Scientific discussion can include speculation. Religious ideas can be part of the discussion as speculation.

I believe some ideas, thought of as religious or supernatural, can have validity as speculation. In science, there are many lines of thought that are speculation; for instance String Theory in cosmology. Scientists often speculate about big ideas beyond what's considered more proven fact.

String Theory, Quantum Gravity and other ideas, on the frontiers of physics and cosmology, are fodder for educated discussion. There may be a time in the future when more clear evidence becomes available bringing some these ideas into the realm of more fact, or on the other hand, these ideas might be discarded. In the past ideas that societies had about the earth being flat have been discarded, for the most part.

Speculation about big questions such as what brought the universe into existence, the meaning of life, whether there is any intent or design to the universe beyond us and even speculation about an afterlife, is all fodder for good discussion.

There is still a lot that we don't know. I think religion makes a mistake when speculations about these things are thought of as being proven fact. Speculation does have a place in real science, but speculation shouldn't be confused with more proven fact.

Thousands of years ago, many societies thought it was a fact that the earth was flat. This was based on the evidence one sees just standing on the level ground. We could have stuck to those so called facts, or we could speculate and explore the possibilities of things beyond that worldview.

The universe may have not started from something small; like an atom. Maybe it started from something bigger?

As I was riding around town, I came up with an idea about the big bang. Yes, the big bang that is said to have created the universe; no less.

Astronomers might dispute my intuitive hunch and they are free to respond, if any of them are reading this.

Most astronomers seem to think the universe started as an infinitely (or near infinitely) dense. tiny speck. All the universe crammed into a little speck that has since been expanding to the present universe.

I thought, maybe it wasn't just a speck. How about something larger that's still at the very start of space and time? Something larger that still popped into existence. Space still expanded and time started with the universe as lots of astronomers think, but the start was bigger than a speck.

It still came from "who knows," but at the start, it was just something larger than a tiny speck. This would eliminate the need to invoke infinity, or near infinite density; a troublesome concept.

Astronomers have, basically, had to patch up the concept of the universe starting as a speck. That patch is called "inflation theory." One of our most important forms of evidence, about the big bang, is the cosmic background radiation. Microwave radiation that permeates the universe. It's said to originate from the primordial fireball (for lack of a better term). Detecting that background radiation is like measuring the heat from that fireball when it was around 300,000 years after the very start. By then, the universe is said to be many lightyears across.

Astronomers scratch their heads wondering how that fireball, which by then was many lightyears across, could remain so consistent in character. It's nature, temperature and so forth is pretty consistent in every direction. This is measured by looking at the microwave background radiation across the entire sky.

I think our best satellite, that takes the temperature of this radiation, is the European Space Agency's Plank Satellite. It measures only very slight differences, across the sky, in the temperature of this radiation.

Such consistency, supposedly, cannot happen across many light years so that is one reason why they say that the very start had to be a smaller speck.

To solve this problem, they came up with "inflation theory." The universe started as a speck and then bounded out faster than the speed of light during an early period of inflation that may have only lasted mere seconds.

Yes, they say the universe, itself (space and time) can travel faster than light, but things inside the universe cannot travel faster than light. The universe, itself, can break it's own rules.

Well, I just got to thinking, maybe the universe started as a larger space. A giant neutron star, for instance. It didn't need to have inflation. It just popped into existence as a larger object that was still consistent in temperature. Consistant from some unknown reason still not explained. Rather than Inflation Theory, some other mechanism could have led to consistency of temperature across a larger object that was the start of the universe.

Who knows, I am sure astronomers would poke plenty of holes in my speculation, if any of them were reading this.

Now I am remembering that I may have seen this idea somewhere in the science media so it's not necessarily my idea.

Here is a similar idea I remember hearing for sure.

Maybe the center of a blackhole is not a singularity of infinite density. Some scientists have said that center was infinite density (a singularity) just because we know of no force strong enough to push back and counteract gravity in that situation. The math just goes toward infinity then.

On the other hand, I've heard some scientists say that maybe there is something that does provide the "pushback" preventing the blackhole from going all the way to a singularity.

A reason why they say this might be true is that something "pushed" the universe, itself, out to the original big bang to begin with. It pushed the universe out in spite of great density at that time. Maybe that same thing is providing the "push" to keep a blackhole in equilibrium. Maybe at the center of a blackhole, there is a sphere of some kind; like a slightly smaller version of a neutron star.

