foodchain

I don't think that is right. Can you back up your statement with some online source which speaks authoritatively for the modern physics community?

 

If you can't support what you are saying, then maybe you should do some reading.

 

Einstein-online would be a reasonable place to start. Link is in my sig. It is a public outreach website maintained by a prominent research institute. Here's a quote from that site's article called A Tale of Two Big Bangs

 

==quote Einstein-online==

Whether or not there really was a big bang singularity is a totally different question. Most cosmologists would be very surprised if it turned out that our universe really did have an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitely curved beginning.

==endquote==

 

If you are interested I can back that up with links to a massive peer-reviewed published literature in non-singular cosmology, but i think the public outreach website from that institute may suffice for starters.

 

My point is you can't just speculate about what you think "modern physics says". It doesn't lead to any solid discussion. If you present some controversial opinion as fact then you have to come up with links that support what you claim.

Thats very interesting. I was unaware of the professional side of things as I am only a student, and not of physics.

So with what you are saying, the universe might not have started with a big bang? That in professional physics that deals with this subject in particular, one could speculate about something other then the big bang and not be a complete crackpot?

it is said that all matter and radiation was confined to a single point at that instant

 

this would imply a black-hole as the point

 

since nothing else could confine matter and more importantly radiation to a single point other than a BH

 

any thoughts

 

in otherwords ;

 

gravity cannot alone explain how radiation cannot eminate into space

 

and nor is common gravity strong enough to draw all matter towards a central point

 

it would take an un-common strength of gravity to create a BB

 

hence a black-hole ( BH )

I think you are thinking of a singularity, which I don't think exists with a neutron star right? Yet with the BH comes that singularity? I am just wondering if this is a BH or singularity thing.

Also, I am not sure but I think its based on the big bang itself, as modern physics has time or what not starting at the big bang. Does your question goes outside of that?

I wonder if this means we will see actual R&D for what it could be, like a small fraction of the Iraq war chest would probably suffice I think. At least I hope at any rate this means more emphasis being placed on getting away from fossil fuels.

Between decay and Annihilation.

Lol... I am very sorry,

 

Could you please explain or iterate how the smallest thing cannot have a wave length?

 

You do realize that [[every object]] in the world is modelled against wave distribution.

I dont know whats going on but I will try.

Wave model = describes everything

Photon = energy

energy = wave model

so would you being saying that the photon is the most smallest thing in regards to what?

I think that decay can result in photons right, I get hung up on if thats that bottom of decay, as electrons decay or decay for that particle or what not ends at photons, do photons decay?

Is it that photons don't decay?

It's because there really isn't such a thing as a 'new' thought.

 

You were talking about imagining music originally. I've been playing Rodrigo's Concierto De Aranjuez in my head for the last couple of days (can't seem to get rid of it). I can do a number of things with it in my mind; I can swap the lead from oboe to guitar to flugel horn. I can even swap it to harp if I try, but I can't swap it for something I've never heard before. I can vary the melody in my mind, shift it from minor to major and even change the order of the notes, but I can't reproduce notes I've never heard. These are all variations on a theme.

 

Composers can create new music, but this is just novel variations of sounds they already have in their memories.

 

Look at all the different houses in your city, all the different styles of architecture, different shapes, sizes colours, numbers of rooms, arrangements of rooms and so-on, but they're all made of bricks and timber, just in different arrangements.

 

It's like that old thought experiment; try to create in your mind a completely new animal. Whatever you do, it's going to end up a mixture of elements you already have in your memory. Will it have scales, skin, fur, feathers or a shell? You already have these elements. What else could it have? Legs, wings, claws or paws? Again, recycling stuff that already exists.

 

It's a toughy for sure.

I can remember songs rather well, not as in play them but just how they sound. To add to this at times, when near to sleep only, I can imagine music that I have never heard before. I don't kwow if the sounds themselves are new to me, just them together in a song. I do not think all of these sounds I have heard before, because I can not recall music or sound terrifically well, as in to verbalize it. Lastly when I become aware of this, any thinking about it in particular on my part destroys it.

