[cleanair (OP)]

New physics required? Universe expanding faster than predicted

29 April 2019: New evidence deepens a mystery around the Hubble constant, one of the most important numbers in cosmology.

New measurements show a big difference between early and late universe behaviour.

“This is not just two experiments disagreeing,” Riess explains.

“We are measuring something fundamentally different. One is a measurement of how fast the universe is expanding today, as we see it.

“The other is a prediction based on the physics of the early universe and on measurements of how fast it ought to be expanding. If these values don’t agree, there becomes a very strong likelihood that we’re missing something in the cosmological model that connects the two eras.”

It may provide a clue that physics has changed over time.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/new-physics-required-universe-expanding-faster-than-predicted
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2091933-why-is-the-universe-expanding-9-per-cent-faster-than-we-thought/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/hubble-constant-universe-expanding-faster-than-all-expectations/
https://phys.org/news/2019-04-hubble-universe-faster.html

At the time that Edwin Hubble suggested the Doppler interpretation for the observed redshift there was another theory emerging called "tired light". It would have made Albert Einstein's original theory plausible at that time.

It may be an extra clue that Albert Einstein did not need to give up his theory due to early observations by Edwin Hubble.

The tired light theory was recently re-developed by scientists from Xinjiang Astronomical Observatory in China.

The cosmological model based on the tired light theory gets rid of the problems that are related to Big Bang, that is, the super velocity problem, the horizon effect, and the problem of the beginning of the Cosmos. Moreover, the model explains the cosmic microwave background radiation as a natural result of the tired light effect, and therefore, Olbers’ paradox is disappeared. Based on the tired light theory and together from the cosmological principle, the Cosmos is infinite and eternal.

https://www.intechopen.com/books/redefining-standard-model-cosmology/tired-light-denies-the-big-bang

[cleanair (OP)]

So, Einstein didn't throw away his life's work!

With regard to the described official history, I found some facts that contradict the facts that you shared.

Albert Einstein appeared to have actively tried to restore his cosmological constant for a infinite Universe.

Scientific papers that he published in 1931 at the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin mysteriously disappeared. The papers were recently recovered in Jeruzalem.

In those papers he habitually misspells the name of Edwin Hubble as "Hubbel". Why?

Official history claims that Albert Einstein gave up his theory and that he was not a fan of it. That does not correspond with what appears from those documents.

Around the same time that Edwin Hubble proposed the Doppler interpretation for the observed redshift, another theory emerged called "tired light" theory which would have made the original theory of Albert Einstein plausible at that time.

Boriev, I. A. (Russian Academy of Sciences) stated the following in Journal of Physics in 2018:

Such red shift (and reduction of energy) may be simply explained by natural dissipation of energy of electromagnetic waves while they are propagating through the filled by DM space, which is real material medium. As clear, such dissipation must increase with increasing space distance, what logically explains the observed red shift increase with space distance. This materialistic explanation of observed red shift, known as concept of tired light, is natural and evidently true since it eliminates both obviously mysterious ideas about Universe inflation, induced by physically queer assumption of Big Bang, and about physically unexplained reason of dark energy.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/996/1/012017/pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JPhCS.996a2014B

According to official history, Albert Einstein was forced to give up his theory due to the observations by Edwin Hubble. The existence of an alternative plausible theory to explain redshift could refute that.

It may be interesting to investigate why Albert Einstein's scientific papers mysteriously disappeared and why they were recovered in Jeruzalem.

With regard to the topic. In the case of the panpsychism theory everything in the Universe is conscious. It could mean that it evolves with intelligence that reaches beyond anything that existed in the past, i.e. not based on per-existing variables or as a function of time.

Panpsychism

This sounds like easily-dismissible bunkum, but as traditional attempts to explain consciousness continue to fail, the “panpsychist” view is increasingly being taken seriously by credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose.

Philosophers at NYU, home to one of the leading philosophy-of-mind departments, have made panpsychism a feature of serious study. There have been several credible academic books on the subject in recent years, and popular articles taking panpsychism seriously.

https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-everything-from-spoons-to-stones-are-conscious-is-gaining-academic-credibility/

If past physics serves a purpose for a conscious Universe that could explain an observed consistency (in the fraction of time that humans have been observing) while in it's essence the observed consistency is merely constant by the purpose that it serves.

In a infinite Universe it would be logical that nature is a perceived state in time that can change over time. The theory for a conscious Universe would add to the validity of the idea that it is logical that nature can change over time.

A clue for an infinite Universe may be found in Albert Einstein's spooky action at a distance or quantum entanglement.

If quantum entanglement is valid, then a pair of entangled particles can exist billions of light-years apart from one another and actions affecting the properties of one particle will affect the properties of the other particle instantly.

Infinity may provide an explanation for 'instant' connectivity across the galaxy. Infinity has no beginning and thereby knows no distance.

