Hidden god-think in big science?

I’ve always wondered if there wasn’t a bit of monotheism-think in scientists who study the big stuff, cosmology. For example, we always hear about them searching for the “one single particle” that underlies it all. Or the one single equation from which everything else arises. That kind of thinking seems not unlike religious talk. Is that simply because science for the most part “grew up” under the umbrella of western monotheism?
What can’t there by two sets of equations the govern everything? Or two particles, Higgs 1 and 2, and that’s the bottom line?

Physicists have a common desire to discover the theory of everything. Many are convinced that there is one very elegant equation that will encompass everything. It is more an ego thing really. They want to be the last greatest scientist who figured it all out. They want to be at least as well known as Albert Einstein. It seems to me that they have a tendancy to search for the answers they want to believe are there and ignore things that are not moving their work in the direction they want to go. I think that this approach is rather unscientific and prone to obvious biases. But, I don’t think it is a religious devotion. Religions start with all the answers. Science starts with the questions.

It seems to me that they have a tendancy to search for the answers they want to believe are there and ignore things that are not moving their work in the direction they want to go. I think that this approach is rather unscientific and prone to obvious biases.
isn't that what the community of peers is for, to keep things on the up and up… even if it takes a while sometimes?
It seems to me that they have a tendancy to search for the answers they want to believe are there and ignore things that are not moving their work in the direction they want to go. I think that this approach is rather unscientific and prone to obvious biases.
isn't that what the community of peers is for, to keep things on the up and up… even if it takes a while sometimes? But the peers of physicists are other physicists who want the same thing. They are obsessed with simplicity and happily go along with anything that leans toward simplicity. Unfortunately, the things they want to guess at are largely impossible to confirm by tangible experiments.

:slight_smile: Great statements that make the point, Handydan!

