Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-23-2017 4:48 PM
396 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,910 Year: 13,516/21,208 Month: 2,998/3,605 Week: 340/933 Day: 82/154 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
20Next
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 7.4


(1)
Message 211 of 293 (723593)
04-03-2014 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by 1.61803
04-03-2014 4:07 PM


Re: Go North Young Man!
That will be the name of my next band!! If you dont mind?

The appellation is yours. And may Creative Mind Hole (CMH) rise in fame and get your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone.

(Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by 1.61803, posted 04-03-2014 4:07 PM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 212 of 293 (723594)
04-03-2014 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Son Goku
04-03-2014 5:06 AM


Re: Double talk..
Son Goku writes:

kbertsche writes:

I think some folks like to raise the example of radioactive decay because quantum mechanical systems seem complicated and sophisticated, and it is easier to use double-talk to fool people into thinking that quantum mechanical events have no "cause"

If I take two identical radioactive nuclei, literally identical in every respect and isolate them in a box where absolutely nothing affects them. One could decay in a millisecond and the other one million years later. Why? What caused that difference in the decay time?


Nuclear decay (like many other physical decay mechanisms) is stochastic. Nuclei will decay at different times. The lifetime of any particular nucleus cannot be predicted, but the behavior of a large number of nuclei is highly predictable and deterministic.

Again, non-predictable or non-deterministic does not mean uncaused. Like it or not, believe it or not, most scientists who are familiar with radiation agree that the cause of radioactive decay is an unstable nucleus.

For example, the Association for Science Education (UK):

Association for Science Education writes:

When do we get alpha decay?

A nucleus decays because it is unstable. The daughter nucleus will be more stable than the parent (or closer to stability).

Dr. Lee of Rice University:

Dr. Lee writes:

A nucleus decays because it is unstable

It may be energetically favorable for a nucleus to break apart into smaller constituents

Peppe, D. J. & Deino, A. L. (2013) Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods. Nature Education Knowledge 4(10):1

Peppe & Deino writes:

Because it is unstable, occasionally C14 undergoes radioactive decay to become stable nitrogen (N14).

Eisberg & Resnick, Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles (New York: Wiley, 1974):

Eisberg & Resnick writes:

The [alpha decay] process takes place spontaneously because it is energetically favored, the mass of the parent nucleus being greater than the mass of the daughter nucleus plus the mass of the alpha particle. (p.604)

As the decay rates for both processes [alpha and beta decay] increase rapidly with increasing decay energy, the nucleus in question will beta decay because that process has a larger decay energy, and so a much larger decay rate. (p.611)

The neutron decays because [it is energetically favored], and the lifetime T of the decay is about 1000 sec. (p.618)

ABE: Prof. Loveland of Oregon State

Prof. Loveland writes:

Radioactivity
What causes something to be radioactive?
Nuclei emit radiation spontaneously because it is energetically favorable for them to do so. In radioactive decay, the nucleus goes from a less stable energy state to a more stable state.


(emphases mine above)

To most physicists, statements of nuclear instability or of the availability of lower energy states are perfectly acceptable causal explanations for nuclear decay. I realize that many non-physicists on this forum are determined to deny this fact and fight against it, but that's their problem.

Edited by kbertsche, : Added Loveland quote


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Son Goku, posted 04-03-2014 5:06 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Taq, posted 04-04-2014 11:45 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 213 of 293 (723595)
04-03-2014 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by NoNukes
04-03-2014 8:18 AM


Re: Oblivious, just oblivious
NoNukes writes:

What you have described is not a decay process. It is instead a neutron induced reaction. Fluorescence is induced by radiation.


Of course I described a neutron induced reaction; that's what (n,p) means! In order for C-14 to decay, it must first be created. So I first described the creation of the unstable C-14 nucleus from N-14 through an (n,p) reaction.

NoNukes writes:

Now that C-14 then decays away over time. Half of the created C-14 will be gone in 5730 years through a process that does not involve neutrons striking N-14. What causes that decay?

What causes two identical C-14 atoms to decay millions of years apart?


The decay is stochastic. The decay is caused by 1) the creation of the unstable C-14 atom, and 2) the fact that the unstable C-14 atom can decay to a lower energy state.

NoNukes writes:

Your answer is that the difference is intrinsic in a way that is not embodied in the state of the atoms. Don't you see anything fundamentally different between decay and the two induced processes you discuss here?


No. As I've already explained, I don't see any fundamental difference between the two processes. In both situations, something first causes a physical system to be transformed into an excited state (an unstable C-14 atom in the radiation case, a molecule with an electron raised to a high energy state in the fluorescence case). In both situations, the excited state spontaneously, stochastically decays to a lower energy state (C-14 to N-14 in one case, an excited molecule to a ground state plus a visible photon in the other case). The physical mechanisms and the timescales are different, but the basic process is the same: 1) create an excited state, 2) wait for a spontaneous, stochastic decay of the excited state to a lower energy state.

(Note: some of your comments suggest that you do not understand the process of fluorescence. I recommend that you look it up on Wikipedia.)

