Sports — Saturday, May 19, 2012 15:15
The Sixth Man: Allen is Sixers’ unlikely X-Factor
Sports — Saturday, May 19, 2012 15:15
The Sixth Man: Allen is Sixers’ unlikely X-Factor
Sports — Saturday, May 19, 2012 15:15
The Sixth Man: Allen is Sixers’ unlikely X-Factor
Sports — Saturday, May 19, 2012 15:15
Russia to battle Slovakia for gold medal at Worlds
Sports — Saturday, May 19, 2012 15:15
Russia to battle Slovakia for gold medal at Worlds
Sports — Saturday, May 19, 2012 15:15
Russia to battle Slovakia for gold medal at Worlds
Sports — Saturday, May 19, 2012 15:15
Cubs acquire Koyie Hill from Reds
Sports — Saturday, May 19, 2012 15:15
Cubs acquire Koyie Hill from Reds
Sports — Saturday, May 19, 2012 15:15
Cubs acquire Koyie Hill from Reds
Sports — Saturday, May 19, 2012 15:15
Braves’ Jones out with left calf contusion
Recent News
-
Braves' Jones out with left calf co...
Saturday, May 19, 2012 15:15 -
Braves' Jones out with left calf co...
Saturday, May 19, 2012 15:15 -
Flyers' Giroux has surgery on both ...
Saturday, May 19, 2012 15:14 -
Flyers' Giroux has surgery on both ...
Saturday, May 19, 2012 15:14 -
Giants sign Brad Penny
Saturday, May 19, 2012 15:02 -
Germany isolated over euro crisis p...
Saturday, May 19, 2012 14:56
From the Community
- I see this country going no where FAST!!...
Said L. Fagin on 2012-01-26 10:50:00 - Admiring the time and energy you put int...
Said good side on 2012-01-25 02:37:05 - hope so dude....
Said darrencuz on 2012-01-19 00:18:23 - Could have been worse, at least credit c...
Said Ken on 2012-01-16 13:35:25 - I am becoming quite worried about the in...
Said Detroit on 2012-01-15 11:38:17 - Hands down, Apple's app store wins by a ...
Said 大陸抓姦 on 2012-01-12 08:57:21
Popular Stories
- USD Advances Ahead of BoE, ECB- Index Poised for Further Gains
With 1 Comment since January 11th, 2012 - Chicago shivers as first major snowstorm of 2012 hits Midwest – Fox News
With 1 Comment since January 13th, 2012 - Zappos hacked: 24 million accounts compromised
With 1 Comment since January 16th, 2012 - Asus Transformer Prime experiences Ice Cream Sandwich failure for some
With 1 Comment since January 17th, 2012 - Will T-Mobile Finally Get the iPhone?
With 1 Comment since January 18th, 2012 - Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Shakes Her Finger in Obama’s Face
With 1 Comment since January 26th, 2012
Search
Browse by Tags
Politics, World - May 19, 2012 14:56 - 0 Comments
Germany isolated over euro crisis plan at G8 meeting in Camp David
Barack Obama and David Cameron want German chancellor Angela Merkel to set out a clear path forward for Europe
Barack Obama and David Cameron have clashed with the German chancellor Angela Merkel at the G8 summit in Camp David, demanding she set out a clear path for Europe to emerge from its current crisis.
The German leader resisted pressure for fresh measures that would include looser monetary policy for the European Central Bank, enabling quantitative easing similar to that deployed by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England.
Obama and Cameron discussed their joint position at a G8 summit in Camp David during a 7am meeting held on a treadmill, possibly the first UK-US bilateral to be conducted in a gym.
With pressure growing for world leaders to come up with a decisive plan for solving the crisis, it emerged the Germans were resisting the inclusion of details in the final communiqué about the best course of action for the eurozone.
