|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
2. There was either a "first thing" or "something has always been here". Maybe two 1/2 universes combined to form a whole universe. Have you heard of the Ekpyrotic universe model with the colliding branes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Yes, I have heard of this, but I would say "Go back farther with your mind. Go out farther into the multiverse." Logically, there had to be a "first thing" or a "something that has always been here". Maybe two 1/2 universes combined to form a whole universe.Have you heard of the Ekpyrotic universe model with the colliding branes? Er, okay. Two half things combine to make one thing. Go back farther in your mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Surely the logic of how a set is populated dictates that there must be a first thing or something that is already there. If not, please suggest a complementary third condition. Half-things combining into being something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I disagree that the logic fails. You're essentially Aruging from Incredulity. You posit that its either a first thing or an eternal thing, and then because you cannot think of any other options you assert that those are the only two. "I can't think of another one" is not a good argument for them being the only ones. You would need to actually demonstrate that they're the only ones if you want to have any weight to your argument. I've offered a third possibility and you haven't responded to it.
All it means is that it can't be explained. Its very simple and that is all I am saying. But we don't know that. Maybe it can be explained. You haven't offered a good argument for it not being.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I see your point so please allow me to present a stronger case. I look at my two states and I see that they are sufficient to cover all possible beginning conditions for the population of a set. Wat? You say you're gonna present a stronger case and then you just re-word the same case. You think they're sufficient because you can't think of a third one. Half-things combining into being something. This blurs the line between something and nothing. Maybe there's stuffs that's not really things yet. Or, perhaps there was not a first thing, but multiple first things that popped into existence simultaneously. Its not that hard to think of other options besides either a first thing or an eternal thing.
I am looking for feedback and so I inquired if anyone had any other idea's because I didn't. Yeah, but you're feverishly trying to push any alternatives into you pre-conceieved idea in an effort to avoid accepting that its wrong.
I'm really looking for other complementary logical conditions, not named theories. Okay, I've given you two more options now. You could respond to those.
This is another reason why I believe my logic captures all possible conditions for the population of a set and is useful for my purpose of describing the origin of the universe. Yeah, about that. If time itself emerges as space does then the universe would have a finite past without having a beginning. So there, that's five options we've got now. So much for your only two.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well the topic says "A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained" not " Proposed Proof That The Origin of Everything Cannot Be Scientifically Explained". But either way it is about as pointless and valueless as horseshit; likely of even less value. Yeah, probably. But that's never stopped you before?
s "A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained" not " Proposed Proof That The Origin of Everything Cannot Be Scientifically Explained". A God, or something, is the point to be thrown in there whereby the Universe is not Everything. I think its a jab against atheism and for agnoticism... but we agree that's it's a bad argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Stile writes:
I'm not trying to be flippant here, but its because my logic leads me there.
Science seems extremely adept at explaining and describing Quantum mechanical law... why do you think it's impossible, then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
My point is that when we examine the universe we see that 99.9999...% of all things have a cause. It seems a mighty leap to encounter something that we do not fully understand and come to the conclusion that there is no cause for it. It seems akin to invoking a god. I remember modeling the paths of electrons with some computer software that used the Random Walk. It wasn't that we didn't understand how they moved and were just leaping to an uncaused explanation; modeling their beavior with uncaused random elements actually matched observation and worked well. We're still presuming the randomness of Brownian Motion, but its not just something we've leaped at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Thanks for that, I found it very helpful. So, tunnelling isn't so much as I was describing it as it is more like a wave bumping into a barrier which causes reflection and transmition. Except... this isn't for things such as light reflecting off and also transmitting through glass... it's for actual particles because of their wave-and-particle nature. So, in taking the "guy running into a brick wall and coming out the other side" example to the absurd lengths I'm talking about... what we would really end up with is a half-a-guy on the far side of the wall and the other half-a-guy bouncing back as normal. Because of conservation of energy. No, those are probability waves. The higher the amplitude the higher the odds that the particle will be found in that spot.
That just shows that there's a small chance that the particle will tunnel through the barrier, its not a portion of the particle making it through.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That's just looking at the same graph from the top down. The amplitute is the brightness of the white part. The portion of the dim white part that makes it through is the probability of the electron being found in that spot. There's a small chance of the electron tunneling through, but that is not a portion of the election tunneling through.
Edit: Oh, that's for a wave packet so we're talking multiple electrons. But its still the same for just one. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
(That's "potential" as in electrical potential... right? Not potential as in "a possible barrier"). No, I thinks its as in "a possible barrier", not electrical potential.
However, after interfacing with the barrier, the electron Fixed it for ya, but yeah.
Now, if we have a wave packet (a bunch of electrons/particles)... and they come across a potential barrier... then there is a probability distribution predicting the result, as shown in the *.gif. -It is possible, but not likely, that "most" of the electrons will appear on the other side, while only a few will reflect back. -It is possible, but not likely, that "most" of the electrons will reflect back, while only a few will "tunnel" through (they don't actually tunnel through... that's just what it's called when they show up on the other side). -It is possible, and likly, that roughly half (maybe a bit less) will tunnel through, and roughly half (maybe a bit more) will reflect back. -It is possible to calculate the probability for all the electrons to tunnel through... but this is very small (has it ever been observed?) -It is possible to calculate the probability for none of the electrons to tunnel through... but this is also very small (has it ever been observed?). If you send a packet, I don't think its possible that most of the electrons will tunnel through. You'll only get a minority of them tunneling through, and the odds of the ones that do get through are given by that probability wave. I may be wrong.
And, the example of the dude going through the brick wall is the same as the wave packet, right? I thought the dude was represented by a single particle, not a packet of them. Perhaps I'm not getting it either.
That is, because the barrier is so thick, and the "wave packet" is so large (the dude). The probability of even *any* electrons/particles tunneling through is very small. The probability of *all* the electrons/particles going through is still calculable (if you can estimate how many electrons are in the guy?)... but that's even incredibly smaller still. How's that? That's not how I thought it was supposed to go, but now you're having me doubt myself!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The ratio between transmission and reflection depends on the energy of the electrons, and the thickness and height of the barrier. Even when the energy of the electron is less than the barrier height, there is a finite probability that the electron will be reflected by the barrier. But it is possible for the probability of tunneling through the barrier to be greater than 50% even though classical physics would predict that the particle cannot penetrate the barrier.
Yes, quite. But that would give us a different animation of the wave, right? They don't specify the energy or thickness, but given this animation:
We know its not a really high energy and a really low thickness, because most of them don't make it through. And, given that animation, we'd never have most of them make it through. Correct?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024