Conceiving the Inconceivable

The more we ask “What are we made of?” the more we are faced with the inescapable conclusion that we are made of mostly nothing.

Ken Piper

The space within us

A while back my son commented that we are 98 percent water. I replied that really we are almost 100 percent nothing – that is, if you consider the space between molecules, and then at the atomic level, between the nucleus and electrons. Most of the space is, well, space ­– and that which is not?

From dust were ye made and dust ye shall be…1

Those Old Testament writers were onto something – in their day, dust was the smallest thing they could see, so everything must be made of dust. When I was a child, the prevailing thought was that protons, neutrons and electrons were the fundamental particles that made up everything else.

Now, particle physicists have determined that at least protons and neutrons are made up of smaller particles (quarks, neutrinos, leptons, photons and so forth). These and electrons are now considered the elemental or fundamental particles. Hmm…but what are they made of?

In our experience, everything is made up of something else, something smaller – and, of course, a lot of space in between.

The old Disneyland ride “Adventure Thru Inner Space” explored the idea that going to the very small revealed something similar to going to the very large – to outer space, stars, and constellations. When you got to atomic size, it was like you were in outer space, surrounded by star-like points of light.

The details may be wrong, but still, there remains the question: Are there really elemental particles? There must be, but there can’t be.

If we understand that everything is made of something, we are stuck with the unavoidable conclusion that there is no smallest thing.

This is a paradox of infinity. And really, this is a manifestation of our limited ability to comprehend the infinite or, in this case, the infinitesimal.

The outer limits – Outside outer space

Consider the other extreme: The size of the universe. If you ask an astrophysicist “How big is the universe?” you might get something like: “Well the big bang was 13.8 billion years ago, and we can see light from that time, but because of inflation, what we can see is really at least 92 billion light years in diameter, yada yada yada…” (and that’s just the part we can observe). OK, so it is really big!

But if you can put a number on it, you can conceptually surround it with a box. Then you can ask, “What is outside of that box?” There at least has to be “empty” space. There is certainly enough of that for lots of other “universes.”

If you include empty space (and “dark matter”) as well as stars, galaxies, dust clouds and all the things we can observe, then it must be infinite. But, where does all that end?

On the one hand, we can’t conceive of it being without limit; on the other hand, we can’t define or even imagine an end to it. We cannot adequately comprehend this. It must be infinite. It can’t be, but it must be. This too is a paradox of infinity.

The problem of time (besides not having enough of it)

Now consider time. In our experience everything must have a beginning and an end. We know that things happened before we were born, of course, and we assume that things will happen after we are gone. As a geologist, I look at the bigger picture, at the billions of years the Earth has been around.

The Earth had to come from somewhere, from something that existed before it. But, there is always the nagging question of what was before. It’s kind of like the game we played as children, asking “Why?” of our parents or others, then following their answer with another “Why?” again and again until they became frustrated and said “Just because!”

Time, time, time, see what’s become of me…2

Some will tell you that the “Big Bang” was the beginning of time. OK, what was before, and what and where did everything come from? If it was an energy equivalent of mass, the question is still the same.

If everything ends in a colossal big hole, then what is after? There must be a beginning and an end, because everything we know of begins and ends, but there can’t be.

Inconceivable! 3

We simply cannot comprehend things infinite. Perhaps we are captives of our experiences; perhaps it is just the limits of our mortal brains. Perhaps it is because time and space are both divine creations and we, as creations, are constrained within them.

I am the alpha and the omega 4

What are your thoughts on all of this? Comment below or write to me at ken@kennethpiper.com.

  1. Lyrics from Sparrow, by Simon and Garfunkel, from Genesis 3:19.
  2. Lyrics from A Hazy Shade of Winter, by Simon and Garfunkel.
  3. “I do not think he knows what that means” – Inigo Montoya in Princess Bride.
  4. Book of Revelation (verses 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13).

Featured image: Cover for Infinitesimal, an online mix of music “for when you feel indescribably small in an immense universe” by gabimarie


Fake news or false news?

The prevalence of “fake news” on the internet has been a hot topic recently. We often take for granted what we read in newspapers or hear on radio or TV. Is it really any better?

Fake news or false news?

Ken Piper, June 7, 2017

The prevalence of “fake news” on the internet has been a hot topic recently. We have learned to be wary of so-called news that we read on the internet, as we are with sensationalist tabloid stories. However, we often take for granted what we read in newspapers or magazines, or hear on the radio or television. Is it really any better? “If it’s on TV, it must be true!”

Over the years, I have noticed that the news I read in newspapers or news magazines is full of factual errors. Nearly every article that is about something I know, is wrong in some way. Radio and television news is the same, not just minor details, but major omissions and factual errors. In some cases, it is apparently because the writer and the editor are not subject matter experts. I notice this in scientific or technical articles in subject areas with which I am familiar. In other cases, it is factual errors about an event that has happened, or about a person I know. This may be because of misinformation the writer received and didn’t verify, false assumptions about the who and what of an event, or just plain sloppy reporting. The editors often make this worse by giving the article a title that contradicts the information in the article itself.

Let me emphasize, this is almost every news report that is about something that I know absolutely! So, what does this mean about everything else in the news – the articles on something I don’t already know about? Without having done a public survey of news accuracy, I can only assume that all news is chock-full of falsehoods – why would it be limited to my areas of expertise?

Is this fake news or false news? If it is intentionally wrong, with the purpose of misleading the reader, as is the case in many internet articles or tabloids sold at the grocery store checkout counter, then it is obviously fake news. If it is honest mistakes, even from sloppy reporting, it is false news. What if it is dissemination of information by someone who is seen as an expert, or claims to be an expert, but is not?

Bill Nye the “Science Guy” comes to mind. He seems to know a lot about science (could be his writers), but he is not really a scientist and besides, can’t be an expert in all the areas of science he talks about. He was a mechanical engineer, and Wikipedia (correctly, in my view) labels him a “science communicator.” So, when he says something that is either factually wrong, or presents something as a certainty that is still under debate, is that fake news or false news?

The president regularly tweets about “fake news.” In some cases it may be fake news; more commonly it is probably false news, or just something he doesn’t agree with. When a political party pays people to agitate at an adversary’s campaign rally, is that fake news? The event really happened, but the real news is that it was a fake protest.

Can we even trust peer-reviewed scientific journals? As scientists have become advocates for their personal beliefs, it is becoming obvious that the reviewers and editors are often becoming censors of things they don’t agree with or that don’t fit their social agenda. Because of this, some researchers are advocating self-publishing on the internet as a way around the problem. But without the prestige of a known journal, it is hard to get anyone to even find your work on the internet, let alone bother to read it.

So, how can we know the truth about anything? We can’t trust the news, and maybe not even the scientific literature, so should we just not read or listen to it? Many people only watch news channels that fit their political point of view. So, they are missing out on opposing viewpoints. Maybe it doesn’t matter. If they can’t get really true news, false news is the best they can get and they don’t trust the other stations anyway. After all, they are just “fake news.”