RE: BHA: Re: Critical Realism for Natural Sciences

[dbbwanika@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Marko!

Thank for yours!

I do largely agree that Hawking Black holes might not be a theory in it's entirety. Shouldn't we ask then, if Hawking black holes, matter and anti-matter are the very essence of nature? I'll suppose so, if his explanation of the origins of the universe is based on super nova's characteristic changes in gravitation and body mass. You believed I suppose, there was no evidence to this? But there is, the only hurdle is explaining what it is that matter and anti-matter is, after atomist Democritus fall.

The string theory is going full circle to Aristotle's original observations. Now, just imagine the catalytic nature of light in plant food making processes. Wouldn't you like to ask  what is light? A wave or a particle ? At least if it is a particle, Hawking has a theory vis - a -vis the virtual particles and anti-particles is spot on from a chemist point of view.

The problem Hawking and other faces is gravitation and mass, re-light particle definition and its physical properties. At least I only see color spectrum in exploding stars.  On the one hand, it will be interesting to know from Hawking himself if he believes particles in the absence of anti-particles disintegrate i.e. to generate gravitation entropy or that this happens only where there anti-particles.

But then, I imagined I sitting in  a speeding car at 70 km/hr with my light weight body. Indeed at that speed, I will become a heavy weight. But why do light particles do not hit the earth for example, in a thunderous bust but rather end up making the earth and universe beautiful as it is?

Marko as of the above this is what you wrote;

>But notice how this has   flied right in the face of the recent discovery that the >Universe is speeding up in its expansion, which could   very well be the result of the >vacuum or zero point energy what is called dark energy, meaning that   the >cosmological constant is non zero (which has string theorists increasingly in a spin) >meaning that the   universe will not contract, it will expand forever (this discussion >is to ignore quintessence which may imply   that the universes speed up is >temporary).

In this regard, one might wonder where the particle from the sun ends on hitting plant leaf for example or the earth surface? Reflected or travels on? This is rather a curious and dubious question too, for it will presuppose the infinite chemical process i.e. infinite nature of expansion of the universe or evolution for that matter!

Do you still believe the universe as per Hawking argument is finite?

Last night to make sure that I had understood you, I looked at the clear sky and I did not see a lot of stars but rather a large dark patches in space with twinkling stars in between large and at time very large spaces!


bwanika.


Marko Beljac <beljac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Bwanika,
>
>I am somewhat puzzled by the argument presented here. As far as I am aware Hawking does indeed have a theory in regards to the origin and evolution of the Universe. In a joint paper with James Hartle in the 1980's entitled "wave function of the universe" Hawking and Hartle developed what is called the no boundary condition theory. Now this is an application of his Euclidean quantum gravity to the question of the origin of the Universe. Notice that this does not have anything to do with black holes.  Also it must be stressed that the Hartle-Hawking theory is quite speculative being an example of the genre of quantum cosmology. On the other hand Hawking's work on gravitational entropy, i.e. exploding black holes, must be a part of any quantum theory of gravity. For instance Juan Maladcena, a string theorist, has derived Hawking's gravitational entropy using string theory. So by no means is Hawking's theory on the origin of the universe an established theory. Indeed for years Hawking was arguing that the Universe is finite, that is that it will expand and eventually contract. But notice how this has flied right in the face of the recent discovery that the Universe is speeding up in its expansion, which could very well be the result of the vacuum or zero point energy what is called dark energy, meaning that the cosmological constant is non zero (which has string theorists increasingly in a spin) meaning that the universe will not contract, it will expand forever (this discussion is to ignore quintessence which may imply that the universes speed up is temporary). There is an interesting exchange between Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose in The Nature of Space and Time where Hawking emphatically states (before the recent discovery) he wants the universe to be finite because of the no boundary proposal whereas Penrose argues, given his approach to quantum gravity i.e. twistor theory, he wants the universe to be infinite and to keep on expanding forever! So Hawking could very well be wrong!
>
>Evolution on the other hand is a tried and tested theory. It is objectively correct., although I am aware that in saying this I am inviting trouble! At any rate there is no connection between cosmology and evolutionary theory. If Hawking is wrong the evolutionary biologist would be quite right in exclaiming, so what!
>
> The second part of your thesis is very interesting with serious implications. I would be very interested in reading a further elaboration of it. Also in regards to black holes and evolution theory, does this steam from a reading of Lee Smolin?
>
>Marko.

--






















____________



Bwanika

url: http://www.uganda.co.ug
e-mail: dbbwanika@xxxxxxxxxxxx












__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---