:-) Great statements that make the point, Handydan!
O come on, on the contrary - they are BS. "Physicists have a common desire to discover the theory of everything. Many are convinced that there is one very elegant equation that will encompass everything. It is more an ego thing really. They want to be the last greatest scientist who figured it all out. They want to be at least as well known as Albert Einstein. It seems to me that they have a tendancy to search for the answers they want to believe are there and ignore things that are not moving their work in the direction they want to go. I think that this approach is rather unscientific and prone to obvious biases. But, I don’t think it is a religious devotion. Religions start with all the answers. Science starts with the questions. " First of all the mark of a great scientist is humility - humility in the face of the 'universe out there'. A humility that counts their own ideas worthless in the face of demonstrable falsification. Often a unifying principle behind complex phenomena has in fact been discovered and confirmed by observed predictions, and this has been the history of science, which has been one of ever greater unification, and hence relative simplification. The birth of a great theory has often greatly simplified the complexity of the evidence thus far discovered, for example, Newton's gravitation explained countless observations of different phenomena, from the 'falling of an apple', to the orbit of the Moon, to the orbit of the Earth and other planets, to the trajectory of a projectile: an Apollo moon rocket, or a Voyager spacecraft journeying past the gas giant planets to the outer limits of the solar system. But Newton was not sacrosanct - a tiny anomaly in the orbit of Mercury demonstrated Einstein's General Relativity to be a more accurate theory at describing strong gravitational fields. Maxwell unified the electrostatic force and the magnetic force, Abdus Salam and Stephen Weinberg unified the strong with the weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force. The final particle predicted by this theory in the 'standard model' was the Higgs Boson recently discovered in the LHC. Not a matter of searching for answers they want to believe in but discovering what is actually there. Sure theorists make lots of conjectures - but each one has to conform with known evidence and then predict some more. The trick is to ask the deepest questions. "But the peers of physicists are other physicists who want the same thing. They are obsessed with simplicity" Often reviewers are chosen because they want the opposite thing; and as far as simplicity - have you read quantum chromodynamics or general relativity?
:-) Great statements that make the point, Handydan!
O come on, on the contrary - they are BS. "Physicists have a common desire to discover the theory of everything. Many are convinced that there is one very elegant equation that will encompass everything. It is more an ego thing really. They want to be the last greatest scientist who figured it all out. They want to be at least as well known as Albert Einstein. It seems to me that they have a tendancy to search for the answers they want to believe are there and ignore things that are not moving their work in the direction they want to go. I think that this approach is rather unscientific and prone to obvious biases. But, I don’t think it is a religious devotion. Religions start with all the answers. Science starts with the questions. " First of all the mark of a great scientist is humility - humility in the face of the 'universe out there'. A humility that counts their own ideas worthless in the face of demonstrable falsification. Often a unifying principle behind complex phenomena has in fact been discovered and confirmed by observed predictions, and this has been the history of science, which has been one of ever greater simplification. The birth of a great theory has often greatly simplified the complexity of the evidence thus far discovered, for example, Newton's gravitation explained countless observations of different phenomena, from the 'falling of an apple', to the orbit of the Moon, to the orbit of the Earth and other planets, to the trajectory of a projectile: an Apollo moon rocket, or a Voyager spacecraft journeying past the gas giant planets to the outer limits of the solar system. But Newton was not sacrosanct - a tiny anomaly in the orbit of Mercury demonstrated Einstein's General Relativity to be a more accurate theory at describing strong gravitational fields. Maxwell unified the electrostatic force and the magnetic force, Abdus Salam and Stephen Weinberg unified the strong with the weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force. The final particle predicted by this theory in the 'standard model' was the Higgs Boson recently discovered in the LHC. Not a matter of searching for answers they want to believe in but discovering what is actually there. Sure theorists make lots of conjectures - but each one has to conform with known evidence and then predict some more. The trick is to ask the deepest questions. "But the peers of physicists are other physicists who want the same thing. They are obsessed with simplicity" Often reviewers are chosen because they want the opposite thing; and as far as simplicity - have you read quantum chromodynamics or general relativity? Ockham, I had no problem understanding Handydan statement and his idea. And then he followed it up with the statement that “Religions start with all the answers. Science starts with the questions. Which was quite good, I thought. The topic is Hidden god-think in big science? You also had a lot of good points. But you left out God and how she relates to science. As far as reading Chromodynamics or general relativity, the answer is, no. As a kid, I want to be a thermodynamic engineer, but work and keeping food on the table for the family has always gotten in the way.
“Religions start with all the answers. Science starts with the questions. Which was quite good, I thought.
I agree about "science starts with questions", so long as you know which questions to ask - which is not necessarily a trivial task.
The topic is Hidden god-think in big science?
Yes, and my point is that the simplicity, rendered by modern physics in particular, was not a response to the monotheistic culture of the physicists concerned but a response to the success of the unifying theories in predicting how the world actually works. Maxwell's electromagnetic theory in particular has been able to deliver many technological advances - such as radio - as well as laying the grounds for the development of relativity theory, and to a lesser degree, quantum theory. If you are insisting that the understanding of these physicists was a function of their monotheistic cultural background then one might conclude their empirical success is an empirical verification of that culture! Not all scientists are good scientists of course, they are only humans working in a social context, but their work is always open to experimental verification or falsification, otherwise it falls out of the remit of science.

Ockham, you seem too been able to reach far into a subject. Which I like. So in the topic, “Hidden god-think in big science?" To me subjects can be made very simple. That is because I like to go to the beginning of a subject and understand how and why it came about. That is especially true in taxes and labor laws I had to deal with.
You mentioned “monotheistic culture" in your post. Have you ever ask the question, “Why do we have monotheistic culture? And the one most known to us is the Egyptian culture of religion and its offshoots, like Christianity. And the reason for monotheistic in the first place is “questions". “Science starts with question". Before deities, god was knowledge, or a form of science, the knowledge of mankind. The science that made earth livable for the population of mankind. It seems that some event, most likely the Mt. Toba eruption that almost wiped out mankind and sent the earth into an ice age. With only 5,000 to 500 people left on earth. The science passed down to the next generations became so valuable and understood by so few that it evolved into a power that must of started the age of deities. After all, the Egyptian and Juda religions stated the earth was created by the “WORD", or translated, “Knowledge". So, “Religions start with all the answers. Science starts with the questions." To rephrase the statement. “Religions is the knowledge of mankind finalized and Science is the knowledge of mankind in progress." And when you look at the broader picture of history, Valentinus at his university in Egypt took on the task of fixing this oddity of history. Jesus must have been trained at that university and was following Valentinus’s goal. When reading Jesus’s teachings in Gnostic form, there is no doubt, Jesus was an atheist. So what were Jesus’s goals, if not to bring the world of knowledge back into the science of questions and not answers. And out of the age of deities.