NoNukes writes:

ABE:

To be clear, because you are determined to miss this and call others fools. In two cases you cite the particles and an inducing agent and the structure of the nuclei. In the final case you talk only about the structure of the nuclei and nothing else for results that are strikingly different every time an atom decays. Yet you see no difference. Nothing to explain.


This makes no sense. I only raised two cases (radioactivity and fluorescence), not three. I don't know what you are talking about.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by NoNukes, posted 04-03-2014 8:18 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 214 of 293 (723596)
04-03-2014 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by NoNukes
04-03-2014 8:04 AM


Re: Double talk..
NoNukes writes:

kbertsche writes:

I think some folks like to raise the example of radioactive decay because quantum mechanical systems seem complicated and sophisticated, and it is easier to use double-talk to fool people into thinking that quantum mechanical events have no "cause".


You are certainly full of yourself this morning. I used radioactive decay because it was easy to understand. And rather than make up junk to fool you, I actually cited physicists, in this case Bohr and Heisenberg who say that there is no cause.

In contrast, you say that the reason the atoms decay is because they were created.


To be clear, I claim that the reason the atoms decay is because they are in an unstable state, and the reason they are in an unstable state is because something caused them to be created in this state. Most physicists will agree with this.

Yes, some physicists will say that nuclear decay is uncaused. But this is somewhat misleading, and is not a robust philosophical statement. It is primarily a pedagogical statement to help students distinguish non-intuitive aspects of modern physics from deterministic classical physics. It would be more clear to say "unpredictable" or "non-deterministic" or "non-classical" than to say "uncaused". Science is fundamentally dependent on the principle of causation, and causation exists for non-deterministic, stochastic processes just as it does for deterministic processes.

Further, the statement "everything which begins to exist has a cause for its existence" is a philosophical statement, not a scientific statement. The philosophical and scientific uses of the term "causation" are somewhat different. Bertrand Russell may have overstated this difference, but he claimed:

Bertrand Russell writes:

The concept cause, as it occurs in the works of most philosophers, is one which is apparently not used in any advanced science.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by NoNukes, posted 04-03-2014 8:04 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by NoNukes, posted 04-04-2014 1:34 AM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 219 by NoNukes, posted 04-04-2014 2:17 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 215 of 293 (723597)
04-04-2014 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by NoNukes
04-02-2014 9:33 AM


Re: Double talk..
NoNukes writes:

kbertsche writes:

For the Big Bang, you don't want to accept that it has a cause, because the time interval for any ontologically prior cause must be zero.


Not quite. Under the proposed theory, the time interval is not zero. There is no time at all in which a cause could act. Time does not exist, and causation implicitly requires an effect and time. If you want to talk about an exception for the required opportunity to act, then I am going to require that we consider an exception for the entire requirement for cause, because you are not then talking about an argument based on experience. Your argument is then theological.

I don't believe that causation necessarily requires time, even in our daily experience. All that is required by causality is that an effect cannot occur before a cause. Nothing rules out a simultaneous cause and effect. For example, consider a heavy ball on a cushion. The ball causes a depression in the cushion. The ball is the cause, the depression is the effect. The cause and effect are simultaneous; as long as the ball is on the cushion, it continues to cause the depression. Time is not an issue in this situation.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2014 9:33 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by PaulK, posted 04-04-2014 1:25 AM kbertsche has responded
 Message 218 by NoNukes, posted 04-04-2014 1:42 AM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 220 by frako, posted 04-04-2014 7:36 AM kbertsche has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12686
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 216 of 293 (723599)
04-04-2014 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by kbertsche
04-04-2014 12:19 AM


Re: Double talk..
quote:

For example, consider a heavy ball on a cushion. The ball causes a depression in the cushion. The ball is the cause, the depression is the effect. The cause and effect are simultaneous; as long as the ball is on the cushion, it continues to cause the depression. Time is not an issue in this situation.

You mean that the ball suddenly appears on the cushion simultaneously with the dent ? I've never seen that. Based on my experience the ball, when placed on the cushion would deform the cushion by it's weight over a period of time.

Look, you're talking about causation effecting a change, not maintaining an existing condition without considering at all how it came to be. So that example completely misses the point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by kbertsche, posted 04-04-2014 12:19 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by kbertsche, posted 04-07-2014 3:43 PM PaulK has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9531
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 217 of 293 (723600)
04-04-2014 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by kbertsche
04-03-2014 11:50 PM


Re: Double talk..
To be clear, I claim that the reason the atoms decay is because they are in an unstable state, and the reason they are in an unstable state is because something caused them to be created in this state. Most physicists will agree with this.

They would all agree unless you the saw where you were going with what you call this cause. As would I. Because what you've stated is a tautology. By definition, we call isotopes that decay, unstable.

Once you've explained the context for this supposed cause, you will get objections from many physicists. I cannot say as you do whether that is most of them. I've shown you Heisenberg's opinion.