This, I didn't make up. I read, or heard, it somewhere.

My thought experiment. If the earth's surface is both in Australia and North America at the same time, is that a form of super position?

Here is an interesting article about quantum theory and the "Schrodinger's Cat both alive and dead at the same time" paradox. It was a bit over my head.

I know that a physicist named Richard Feynman said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." Tho I am not a physicist, I can engage in thought experiments also.

If an electron can both be in one place like a particle and all around the atom like a cloud, isn't that like the surface of the earth being both in Australia and North America simultaneously?

The way each of us observes the earth determines whether the surface is in Australia or North America. Where we are at that moment makes a big difference. We observe it differently depending on where we are.

Our observations create the reality, to some extent depending on where our limited line of vision; so to speak intersects with the bigger reality. Like a line being tangent to a circle. That's about as much as I remember from geometry class.

I'm not ruling out that conscious awareness might have some kind of seemingly magical effect on this, but that's yet another matter. Another tangent in thought. Scientists have been debating that one for decades.

Strength of the Higgs Field just right for us to exist. Mystery as to how that happened.

Some of my thoughts as inspired by this TED Talk, Have We Reached The End Of Physics?

Now that we have basically confirmed the existence of the Higgs Field, we find that it's intensity is tuned just right for the existence of our kind of universe. It's a mystery as to how that kind of unlikely "field strength" can exist; as if it was made just for our kind of universe.

At the Large Hadron Collider, scientists have been looking for some new physics, or theories like Super Symmetry to help explain how the Higgs Field has been tuned so ideally for this type of universe. Seems more logical that the Higgs field would either not exist at all, or it would be way too strong. In either case, atoms, stars and planets could not form. Instead, the Higgs field is tuned precisely the way we need it.

At Hadron, we've only been looking with full power since Spring 2015, but so far we aren't seeing signs of Super Symmetry or the new physics. The jury is still out as we've just barely started looking at full power, but what happens if we can't find these results? This TED Talk suggests the possibility of a dead end to our attempts at explaining these things. A dead end in physics.

Wow.

Personally, I would be skeptical that we've reached the end of physics. I remember my dad saying (when I was a kid) that many physicists thought all the important laws of physics had been discovered by 1900. They thought physics could be a dead science. The clockwork of Isac Newton's laws had been worked out by then.

Dead end? Well, that was just before the world of physics was turned upside down by Einstein. Turned upside down by Einstein and also Quanta Mechanics. No one is now saying that 1900 was a dead end for physics.

Even if we don't find Super Symmetry, or some other new physics to explain the "just right" mysteries in our current physics, I'd guess that someone will still think up a new pathway forward.

When science gets stumped, theologians often jump in to say it's some inexplicable creator; like a god or something. Did something intend it to be that way so creatures like us could exist? As these claims abound, scientists continue to move forward with more explanations of seemingly unintentional, natural mechanisms and the mystery retreats still farther.

I would think no one knows how much of our universe is intentional, or how much is just happening with no intent. We do know that we, human beings, have intent. We have self awareness and something we call consciousness. We are a part of this universe, at least, tho maybe just a tiny part. Our consciousness and intents exists in what we call our minds, but our brains are also being explained in more scientific, or somewhat mechanical ways. Neurons firing and so forth.

Some of this may depend on perspective. If one were at the level of a neuron, inside the brain, one might not see any mind or the concept of intent. On the other hand, one does see intelligence (usually at least) when meeting the whole person for lunch and enjoying their company. Maybe the universe is similar? Mechanical, at many levels, but intentional, depending on one's perspective.

Theological type speculation wasn't mentioned in this TED Talk. This last note is just my own late night musings as I know people will be thinking about this as they contemplate the things that make scientists scratch their heads in bewilderment.

The quantum unknown creates license for imagination wonder, but be careful

I saw quite interesting article on "Quantum Physics And The Need For A New Paradigm" on NPR. Here's some of my own thinking, not directly from article, but inspired by these things.

The space/time universe that we experience may just be the tip of the iceberg as discussed in the article. Who knows what this can mean. It provides room for one's imagination to roam. I feel there are lots of possibilities, including what some folks would classify as metaphysical. At the same time, one needs to be very careful before drawing conclusions beyond the actual science.

I like to be open minded about the many possibilities, but I am skeptical of pretty much any metaphysical claims that people make. There's still lots of unknown and lots to learn, but the science doesn't say much, or support, the various claims that people can make; including the claims of great world religions.