I've always wondered if there wasn't a bit of monotheism-think in scientists who study the big stuff, cosmology. For example, we always hear about them searching for the "one single particle" that underlies it all. Or the one single equation from which everything else arises. That kind of thinking seems not unlike religious talk. Is that simply because science for the most part "grew up" under the umbrella of western monotheism? What can't there by two sets of equations the govern everything? Or two particles, Higgs 1 and 2, and that's the bottom line?
"Seems," madam? Nay, it is; I know not "seems." - Hamlet Somehow, what is psychologically satisfying to humans are: 1. The theory of everything (TOE) instead of two theories of everything (TTOE). 2. The Higgs particle (aka the God particle), not two or more Higgs particles. 3. The Big Bang, not two or more Big Bangs or none. 4. The origin and the end, not two or no origin or end at all. 5. The infinite, not two or more infinities. 6. The universe and not two or more universes. 7. Time is fundamental in the universe. Generally, reduction to "the one and only one" is religious thinking. We can call it "cosmic religion" or whatsoever. Wrt to science, from this article here] Science: the religion that must not be questioned The truth T that is forever unreachable:
One thing that never gets emphasised enough in science, or in schools, or anywhere else, is that no matter how fancy-schmancy your statistical technique, the output is always a probability level (a P-value), the "significance" of which is left for you to judge – based on nothing more concrete or substantive than a feeling, based on the imponderables of personal or shared experience. Statistics, and therefore science, can only advise on probability – they cannot determine The Truth. And Truth, with a capital T, is forever just beyond one's grasp.
Is that not GOD? And religious authority:
Why is this? The answer, I think, is that those who are scientists, or who pretend to be scientists, cling to the mantle of a kind of religious authority. And as anyone who has tried to comment on religion has discovered, there is no such thing as criticism. There is only blasphemy.
Resistance is futile? Trinity of :lol: :lol: :lol:

What are you going on about kkwan??
While continuing the process of unifying the three basic forces of nature, electromagnetic, weak and strong forces, by including the gravitational force as well, in some, as yet undiscovered and therefore untested, grand unified theory (GUT or TOE) would be nice, as a completion of the process, nobody assumes such a theory must be possible.
The Higgs particle (aka the God particle), not two or more Higgs particles.’ (kkwan)
Have you not read “The Higgs boson, as proposed within the Standard Model, is the simplest manifestation of the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism. Other types of Higgs bosons are predicted by other theories that go beyond the Standard Model.” (CERN home page - emphasis mine)
The reason why scientists talk about only one Higgs particle is because they have discovered only one particle. One hope for the enhanced LHC being fired up at this moment is that it might discover over types.
The Big Bang, not two or more Big Bangs or none.’(kkwan)
Have you not heard of Eternal Inflation, or cyclical cosmology, with their infinite universes and infinite number of big bangs and with no origin and an uncountable infinity of the multiverse?
The reason there seems to be only one universe with its unique beginning and now probably no end is that we can see only one universe - science is bound by what we can observe and test but that does not stop our thought processes encompassing hypotheses of a greater reality.

Edit - post accidentally duplicated.

