> Instead, the basis of the timescape model is that, in fact, we see in the universe around us today that there are giant cosmic structures, enormous filaments and walls filled with galaxies and galaxy clusters. And in between those filaments and walls we have giant voids of nothing.
No. We’re only searching for life in a tiny area around the Sun within our galaxy, the Milky Way. To find life we first need to find planets, which involves looking at stars over extended periods of time to detect tiny dips in brightness (transit method) or tiny wobbles causing minute redshift-blueshift cycles (doppler shift method).
Those cosmic filament structures are on the scale of millions and billions of galaxies over distances far larger than the size of a single galaxy. We can’t even resolve individual stars beyond our Local Group of galaxies and still most of the stars within the Milky Way are too far to use our exoplanet detection techniques (2 of them mentioned previously).
Finally, to search for life we’ve been attempting to search for spectral absorption lines of the gases in the atmosphere of an exoplanet, which involves recording a spectrograph during the transit method. This only works for stars with their orbital planes edge-on to us so that we can actually detect the planetary transits and record enough light from them over time to see how the spectrograph changes during the transit events.
Are you proposing that atoms are organisms and/or that astronomical objects may be organisms? I feel like you are just inflating the meaning of “life” without justifying why.
Defining it properly is a very interesting problem, but I think this is an extremely active field of study. Saying “what if subatomic particles are actually living organisms” is not a productive line of thought.
"Saying “what if subatomic particles are actually living organisms” is not a productive line of thought."
Questions usually can be productive. To answer it, we have to look up and apply the (debated) definitions of life and atoms in our understanding clearly don't meet it.
But since we only know so very little when going really small or really big, I do say it is an interesting thought to give room for quark or dark matter based life, or the theoretical organism of a black hole.
We simply don't know and we will never know, if we think we already know.
We do know a lot about the very small and the very big, though. We understand quark interactions extremely well. It's very hard to imagine interactions at that scale complex enough to yield something anyone would be comfortable calling "life". The defining property of dark matter is no or only weak interaction (which we also understand very well), so imagining life there becomes even harder.
> We simply don't know and we will never know, if we think we already know.
That's a very defeatist and intellectually lazy point of view. As is "just asking questions" which lack support by even a shred of plausibility.
"That's a very defeatist and intellectually lazy point of view. "
In my opinion it is the opposite. Claiming we understand life and quarks and quarks can therefore not be part of subatomic life is the lazy approach to me.
I am open for it. That doesn't mean I see indications for it, just that I am open for the concept. If I would not be open for unexpected ideas, I would never get them.
And correct me if I am wrong, but I never met a scientist who claimed to really understand quantum mechanics. Well, I heard of some who do, but they are mostly not taken seriously by the rest. So sure, we do know a lot. But understanding it?
> quarks can therefore not be part of subatomic life is the lazy approach to me
For the record, I wrote "very hard to imagine". If you claim it can be possible, it is you who must produce at least a suggestion on how it could be possible.
> And correct me if I am wrong, but I never met a scientist who claimed to really understand quantum mechanics.
I know that's a popular trope, but what they usually mean is that they don't understand it on an intuitive level. You can understand the math of it just fine.
QM is by far the most successful theory we ever had and laid the foundations for the transistor, lasers, CCD chips, solar panels, MRIs, and much more. It's responsible for arguably the biggest transformation of society of all times. You don't get there without understanding even the smallest nook of that theory.
Maybe we have different definitions of what it means to understand something, but that's not a discussion I'm interested it.
It's been a while, but yeah, I probably could. I've been teaching general relativity seminars on a graduate level while I was getting my PhD. Not sure if I could explain it to you, because it sounds like you lack the necessary prerequisites (no offense). Also, please understand I do not have the time to teach GR to random internet strangers.
"Scientists are currently working to develop a theory of gravity consistent with quantum mechanics, a quantum gravity theory,[7] which would allow gravity to be united in a common mathematical framework (a theory of everything) with the other three fundamental interactions of physics."
