|
Author
|
Topic: My mind's in a knot... (Re: Who/what created God?)
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
Message 99 of 156 (493905)
01-11-2009 4:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by onifre
01-10-2009 5:40 PM
|
|
Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
Onfire writes: Since there is no current theory that combines both the macro and micro world, Actually this is not true. M-theory (and some other quantum gravity theories) attempt to answer how the force of gravity fits into quantum mechanics as well as the General Theory of Relativity.
should we NOT try to confuse both realities - macro/micro? In essence there should be no dichotomy between the two. Just like evolution, why should the forces at the micro level not be the same forces that operate at the macro level? There really is no differentiation between micro and macro (it is litterally a differentiation only in our heads).
In the classical sense, which is how we view the world, how does non-locality affect us or how we experience reality? What we view the world as human beings at our everyday level of detail, is very different than what we observe at the quantum level. This is only because of our prejudice, preconcieved, culturally transmited, tradition bound way in which we attempt to understand reality. Even religion can affect our perception of reality. Do Buddhists or Hindu's view the universe in the same way that Christian's do? No. So if even humans cannot agree on a common way of viewing reality on the macro scale, how much less when we start peering into the previously unknown clockwork of the universe' inner quantum mechanics.
Onfire writes: Or perhaps adjust our understanding of it - like the happy agreement between Einsteinian/Newtonian physics. We are limited in our means to fully understand QM by our current technology, what the future brings in that field is still unknown. I agree we are too early in our discoveries and knowledge of this realm to try to say this or that theory is correct. Sometimes I think we get too ahead of ourselves in science, and scientists get there feelings hurt when they spend years pushing a particular theory, investing alot of both emotional and cognitive energy, and then finding out they have hit a scientific dead end. Einstein did this with his unified field theory as well as many other highly intelligent scientific minds.
But Abogot, most situations require the use of either QM or GR, but never both. I agree with Agobot, just because we havn't always used the two together at the same time, doesn't mean we shouldn't. They are two sides to the same coin. Now we have to find what this coin is composed of. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by onifre, posted 01-10-2009 5:40 PM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 100 by onifre, posted 01-11-2009 7:47 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 101 of 156 (493944)
01-11-2009 9:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 100 by onifre
01-11-2009 7:47 PM
|
|
Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
As I understand it though, there would still need to be a unifying theory of all the known forces, right? QFT does merge SR with quantum concepts, so they're almost there - lol.
M-Theory if "proven" true, would unify these forces; from my understanding on reading about it in theoretical physicist Brian Green's book 'The Elegant Universe' and Stephen Hawkins new revised 'The Illustrated Brief History of Time'(Michio Kaku has also written about it but I have not read his latest books since his 'Hyperspace' book). M-Theory is still in its infancy stage and in fact M-theory is really a super theory or conglomeration of several other smaller component theories i.e. supergravity, superstring theory, holographic principle, 11-dimensions, and others. Of course that is what the M means (in my own words)- Mother of All Fucking Theories! I agree, they are almost there but still waiting for more conclusive proof. The mathematical models make sense, but they (physicists) are still filling in missing pieces of the puzzle. Hopefully if they can get CERN up and running again this summer they will find the Higgs "God" particle (the missing particle which would help explain why matter exists in the first place) and other missing pieces. Of course there is no way to prove the existence of strings directly as they exist at or below Plank's length, and we would need a supercollider the size of the solar system (or larger) to detect them.
I think you meant SR, right? TSR is a subset of Einstein's GTR. His GTR explains how gravity fits in with relativity. That is gravity is the interaction of spacetime with high density wells of matter.
I make statements in the form of a question because I'm often not sure. Hope this doesn't bother. I just started class again so I'm trying to brush up on GR and SR, EvC is the place for that. Wasn't able to finish school for financial reasons, and of course my job. I'm bitting the bullet and stay off the road for a while to please my mother and finally get a degree, should take another 4 years, lol. I am a armchair physicist myself. I have an Associates in Computer Studies, though I have been going to college nearly 15 years now. However, I am active-duty Navy so have very little time between balancing my work, hobbies such as this and my home life with my wife and 4 year old daughter. I have also taken college Calculus, Biology, Chemistry, Anthropology, Humanities etc but have not taken any formal college Physics courses. I educate myself through the internet, library, books on tape (Great Courses is awesome) and books by the likes of Hawkins, Green, Kaku, Dawkins and others.
believe they are. I haven't stated otherwise. My point was that we experience the world, or rather, reality, on the macro scale. The mysteries(limited by our means of measuring) at quantum scales should not affect the way we perceive reality, nor do they require a creator or the supernatural. I agree. Sounds like we are of like minds.
