Universe was increasing in speed the further out it extended. Obviously, such acceleration was the opposite of what had been expected, for the only possible and known force was gravity. But if the opposite was true it needed a force to propel it, and so the idea of a Dark Energy or Force had been “revealed”. Clearly, an unknown force from an unknown source, which does not diminish with the vast extension of the Universe, is an obvious frig. But, when you are totally wedded to equations, an alternative would be hard to come by. The author suggest a “lens” of greater gravitation around our piece of Space, which distorts the seeming position of these supernovae, and makes them seem much further away or earlier in time, or indeed whatever will paper over the cracks. This paper, in response, spends little time on the frig, but a great deal of time on the authors' philosophical and methodological standpoints, explaining their exit from a materialist scientific standpoint and method, and their entry into one that sees everything driven by formulae alone. And of course such a switch puts them into an entirely different category. Indeed, it positions them squarely into an idealist standpoint, in which as long as you can find the mathematical scaffold, you have explained everything. I’m afraid not! |
SYNOPSIS: 1. The New Scientist article (to which these papers are a response), attempts to justify the delivered position by claiming that it is a continuation of past contributions in this area by giants such as Copernicus. It isn’t! 2. Yet it also claims to be correcting current ideas in a radical way, but has become normal, it merely “wears the yellow jacket of rebellion”, and in fact conforms in all basic respects to the dominant maths-led consensus in this area. 3. In the crucial principle, that mathematical forms are the essence of everything, and drive Reality in behaving as it does, they are completely conformist in their position. 4. The impetus for their revisions was new evidence from Astronomy. To cope with this evidence they challenge the assumptions of Homogeneity and Isotropy of the Universe. 5. Needless to say, Universes that do not conform to these assumptions are easily modelled and the author gives examples for each assumption. But these are only shown mathematically, and not justified physically. 6. A few examples of mathematical models are described to reveal their unavoidable formal and descriptive-only nature. It is also explained how Form without causative content is not Science. Form has a role, but not in explaining things, but only accurately (ideally?) describing them. 7. Now, what is behind the author’s need to revise current ideas of the Cosmos? They have discovered supernovae where they cannot possibly be, consistent with current theories of the Universe. 8. To explain this impossibility, a bubble of “different space” surrounding our part of the Universe is said to distort our view of these supernovae. |
| Left click to open in browser window, right click to download. |
| Previous paper in series |