While continuing the process of unifying the three basic forces of nature, electromagnetic, weak and strong forces, by including the gravitational force as well in some, as yet undiscovered and therefore untested, grand unified theory (GUT or TOE) would be nice, as a completion of the process, nobody assumes such a theory must be possible.
That GUT or TOE is the "completion of the process" implies one theory, i.e. reduction to the "one and only one". That is religious thinking per se.
Have you not read "The Higgs boson, as proposed within the Standard Model, is the simplest manifestation of the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism. Other types of Higgs bosons are predicted by other theories that go beyond the Standard Model." (CERN home page - emphasis mine)
We have only the standard model as it is and the Higgs boson is the only singular particle predicted by it and found by the LHC. All other theories are hypothetical.
The reason why scientists talk about only one Higgs particle is because they have discovered only one particle. One hope for the enhanced LHC being fired up at this moment is that it might discover over types.
That is a very big if.
Have you not heard of Eternal Inflation, or cyclical cosmology, with their infinite universes and infinite number of big bangs and with no origin and an uncountable infinity of the multiverse?
I have, but the singular BB has an appeal to the psychological need for a beginning wrt human experience. The problem with the BB is the absurdity of the singularity with its infinite quantities. All the other theories involve infinity and other infinities which are highly problematic.
The reason there seems to be only one universe with its unique beginning and now probably no end is that we can see only one universe - science is bound by what we can observe and test but that does not stop our thought processes encompassing hypotheses of a greater reality.
Is it possible that the universe is infinite wrt time and space with no beginning or end? Is there an unobservable universe?
Is it possible that the universe is infinite wrt time and space with no beginning or end?
It depends on how you measure time, i.e. what clock you use. For example, we can define two physically significant 'clocks' as follows: Sample two photons, one emitted by a caesium atom the other sampled from the CMB radiation. The first, an 'atomic' second, is defined as the duration of exactly 9.19263177x10^9 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. This is the standard physical definition of a second. The second, a 'photonic' second, is defined as the duration of exactly 1.604x10^11 periods of the radiation corresponding to the peak of the CMB black body spectrum. (Note ^ means 'raised to the power of') Both systems of time measurement are physically significant and agree with each other in the present time, although they will diverge from each other at other times. As you go back in time towards the 'BB' the radiation of the CMB is blueshifted and the frequencies of the CMB photons increase, as you approach t = 0 itself the frequencies approach infinity. When compared to the atomic standard, the 'photonic' clock, extrapolated back to the earliest moments of the 'BB', diverges to (-) inifinity as 'atomic time' t approaches 0. Thus in this manner we can recover "an infinitely old universe" within an apparently finite (as measured by an 'atomic' clock) BB paradigm. It depends on what clock you think is physically significant, obviously standard models use the atomic standard, but you may argue, "Is this appropriate in the earliest moments of the 'BB' when there are no atoms around for it is far too hot?"
Is there an unobservable universe?
It is almost certain that the universe continues beyond our horizons, however as we cannot see that far we cannot be absolutely certain. Many theorists are happy to consider the concept of the multiverse, and these other universes are certainly unobservable - however I am of the opinion that such hypotheses lie outside of the remit of science unless it ever becomes possible to actually observe one.
It depends on how you measure time, i.e. what clock you use.
It depends on what is the nature of time. Fundamentally, all clocks measure motion, not time per se. OTOH, if we say "time is what clocks measure", we have a self-referential definition. From the wiki on time here]
Some simple definitions of time include "time is what clocks measure", which is a problematically vague and self-referential definition that utilizes the device used to measure the subject as the definition of the subject...
Apart from Newtonian time, consider this concept of time:
The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.
Bold added by me. If time and space is "part of a fundamental intellectual structure", then infinite time and space is conceivable and the universe can be infinite. How about the arrow of time?
Examples of this include the Second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy must increase over time (see Entropy); the cosmological arrow of time, which points away from the Big Bang, CPT symmetry, and the radiative arrow of time, caused by light only traveling forwards in time (see light cone). In particle physics, the violation of CP symmetry implies that there should be a small counterbalancing time asymmetry to preserve CPT symmetry as stated above. The standard description of measurement in quantum mechanics is also time asymmetric (see Measurement in quantum mechanics).
Apparently, the directionality of time is fundamental in the universe. Causality depends on the directionality of time. OTOH, we can conceive of time as a process of change. If "everything changes and nothing stands still", then time is fundamental in the universe and with no beginning or end, it is infinite.
It is almost certain that the universe continues beyond our horizons, however as we cannot see that far we cannot be absolutely certain.
If the universe is infinite, we cannot know the limits of time and space.
Many theorists are happy to consider the concept of the multiverse, and these other universes are certainly unobservable - however I am of the opinion that such hypotheses lie outside of the remit of science unless it ever becomes possible to actually observe one.
An unobservable universe contradicts observation.