However, I would like to point out that you used the word forces at the micro level, as in plural. Wouldn't a unifying theory explain it down to 1 force? We would still have the four fundamental forces even with a unifying theory. We would just be able to understand how these 4 forces interrelate and originate. An analogy I like to use is that these four forces are like four sides to the same shape i.e. a four sided tetrahedron. The question is what is this interior of this four sided shape composed of? In other words what is used to unify these four sides into one? Many theoretical physicists like Kaku and Green believe that these four forces which exist in our 4 dimensional universe (3 spatial dimensions + 1 temporal dimension) are unified in the higher dimensions. That is one reason (among others) that these extra dimensions are proposed. In other words, higher dimensions (the latest count is 11 I believe) allow all the forces of nature as well as quantum mechanics and relativity to make sense mathematically (and removes the problem renormalization, which I won't get into here). In fact, at the very beginning (approx 10 to the -43 seconds) after the commencement of the Big Bang it is believed by cosmologists/astrophysicists that all four fundamental forces (weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravity) were one force. As the universe super-rapidly inflated and the temperature of the universe cooled, this one force broke down into four independent forces we know of today.
I am not saying that logic is not out the fuckin window when trying to understand QM, believe me, I can't wrap my head around this stuff anymore than Abogot, even though I believe he has a better understanding of QM than I do. Sounds like we are all in the same boat, metaphorically speaking.
But, and I believe you can agree with me here, just as when viewing the macro word, and noticing unexplainable phenomena should not require one to invoke God, neither should the mysteries of QM. That they are complex and hard to fully comprehend is not the problem of QM, it's the problem of humans and our limited understanding of it. I whole-heartedly agree with you on this.
What Abogot seems to be doing is looking at a solar eclipes and saying that God has to be the cause because it's too strange, only he's doing it with QM. I again agree with you on this. Though I am sure Agobot would disagree with this assessment.
Onfire writes: Myself writes: I agree with Agobot, just because we havn't always used the two together at the same time, doesn't mean we shouldn't. We, as in us in our day to day lives, I don't see how we can. If you mean theoretical physicist, I believe thats what a unifying theory will do...In that nature I believe you are right, both are required, but in our day to day experiences I'd be curious as to how both can be used to perceive things...? However, if only the physical theorists understand it, than practical application will be near nill. If we could harness this understanding of the fundamental nature of reality, imagine the endless possibilities of what humans could do? Wormholes, teleportation, a near endless source of energy to everyone on the planet. Of course, with much power is the possibility for much destruction as seen in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the nuclear arms race and the need for a higher call to responsible use of this potentially catastrophic knowledge and power.
In fact, I was talking to one of the post-grads in the physics dept. doing work on blackholes and he was explaining to me how they use QM and GR to properly understand them, so of course there both are used. Yes, they are both used. They are just very counter-intuitive and very difficult to visualize concepts.
But, again, my only point is that the mystries about QM doesn't require us to invoke the supernatural. It depends on how you are defining the supernatural. Do higher dimensions constitute the supernatural? Again we have to define terms before we off handedly dismiss a point of view. I think that is what is missing here in the discussion between you, Agobot and myself. If we all are saying that a higher reality (higher dimensions, etc) may exist, I think very few of us would disagree that this is a possibility (even if enough evidence is lacking to fully support this at this time). However, if we are talking about the malevolent, blood thirsty, anthropomorphic, morally and logically inconsistent, Zeus like deity of the Bible; that is a different story all together. BTW, excuse my spelling mistakes here, I have a four year old little girl in pajamas asleep on my lap as I type this on my laptop with one hand. Good night and peaceful slumber to all. And good night Opus and good night moon.  Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Corrected spelling & grammer.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 100 by onifre, posted 01-11-2009 7:47 PM | | onifre has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 109 of 156 (494092)
01-13-2009 4:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 108 by Agobot
01-13-2009 10:47 AM
|
|
Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
Erwin Schrodinger writes: "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist." I am stll researching all this. Rather fascinating though! Sorry, had to take my wife to the ER for a GI related issue last night. So I played hookie from work today to take care of her at home. As a result, I am reading up on all this holographic universe stuff. It is a lot to absorb. However, I don't argue things I do not understand yet so I apologize on not posting on your comments. As soon as I do some more background research, don't worry I start asking a ton of questions.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 108 by Agobot, posted 01-13-2009 10:47 AM | | Agobot has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 110 of 156 (494093)
01-13-2009 4:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 108 by Agobot
01-13-2009 10:47 AM
|
|
Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
Agobot, I am just curious if you are novice like me or a professional physicist. Not to say, that it makes any difference or I would think less of you (because I don't, you obviously have much more knowledge in this area than myself) but just curious if you are actively participating in the research and if so where is it headed. Thanks.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 108 by Agobot, posted 01-13-2009 10:47 AM | | Agobot has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 111 by Agobot, posted 01-14-2009 10:37 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 114 of 156 (494194)
01-14-2009 7:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 107 by Agobot
01-13-2009 4:45 AM
|
|
Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
Agobot writes: This is how matter gets its energy/mass content - by means of virtual particles that borrow energy from the future for a very short time, without breaking the 1st LOT, then they annihilate. I thought time broke down at the quantum level. That is there is no past, present, or future when we are talking about virtual particles?