To foodchain

In my own opinion, one of the really bad but frequent myths surrounding global warming issues is the belief that localised short term heat waves or cold snaps can be blamed on global warming.

 

The highest air temperature due to climatic effect ever recorded was in the desert of Libya in the year 1911, when it came close to 60 Celsius. This was the second coldest year of the 20th Century!

Yes, but I think along those lines also what can account for all the CO2. Would it be difficult to say disconnect any modern atmospheric or oceanic behavior in regards to this and how? I think a simple point with the hurricanes is that global warming could be false because not all hurricane behavior is linear? Or that because regionally, global warming could play out differently means global warming is false? I would expect normal and random behavior to occur in light of global warming, such as being in hilly terrain during sunset, the winds in such a situation I imagine would be extremely difficult to predict. I don't however though think global warming should not be viewed in conjunction with modern weather phenomena, maybe it will get more intense and worse in others, or maybe just one short term impact of GW is just more stronger hurricanes withing a shorter period of time. I think its just because I get hung up on how people can deny anything anymore, not so much question such.

Another question is whether any increase is only regional.

 

The only really severe cyclone (as we call them) recently was Larry in 2006.

 

Aside from that you need to go back to 1974 for the Brisbane floods and Cyclone Tracy in Darwin and 1971 when Althea smashed Townsville. Judging by cities being hit, cyclone activity is down for North Eastern Australia. 32 years between Cat5s is definitely not an increase in either frequency or force.

 

If you watch the first bit of this, you'll hear the cyclone warning siren. I grew up with that siren, it was tested every December but we don't hear it anymore, we don't need it.

 

Cyclones still come but they lack the power of previous ones. Here is a list of Queensland cyclones dating back to 1864, have a read and you'll see what I mean. If there is an increase in size and frequency, it isn't in the Western Pacific region.

If you can accept that environmental change can occur then I think questions like global warming are perfectly acceptable. Saying that I would just like to point out that CO2 in terms of ppm increase is observed globally, not just regionally. It may be something in an effect that whatever change we are inflicting is not enough to completely stop for instance any particular weather pattern yet, like a jet stream.

Its not that weather itself has to become completely different. Just a few degree change over a relatively short period of time geologically speaking is enough to cause severe havoc. Europe, or France in particular experienced a rather intense heatwave years ago which killed a lot of people, and of course with all the ice melting what is to blame, as in what melts ice? So what will our behavior lead to, should not be undercut so easily as to say hurricane activity is only regional in regards to ocean temperatures.

I just don't understand how you can try to corner global warming into some purely regional effect alone, when clearly its not the case.

do experiments with photons have decoherence time?

I always got confused with the working application of the word somatic with such issues. Could you say that somaticlly the brain interacts with its surroundings?

I would just like to bring up reptiles. Now a reptile has reptile biology as far as human scientific stuff goes right? Why does the same material, in terms of cells or what not get suggested to be not conscious, when our brains themselves are made of cells also. I know the question seems moderately redundant, but I think it applies to trying to qualify what is conscious. I personally view life regardless of scale as dynamic in a conscious sense in some way, even with a microbe. I merely apply this being that its alive, I don't really know if a microbe of some kind experiences any sort of reality outside of whatever it physically is/does though.

I cant help but to think this simple aspect gets lost in all the high tech terms. I don't care to bring up bad news, but brains injuries often result in immediate changes to that individuals consciousness in a variety of ways. I also think any AI thats made with a computer would have to be kept within a certain operational integrity in regards to component structure, or such would have a direct impact on the AI itself. I think to deny this means AI could be created out of stones being stacked together, if this is all philosophical that is.

I would think the first thing you could study would have to deal with energy, regardless of anything else, so that you could at least prove measurement possible, would require energy right?