Yes, I am a scientist and astrophysicist, therefore I define things, such as time, by the way they can be handled and described by science i.e. by the way they can be measured.
We were talking about ‘big science’, and the only way to measure time in science (physics) is by using some sort of clock.
Of course you can define time in any other way you find useful, so long as you make it clear to others what you are talking about.

Yes, I am a scientist and astrophysicist, therefore I define things, such as time, by the way they can be handled and described by science i.e. by the way they can be measured. We were talking about 'big science', and the only way to measure time in science (physics) is by using some sort of clock. Of course you can define time in any other way you find useful, so long as you make it clear to others what you are talking about.
That is the operational definition of time. From the wiki on time here]
An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is highly useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. The operational definition leaves aside the question whether there is something called time, apart from the counting activity just mentioned, that flows and that can be measured. Investigations of a single continuum called spacetime bring questions about space into questions about time, questions that have their roots in the works of early students of natural philosophy.
Bold added by me. As such, "whether there is something called time" is not addressed at all in "big science". Why has time been ignored since "the works of early students of natural philosophy"?

Observers are pragmatists; if you can measure time you do not worry about whether there is something called time - there is because you have just measured it.
Theoretical physicists and cosmologists are another breed, you may be interested in Julian Barbour The Nature of Time]

A review of some basic facts of classical dynamics shows that time, or precisely duration, is redundant as a fundamental concept. Duration and the behaviour of clocks emerge from a timeless law that governs change.
or, on the other hand, Lee Smolin and Roberto Unger The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time]
To keep cosmology scientific, we must replace the old view in which the universe is governed by immutable laws by a new one in which laws evolve. Then we can hope to explain them. The revolution that Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin propose relies on three central ideas. There is only one universe at a time. Time is real: everything in the structure and regularities of nature changes sooner or later.
(emphasis mine)
Observers are pragmatists; if you can measure time you do not worry about whether there is something called time - there is because you have just measured it.
The problem is, are observers measuring time with clocks? And can time be divided and measured as though it is a pie?
Theoretical physicists and cosmologists are another breed, you may be interested in Julian Barbour The Nature of Time]
A review of some basic facts of classical dynamics shows that time, or precisely duration, is redundant as a fundamental concept. Duration and the behaviour of clocks emerge from a timeless law that governs change.
Lee Smolin is critical of his ideas of time as unreal. From the wiki on Julian Barbour here]
Smolin is a proponent of a realist theory of time, where time is real and not a mere illusion as Barbour suggests. In a recent book, Time Reborn, Smolin argues for the view that time is both real and fundamental. Smolin reasons that physicists have improperly rejected the reality of time because they confuse their mathematical models—which are timeless but deal in abstractions that do not exist—with reality. Smolin hypothesizes instead that the very laws of physics are not fixed, but that they actually evolve over time.
OTOH, from the wiki on Lee Smolin here]
Smolin's view on the nature of time: "More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the beginning of physics."
Julian Barbour's timeless physics would be problematic for causality. Apparently, causality is fundamental to the universe that exist. From the wiki on causal dynamic triangulation (CDT) here]
The crucial development, which makes this a relatively successful theory, is that the network of simplices is constrained to evolve in a way that preserves causality. This allows a path integral to be calculated non-perturbatively, by summation of all possible (allowed) configurations of the simplices, and correspondingly, of all possible spatial geometries. Simply put, each individual simplex is like a building block of spacetime, but the edges that have a time arrow must agree in direction, wherever the edges are joined. This rule preserves causality, a feature missing from previous theories. When simplexes are joined in this way, the manifold evolves in an orderly fashion, and eventually creates the observed framework of dimensions.
Bold added by me. Causality is preserved if "the cause precedes the effect". To do that, time and it's directionality, is crucial.

Thank you for adding other references to mine on critics of Barbour’s approach. You should read Smolin’s book The Singular Universe], you might enjoy it.
All I was saying was that as far as theorists are concerned there are many ideas of what time is, these two (Barbour and Smolin) are the two extremes within theoretical physics.
As far as pragmatic scientists are concerned time is what you measure with a ‘regular clock’ because that is how you define it.
Of course you can go back to Saint Augustine in his Confessions] and say:

What then is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that nobody asks me; but if I am asked what it is and try to explain, I am baffled.
(St. A. Confessions XI 14 - late 4th Century)