Technically it's been known for a while - from quantum fluctuations. Most of the mass of atoms comes from virtual particles which are pairs of "particles"(for lack of a better word) created in quantum fluctuations. If the LHC finds the theoretical Higgs boson(which scientists believe gives atoms the remaining missing mass through those same virtual particles), we will know that "everything" comes from nothing. Is the Higg's particle nothing? I thought this just means that matter is just another interation/form of energy? That is the matter and energy are different forms of the same entity. Either way the law of the conservation of energy has to be observed and technically "everything" cannot come from nothing without disobeying this law. Is it not just that matter is energy "concentrated" to a higher probability of spacetime than other locations (if that makes sense).
It's good that you are picking up speed in this quantum weirdness because we are nearing "the wall" so i am sure you'll understand the additions i'll make to the previous diagram about the quantum world view as it creates our sensation of an existing classical world(out of nothing) I agree we are hitting the wall of weirdness and human comprehension. That is why artificial intelligence will nead to increase to overcome the limits of our own brain. For example, could we biological organisms bound to the 4 dimensions of spacetime, create an AI machine that is not limited in this manner? If so, could this AI be able to further explore the higher dimensions of reality and disseminate this information back to us humans (if they don't annihilate us first)?
Unknown/Mad scientists from the future/God/Consciousness/?? -- in a Non-local space(objectively non-existent) -- Quantum fluctuations(virtual particles give energy to->) -- Hamiltonian("something" - the Unknown selects the->) -- Wavefunction(that evolves through the TDSE to the->) -- Outcome(measurement - "particle", selection of alternate histories) -- Quantum system(macro world - e.g. onifre's human body) We have to differentiate between mere speculation here and substantiated theories otherwise we run the risk of watering down our knowledge with mere pseudoscientific unsound and unsubstantiated speculations i.e. bending spoons, mad scientists in the future and the like.
You cannot introduce the concept of time anywhere in the chain, but at the very end, where our sensation of existence is. And there are no particles until there is interaction. Until an interaction takes place, there are only possibilities, and possibilities are not partilces. Again time (as well as space) breaks down at the extreme quantum levels. Which is probably why singularity (i.e. prior to the Big Bang) does not make sense when related to the aspect of time.
So what is Life? Life is an emergent entity of self-organization in no uncertain terms.
So when you look at the stars - these are all quantum fluctuations in a non-local quantum space. Those virtual particles are all there is in our "world", and where do they come from? It seems you want to read the mind of God(or the mind of the unknown). I agree this is the pinnacle of science, to know the "mind of God"? This of course is a metaphor to understand all there is to know about the inner workings of what the universe is and how it works. As Albert Einstein said:
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details. BTW, in no way is Einstein advocating a belief in the personal, Christian or even Jewish God of the Bible. He was using this as a metaphor for the unknown (as you Agobot illustriously pointed out). He was at most a deist if not an agnostic. His view of "God" was very much like yours Agobot, that of an unknown impersonal entity/force that works behind the scenes of our known universe.
It's clear, "something" directs those quantum fluctuations into creating "objects"(appearances or "schaumkommen" as Schroedinger refers to them), incl. extremely sophisticated objects like humans. This cannot be chance, not all of us. There is no way in the fucking Hell, chance could create 20 billion humans(all that ever lived) through "random" quantum fluctuations. All this highly organised "information" that builds humans and the "universe" all the way up from the quantum fluctuation up to the realm of our existence is more than a gogool bits(according to Michio Kaku), that's more than 10^100 bits. Just the information in atoms of the 100 trillion cells in a human body, according to Anton Zeilinger, is about a thousand billion billion billion bits. There is no way. It's not chance. I think God could have done a better job sweeping his trails. All I have to say is the word "emergence". The question is this: Is unguided emergence a real phenomena or is this an illusion behind which a guided and predetermined destiny for the universe exists? If so than we resort back to the infinite regression of cause and effect. If a God/being/force created the universe and set its laws/nature/behavior, what caused God?
