Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2017 8:13 AM
340 online now:
frako, Joe T, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Pressie, RAZD, Tangle (7 members, 333 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,009 Year: 28,615/21,208 Month: 681/1,847 Week: 56/475 Day: 3/53 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Author Topic:   A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1761
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 181 of 220 (676160)
10-20-2012 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-19-2012 7:26 PM


Re: The Quantum World.
... Godmameat.

That is pretty funny Alfred. In case you missed it, my username and avatar are a satirical and slightly ironic jab at people who hold onto their beliefs in spite of their reason. Something that I make every effort not to do. So, no Godmameat for me. I am looking for the bacon double cheeseburger of truth, even if the cheese is blue.

My challenge is that I realize that my long held perception of the universe is not sufficiently informed and that the remedy for that comes in a language that I do not speak. C'est la vie. So now, either I learn enough of the language to get the gist of it or I carry on in ignorance.

What you are doing is to demand that the new language matches the old one. Dogmatic by definition. I can sympathize because it is what I am doing with my questions. The difference is that I recognize the fact.

What they deal with is only the macro-scale shadow effects.

I think that I have remarked to you previously that seeing a shadow and concluding that something is blocking the light is not the same thing as 'seeing' a ghost. Funny that you should mention it though because I was just looking at a picture of the shadow of an atom.

Bottom line is: iron necessity reigns throughout on any scale.

Why? Why not just another spectrum like everything else in the universe?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-19-2012 7:26 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-20-2012 2:29 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1577 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 182 of 220 (676164)
10-20-2012 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by ProtoTypical
10-20-2012 1:32 AM


Re: The Quantum World.
It does not matter what you call it. Ghost or stone, it resists you and that is all that matters. They confuse what they can or cannot determine which is an irrelevant opinion with what puts painful limits to them so exists.
To exist is to have surrounding limits. That's all determined means. The Universe does not exist in this sense, it's a collective idea of all that exists so no cause is applicable to that concept.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by ProtoTypical, posted 10-20-2012 1:32 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1082
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 183 of 220 (676469)
10-23-2012 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by ProtoTypical
10-20-2012 1:28 AM


Re: Thank you
It is not that I have nothing to say it is just that I am busy shifting a paradigm

Ah good! It's a pretty confusing, but cool world we live in. Again, any questions just ask.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by ProtoTypical, posted 10-20-2012 1:28 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Stile, posted 10-23-2012 10:02 AM Son Goku has acknowledged this reply
 Message 185 by ProtoTypical, posted 11-20-2012 9:43 PM Son Goku has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3044
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 184 of 220 (676487)
10-23-2012 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Son Goku
10-23-2012 5:15 AM


An easy one
Son Goku writes:

Again, any questions just ask.

How was your day? Whoops... I mean, how was your scientifically explained day?

(-just thought I'd give you an easy one)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Son Goku, posted 10-23-2012 5:15 AM Son Goku has acknowledged this reply

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1761
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 185 of 220 (680720)
11-20-2012 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Son Goku
10-23-2012 5:15 AM


Re: Thank you
Again, any questions just ask.

Why are we still looking for a unified theory if everything just bleeds together in a spectrum of probabilities?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Son Goku, posted 10-23-2012 5:15 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Son Goku, posted 11-21-2012 5:56 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1082
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.0


(2)
Message 186 of 220 (680937)
11-21-2012 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by ProtoTypical
11-20-2012 9:43 PM


Re: Thank you
In quantum mechanics we want to know how the probabilities evolve, those rules for their evolution are the (quantum) laws of physics.

The probabilities associated with the electroweak force develop according to a different mathematical structure (or set of rules or laws of physics, which ever you prefer) than the strong nuclear force.

Lying behind these rules is a mathematical structure known as a Lie Group. The group controlling the electroweak force is called SU(2)XU(1) and the one behind the strong force is SU(3). For a variety of reasons people suspect that these groups should really just be part of a larger Lie Group. If this is the case then the probabilities for the Strong Force and the ElectroWeak Force are really controlled by the same rules and are ultimately just different manifestations of the rules of one force, the ElectoNuclear force.

I haven't mentioned Gravity. The problem with gravity is that it's not a force like the others, it's just a side-effect of spacetime being curved. This curvature of spacetime is still treated completely classically in modern theoretical physics, no probabilities associated with it at all. We don't know how to apply the ideas of quantum probability to gravity as of 2012.

These are two separate problems. The problem of the unified forces and the problem of quantum gravity.