[Petrochemicals]

Newton envisaged strings for gravity, which was replaced by einsteins relativity, which in turn looks like being outpaced by string theory or something else . We have come so far ! I think really the question is what constitutes a law and what is an approximation without fully understanding the mechanism or discovering it.

[cleanair (OP)]

Newton envisaged strings for gravity, which was replaced by einsteins relativity, which in turn looks like being outpaced by string theory or something else . We have come so far ! I think really the question is what constitutes a law and what is an approximation without fully understanding the mechanism or discovering it.

The modern scientific practice or status quo appears to be based on a belief in uniformitarianism, the idea that what science observes remains the same in the future.

Panpsychism theory, if valid (as an example of a mainstream development), may impose that such an idea cannot be valid.

If nature changes in time, how would science continue in the best way?

[alancalverd]

The modern scientific practice or status quo appears to be based on a belief in uniformitarianism, the idea that what science observes remains the same in the future.

Exactly the opposite of the truth.

Engineering is based on the assumption that consistent observation is a sufficient guide to the future. It usually works, but is entirely pragmatic.

Science is the business of retesting hypotheses or refining data to explore anomalies. The sun usually rises in the east, but when it doesn't, we'll try to find out why.

Simply repeating an action in the hope of getting a different outcome was Einstein's definition of insanity, and is a characteristic of most religions. 

If nature changes in time, how would science continue in the best way?

By continuing to use the scientific process. It is inherently a successive approximation algorithm, which is what we use to pursue any target whose trajectory is unpredictable.   

[Hayseed]

I have heard it said that trying something over and over again after repeated failures,  is the only difference between a man and an ape.

Man's hubris is man's intellect.

[cleanair (OP)]

The modern scientific practice or status quo appears to be based on a belief in uniformitarianism, the idea that what science observes remains the same in the future.

Exactly the opposite of the truth.

How would one explain the synthetic biology revolution? Would it not require a scientific status quo that accepts that science can be a valid guiding principle for evolution (for top down control of nature)?

A quote from The Economist:

Reprogramming nature is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance. But if you could synthesize nature, life could be transformed into something more amenable to an engineering approach, with well defined standard parts.

The report reveals an outlook on "well defined standard parts" to synthesize nature. How would such an idea be possible? It is evidence that the general status quo of science that logically would be required to make such practices acceptable is based on a belief in uniformitarianism.

Engineering is based on the assumption that consistent observation is a sufficient guide to the future. It usually works, but is entirely pragmatic.

Humans have been observing for only a tiny fraction of time. Some essential processes in evolution or nature may span thousands or even millions of years.

The question is whether it would be valid to use science as a guiding principle for human progress, i.e. to blindly follow the scientific method.

My concerns are:

1) science is looking back in time. The outcome of science is history.
2) if nature changes in time, that may make science an invalid guiding principle for the future.

Science is the business of retesting hypotheses or refining data to explore anomalies. The sun usually rises in the east, but when it doesn't, we'll try to find out why.

Simply repeating an action in the hope of getting a different outcome was Einstein's definition of insanity, and is a characteristic of most religions.

Philosophy or thinking could walk upfront, beyond what is known, using imagination. It could help make science more efficient. Instead of relying on past science with as logical effect dogma's (observations are considered hard truths that cannot be denied), it could test hundreds of dogma's in theory while it will remain open to continuous testing or challenging of past assumptions using methods that are continuously developed or enhanced.

The scientific method is an example of a product of philosophy. It was created by philosopher Francis Bacon.

Philosophy could help prevent the requirement of brute force attempts to get results.

[CPT ArkAngel]

Philosophy without science and observations is worthless. To predict the future, we can only look into the past. Sorry!

[Kryptid]

Philosophy could help prevent the requirement of brute force attempts to get results.

How?

[alancalverd]

How would one explain the synthetic biology revolution? Would it not require a scientific status quo that accepts that science can be a valid guiding principle for evolution (for top down control of nature)?

Drivel. Evolution is a natural process of mutation and selection. It has no principle or purpose. What you call "synthetic biology" is engineering towards a specific goal. Science is a process, not a principle.

1) science is looking back in time. The outcome of science is history.

No, the outcome of science is knowledge. The fact that it is based on what we have observed is what philosophers call an amazing insight, but what the man in the street calls a statement of the bleeding obvious, because you can't formulate a scientific hypothesis until you have observed something. A hypothesis based on non-observation is called a dogma.

2) if nature changes in time, that may make science an invalid guiding principle for the future.

It was never a principle. It is difficult to see how the process of observe, hypothesise, test, could be "invalidated", any more than you could invalidate the process of baking a cake - you would need a very idiosyncratic definition of validity to do so.

The scientific method is an example of a product of philosophy. It was created by philosopher Francis Bacon.

Or Galileo, or Confucius, or Alhazen, or Roger Bacon (no relation). Or whoever built Stonehenge. Nothing to do with philosophy whatever.