To add you have to look at many things, like evolutionary developmental biology. I think that is what brings epigenetics into more of a factor. Then you also have gene transfer events that are not entirely understood I am sure. I mean the genome in itself does not guarantee some 100% determined organism just from DNA as is. What I mean is things like post translational events, or the existence of the phenotype. I think some gross error with biology is the make some idea that everything like the ability to generate an internet post is coded for somewhere in my cells. That its some perfect mechanism like that producing some perfect organism. I think this is the idea behind ID really.

Not to try and drag the point off topic, but is trying to produce some perfect mechanism a fallacy in regards to say biological reality at the molecular scale of it? Just because sight exists in species, does it have to have some perfect genetic correspondence? I don't think evidence affords it, and I furthermore don't think the evidence affords a gene centric view to be much more then genetics as a evidence of evolution, not some absolute mechanism of control. Genetics of course can reveal evolution through the fact of biological inheritance and reproduction, natural selection gives/drift and all that stuff. I don't think that states something of the selfish gene as is used to often, you have to think of genes and genomes as open to selection, some particular pocket of gene in a pool might get stepped on more then others, its so much stuff to calculate, and in what in terms of time, ten years, ten million. Its the genes that carry in sex, but it still has to occur, the sex part at least I think in many cases at least.

So that its, I think to often issues like selfish gene, the advances in biosciences and such portrays the gene as some absolute mechanism of control, I don't think that completely grasps biological reality though. I think if the gene centric view of life is correct, the phenotype should not exist, nor variation into any species that would become extinct.

I have always been interested in medicine and it is my chosen field of study... but recently, i've been reading a lot on theoretical physics and mathematics and it seems far more meaningful in the

larger span of things ( and by this i mean the workings of the universe - i'm not underestimating the work of doctors/surgeons here at all). This being said, it seems to me that I have neither the ingrained mathematical ability nor the solid basics ( have been to 9+ schools with different teaching systems) to study such things... or to one day study biology/chemistry to the advanced level I'd like to because of my average maths skills ( afterall advanced biology is essentially chemistry, advanced chemistry is physics and advanced physics is math...)

 

...which begs the following (perhaps naive) questions that I would be delighted if you could try and answer:

 

1)do you think excellence in mathematics -and thus science- depend mostly on ingrained ability, or is hard work and some ingrained competency enough?

 

2)can anyone hope to understand complicated concepts or in anyway affect our current understanding of the workings of the world and its constituents without a strong understanding of mathematics?

 

3) I am 18 years old and unlike some of my physics/math buddies, I cannot derive the Shrodinger equation or churn out complicated proofs of x=y. I have completed high-school level work with a good understanding of it ( especially in biology) but that's about it. Does this mean that I will never achieve anything particularly meaningful in my scientific career?

I want to excel in whatever I am involved in and I feel I might be able to given the right guidance, but I feel incredibly small and stupid compared to the other 18 year olds out there who are physics-math people "from birth" and are already beginning to touch at the threads of a universe that, as a future surgeon, I am worried I will never really grasp or add to.

 

Sorry about the unclear layout of my post and "basic-ness" of my question. It's been a hard month.

 

Thank you (:

Any field is fine right? I mean it would be sort of some kind of tyranny to say you have to be a physicist or else you are not doing science? I mean there is a lot to say doing ecology that does not cross an internet board all to often, do you read about plant behavior in relation to flood conditions, i do not think this is a common topic. I don't think you can also discover such things just working with equations.

What about the concept behind a rail gun, could you power a turbine instantly using that technology to some extent, say the turbine was built into some rechargeable electric engine, could driving it add to the turbines ability to do work at all? It just seems to me you could get the turbine to be a bit more responsive maybe, do you have to make just it solely responsible for powering a car, what about if it just shared the burden along with the engine.

I have often thought if you could make some car that really is some overall porous composite if you could do that, or what that would offer, but I think it would still be open to some form of hydrogen embrittlement unless you had some super paint. I just think another avenue to look at is lightweight but strong materials replacing heavy ones.