However some physicists believe that they can't be solved separately, or more accurately that the unified forces problem would need to solved first.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by ProtoTypical, posted 11-20-2012 9:43 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1082
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 187 of 220 (681074)
11-22-2012 10:40 AM


Some more details.
I should say something more about the Lie groups.

Lie groups are basically mathematical objects that describe symmetries. I won't go to far into the details, but one thing I wanted to say is that the groups we use in physics are known as SU groups. There are an infinite number of these, SU(2), SU(3), SU(4),.... (SU(1) is completely uninteresting for physics). We also use the group U(1).

I should explain what these are. If you imagine an arrow on a sheet of paper, you can rotate the arrow by any angle and its length doesn't change. The set of all these rotations is a Lie Group called O(2).

Now if you take an arrow/vector in three dimensions, all the ways you can rotate it is O(3). In four dimensions O(4) and so on.

If we add in complex numbers (allow the vector to point in the imaginary direction) all the ways you can rotate it are called U(2) or U(3), e.t.c. the number depends on the dimension.

Usually there is one special operation that completely flips where the vector. This we usually don't include (as it turns out not to matter), so we pull it out. We then have what we call SU(N).

For the three forces of nature, the following groups are used:
U(1) - The hypercharge force.
SU(2) - The weak isospin force.
SU(3) - The strong nuclear force.
these groups are related to the symmetries of the forces, which seems like an incidental things, but if you know the symmetries then you can basically figure out everything else about the force. The full group is then known as:
U(1) X SU(2) X SU(3)

Early on in our universe the Higgs field interfered with the symmetries U(1) and SU(2) causing them to mix together, the result being that we no longer see the two forces above, but rather the forces we call the Electromagnetic force and the Weak Force.

An example of how these symmetries work is quarks. Quarks have a quantity called color, nothing to do with visual colour, which comes in three types: red, green, blue. If you made a list of how much red, green or blue charge a given quark had you would have a list with three elements. You could consider this list as being a three-dimensional arrow/vector, with each of the numbers telling you how far it points in a given direction.

Now, since the laws of physics don't care if you swap a quarks colors around, you can basically rotate this arrow/vector as much as you want without effecting anything, all these rotations are SU(3), which is why it is the group for the strong nuclear force.

Another thing is that if a force has a symmetry group SU(N), then N^2 - 1 particles control that force. So for example for SU(3), we have 3^2 - 1 = 8 particles. These are the eight gluons. SU(2) has 2^2 - 1 = 3 (related to the two W bosons and the one Z). U(1) has only one particle, related to the photon. In total that's 12 force particles.
(The reason SU(1) isn't interesting is that it would have 1^2 - 1 = 0 particles, so no force. In fact it's not really a symmetry at all.)

Now, in the 1970s people found that the full group of all the forces:
U(1) X SU(2) X SU(3)
fit inside other groups. The smallest being SU(5). So the idea was that there is only one SU(5) force. However SU(5) has 5^2 - 1 = 24 particles. That would mean 12 new force particles. It turns out that these extra force particles would cause the proton to be unstable. The lifetime the SU(5) theory gives for protons is enormous, but experiments at the Super-Kamiokande experiment in Japan indicate that it's still too short.

For that reason people have looked at other groups that U(1) X SU(2) X SU(3) might fit into. All these theories are known as GUTs (Grand unified theories). The particular guess of SU(5) is known as the Georgi-Glashow model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi%E2%80%93Glashow_model


  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10222
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 188 of 220 (692075)
02-27-2013 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dr Adequate
09-27-2012 8:19 AM


Re: How far can one really go when the destination is infinite?
Well my point would be that there is an uncaused first cause.

I never toyed with infinite regress.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 8:19 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1443 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 189 of 220 (694317)
03-23-2013 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nano
09-25-2012 2:26 PM


Interesting argument
In the history of philosophy, no attempt to argue God from non-God has ever been successful. That said, your attempt is innovative and interesting.

Scientists used to believe the universe was eternal. We now know that is not true. Some of the responses here have attempted to disprove your argument by appealing to a naturalistic cause for the Big Bang. If it was possible to prove a naturalistic cause to the Big Bang, then nature could be the “something that has always been here.” Perhaps that something is just a quantum field.

At any rate, naturalistic causes for the Big Bang can be, and have been, mathematically ruled out. That is to say, it is impossible for nature to be the cause of a low entropy Big Bang. Let me explain.

