Peter asks:
“How does (or doesn't) your understanding of an infinite universe differ from the various plasma/electrical hypotheses being put forward that are also understood to be infinite?”
It’s been said that the universe is 99% plasma, the fourth phase of matter in addition to solids, liquids, and gases. The sun and all the other stars consist of plasma, a kind of ionized gas that even contains a considerable proportion of free electrons. In Infinite Universe Theory, plasma might be considered the transition phase between gas and the much maligned ether. The Eighth Assumption of Science, INFINITY (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) implies that, in addition to being infinitely extensive, matter is infinitely subdividable; there are no partless parts. The discovery of plasmas, even in intergalactic space, has helped to undermine Einstein’s view that space is perfectly empty. According to “The Scientific Worldview,” completely empty space, like completely solid matter, is only an idea—the reality is always something in between. Like the ether concept, the plasma concept also gives credence to the Tenth Assumption of Science, INTERCONNECTION (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion).
Following the acceptance of his plasma theory, Nobelist Hannes Alfven and, later, one of his followers, Eric Lerner, proposed an alternative to the Big Bang Theory (BBT) known as plasma cosmology (see Lerner’s “The Big Bang Never Happened”). They assumed that the universe is infinite and eternal and that cosmogonies (cosmological theories that assume that the universe had a beginning) such as the BBT were an outgrowth of religious tradition rather than sound science. I agree entirely, despite the critique of conventional cosmogonists, such as Victor Stenger (“Big Bang a Bust?”), who support the BBT even though they claim to be ardent atheists (see "God: The failed hypothesis"). For my review of the critique see: http://scientificphilosophy.com/Reviews%20of%20Regressive%20Science.htm. On the other hand, I don’t agree with Lerner that the universe is becoming more ordered. As you can see in my paper given at the 2008 convention of the Natural Philosophy Alliance “Resolution of the SLT-Order Paradox” (http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/SLTOrder.pdf), in Infinite Universe Theory the increase in apparent order (through convergence) in any one place is equivalent to the decrease in apparent order (through divergence) in any other place. In addition, I don’t believe that matter and antimatter are equivalent. The whole concept of antimatter seems suspect to me. This just shows that otherwise excellent, really sharp scientists, such as Lerner, can have difficulty with theoretical details, particularly when they must play with the cards dealt them by indeterminists.
This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.
The Scientific Faith
Science, like religion, is based on "faith" (see "The Ten Assumptions of Science" and its full exposition in "The Scientific Worldview.") Science has one set of deterministic assumptions and religion has the opposing set of indeterministic assumptions. In an infinite universe, none of these fundamental assumptions can be proven beyond doubt. For instance, scientists "know" that all effects have material causes, but until we find out the causes for every effect, we cannot "prove" that assumption. This "proof" is impossible in an infinite universe, so there always will be a debate between determinists and indeterminists. Aside from their opposing assumptions, the primary distinction between science and religion is the insistence among competent scientists that ideas, theories, and assumptions be tested trough interaction with the external world. The whole structure of science is built upon these real-world tests involving observation and experiment. Because the real world accomodates this process, there is the possibility of agreement among scientists. This is not true of the various religions, whose imaginings dare not be tested lest they sink to the level of "scientism," the belief that the scientific method is the only way to truth. In other words, any interaction with the external world has a tendency to convert indeterminists into determinists. This is why the more educated, more broadly traveled, more experienced folks "tend to lose their religon" over time, while those who meditate, pray, confine themselves to convents, and avoid exposure to the scientific method, other religions, and other cultures do not. The upshot is that today's fast-paced globalization tends to make scientists of us all.
20080506
Physics Not Without Philosophy
PSI Blog 20080506 Physics Not Without Philosophy
"I am wondering if you could give me some pointers as to how to learn physics so that philosophy is not left out entirely."
I unabashedly and quickly recommended that he read "The Scientific Worldview," first. Learning physics during the current "Dark Age of Einstein" and the hey day of the enslavement of physics by mathematics is not easy. My own experience with physics was this: My first course was Physics 1a in 1962, which talked about there being four dimensions and all the strange paradoxes that Einstein devised. The text had a lot of cartoons, but I couldn’t make head or tails out of half of it. I got a C in the course. I took Physics 1b in the summer so I could concentrate on it. It was taught by an 83-yr old professor who totally ignored “modern physics” (i.e., the Einstein stuff) and taught the classical physics in the second half of the Sears and Zemansky College Physics text (3rd ed.). That made sense to me. I got an A in that course.
Philosophy was the same for me. I read “Science and the Modern World” by Whitehead and was totally confused, thinking that I must be pretty stupid. After I discovered “univironmental determinism” 20 yrs later, I went through the Whitehead book again, crossing out all the BS swiftly. There wasn’t much left of it after that. In reading much other philosophy, I found that most of it is nonsense, some of it pretty high-brow, but nonsense all the same. The universe consists of matter in motion. The idea of matterless motion that philosophers and “modern physicists” promulgate is just that, only an idea. It is popular for religious and political reasons. There could never be any experimental proof for it. I find it particularly disconcerting when those who call themselves scientists entertain such notions. Our goal is to discover the truth (via interaction with the external world), not to sell ourselves to the highest bidder for fantastic promises that can never be realized.
I have a few reading recommendations at:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Scientific-Worldview/lm/2K0COODP241GC/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_full
and a more complete list at:
http://www.librarything.com/catalog/gborchardt
Nevertheless, I know my answer is really not good enough. Who teaches physics these days without all the relativity and non-Euclidean junk?