That is a lot of feedback, thanks.

I am thinking of expanding on interpretation mainly in the remainder of the paper. As what I am trying to place emphasis overall is that. I wanted to be able to derive some opening salvo that could be just enough to allow the concept of interpretation to exist for discussion. So in only so many words I am trying to explain also in just enough detail for someone to grasp QM, this to me is the big hurdle. How to make it really simple for space.

I am thinking of using uncertainty principal, in relation to at what size of stuff does such occur, and sort of what does uncertainty mean for the physical universe, how would you say what that means outside of the physics, and how this correlates to interpretation.

-------

I got the rest of the draft done, in terms of composition I tried to be more personable through this part. My big question of my stuff here if I had to pick is how I end paragraph three, does that capture how perplexing the uncertainty principal is in a simple tone?

---------------------

To again speak of the history of QM, the Copenhagen interpretation surely signified the significance of such in science. This interpretation was devised by some of the scientists paramount to quantum mechanics true significance as a means of inquiry. In this, one of the most profound and conflictive qualities of QM was coined the uncertainty principal. This particular aspect of quantum theory allowed the behavior of light to be predicted in various experimental settings.

The scale the uncertainty principal comes into existence is beyond small, in fact its on the currently smallest scale science can physically observe any part of the material universe. QM was and still is the only physical theory capable of doing such in any way holding up to empirical testing. Yet with the uncertainty principal comes a stark statement, its in that you can question how the universe itself in day to day life relates to QM. This question has drove a wedge in physics over how to actually apply it along with General relativity into a single theory. Science still currently cannot use one or the other alone, or together to produce a single theory that satisfies what both say scientifically.

The reality of interpretable problems primarily bloom from the uncertainty principal also. The root of the issue is that you cannot do the math part of the theory without using it, ever, to any success in any setting currently be it experiment or theoretical. The philosophical sentence I would use to best describe this problem is simply the one that it allows you to ask if all of reality is some probability of uncertain proportions, regardless of scale.

Simply put that if this is how the universe actually behaves at such at that size, then why does anything regular exist. Why can you think faithfully that tomorrow will even occur in an uncertain universe? That question basically posits the reality at least to me on how to speak of such outside of pure physics, how do you use any other language besides the math of its experiments to speak on such, or how can you interpret it.

To date various interpretations exist of QM. Not all but quite of few of These are made by respectable scientific methods more often then not like various other serious scientific questions. Most of them seek to supplant the Copenhagen interpretation by predicting a normal reality existing with such uncertain forces in the universe. Yet no interpretation could receive the label as something that would end the interpretation problem. No one in the physics community would declare the universe all figured out. So why you may hear of these concepts at some point, its nice to understand the actual scope of complexity to such if nothing else I think.

To think of how QM helps the living, it allows us to produce certain technologies we all like for instance. One major application of interest with QM is a hybrid sort of scientific inquiry is with chemistry. Quantum chemistry is typically encapsulated under computational chemistry, and physical chemistry. Both of the fields are currently critical to understanding chemistry itself, physical chemistry being regular classes in most any baccalaureate of chemistry at university. By these relationships the uncertainty principal applies to life via biochemistry by some extent if not by default, so why don't you or I just become a frog in some uncertain poof of quantum goings on? Again the question of how to think of such in the real world is mildly impossible for mortal comprehension, thus interpreting quantum mechanics itself becomes a sword in the stone situation that has yet to be removed in some certain sense.

Thats a issue though is it not. I mean the mini-13 has been a hot topic in gun regulation debates forever. Today they make 7.62 ones. You can buy all kinds of high power rifles, carbines, or heck soon to be full auto shotguns. The damage this weapons can inflict are amazing really, in many situations it has been proven humans acting criminally can inflict mass casualties really, even in the face of organized armed resistance.