You always expect nature to result in higher entropy. If a naturalistic Big Bang was possible, you would expect it to result in a high entropy universe like a black hole. Yet the Big Bang resulted in a very low entropy universe. Roger Penrose has calculated the odds of nature giving birth to a low entropy universe as “one in 10 to the power 10 to the power 123.” In other words, if you were to write out the number using standard notation – 1,000,000…. etc. then you could put a zero on every proton, neutron, electron and photon in the universe and you would run out of room.

Listen to Roger Penrose describe it himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvV2Xzh11r8

When you write “Consider the beginning of the universe,” you are dealing with scientifically knowable information. Your proof actually contains some science and this is what makes your argument interesting. Coming from a philosophical background, you probably want your argument to be completely science free – but I don’t think that is possible or desirable. I think if you could put more science into your argument, it might make it stronger.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nano, posted 09-25-2012 2:26 PM nano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-24-2013 7:19 AM designtheorist has responded
 Message 193 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2013 12:44 PM designtheorist has responded

  
GrimSqueaker
Member (Idle past 1299 days)
Posts: 137
From: Ireland
Joined: 03-15-2013


Message 190 of 220 (694353)
03-24-2013 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by designtheorist
03-23-2013 8:50 PM


Re: Interesting argument
When u consider the very high probablility rates in a preBig Bang phase space you r forgetting one really important factor - time

Without time all probablity becomes moot and defunct as you have nothing to measure any probability against. In infinity 1:2 and 1:1'000'000'000'000 are equally likely (thats not 100% true but I'm tired it's early and I hope u get the general thrust of the point)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by designtheorist, posted 03-23-2013 8:50 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 11:04 AM GrimSqueaker has not yet responded
 Message 192 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 11:19 AM GrimSqueaker has not yet responded

    
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1443 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 191 of 220 (694375)
03-24-2013 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by GrimSqueaker
03-24-2013 7:19 AM


Improbability and time
Actually, when the odds are higher than one in 10 to the power 50, it is considered mathematically impossible even in infinite time.

You may have heard that if you have a roomful of monkeys and infinite time, they will eventually type the complete works of Shakespeare. Not true. They will not even type one sonnet.

Someone tested the hypothesis with real monkeys. Here's what they learned: "Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five pages consisting largely of the letter S, the lead male began by bashing the keyboard with a stone, and the monkeys continued by urinating and defecating on it."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-24-2013 7:19 AM GrimSqueaker has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by JonF, posted 03-24-2013 2:19 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 2:54 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1443 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 192 of 220 (694377)
03-24-2013 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by GrimSqueaker
03-24-2013 7:19 AM


Re: Interesting argument
I found a news story on a test by "virtual monkeys." You can read it here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...o-reproducing-Shakespeare.html

In the article the researcher is claiming the monkeys are close to reproducing the complete works of Shakespears, but there is a huge problem with the claim. He is accepting it in nine letter blocks and the computer is matching the blocks to something in Shakespeare. This is completely meaningless. Among nine letter sy there is only 5.5 trillion possibilities. This random letter generator has already produced 5 trillion of them.

here is one of Shakespeare's most famous sonnets:

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

There are 619 total characters counting spaces. No random letter generator would ever produce that exact text (including "return" button) even in infinite time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by GrimSqueaker, posted 03-24-2013 7:19 AM GrimSqueaker has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by NosyNed, posted 03-24-2013 1:35 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 195 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 1:53 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13365
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 193 of 220 (694381)
03-24-2013 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by designtheorist
03-23-2013 8:50 PM


Re: Interesting argument
quote:

At any rate, naturalistic causes for the Big Bang can be, and have been, mathematically ruled out. That is to say, it is impossible for nature to be the cause of a low entropy Big Bang.

That isn't true. Penrose doesn't says ANYTHING about natural causes in the clip you posted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by designtheorist, posted 03-23-2013 8:50 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 7:25 PM PaulK has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8802
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 194 of 220 (694384)
03-24-2013 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 11:19 AM


"Ever"
I think the analogy includes and infinite amount of time or an infinite number of randomly typing monkeys (or random letter generators is more correct as you note).

In one case you would get this result an infinite number of times over eons In the second case you would get it an infinite number of times in a few minutes.

Infinity isn't just a big number.

I am pretty darned sure you are wrong when you allow for infinite time. Even 10 50 is a miniscule, vanishingly small amount compared to infinity time..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 11:19 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15984
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 195 of 220 (694387)
03-24-2013 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 11:19 AM


Re: Interesting argument
There are 619 total characters counting spaces. No random letter generator would ever produce that exact text (including "return" button) even in infinite time.

Yes it would. Trivially it would. Indeed, in infinite time it would produce it an infinite number of times. That's just basic math.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 11:19 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017