[cleanair (OP)]

Philosophy without science and observations is worthless. To predict the future, we can only look into the past. Sorry!

Science is essentially invented by philosophy.

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 - We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.

The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime - which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet.  Here also the instinct of the populace cries, "Freedom from all masters!"  and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose "hand-maid" it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the "master" - what am I saying!  to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.

According to him, when practicing science independently, scientists are essentially fulfilling the role of a philosopher. Logically, that would be based on a belief or dogma (uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science (i.e. without further thinking about whether it is actually 'good' what is being done).

Recent developments (the evidence that nature may change in time) may show that such a belief is not justified.

[cleanair (OP)]

How?

By inventing methods such as the scientific method.

[Kryptid]

By inventing methods such as the scientific method.

But if you think the scientific method isn't good enough, then what do you propose to replace it?

[cleanair (OP)]

Science is a process, not a principle.

The conviction that it can or should operate autonomously is a principle. The idea that science can and should top down control the evolution of plants and animals is a principle when used for a synthetic biology revolution.

1) science is looking back in time. The outcome of science is history.

No, the outcome of science is knowledge.

On what basis can be stated that knowledge remains valid over time? Is the meaning that is derived out of it not dependent on a historical context, despite any belief whether that meaning will persist in the future?

The evidence that the laws of physics may change over time could suggest that observations may not remain valid over time.

2) if nature changes in time, that may make science an invalid guiding principle for the future.

It was never a principle. It is difficult to see how the process of observe, hypothesise, test, could be "invalidated", any more than you could invalidate the process of baking a cake - you would need a very idiosyncratic definition of validity to do so.

Observing, testing, hypothesizing are "actions" that need to have taken place. The outcome of such is history. Knowledge thereby resides in a historical context.

The scientific method is an example of a product of philosophy. It was created by philosopher Francis Bacon.

Or Galileo, or Confucius, or Alhazen, or Roger Bacon (no relation). Or whoever built Stonehenge. Nothing to do with philosophy whatever.

...

Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe,  hypothesise, test, repeat. There's no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it's what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else.

Discovery of utility or learning is not the same as science when following your description of a process that can be compared with the rules of a game or the instructions on a shampoo bottle, as a distinguishing factor.

[alancalverd]

The characteristic of philosophers is arrogance. They pretend that every human activity is an aspect or derivative of philosophy, but never provide any evidence for that statement.

Some even go further and presume to tell scientists that we believe in certain axioms, although the essence of science is unbelief.

The intellectually toxic combination of arrogance and ignorance is known as the Kruger-Dunning syndrome. Fortunately it is not infectious, but it can have fatal consequences.

Anyway, I think this discussion is simply leading you into ever more bizarre misuses of English, so I'll walk away, but leave you with the simple statement that the laws of physics may well have changed with time (if there was a Big Bang) or perhaps not (if there wasn't). Either way, the consequence is what we see around us.

[cleanair (OP)]

By inventing methods such as the scientific method.

But if you think the scientific method isn't good enough, then what do you propose to replace it?

I merely started the topic to ask a question, I am not a scientist. I didn't want to suggest that science should change. I cannot judge such. My arguments should be considered in the context of the topic.

With regard to the synthetic biology revolution (already at 400 billion USD revenue or 2% of GDP in the US). The Economist described it as a unguided practice. It appears (for now, as the question has remained unanswered) that it is primarily driven by market (money).

How is that possible? And could science be an optimal guiding principle for evolution (top down control of nature)?

The evidence that shows that nature may change in time could provide a clue that the fundamental idea's behind the synthetic biology revolution may not be valid.

So thereby my motivation for this topic (discovery of insights for another topic), besides that the subject by itself is interesting.

[Bored chemist]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how all the "things" in the Universe have a meaningful calendar.
Does a photon somehow "know" that- because it's today's photon (rather than one from a "billion years" ago)- it should do something different?

That question gets more challenging  when you recognise relativity.  The Billion years isn't the same for you as it is for me.

[alancalverd]

OK, I'm addicted.

Observing, testing, hypothesizing are "actions" that need to have taken place. The outcome of such is history. Knowledge thereby resides in a historical context.

Tautology. Anything not based on observation is called "guesswork" or "lies".

[Bored chemist]

I  look forward to an explanation of the historical context in which rain isn't wet.

I am not a scientist.

It shows.

[alancalverd]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how all the "things" in the Universe have a meaningful calendar.

The problem we have is some evidence consistent with a Big Bang. Unfortunately the laws of physics that we have, don't work for t < 0. This suggests that the observable universe has a starting point, and as stuff changes from day to day, means of measuring elapsed time. Not sure what more you could need to make a consecutive Julian calendar.

It's also conceivable that the observable part of the universe is part of a cyclic whole, which would be the basis of a repetitive calendar.