I think a better term of such should be civil weapons ban, who wants anyone to be able to obtain to easily such weapons. I think this could be a simple fix by simply making such weapons outrageously expensive to purchase. Then focus on combating black market arms trade in the U.S. In some nations in Africa for instance a crate of ak's don't cost that much, this kind of problem occurs on a global scale really or in many nations. So many ways if you just think rationally rather then with fervent passion for just the gun I think its easy to see problems.

Well I'd call it a glaring error that your construction appears to be missing a Planck.

I know I should, but I don't want to make the paper overly technical at all. I also want to primarily focus on the topic of interpreting quantum mechanics, more so in that I have to double this papers size easily. I think using Planck scale could help show the difference in say QM to general relativity somewhat, such as in scale, but I don't know how to easily convey such to any audience.

I have to write a paper and here is the rough draft. I could use help in any glaring errors with data, not so much anything to do with grammar. I have ommitted citings of any material currently as I am just trying to get down how I want it to read and look. Any responses would be appreciated.

---------------------

Quantum mechanics is a theory produced by the scientific field of physics. Quantum mechanics or QM for short is a complex mathematical formalism used to predict physical behavior on a microscopic scale primarily, though it has application to the entire observable universe. The mathematical formalism is the mathematical framework by which QM gets experimentally verified. In other words you could think of an insurance company using math to calculate rates it should charge potential customers. The mathematical processes behind QM would be similar as in a structured framework of math used to figure out what rate should be charged, and the experimental application is the math itself being tested in the real world. Such a test is the famous double slit experiment which is foundational to QM.

Without the formalism many of the outcomes of various experiments carried out by physicists in the past could not be explained. In the case of the double slit experiment, behavior of light was being encountered that was completely counterintuitive to common scientific understanding. When a beam of light was shown through two slits, the light itself behaved not only as a particle, but also as a wave. In regards to modern understanding of the times, light should only have behaved as either a particle, or a wave, not both. This was latter to be called wave particle duality, and the physical theory that came to be able to explain such is called quantum mechanics.

To sum up the shock of wave particle duality, individual rays of light seemed to behave as a constant flux of probability on observation, rather then as a simple, direct, and guaranteed consequence. Another way of looking at such is that nothing short of a description of light as nondeterministic and probable had to be used in order to quantitatively explain the physical behavior of light in experiment. So while the quantitative aspects of QM seemed solid, the qualitative aspects are the more mysterious part of QM

Reality as explained by QM has serious philosophical consequences. For instance, Albert Einstein, a human who created the scientific theory of general relativity had serious objections to it. General Relativity is a physics theory so powerful as to be able to describe almost perfectly the behavior of the macroscopic universe, and he simply could not accept the philosophical ramifications of QM, even in light of the double slit experiment. In fact the scientific community if not people in general that learned of QM were hard pressed to understand what it meant.

This issue has become known as the interpretation problem. No human interpretation of QM can suffice to explain really what is occurring in such experiments. In short, the theory worked to describe empirically physical phenomena, but it was beyond comprehension of even those behind such to adequately translate the math and experiment of QM into a coherent human definition. A model interpretation was devised called the Copenhagen interpretation. Even with its uneasy acceptance in those times, many more interpretations have sprouted fourth not only from physicists, but laypeople of science as an attempt to decipher the mathematical and experimental reality of QM.

This reaction to QM by many like legendary Einstein lead to tests designed by the brightest in physics to try and falsify QM. This though was brought about primarily over the issue with interpreting what QM actually means in the real world though. So its easy to see interpretation is not a resolved issue. Its support even in the modern physics community is questionable, with many simple accepting only the experimental aspects of QM, and thinking of interpreting such a less then worthwhile cause.

I don't really care to attack voting, but I don't think its fair to bring up some other person in conjunction with bush when hating him. Not that such a move is wrong, just that its sort of the whole support the troops deal. I mean was it just me, or did bushco make it like attacking him was an assault on the military at large or something? How does that work? It was really bad at one point, he really tried to make it unpatriotic to hold any sort of a counter view to the bushco "vision", that was just gross.