Far out concepts about things like the quantum realm can provide license for us to think outside our limited, materialistic space/time box. At the same time, our ideas can be a minefield of quackery and the science doesn't really back most of what we can conjure up. I like being open minded, but non dogmatic about the possibilities we all think up.

Bicycling in the Higgs field

When bicycling up hill, one experiences the field of gravity. Pedal harder or else the bike tries to roll back down hill toward the center of the earth.

What about the Higgs field, does that effect bicycling as well? They say this field is responsible for inertia. Inertia means it takes effort to get something rolling from a resting position. It takes a push to get rolling and then one must put on the brakes to stop. This is the property of inertia.

I assume this property of inertia is related to the Higgs field the way weight is related to the field of gravity. Seems to be the case, from everything I can gather reading about Higgs particle and field.

They say they are pretty sure they've found the Higgs Boson at the LHC. It's a particle that implies there is a Higgs field permeating the entire universe. Higgs bosons are rare, indeed, at least in our earthly experience. To find it, one must rattle part of the Higgs field with intense energy, such as during proton proton collisions at Hadron, for the particle to appear.

While the particle is hard to find, the field influences our everyday experience. Like gravity that is felt when one travels up or down, the Higgs field creates the effect of inertia.

Gravity is less evident on a flat road, but the effect of inertia is still prevalent. One still has to pedal the bike to get it rolling. If there were bicycle tours in outer space, inertia and the Higgs field would be easier to deal with than gravity. Just give the bike a push and it can coast indefinitely, unless something makes it stop. A spacecraft can coast after one engine burn gets it going. With no air resistance in space, coasting can go on indefinitely.

On earth, this kind of coasting is not allowed. Wind resistance takes away energy. One especially notices wind resistance on a bicycle. It's the difference between a headwind and a tailwind. Another factor effecting travel, here on Earth, is friction from wheels rolling on pavement and other moving parts. The occasional hill brings gravity which works against you going up, but gives you a boost coming down.

I've noticed that cars often have trouble starting on a steep hill. There are many hills in downtown Seattle with stoplights at the top. To get started again, one must overcome both the force of gravity and the effect of inertia to start rolling again from a dead stop. Is this having to deal with both the Higgs and the gravitational fields simultaneously?

What about when something is in orbit, like for instance the moon orbiting the earth. Inertia says that an object will continue traveling in a straight line until something stops it. In the case of being in orbit, gravity keeps the object from traveling in a straight line. Without gravity, the moon would fly off in a straight line away from earth. The gravity keeps it going around earth, like it's tied to a string. Being in orbit means the moon's inertia and the force of gravity are in equilibrium. Does that mean that the effect of the Higgs field and the field of gravity are in equilibrium in regards to the moon so it remains in orbit?

Assuming that there is a connection between Newton's laws of motion and all this talk about the Higgs particle and field. I wish I could sit down and have coffee with a physicist someday, but I don't like coffee. How about they have coffee while I drink my chocolate milk?

Photo from North Idaho to Spokane Centennial Trail near Post Falls Idaho.

Is God Hiding in the Dark Matter or the Dimensions of String Theory?

Our perception of the universe keeps getting larger and larger. In ancient times, it seemed like Earth was "center of it all" and not even all of Earth was known about. The Romans had no idea that the Americas existed.

There were also many things, like thunder, that were unexplained. They were attributed to the gods.

As our knowledge grew, we started explaining things in more mundane terms. We could make statements like, "thunder is not angry gods, but more explainable events in the atmosphere."

Science has a tendency to demystify things. It tends to push the idea that "something is caused by a god" farther from the picture as understanding advances.

Does that mean science can explain God totally out of the picture?

Not really, at least in my opinion.

Here's a reason why.

While scientific understanding tends to explain God out of our little world, it also tends to expand our world. As the known world grows, the unknown world grows also.

The unknown world may even be growing faster than the known world.

The universe that we try and comprehend is much larger today than the Romans would have imagined. Not only is Earth larger than the Romans thought, it's also just a tiny speck in something even bigger. Billions and billions of stars, planets and galaxies, as Carl Sagan would have said.

There's still plenty of room for mystery. Plenty of room for God, or even gods, to hide in.

Just in case you thought the billions of stars and galaxies aren't enough mystery, I read that possibly 95 percent of the stuff in our universe is totally invisible to us. It's the so called "dark matter" and "dark energy."