And frankly, if something is nothing, there has to be something that accounts for the orderliness of our sensation. We have to assume that Max Tegmark, John Wheeler, Anton Zeilinger, Fred Wolf, Amit Goswami and other physicists are right and information in a mathematical structure is the essense of everything, everything in this "place" we call universe. I often refer to us as "consciousness" for lack of a better word, and what lies beyond it is the unknown. We are the icons on your desktop and we see ourselves(that's how we exist - if you have a good imagination, you'll get the picture of our existence), and we live in a special time where we can see beyond the illusion of the 5 senses that tell us that something exists into the nothing. The correct version is - nothing exists into the nothing but information and consciousness. Those "real" particles are created out of nothing into the nothing. And you cannot talk of space and time at the quantum realm. If you introduce space and time, you are saying relativity is wrong(unless you are talking about relativistic QM, eg Dirac's equation, which is imposing our illusional macro concepts in QM, but it works - otherwise there wouldn't be a universe for us to describe). IMO that's a big challenge before the future TOE, as some of those working on it believe it should be understandable to everyone. This is a plausible theory but yet a fully substantiated and tested one. Again the burden of proof for the existence of some higher entity/force lies on your side of the court. I am not objected to believing it. I just need more evidence that unguided emergence does not occur and that something else is required. As always, I try to abide by these axioms by Albert, in our attempt to understand the fundamental reality of the universe we live in:
Albert Einstein, 1918 writes: The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. and
Albert Einstein, 1954 writes: If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by Agobot, posted 01-13-2009 4:45 AM | | Agobot has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 116 by Agobot, posted 01-15-2009 4:24 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 115 of 156 (494196)
01-14-2009 7:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 112 by Stile
01-14-2009 12:55 PM
|
|
Re: Still... what's the big deal?
I agree with your statements Stile. I was about to comment on Agobot's statement about "changing our lives forever" bit as well. It seems to me Agobot that you place way to much emotion and distress into just another interesting piece of the fundamental nature of the universe bit. After all, even if this were true (which I am very skeptical of in the first place). Excuse my language, but, what the fuck can we do about it except study the phenomena and make grandiose conjurations concerning it. Watching too much Matrix trilogy a bit I thinkest.  By the way I am just ribbing. Please don't take me too seriously, and don't discontinue your research and study of science. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 112 by Stile, posted 01-14-2009 12:55 PM | | Stile has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 117 by Agobot, posted 01-15-2009 6:55 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 119 of 156 (494330)
01-15-2009 11:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 117 by Agobot
01-15-2009 6:55 AM
|
|
Re: Still... what's the big deal?
I think the answer lies in your question . We can f*ck something, if we can't agree on a commonly accepted purpose of life past replication(all atheists agree replication is the only humanly known purpose of life), what else can we do? I have girlfriends who believe this is the very point of life, who knows maybe they are right. And maybe atheists are right on this and there is no purpose beyong replication(I know Hugh Heffner agrees with me and didn't Sigmund Freud say - a man cannot sleep with all women but it doesn't mean he doesn't have to give it a try). I don't know of a single atheist (I don't like labels anyways) that thinks that replication is the single "purpose" in life for a human beings. Most atheists, agnostics and deists are humanists as well, meaning they place a high value on the dignity of life, both human and non-human. Do all have the same moral systems? Do all agree on how much value, etc. No, but all humanists agree that life and freedom is better for the human race than chaos and destruction. I totally disagree with your baseless accusation that atheists only promote mere replication and nothing else.
No, seriously i don't know what we should do about it. Maybe we shouldn't do anything, there is no way to see what lies beyond the illusion without dieing. Maybe "everything" stops, i am not willing to try and find out "prematurely". You propose that we are some "program" in the "big machine" in the sky, want us all to be worried about something we would have no control even if it were true (which I seriously doubt in the first place aka Occam's razor and the lack of substantial evidence supporting this "hypothesis") and have no solution to this "problem" even if it existed in the first place? I don't get it!! Let us keep studying, collecting data, and see where science and logic takes us. That is the only viable solution I can see right now.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 117 by Agobot, posted 01-15-2009 6:55 AM | | Agobot has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 120 by Agobot, posted 01-15-2009 11:51 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 121 of 156 (494352)
01-15-2009 12:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by Agobot
01-15-2009 11:51 AM
|
|
Re: Still... what's the big deal?