He is one of the largest failures in just about forever, regardless of party affiliation or anything. The entire administration has proven itself beyond ignorant and corrupt.

The rest of his administration will basically be forgot I would think really. I think people just really would like to move on, and well I am all for it. The more I think about it, I think bush was sent back in time by skynet to help the machines win.

I think part of the effect of say an immune response is forcing say mutation to become more paramount, for say selection I guess. In many cases this simply kills off what is making the immune system respond I think. I know that phylogeny can be constructed for say tracing HIV, so you could say find the head vampire, not to make light of HIV though.

Looking at selection bias, which if I understand such is basically to mean the impact any particular structured observation has when using statistical data, does this correlate to the concept of selection rules in quantum mechanics or chemistry, or science in general that uses statistics in something?

In the wiki article a selection rule is defined for in quantum mechanics as something that yields a nonzero probability. Is this actually structured into the formalism of QM somehow as to related to selection bias? I think the latter was worked on or discovered if you want way after QM had been established. It would seem to be then that if selection bias is true, could this part be confused with measurement problem, such as when you make a measurement collapse could be confused with selection bias?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_rules

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger_equation

The farthest out in time as in forever I guess in time I would tend to think life having to somehow meld with the universe really, if to actually I guess be able to constantly persist forever I really think this would have to occur. I don't life at that point being human in any sense of now, how could it be? Not that people cant change, but with reality I do just don't see human in a genetic sense or in any modern sense being able to be the specie that gets to live forever if life even comes in the specie format at that time. I mean who knows what issues like molecular biology will eventually lead to in terms of understanding for instance. Life at some point in the far far future could consist itself of organisms that are planets if not entire solar systems and beyond, who knows ultimately the cap of understanding to such, I don't.

I do really though see humans or life at that point having to really become the universe, for instance what if the big crunch is a reality, all of history would be a loss, how would you survive something like that? What could survive something like that, what if the big rip is true? I do not think life at that point in time will just decide to lay down and die without some kind of a struggle, and to which would could be an outcome?

I have tried to think of something novel mathematically, even while I dont know much about math:eek: The only thing I can think of that I find interesting is fractals. Not in just fractals but that thing of self similarity. I think it would be cool if somehow you could make a program that would make a fractal image on how energy conservation plays out, say for a chemical reaction. Could you model self similarity as in the more self similar it is is statistically the most probable “path” for energy to take?

Such as say you had some program that gave you some probable outcomes based from QM, could you transmute those units into something that could read out like a fractal image, where the higher levels of probability correlate to finer self similarity in a fractal? So that similarity in fractals I guess serve to describe a probability gradient for an outcome?

*If this idea is someone eases, sorry, I did not know.

Guns are by far to plentiful to really be banned in the first place. I mean in some places you can sort of control I imagine the population density of weapons but those places I think geographically have to be either well isolated or small overall if not both.

How do you really ban guns in just the state of California really, or any type, how do you adequately police that for such giving the reality of gun industry and the fact weapons are international also?

I could agree with banning dangerous people from assault weapons, but thats about just a band aid of all I think you can really do.

I think such a ban really would only serve to piss off those that do not really commit violent crimes with them for the most part. Such a person could decided to hurt people and do more damage with an assault rifle over a club or a knife I would think, but its not in America really doing to derail people from getting such weapons if they want them really bad, simply put there are to many guns flowing into a very large and heavily populated area.

There needs to be action to really reduce the amount of small arms floating around on the globe, or else I think most any legislation is flawed and temporary and just another way to punish people but not come close to ending such crimes.

I also have to look at the moral message behind this. Sure you can say an assault rifle is more deadly then a shotgun, but how about a semiauto shotgun? IS there just some probability density on how many causalities a person can inflict? Are some guns okay because a nutcase may only be able to hurt X amount of people?