What is dark matter and / or dark energy?

No one knows.

We don't see the light from it, but many astronomers think it's got to be there because they see the effects of its gravity on the stuff that we do see.

Dark energy seems to be repelling the galaxies apart at an ever increasing rate while dark matter is arranging and tugging the galaxies around in various ways.

It's like invisible hands pushing and pulling things around, but we don't see what's doing this.

For now, we can leave dark matter and dark energy in the pile of unknown. That's the pile where we toss God also.

Even without that 95 percent of the universe people call the dark stuff, there's still a lot of the visible universe that's mysterious. Billions and billions of galaxies and lots of unexplained stuff. Even unexplained stuff right here on earth. Unexplained stuff in our ecosystems, brains, what ever.

As soon as we pull some new understanding out of the pile, we find that pile of "unknown" just gets even larger. We never seem to explain God into a corner or out of existence. The universe is far too large for that.

If our world was as small as the Romans must have perceived it to be, we would be well on our way to explaining away God. We would have explained thunder, much of weather, the flowing of streams, the chemical reactions that cause fire, evolutionary theory leading to the variety of species and so forth. Basically, we would eventually run out of mystery.

Still thinking inside the box of the Romans, God's corner is getting quite small.

As it is, we are no where near running out of mystery as our perception of the size of the universe just keeps growing along with our understanding of certain things around us.

Falling off the edge yet? Image from one of my bicycle trips down the Oregon coast.

There is a phrase that goes something like:

"The more we know, the more we know that we don't know."

There is still plenty of "place," on this huge stage we call reality, for God. More place all the time as the pile of unknown seems to grow faster than the pile of known.

It's like we're loosing ground.

It's also kind of like we are getting more humble all the time.

Yes, more humble.

In many ways, we seem to be less arrogant than the ancients who thought that man (for the most part not even women included) was the center of the universe.

Here's an analogy that I thought about this while I was mopping the floor. My custodial job gives me time for contemplation.

Ancient man sat in a room of darkness. He kept hearing a rustling sound that he thought was a mouse in the room.

"Mouse" means "God" for the terms of this analogy.

He kept hearing the rustling, but couldn't see anything due to the darkness. He thought, "it's got to be a mouse till he turned on a light."

No mouse visible.

"So, the mouse must be around the corner, behind the dresser, under the bed?"

He turns on more lights. He lights up a bigger area.

He sees under the bed. No mouse. Behind the dresser, no mouse.

Soon the entire room is lit up. No mouse can be seen and he realizes that the rustling is coming from a window shade.

Yes, there's a window shade. It's making a rattling sound in the wind.

Seeing the window for the first time is when ancient man first gains the concept that there is such a thing as an "outdoors."

In the dark room, he thought the little room was all of reality. Now he sees more. "There's such a thing as an outdoors!"

Now there's more room for mystery to lurk.

He can now ask questions like, "where does the wind come from?"

Yes, science tends to demystify a lot of things, but at the same time, it keeps pushing the frontiers of knowledge out into much larger worlds. Bigger worlds where mystery still abounds.

As the world of unknown keeps growing, I also read about many scientists describe the world that we do know in poetic and even artistic terms. Sort of like, "even the world that we do know is not really that totally mechanical either." It can be described more like a work of art than just the grinding of some impersonal machine, at least according to many scientists who I read about.

That's another whole tangent of thinking and it's quite fascinating.

It seems to me like we may have all but "proven out of existence" the god of the small world that fundamentalist religion was born out of.

That god, who is said to have "created the Earth in 6 days." Now days, he seems to be just about folk tale. That's the god who's "6 day creation special" defies geological findings.

A little while ago, I heard that, "on the 7th day, God ordered pizza."

It's believable, especially when the priest owns stock in a pizza delivery company.

The true universe is much larger and more mystical than folks living in that small world of Biblical times even imagined. Maybe they had some useful insights that we can still benefit from today, but the world is much larger and even more mysterious than that.

Now, as if that unseen 95 percent of our universe, we call dark matter and dark energy, isn't enough, there is String Theory.

Folks working on "String Theory" could be opening yet another "picture window" on the great unknown.

More dimensions.

10, or maybe even 11 dimensions!

More dimensions than just the familiar "up / down," "this side, that side" of a cube.

We can picture 3 dimensions. We can even (almost) picture the fourth dimension.

Yes, the fourth dimension.

That's the dimension which "relativity folks" describe as being "Time."