Reading comprehension... I did say collective, which means collective for all atheists. Something that you can all agree on? This is why I hate using labels like "atheist". You automatically assume that there is some atheist mandate that all atheists have to believe the same thing. Atheism just means you don't believe in a supernatural all powerful being(s)/deity that created/guide/control the universe. That's it. That is all this term imposes. In fact everyone on the planet is an atheist to one degree or another. Christians are atheists to every supernatural being except the God of the Bible, Muslims are atheists to every supernatural being except Allah, etc ad infinitim. I think Hindus are immune to this rule since you can throw in every supernatural entity created or yet to be created and they would accept it. Buddhists are essentially deists with no assertion to a specific deity (though some consider themselves atheists). Do you catch my drift? Atheism is a default belief or more accurately a lack of belief. Babies are atheists, young unindoctrinated children are atheists. Just like babies when they are born do not believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, so too they do not believe in the existence of God, Allah, Jesus, etc. They have to be indoctrinated (taught) the existence of these people/entities/whatever. There is no underlying axiom of atheism other than you don't believe in supernatural beings. Atheism is ammoral (not immoral). In other words you can believe (or not believe) in any type of moral system and be an atheist. If you want to pidgeon hole and label me. I am an agnostic atheist (defacto atheist) moral universalist humanist. Meaning that I am an atheist because I do not believe in the existence of any deity and I am also an agnostic because I do not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does or does not exist.
Can you show me a single Thing that you All atheists agree on as a purpose of life? No, because that is not what the word atheism means as I described above.
And not some subjectively inferred notion like love, objectivity, justice, peace and other BS... (all these can be subjectively interpreted as being good or bad, depending on the particular situation). I think you are getting atheism (a lack of belief in supernatural deities) mixed up with specific human moral systems.
It's got to be something that you can objectively and verifiably put to a test and see that what you call Nature designed it in that way, through certain means, as the Meaning of life. I claim the only thing all atheists can agree on and that can be scientifically verified as the meaning of life is replication(sex). This has nothing to do with atheism but has more to do with morality.
So is there such anything beyond replication? Name it please. Or is life meaningless? That is why I am a moral universalist humanist. I do believe that life has meaning. I believe that morals are created by humans for humans and that all humans should have the same rights and freedoms (unless they attempt to remove these rights and freedoms from others). I just don't ascribe that it has to come from some supreme creator in the sky. We make our purpose in life. Our own destiny. Our own fate. One of my favorite poems, Invictus by William Ernest Henley illustrates this philosophy of self-determination well:
William Henley, 'Invictus' writes: Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul. In the fell clutch of circumstance I have not winced nor cried aloud. Under the bludgeonings of chance My head is bloody, but unbowed. Beyond this place of wrath and tears Looms but the horror of the shade, And yet the menace of the years Finds, and shall find me, unafraid. It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Correct spelling & grammer Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 120 by Agobot, posted 01-15-2009 11:51 AM | | Agobot has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 122 of 156 (494413)
01-15-2009 8:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by Agobot
01-15-2009 11:51 AM
|
|
Re: Still... what's the big deal?
It's your choice to believe what you want. If you think that matter doesn't come from nothingness, ok. If you believe Bell's theorem non-locality is wrong, ok. If you think string theorists proposing the Holographic Model of the Universe are crazy, ok. If you believe the universe is expanding into something, ok. But that's a religious belief because evidence to the contrary is in your face on all 4 points. In what ways have I disagreed with Bell's theorum, the holographic model (which seems to only imply that information is encoded into the dimension of spacetime itself not onto individual particles), non-locality, etc. I just think it is a leap of faith from the proposition of quantum entanglement and non-locality to the conclusion that we are a conjuration of some supernatual deity, scientist from the future or program on a machine. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 120 by Agobot, posted 01-15-2009 11:51 AM | | Agobot has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 123 of 156 (494415)
01-15-2009 8:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 116 by Agobot
01-15-2009 4:24 AM
|
|
Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
We are talking about 10^-21 to 10^-23 sec. Particles come and go, at those short intervals it is thought that the 1st LOT remains unbroken. The expression "borrow energy from the future" is methaphorical IMO, it's the same as saying it comes from the vacuum or from the nothingness. There is a difference between matter being converted from vacuum energy and vice versa and something coming from nothing. Nothing implies no energy nor matter. No one is implying this. Vacuum energy i.e. quantum flunctuations of spacetime is "something".
Agobot writes: Myself writes: Is the Higg's particle nothing?
Define "nothing". Until it's officially found, it is nothing as per dictionaries' definition. The unknown is not "something" or "nothing", it is unknown. The Higg's particle is unknown. Therefore we can not unequivocly say that matter comes from nothing or is made of nothing, yet. You may be right in the end or vice versa. Jury is still out.