The problem is that you have not established what causes an alpha particle to leave when it leaves and what causes it to stay when it stays. Yes, quantum mechanics does predict exactly that behavior, but QM does not explain or point to an impetus for the alpha particle to escape. As best we know, there is no such impetus. No physical change in the nuclei prompts the alpha particle to leave, and no amount of text you type covers up the distinction between that an a neutron whacking into an N14 nucleus.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by kbertsche, posted 04-03-2014 11:50 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by cavediver, posted 04-05-2014 7:36 AM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9531
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 218 of 293 (723601)
04-04-2014 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by kbertsche
04-04-2014 12:19 AM


Re: Double talk..
I don't believe that causation necessarily requires time, even in our daily experience.

The ball causes a depression in the cushion.

You cannot possibly have thought that through. If what you say was correct we would have daily, first hand observation of cushions and pillows accelerating at infinite rates whenever we touched them. Yet we know that the acceleration is limited to F=ma. Always. With F always being finite.

What's worse is that you have also completely disproved the 3 second rule for picking up and eating candy after it is dropped onto a dirty floor. I simply cannot accept that.

Everything takes time. Sorry but that's life in our universe.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by kbertsche, posted 04-04-2014 12:19 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9531
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 219 of 293 (723603)
04-04-2014 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by kbertsche
04-03-2014 11:50 PM


Re: Double talk..
Yes, some physicists will say that nuclear decay is uncaused. But this is somewhat misleading, and is not a robust philosophical statement.

Not being a 'robust philosophical statement' is not exactly an indictment. I have given you a statement of physics. I don't really care how you feel about that philosophically, because I don't share your philosophy.

Here is some kbertsche style causation.

Usain Bolt wins races because he is faster than his opponents. He was created in such a way that his training and diet has produced an extremely fast human being. Robust?

Now quite obviously we can do much better than that. We can discuss what there is about his musculature, skeletal makeup, metabolism, coordination etc. that produces great speed an acceleration and we can discuss the physics about how he applies those gifts.

But that would not be philosophical, nor apparently, is pointing out that we cannot do the same analysis on an unstable nucleus to find why it is taking so long to decay.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by kbertsche, posted 04-03-2014 11:50 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2694
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 220 of 293 (723608)
04-04-2014 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by kbertsche
04-04-2014 12:19 AM


Re: Double talk..
Ok kebertdche

What is the cause that creates the 2 opposite virtual particles, we know why they vanish from existence because they collide.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by kbertsche, posted 04-04-2014 12:19 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by NoNukes, posted 04-04-2014 10:58 AM frako has responded
 Message 232 by kbertsche, posted 04-05-2014 12:45 PM frako has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9531
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 221 of 293 (723615)
04-04-2014 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by frako
04-04-2014 7:36 AM


Re: Double talk..
What is the cause that creates the 2 opposite virtual particles,

I'll give you the k-answer.

The event that prompted that creation is the creation of the universe itself which now has an intrinsic property that vacuum now creates virtual particles. The virtual particles are created by quantum chromodynamics (QCD). So they are caused despite the fact that they are produced spontaneously.

Or some such silly crap.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by frako, posted 04-04-2014 7:36 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by frako, posted 04-04-2014 4:26 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6426
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


(4)
Message 222 of 293 (723617)
04-04-2014 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by kbertsche
04-03-2014 10:36 PM


Re: Double talk..
To most physicists, statements of nuclear instability or of the availability of lower energy states are perfectly acceptable causal explanations for nuclear decay.

What they are saying is that given certain conditions, a certain outcome has a certain probability. If you think this is a valid definition of cause, then the cause of the universe shouldn't be a problem for you. If, as some claim, the instability of a vacuum (i.e. nothing) produces a probability that a universe will emerge, then you have your cause.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by kbertsche, posted 04-03-2014 10:36 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by cavediver, posted 04-05-2014 6:49 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2694
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 223 of 293 (723638)
04-04-2014 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by NoNukes
04-04-2014 10:58 AM


Re: Double talk..
The event that prompted that creation is the creation of the universe itself which now has an intrinsic property that vacuum now creates virtual particles. The virtual particles are created by quantum chromodynamics (QCD). So they are caused despite the fact that they are produced spontaneously.

Yea but by the same logic one could say the intrinsic nature of absolute nothing is that it wants to represent itself as a sum of equal positives and negatives.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by NoNukes, posted 04-04-2014 10:58 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by NoNukes, posted 04-04-2014 4:44 PM frako has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9531
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 224 of 293 (723639)
04-04-2014 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by frako
04-04-2014 4:26 PM


Re: Double talk..
Yea but by the same logic one could say the intrinsic nature of absolute nothing is that it wants to represent itself as a sum of equal positives and negatives.

One could certainly say that. Most people have enough concern for their reputations not to say it. Perhaps you should claim that most mathematicians would say that.

Yes! Blame it on Dr. Adequate!

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by frako, posted 04-04-2014 4:26 PM frako has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2694
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 225 of 293 (723643)
04-04-2014 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Dr Adequate
04-03-2014 12:06 PM


Re: Go North Young Man!
Im Blaming you

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-03-2014 12:06 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
20Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017