The so-called sherpas, appointed by national leaders to draft summit communiqués, were at work until 4am on Saturday trying to forge a common position that said something specific about the euro crisis. It was being suggested that the Germans, partly due to their isolation at the summit, were pressing for specifics to be deferred to an informal EU council later this week, arguing it was not the business of the G8, including Canada, Russia, Japan and the US, to tell the EU states how to handle their economy. Cameron's aides took the view that it would look distinctly odd if the communiqué did not highlight solutions.
Following a heated two-hour discussion, the final communiqué does refer to the crisis, saying "a strong and cohesive eurozone is important for global stability", and adds "Greece should remain in the eurozone". British sources were saying it was absurd that Merkel had tried to keep any reference of the euro crisis out of the communiqué and that the two-hour discussion had underlined to her the need for urgency.
The discussion on the global economic crisis at Camp David was opened at the request of Obama by the Italian prime minister Mario Monti, seen as the power broker in Europe between austerity and growth factions.
Britain, although outside the single currency and committed to a hardline deficit reduction programme at home, would like to see the ECB be more interventionist and stimulate demand through capital spending.
Referring on CNN to the austerity and growth divide, Monti said: "I think these two positions need to be bridged. If it is demand to remove bottlenecks in the supply of goods and services – so, broadly, investment demand – then I think we regard it more positively than the most conservative European authorities do.
"On the other hand, if it is an across-the-board crusade for more demand, then I believe that the German reluctance to that is not entirely unfounded."
He also pointed out that for the US, as a reserve currency, it was easier to be relaxed about big expansions of demand. Cameron, speaking after his 35-minute workout with Obama, said: "What is required is a sense of urgency, but then clear action for strong banks and strong contingency plans for whatever might happen. The strengthening of the banks, governments and firewalls, all of those things need to take place very fast."
He said Merkel was right to say every country needed strong deficit plans. "Growth and austerity are not alternatives," he said, adding that the eurozone needed to follow the UK monetary policy, a reference to quantitative easing.
Suggestions that the G8 might advocate using strategic oil reserves to drag down the oil price appear premature, partly due to the recent fall in oil prices, and concerns that Obama would be seen to be putting US security at risk. The G8 will instead saying they will keep the idea under review.
G8EuroEuropean UnionEconomicsDavid CameronBarack ObamaAngela MerkelGermanyEurozone crisisUnited StatesPatrick Wintourguardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More FeedsScience - May 19, 2012 14:09 - 0 Comments
It’s supposed to hurt to think about it! [Starts With A Bang]
"But some of the greatest achievements in philosophy could only be compared with taking up some books which seemed to belong together, and putting them on different shelves; nothing more being final about their positions than that they no longer lie side by side. The onlooker who doesn't know the difficulty of the task might well think in such a case that nothing at all had been achieved." -Wittgenstein One of the most fundamental questions about the Universe that anyone can ask is, "Why is there anything here at all?"
(Image credit: Patrick at vignetted.com.)
Out beyond Earth, of course, there are trillions of other worlds within our own galaxy, and at least hundreds of billions of galaxies within just the part of our Universe that's observable to us.
(Image credit: NASA, ESA, S. Beckwith (STScI) and the HUDF Team.)
Explaining where all the matter in the Universe comes from is one thing. What you traditionally think of as something -- that is, the plants, animals, elements, planets, stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters -- that's one question.
How and when all of that got here? That's something we think we can answer.
(Image credit: me, as a New Year's present to you.)
But there's an even more fundamental question than that. In order to have our Universe, you need to start with what, as a physicist, I call nothing.
You need to start with empty spacetime.
And you can start with the emptiest spacetime imaginable: something flat, devoid of matter, devoid of radiation, of electric fields, of magnetic fields, of charges, etc. All you would have, in that case, is the intrinsic zero-point energy, or the ground state, of empty space.
From a physical point of view, that's what nothing is. Only, perhaps perplexingly, that zero-point energy? It isn't zero.
(Image credit: Brian Greene's Elegant Universe.)