They are the same thing. A neutrino doesn't care if we call it matter or energy. Billions pass through your body every second. Then they go ahead and pass... right thru the Earth, then they go on on their long journey and pass right thru the Sun and go on an on. Ok, not disputing this.
It is observed, but you are thinking classically in the quantum domain. In what way? The only thing I have disagreed with you on, is the assumption that all of this evidence points to a higher reality, deity, etc.
Oh yes? You want to teach Stephen Hawking that the quantum fluctuation universe hypothesis is wrong? Everything cannot come from nothing? You can bet it can. That's how matter is formed according to QCD. Wrong, matter is created from energy and vice versa. I don't consider this coming from nothing. The amount of total energy in a closed system stays the same. It can change form (i.e. matter, entropy) but it cannot increase or decrease. The amount of energy in singularity = the same amount of energy existing in at the present in our universe. Your NASA quote does not promote a "something" from "nothing" proposition it just describes entropy (useful to nonuseful energy conversion) and emergence of complex matter (stars, galaxies, etc) occuring as a result of energy/matter convertance. The only exception to this is if multiple-dimensions/multiverse (brain/bulk) exists and energy can seep into and out of our universe from the multiverse. Again though the multiverse itself would be a closed system and thus preserve energy with itself.
No no. I didn't say that we are nearing a wall of weirdness and human comprehension. I meant that we are hitting the wall of nothingness, where matter appears to take its mass/energy content - the quantum fluctuations. The total amount of matter in the universe is a mere pitance to the total amount of energy in the universe. Matter is derived from existing energy in the universe. Again conservation of energy holds. I have to go, but will continue this interesting discussion later.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by Agobot, posted 01-15-2009 4:24 AM | | Agobot has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 124 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 4:04 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 126 of 156 (494484)
01-16-2009 10:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 124 by Agobot
01-16-2009 4:04 AM
|
|
Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
Agobot writes: Matter is "converted" from energy and energy comes from nothing through quantum fluctuations.... am. I am very strongly implying that even if there is a region of space with a zero net energy, quantum fluctuations occur that are the foundation of the existence of matter. I think we are misunderstanding each other. It seems I am more of a literalist than you are. I deem "nothing" to be nothing, no energy, no matter, no quantum fluctuations, no gravity, no forces of nature. Nothing i.e. the nonexistence of anything and everything. This is not the case with quantum fluctuation. Quantum fluctuations are in fact, fluctuations of a small amount of energy called zero point energy (referring to the energy level at one specific point i.e. zero-point in space) however the ground state of the zero point field of spacetime is not zero but rather is something. New energy is not so much "created from nothing" as it is being in fact created by the interactions between the four fundamental forces of nature: weak, strong, electromagnetism, and gravity. The famous astrophysicist, director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson puts this eloquently in a article in the scientific journal of Natural History (Natural History; Oct2005, Vol. 114 Issue 8, p14-20):
Neil deGrasse Tyson writes: Across the cosmos, energy takes on multiple identities and spans a staggering range of strengths. At the lowest end, though not quite at zero, is the so-called quantum vacuum, also known as the zero-point field. It's the closest possible approximation of total lethargy offered by the universe. (Paradoxically, the zero-point field of the entire cosmic vacuum may account for the mysterious acceleration of the universe.) Agobot writes: We are treading into territory i am not comfortable in, but i want you to point me to a peer-reviewed paper that says the total energy of the universe is not zero. AFAIK, there is no way to know this. Did I say this? I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say (or maybe I just didn't spell it out) in that I was implying that at any one point in space, energy is constantly fluctuating (zero-point energy/virtual particles/quantum foam/vacuum energy) at or near 0, but the total energy in an entire closed system is not nothing (that is there is no energy being created at all), rather the total energy content of the universe is at a constant level at or close to 0 resulting from the summation of the total amount of negative energy (dark energy) + positive energy which equals near or at 0 total energy. Let me know if this doesn't make sense and I will expound.