We have 3 spacial dimensions and a 4th dimension we call time.

Einstein talked about "Space Time."

Hard to imagine, but I can almost wrap my brain around it. Well not really.

String theorists even talk about something called "Brains." Yes, brains, like in our heads? Or maybe more like membranes?

No, I don't really know what the concept of "brains" means either.

So, what about the 4, or even 5 additional dimensions?

It's dimensions beyond our current conceptions.

Yes, String Theory seems to explain a lot of things in this universe that are now, you guessed it, mysteries.

String Theory is supposed to unify the world of "Quantum Physics" to the world of "Relativistic Physics."

Don't ask me why. I just know that for String Theory to work, "they" say it has to have 10 or 11 dimensions.

10 or 11 dimensions. Wow.

Then we ask, "why?"

All these dimensions have to be there because some physicists say so. A lot of physicists. Theoretical physicists with mathematical equations that look like gobble-de-gook to me.

Well, I take their word for it. That's all I can say. I got a "D" in basic algebra.

So far, String Theory, or even dark energy and dark matter have not been totally proven. It's just that a lot of scientists think we are really on to something. On to something rather profound in explaining more of this universe.

We just keep asking more and more questions. Our world keeps getting larger and larger and there always seems to be plenty of room for something folks can call a god.

I guess one can say, "it can truly be seen as an artistic, fantastic and mysterious world out there."

A thought I had about why retro-causality can't happen

Clock and intercom unit at my old high school in Pullman, WA.

In my opinion

What is retrocausality?

It is something being able to change the past. For instance, going back in time and shooting Aldof Hitler before he takes over Germany.

At least that's my understanding of what the term retrocausality means.

Why can't this happen?

Here are some results from the time I spend in contemplation. Yes, I get to do a lot of contemplation time working as a custodian.

Some physicists talk about the theoretical ability of going back in time. Photons being able to go back, or what ever. I guess this makes some sense in theory. In popular media, it brings up questions related to whether the past can be changed, or not.

Well, I would say that the past could not be changed, even though something might be able to travel to a past time.

The past can not be changed.

Why not?

Einstein talked about space and time being the same thing. (At least my understanding of Einstein indicates this, help me if I am off base).

He talked about "space/time."

If this is the case, then I would say that traveling through time would be similar to traveling through space. One can go forwards, backwards or even sideways through space.

As for time, our common experience always goes forward, but theoretically one should be able to go backwards as well.

When traveling backwards in space, we don't automatically expect that we will revisit the exact experiences that we encountered on our last visit to that spot space.

For instance, I recently traveled back to the space of my old high school, but I didn't expect to find my old high school experiences. I did not expect to find those same experiences just because I was revisiting that space.

The experience I did encounter was different. It was my 30th high school reunion.

My reunion wasn't being in high school again, even though I went back to the space of my old high school. No I couldn't retake a test I took back then and get a better grade.

Well, can't the same thing be said about traveling back to a place in time?

One can go back to 1973, for instance, but all the things that were located in 1973 are now "moved on." They are moved on to the present.

Going back to 1973 might not be that much different than going back to the space of my old high school. The space is still there, but the experience is different. The high school students have all moved on, gotten jobs and so forth.

When I went back, the students had all changed and the space was filled with the 30th reunion experience.

Now going back in time might bring the same idea. The year is still there, but the experience is different. Our universe is no longer residing in 1973. Going back there might mean leaving this universe. Yes there is still a 1973, but this universe has moved on. Maybe there is another universe experiencing 1973.

The space where my old grade school once stood is still there. The space is still there, but no school resides at that spot anymore.

That spot is now occupied with apartment buildings.

So, if we can go back in space and not encounter the world as it was when we visited that space last, why wouldn't that happen in time as well?

I would say that one could not go back to Germany in 1935 and shoot Hitler. Maybe one can go back to Germany and one could go back to 1935, but Hitler would no longer be there.

Maybe I am missing something? Help me out. What is wrong with this idea?

Now I know that traveling to my old high school space is not really visiting the space that my high school was in back in 1973. The galaxy is moving through the universe, so it's always in a different space. It is the same space in relation to the surface of the Earth. That is the point of reference I am using for this contemplation.

Anyway, am I missing something? Or, does this make sense? Your comments welcome.

The reason why I wrote this is because of some interesting articles that someone recently sent me about a professor Cramer, at University Of Washington. He is doing research on these issues. Check out this interesting blog article on that research.