If it were, we wouldn't have a Universe filled with dark energy, and yet we do. Instead, spacetime has a fundamental, intrinsic, non-zero amount of energy inherent to it; that's what's causing the Universe's expansion to accelerate! What's even more bizarre than that is the fact that all the matter and energy in the Universe today came from a drop, long ago, from an even higher zero-point-energy state. That process -- reheating -- is what comes at the end of an indeterminately long phase of exponential expansion of the Universe known as cosmic inflation.
(Image credit: Ned Wright.)
The regions of space where this drop in zero-point energy occurred gave rise to regions of the Universe like ours, where matter and energy exist in abundance, and where the expansion of spacetime is relatively slow. But the regions where it hasn't yet occurred continue to have an extremely rapid rate of expansion. This is why physicists state that inflation is eternal, and this is also the physical motivation for the existence of multiverses.
In the diagram below, regions marked with red X's are regions where the drop in zero-point energy occurs, and a region of the Universe like ours comes into existence.
(Image credit: me, created especially for you last year.)
That's the physical story of where all this comes from. Of where our planets, stars, and galaxies comes from, of where all the matter and energy in the Universe comes from, of where the entire 93-billion-light-year wide section of our observable Universe comes from.
From a scientific perspective, we think we understand not only where all of this comes from, but also the fundamental laws that govern it. So when a physicist writes a book called: A Universe from Nothing, I know that some version of this story -- the scientific story of how we get our entire Universe from nothing -- is the one you're going to get told.
It's a remarkable story, it's perhaps my favorite story to tell, and it's certainly been the greatest story I've ever learned. But in at least one way, it's a dissatisfying story. Because the scientific definition of "nothing" that we use -- empty, curvature-free spacetime at the zero-point energy of all its quantum fields -- doesn't resemble our ideal expectations of what "nothing" ought to be.
(Image credit: retrieved from Universe-Review.ca.)
No one sufficiently versed in the science of physical cosmology (and being sufficiently honest with themselves about it) would argue against this: that the entire Universe that we know and exist in comes from a state like this, that existed some 13.7 billion years ago. But you may rightfully ask, "Is that truly nothing?"
This empty spacetime definition of what is physically nothing stands in contrast to what we can imagine as what I'll call pure (or philosophical) nothingness, where there's no space, no time, no laws of physics, no quantum fields to be in their zero state, etc. Just a total void.
This has been the source of much argument recently, as the answer to the physical question of where everything comes from does not necessarily answer the philosophical one. It certainly pushes it off for a while, but it still leaves unexplained the existence of spacetime and the laws of physics themselves. There has been bickering back-and-forth with a handful of physicists and philosophers arguing as to whether this physical story really explains why there is something rather than nothing?
It is a remarkable story, of course, and it explains where every galaxy, every star, and every atom in the Universe comes from, an astouding feat.
(Image credit: Don Dixon.)
But it doesn't explain, existentially, why spacetime or the laws of nature themselves exist, or exist with the properties that they have. In short, understanding how something comes from nothing does not explain how this physical state of nothing comes from an existential nothingness. This question of why, as enunciated by Heidegger, is not addressed by our physical understanding of the Universe. But is it a fair question?
Like the oft-dismissive Wittgenstein, I'm not sure. We make this inherent assumption that both spacetime and the laws inherent to our Universe come from somewhere. Yet our classical notions and intuitions about causality are violated even within our known Universe; do we have good reason to expect that this non-universal form of logic applies to the very existence of the Universe itself? Furthermore, how can something, even figuratively, come from anything else if you remove time?
One can, of course, imagine answers to these questions: an entity of some sort that exists outside of time and thus has access to all times equally, a type of hidden-variable logic that exists as part of reality but requires the knowledge of things that are presently unobservable to us, a higher-dimensional being who sees our entire Universe no differently from how an animator sees the elements of a two-dimensional cartoon, etc.
(Image credit: Chuck Jones / Warner Brothers Studios.)