Agobot writes: from nothing. That's what it says, if you have grasped the meaning. I do concede that the universe in essence could have been initially created from "at" or "near" nothing in regard to the present universe that we are part of, being "created" from net near or at 0 amount of energy and matter. However, this cosmogenesis is a result in the fluctuations of spacetime itself (independent of energy and matter), as proposed by many physicists such as Hawkins, Kaku, Thomas, Gamow, Gibbon, Green, Dirac and many others,. Michio Kaku and Jennefer Trainer Thomas in their book "Beyond Einstein: The Cosmic Quest for the Theory of the Universe" describe this idea of the universe springing forth from spacetime itself:
Kaku and Thomas writes:
For years physicists have been intrigued by the possibility that the universe came from a quantum transition from nothing (pure spacetime, without matter or energy). The idea of creating something from pure space-time is an old one, dating back to World War II. Physicist George Gamow, in his autobiography, My World Line, relates how he presented this theory to Einstein. Once, while strolling with Einstein on the streets of Princeton, Gamow mention an idea proposed by quantum physicist Pascual Jordan. A star, by virtue of its mass, obviously has energy. However, if we calculated the energy lock within its gravitational field, we would find that it is negative. The total energy of the system may, in fact be zero. What argued Jordan, would then prevent a quantum transition from the vacuum into a full-blown star? Since the star had zero energy, there was no violation of the conservation of energy when it was created from nothing. When Gamow mentioned the possibility to Einstein, Gamow recalled, "Einstein stopped in his tracks and, since we were crossing a street, several cars had to stop to avoid running us down." In 1973, Ed Tyron of Hunter College of New York proposed, independently of these earlier theories about stars, that perhaps the entire universe was created from pure spacetime. Again, it appears that empirically the total energy of the universe is close to 0. What if, argued Tyron, the entire universe was created as a "vacuum fluctuation," a random quantum leap from the vacuum into a full-fledge universe. Physicists pioneering the inflation theory have treated this idea of creating the universe from nothing as a serious concept, however speculative it may be. What relevance does this "everything from nothing" theory have for superstrings? As we saw earlier, the superstring theory predicts our universe started as a ten-dimensional universe, which was initially unstable and collapsed down into four-dimensions. This cataclysmic event, in turn, created the original Big Bang. However if "everything from nothing" theory proves to be correct, it means perhaps that the original ten-dimensional universe started out with zero energy. At present, superstring theorists are unable to calculate mathematically the precise mechanism by which the ten-dimensional universe can rupture into a four-dimensional one. The mathematics involved is beyond the capabilities of most physicists, because the problem involves a complicated quantum mechanical effect. However, the problem is well-defined mathematically, and hence it is only a matter of time before it is solved. Once the dynamics of how a ten-dimensional universe can crack into a four-dimensional one are understood, we should be able to calculate the energy stored in the original ten-dimensional universe. If the energy of the ten-dimensional universe turns out to be zero, then this would support the "everything from nothing" theory. This is my current understanding from my background knowledge of physics and reading of current and past physicists research. Discussions with you on EvC have caused me to look more intently into this field of science and have resulted in me having to rethink some of my previous misconceptions about cosmology and quantum physics in general. Of that I would like to thank you for such a vigorous and enjoyable discussion. It looks like some of our misunderstanding is semantics however there are some more fundamental difference. For example, I still don't see how you can draw some the conclusions that the universe is part of some grand cosmic computer program/scientific experiment/dream of some supernatural being, etc from some of the concepts that we have been discussing previously. To me it still seems like a leap of faith to an unsubstantiated proposition. Again let us keep researching, collecting evidence, build and test theories and see where science points us. To me I see no other way around this without resorting to pure fanciful unsubstantiated speculation.
Before a layman can indulge in theoretical physics speculation, we have to be formally trained physicists. Let's stick to what we know from experiments, and not look like idiots who imagine they can deal with these highly speculative sophisticated mathematical theories and what lies behind them. You cannot hope to grasp them without formal training and at least partly being introduced to the mathematical formalism involved, it's not that easy to catch up with modern physics. At all. In fact, if you are a physicist dealing with certain field of physics, you cannot hope to be up to date with all developments in all of physics. Let's not look like Beavis and Butthead, please. Who is proposing that we some social experiment by some mad scientist in the future, or a conjuration of a supernatural entity? Not me! I am trying to take the pragmatic approach and am just trying to interpret for myself the scientific research by these scientists (some of which is written for layman readers like ourselves). And btw, I have taken many college science courses (Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Calculus, Anthropology, Psychology, Sociology, Humanities, Old Testament Bible, World History, etc) and so do consider myself somewhat of an amateur (beginner) scientist and philosopher (though in no way am I even close to being an expert). Also, some of the greatest minds of scientists had little previous formal "training" in the subjects they would later be considered experts in i.e. Socrates, Charles Darwin, etc. Albert Einstein himself after dropping out of high school studied on his own, passed the entrance exam on his second try to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland (the same year he performed his famous thought experiment visualizing traveling alongside a beam of light which became the basis for his Theory of Special Relativity 9 years later (in 1905 when he also earned his doctorate). Not to say that "formal training and education" is not important, but rather that equally important are critical thinking skills and a firm grasp of logic to filter the gold from the bullshit. Just my thoughts on the subject. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 124 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 4:04 AM | | Agobot has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
No and no. And quantum fluctuations are anything but 'nothing', and they do not 'come from' 'nothing'. It would probably more correct to say that matter (specifically fermions and bosons) is coalescesing from vacuum energy vice "converting from energy" in the sense that matter is in itself a form of energy and thus matter pops into and out of existence based on the non-zero state of the zero-point energy in that specific locality of spacetime. Am I correct in this Cavediver?
