Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 220 (674059)
09-26-2012 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nano
09-25-2012 2:26 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nano, posted 09-25-2012 2:26 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nano, posted 09-26-2012 5:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 220 (674176)
09-26-2012 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nano
09-26-2012 5:33 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Maybe two 1/2 universes combined to form a whole universe.
Have you heard of the Ekpyrotic universe model with the colliding branes?
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".
Er, okay. Two half things combine to make one thing. Go back farther in your mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nano, posted 09-26-2012 5:33 PM nano has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 220 (674283)
09-27-2012 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nano
09-27-2012 12:34 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nano, posted 09-27-2012 12:34 PM nano has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 220 (674379)
09-28-2012 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by nano
09-28-2012 6:19 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 6:19 AM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 5:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 79 of 220 (674420)
09-28-2012 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by nano
09-28-2012 5:48 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 5:48 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by nano, posted 09-29-2012 6:59 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 220 (674445)
09-29-2012 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by jar
09-28-2012 6:21 PM


Re: But the question...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 09-28-2012 6:21 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 85 of 220 (674446)
09-29-2012 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by nano
09-28-2012 6:22 PM


Stile writes:
Science seems extremely adept at explaining and describing Quantum mechanical law... why do you think it's impossible, then?
I'm not trying to be flippant here, but its because my logic leads me there.
Logic doesn't lead to veracity, it leads to consistancy. You could still be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 6:22 PM nano has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 220 (675728)
10-15-2012 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Dogmafood
10-15-2012 8:05 AM


Re: Explanations and more
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Dogmafood, posted 10-15-2012 8:05 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 220 (675898)
10-17-2012 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Stile
10-16-2012 1:10 PM


Re: Example Specifics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Stile, posted 10-16-2012 1:10 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 10:12 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 220 (675903)
10-17-2012 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Stile
10-17-2012 10:12 AM


Re: Example Specifics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 10:12 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 11:51 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 220 (675910)
10-17-2012 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Stile
10-17-2012 11:51 AM


Re: Example Specifics
(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 with will either be on the "other" side, or reflected back... but not both... and not "half an electron here, and half there."
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 11:51 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 1:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 173 by NoNukes, posted 10-18-2012 9:18 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 220 (676109)
10-19-2012 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by NoNukes
10-18-2012 9:18 AM


Re: Example Specifics
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by NoNukes, posted 10-18-2012 9:18 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by NoNukes, posted 10-19-2012 8:21 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024