None of these answers are convincing or compelling, mind you, and I am not sure that the questions do even make sense as far as reality is concerned. But just because we cannot yet know the answers, or whether the questions are sensible as far as reality is concerned, doesn't mean there isn't value to asking them and thinking about them. To me, that's what philosophy is. I would encourage everyone to remember the words of my favorite philosopher, Alan Watts: The reason for it is that most civilized people are out of touch with reality because they confuse the world as it is with the world as they think about it, talk about it, and describe it. On the one hand, there is the real world, and on the other, a whole system of symbols about that world that we have in our minds. These are very very useful symbols -- all civilization depends on them -- but like all good things, they have their disadvantages, and the principal disadvantage of symbols is that we confuse them with reality. For whatever it's worth, when I think of nothing, I think about empty spacetime and the physical Universe: that's where my interests lie, and that's where I believe the knowable lies. But that doesn't mean there isn't something wonderful to be gained from philosophizing. As Alan Watts himself said:
(Video credit: dFalcStudios.)
And as well as this explanation actually describes what I think about the Universe, it didn't come from a physicist. So let's stop accusing each other -- physicists and philosophers -- of being bad at one another's disciplines, and let's work on getting it right. Education is always worth it. Read the comments on this post...
Science - May 19, 2012 14:09 - 0 Comments
It’s supposed to hurt to think about it! [Starts With A Bang]
"But some of the greatest achievements in philosophy could only be compared with taking up some books which seemed to belong together, and putting them on different shelves; nothing more being final about their positions than that they no longer lie side by side. The onlooker who doesn't know the difficulty of the task might well think in such a case that nothing at all had been achieved." -Wittgenstein One of the most fundamental questions about the Universe that anyone can ask is, "Why is there anything here at all?"
(Image credit: Patrick at vignetted.com.)
Out beyond Earth, of course, there are trillions of other worlds within our own galaxy, and at least hundreds of billions of galaxies within just the part of our Universe that's observable to us.
(Image credit: NASA, ESA, S. Beckwith (STScI) and the HUDF Team.)
Explaining where all the matter in the Universe comes from is one thing. What you traditionally think of as something -- that is, the plants, animals, elements, planets, stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters -- that's one question.
How and when all of that got here? That's something we think we can answer.
(Image credit: me, as a New Year's present to you.)
But there's an even more fundamental question than that. In order to have our Universe, you need to start with what, as a physicist, I call nothing.
You need to start with empty spacetime.
And you can start with the emptiest spacetime imaginable: something flat, devoid of matter, devoid of radiation, of electric fields, of magnetic fields, of charges, etc. All you would have, in that case, is the intrinsic zero-point energy, or the ground state, of empty space.
From a physical point of view, that's what nothing is. Only, perhaps perplexingly, that zero-point energy? It isn't zero.
(Image credit: Brian Greene's Elegant Universe.)
If it were, we wouldn't have a Universe filled with dark energy, and yet we do. Instead, spacetime has a fundamental, intrinsic, non-zero amount of energy inherent to it; that's what's causing the Universe's expansion to accelerate! What's even more bizarre than that is the fact that all the matter and energy in the Universe today came from a drop, long ago, from an even higher zero-point-energy state. That process -- reheating -- is what comes at the end of an indeterminately long phase of exponential expansion of the Universe known as cosmic inflation.
(Image credit: Ned Wright.)
The regions of space where this drop in zero-point energy occurred gave rise to regions of the Universe like ours, where matter and energy exist in abundance, and where the expansion of spacetime is relatively slow. But the regions where it hasn't yet occurred continue to have an extremely rapid rate of expansion. This is why physicists state that inflation is eternal, and this is also the physical motivation for the existence of multiverses.
In the diagram below, regions marked with red X's are regions where the drop in zero-point energy occurs, and a region of the Universe like ours comes into existence.
(Image credit: me, created especially for you last year.)
That's the physical story of where all this comes from. Of where our planets, stars, and galaxies comes from, of where all the matter and energy in the Universe comes from, of where the entire 93-billion-light-year wide section of our observable Universe comes from.