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 132 by cavediver, posted 01-16-2009 1:24 PM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 137 of 156 (494509)
01-16-2009 1:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 134 by Agobot
01-16-2009 1:35 PM
|
|
Re: Take a hint....
Agobot writes: And here are other famous real-life physicists who don't agree(although CD didn't specifically say what he disagrees with, you assume you know) Ok, reading through some of these it seems that most of these scientists i.e. Paul Davies and others are just providing mere speculation and open dialog not adamant, dogmatic belief in a particular hypothesis of cosmogenesis. Michio Kaku, Brian Green, Stephen Hawkins and others do the same thing. It is part of the scientific process of open dialog a.k.a. brainstorming. Einstein, Heiseneberg, Bohr, and other leading theorists of the 20th century did the same thing. Mere speculation and advocating a specific scientific theory are two seperate things. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 134 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 1:35 PM | | Agobot has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
Kaku, is writing to the layman not to an audience of scientists. He is a futurist and sort of theoretical physicists liason to the relatively uneducated public (at least in cosmology, particle physics and advanced mathematics). I don't think his intention was to leave us hanging and this book is over a decade old so I am not sure how much his views have changed in this respect. Either way I think people (like Agobot) take the term "something from nothing" at face value when there is much more to it than this i.e. vacuum energy is nothing. Maybe you can enlighten us in this respect Cavediver.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 136 by cavediver, posted 01-16-2009 1:40 PM | | cavediver has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 140 by cavediver, posted 01-16-2009 2:04 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 141 of 156 (494515)
01-16-2009 2:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 134 by Agobot
01-16-2009 1:35 PM
|
|
Re: Take a hint....
Well, read between the lines of what Paul Davies (of which I have read some of his books on astrobiology) to see what he really is saying i.e.
Davies writes: Multiverse enthusiasts bolster their claims by pointing to the astonishing bio-friendliness of the universe. Obviously, he is not fully advocating this view.
Davies writes: If one accepts recent advances in fundamental physics, then some sort of multiverse seems inevitable. But how far down this slippery slope should one go? Davies writes: It gets worse... , etc. It seems from this article that he is very speculative of the idea of a multiverse for various reasons. If you want in understanding of what he proposes in place of this, read the following:
Life the universe and everything Here again a Q&A interview on the existence of a multiverse by Paul Davies (JTF is the John Templeton Foundation):
JTF writes: The concept of a multiverse is a very ancient one. Why is it coming to the public's attention again? Paul Davies writes: Advances in fundamental physics and cosmology lead to a definite prediction that the universe should have a domain structure in which the laws of physics vary from one domain to another. The currently fashionable attempt to unify all of physics, called string theory, suggests that there are an almost limitless number of alternative possible low-energy worlds, called "the landscape". When this is combined with the favored model for the origin of the universe - eternal inflation - then a mechanism exists for populating the landscape with really-existing universes, each universe being a "bubble" of expanding space with its own distinctive set of laws dictated by where on the landscape of possibilities it emerges. JTF writes: What do scientists make of the "multiverse" concept? PD writes: The concept of a multiverse has split the scientific community more sharply than any cosmological controversy since the big bang challenged the steady state theory. Passions are running high. The consequences are profound, because the ramifications include whether the universe is designed for life, or is life-encouraging merely as a result of a fluke, or is seen by us to be life-friendly only as a result of a selection effect. For string theorists, a major issue is whether their theory will yield a unique description of the universe, or permit a vast array of possibilities. The latter conclusion is seen as dangerously undermining of the whole enterprise. JTF writes: What should people understand, that they don't, about what the multiverse concept demands of science, and us? PD writes: The multiverse demands different criteria of scientific test, because the other universes may never be directly observable. But there could be indirect support, for example, from statistical analyses. The "leap of faith" needed to accept the existence of a multiverse is greater than that normally expected of scientists, which is to assume the unexplained existence of the laws of physics, although it is perhaps less than that required for belief in a cosmic designer who made a universe fit for life. Thus it seems that Dr. Davies is sitting on the fence (like many other scientists) and waiting for evidence to point one way or another. The multiverse hypothesis just like superstring and other speculative hypothesis are awaiting conclusive evidence to substantiate and affirm them as being true or false. In more simple terms, we have to wait and see where the evidence leads us in this regard. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 134 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 1:35 PM | | Agobot has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2