(And unlike your assumptions, my background involves some physic)
Please don't take it personally, but I don't enjoy discussions with someone who can only communicate in questions. If you have something of substance to say, say it.
I say I doubt your claim that you can explain gravity by me citing wikipedia and the common thoughts on this. If that has not enough substance to you, we can indeed end this.
Why are you so surprised? We understand how gravity works to an incredible degree of precision, and anyone with a physics degree is able to explain it.
You seem to have some misconceptions around physics. If you go through the formal training that we go through (i.e. spend years thinking about physics problems, papers and textbooks) you should understand that mathematics is a tool, and that physics is our best attempt at building mathematical objects that behave like the real world.
What I mean by this is that we’re well aware that our theories are not perfect, and we can point to what doesn’t work (within our respective fields) quite well. At the same time, we’re aware of certain “features” of reality that cannot possibly be otherwise. Thermodynamics or special relativity are simple examples of this. Their validity is not in question, just as our existence in the first place is not in question (if you want to argue about philosophy go ahead, but that has nothing to do with the point I’m making).
Therefore, even though we don’t have a perfect theory of physics, we can say that we understand certain stuff quite well. And vague statements about life and “new ideas” don’t help us advance our understanding.
P.S. my view of the common “nobody understands quantum mechanics” saying is that only people who are too attached to classical reality can hold that opinion. The great founders of QM grew up without it, so are excused in thinking that QM is unintuitive. But for the most part the uneasy feeling about QM disappears when you let go of classical assumptions for good.
"Therefore, even though we don’t have a perfect theory of physics, we can say that we understand certain stuff quite well."
Sure I agree to that.
"And vague statements about life and “new ideas” don’t help us advance our understanding."
But I disagree that we understand it well enough to exclude subatomic life with certainty.
So vague questions like the one here in this thread certainly won't push the field. It is more about a principle of being open to me and explore the idea a bit with different minds.
Because I know enough history of arrogant science thinking they know it all already. I suppose you are aware of Max Planck? That his Professor tried to discourage him from taking up physics as it is all already well understood and not much remains be found and understood?
Statements from your sibling poster reminded me of that.
Basically, your point of view as expressed in this thread is mystical rather than scientific. That's fine if it's what you're into, but don't be surprised if it makes more scientific types roll their eyes.
Do you think, scientists are atheists by definition?
I have a different experience.
And yes, mysticism is also my thing, but I don't see it as odds with science, as I don't make claims about the structure of the world. I simply say, I also did study a bit of physic, before switching to IT, but I did not got the impression, it is remotely solved, nor understood. Go a bit deeper or bigger and it all gets blurry quickly. So plenty of room for all kinds of even more freaky things.
No, I don't think they are all atheists. But I do think they tend to roll their eyes at the sort of mysticism you're describing. The two things are not the same.
Well, and I tend to roll my eyes about arrogance leading to humans repeating the same misstakes again and again.
Because even though I personally tend towards mysticism - as the universe is a pretty big mysterious place to me, this is just curiosity:
"But since we only know so very little when going really small or really big, I do say it is an interesting thought to give room for quark or dark matter based life, or the theoretical organism of a black hole."
I made no claim of anything here. "Just stating, hey things get already pretty wild and unexpected on the border of our understanding. I don't think it is smart ruling anything out yet."
If you roll your eyes to this, so be it.
It is just, that I was a bit interested in the history of science and I know rolling eyes is a tradition of the established ones.
As was discussed at the time, that news was overhyped. The finding is not strong evidence of life, it's strong evidence that we don't fully understand how that molecule gets formed. And the most recent news on that front is that the finding itself is being challenged.
Every finding gets challenged, and that challenge always becomes news. Trying to evaluate the progress of a scientific debate based on news stories is like guessing the record of a soccer team based on a couple of viral goal clips.
Could explain we haven't found life elsewhere?