From a scientific perspective, we think we understand not only where all of this comes from, but also the fundamental laws that govern it. So when a physicist writes a book called: A Universe from Nothing, I know that some version of this story -- the scientific story of how we get our entire Universe from nothing -- is the one you're going to get told.
It's a remarkable story, it's perhaps my favorite story to tell, and it's certainly been the greatest story I've ever learned. But in at least one way, it's a dissatisfying story. Because the scientific definition of "nothing" that we use -- empty, curvature-free spacetime at the zero-point energy of all its quantum fields -- doesn't resemble our ideal expectations of what "nothing" ought to be.
(Image credit: retrieved from Universe-Review.ca.)
No one sufficiently versed in the science of physical cosmology (and being sufficiently honest with themselves about it) would argue against this: that the entire Universe that we know and exist in comes from a state like this, that existed some 13.7 billion years ago. But you may rightfully ask, "Is that truly nothing?"
This empty spacetime definition of what is physically nothing stands in contrast to what we can imagine as what I'll call pure (or philosophical) nothingness, where there's no space, no time, no laws of physics, no quantum fields to be in their zero state, etc. Just a total void.
This has been the source of much argument recently, as the answer to the physical question of where everything comes from does not necessarily answer the philosophical one. It certainly pushes it off for a while, but it still leaves unexplained the existence of spacetime and the laws of physics themselves. There has been bickering back-and-forth with a handful of physicists and philosophers arguing as to whether this physical story really explains why there is something rather than nothing?
It is a remarkable story, of course, and it explains where every galaxy, every star, and every atom in the Universe comes from, an astouding feat.
(Image credit: Don Dixon.)
But it doesn't explain, existentially, why spacetime or the laws of nature themselves exist, or exist with the properties that they have. In short, understanding how something comes from nothing does not explain how this physical state of nothing comes from an existential nothingness. This question of why, as enunciated by Heidegger, is not addressed by our physical understanding of the Universe. But is it a fair question?
Like the oft-dismissive Wittgenstein, I'm not sure. We make this inherent assumption that both spacetime and the laws inherent to our Universe come from somewhere. Yet our classical notions and intuitions about causality are violated even within our known Universe; do we have good reason to expect that this non-universal form of logic applies to the very existence of the Universe itself? Furthermore, how can something, even figuratively, come from anything else if you remove time?
One can, of course, imagine answers to these questions: an entity of some sort that exists outside of time and thus has access to all times equally, a type of hidden-variable logic that exists as part of reality but requires the knowledge of things that are presently unobservable to us, a higher-dimensional being who sees our entire Universe no differently from how an animator sees the elements of a two-dimensional cartoon, etc.
(Image credit: Chuck Jones / Warner Brothers Studios.)
None of these answers are convincing or compelling, mind you, and I am not sure that the questions do even make sense as far as reality is concerned. But just because we cannot yet know the answers, or whether the questions are sensible as far as reality is concerned, doesn't mean there isn't value to asking them and thinking about them. To me, that's what philosophy is. I would encourage everyone to remember the words of my favorite philosopher, Alan Watts: The reason for it is that most civilized people are out of touch with reality because they confuse the world as it is with the world as they think about it, talk about it, and describe it. On the one hand, there is the real world, and on the other, a whole system of symbols about that world that we have in our minds. These are very very useful symbols -- all civilization depends on them -- but like all good things, they have their disadvantages, and the principal disadvantage of symbols is that we confuse them with reality. For whatever it's worth, when I think of nothing, I think about empty spacetime and the physical Universe: that's where my interests lie, and that's where I believe the knowable lies. But that doesn't mean there isn't something wonderful to be gained from philosophizing. As Alan Watts himself said:
(Video credit: dFalcStudios.)
And as well as this explanation actually describes what I think about the Universe, it didn't come from a physicist. So let's stop accusing each other -- physicists and philosophers -- of being bad at one another's disciplines, and let's work on getting it right. Education is always worth it. Read the comments on this post...