Aethelwulf

This seems so obvious, I agree, but sometimes I think - our understanding is limited with our universe, the creation of the universe itself is far more complicated to comprehend. What if nothingness can create something? what if "nothingness" is problem because it's out of our logic, imagination and understanding.

Maybe it's philosophical thoughts

However my Interest is does pure scientific hypotheses access, happening anything from nothing? I admit that it's out of human logic and understanding, but some aspects of Quantum mechanics are also out of the human mind, but Quantum mechanics works.

 

 

 

good idea

Most of this, if not everything spoke about ''before the big bang'' can indeed be considered as philosophical.

The only time when it will be scientific, is when we have a direct evidence that something can exist below our current standard of measurements.

I do. A great deal. It is a marvelous place.

 

 

 

Why it's called faith, brother.

 

 

 

Off-topic. And Hell isn't theologically sound.

 

 

 

My friend Russel has a teapot that you might be interested in. Let me know and I'll set up some arrangements.

 

 

 

No, they are buzzwords because you are using them in empty, vapid ways. And I'm fairly certain I've been here a tad longer than you. I've never seen your face, either.

 

 

 

Quite elitist, aren't we? I'm in my last year of physics/mathematics degree. So I know more than most, but nothing compared to the other members of this forum. So I don't often bother adding my meager knowledge where the giants already roam, unless I think I have a unique insight. I think I have some here, so I posted.

 

Did I adequately answer your condescending question?

Faith no doubt, is for empty souls who have no evidence.

''Off-topic. And Hell isn't theologically sound.''

Sorry... which christian order are you a part of?

''No, they are buzzwords because you are using them in empty, vapid ways. And I'm fairly certain I've been here a tad longer than you. I've never seen your face, either.''

Interesting... only people who can't write the science in a math format and understand it correctly use buzzwords... do you want to test me on something??? Strange.. being tested on something... does that sound like something that your are familiar with?

''My friend Russel has a teapot that you might be interested in. Let me know and I'll set up some arrangements.''

I am no longer in your league... however, when you started questioning my ability to provide proof, I almost asked you the same question. Either I have been baited, or by someone with little knowledge in physical laws? Which is it?

''Quite elitist, aren't we? I'm in my last year of physics/mathematics degree. So I know more than most, but nothing compared to the other members of this forum. So I don't often bother adding my meager knowledge where the giants already roam, unless I think I have a unique insight. I think I have some here, so I posted.

What is your knowledge of physics. Can you calculate singularities in a black hole... can you evaluate simple relativistic dynamics... Talk about being condescending, you are not far off it yourself, but trust me, I can be worse.

">Did I adequately answer your condescending question?''

No... no more condescending you coming in here proclaiming you are a Christian. Or where you offended by the fact I don't appreciate your God?

Are you really a christian... this should be more interesting than it has raised so far then...? No?

I had to edit a few things there... sometimes my hands work far to fast for the computer.

One of the silliest things about this argument is that there is no need for a case of 'either....... or' as presented.

 

I already asked is an aluminium salt an acid or base?

 

Answer it is both.

 

How about the bicarbonate ion in solution in the presence of HCl?

 

Answer both at the same time.

My chemistry is a bit vague, but I think you are making a good point with what I know. It's been several years since my diploma in the subject.

I'm a Christian. So I say God. But all it seems to me like is that you're presenting a god-of-the-gaps with a few physics buzzwords and \LaTeX equations. You still have no evidence. And you keep saying "assume" and "must" as if that makes you correct. And it doesn't.

I thought you liked the universe?

No offense, but if you respected the universe and the science behind it, you should realize that a gospel beyond scientific limit is... unreasonable. What does your God consist of? Four years ago, I was a devout Christian as well... thinking all souls would be burned in hell. I soon came to realize, that the God spoke of in the Bible had no merit with science, as much as the tooth fairy does not take my teeth away... however... I also simultaneously came to realize, that God is not outside the realms of possibilities... in the sense that science itself has no bounds to a superintelligent artifact of the world around us. God is mearly an instrumental device. Hoyle I think had one of the best theories concerning this. So from an ex-Christian to a Christian, don't think I am being neglectful of your ways for they were once mine.

I use so-called ''buzzwords'' because I am educated in science. To see I do not use ''Buzzwords'' frivolously, you should join us in the science subforum, because until now, I have never seen your face. Maybe because you are Christian, you have avoided the subforum? Speculation mind you... no doubt you dabbled in the science area.

Source?

 

EDIT: Nevermind:http://blogs.scienti...hysics-history/

My lecturer at the time, told me this. I don't know his source.

Oh right, you have it

Consider a large number of Young's Double Slit experiment. Allow just one photon to go through the slit. It will be detected on the screen behind it by the "click" of one photon detector. If you were to look at the ensemble of all those experimental setups you'd see that there is an interference phenomena present. Its for this reason that its said that there is a wave-particle duality and why Feynman said "It's like neither.'

 

Note: The quote from Feynman's QED only addresses light/photons. It makes no mention of electrons. I have the check the context. What page is that on?

yes quite right though. Feynman was right I think personally to say it was neither, but then, he said these things because the objective world is so obscure, that how can anyone even say there is an electron?

Wasn't it Feynman who said an electron didn't even exist, in its manifestly probabilistic form? I could be wrong here, very wrong... ??

Cool. I believe in the universe too. I'm sure the other posters do as well.

More than though. I am talking about some... underlying driving force which guides the universe. You might even think of it as the thing which might drive pilot waves (found in deBroglies description of the wavefunction).

What is it that drove expansion? The universe contains more than simply the physical stuff, it has information in it which is perhaps... not always about the physical manifestion of the world around us. There is a force, which keeps things in order, a causal set which was originated from an origin where space and time began to make sense...

As I said before, out of a highly ordered entropy, came a very high improbability of events. From this, one can only assume there must have been...

.... a high probability in contrast. What was there to control that?

Put it this way, nothing exists without a sense of smeared results unless something comes along and disturbs that. Interestingly enough, in the de Broglie Universe, the wave function collapsed at the point of origin, out of which all information had been predestined.

Why? How did it collapse? Who was the observer?

Quote: The Big Bang model does... If you want to talk about time before the Big Bang, you need a new model. Then it wouldn't really be the Big Bang theory, because in the BB theory, space and time began at some point.

 

 

 

The most distant galaxy which had been found so far is located 13.1 billion year light away from us.

 

Therefore, there is a possibility that to get for this distance, the time from the big bang is not enough.

 

 

So, in order to use time before the big bang, is there a chance that the big bang theory is not 100% correct???

Why is it not enough?

Time was probably efficient for gravity to take hold by that time and start forming galaxies... they would have been very volatile but still possible.

The model is incomplete...so there is, obviously, 100% probability that it is not 100% correct.

100% probability vs 100% probability equals a null result. We obviously have more to our theories than that.

I certainly don't believe the BB is perfect... but there is not even such a thing as a 100% probability in science. We deal with probabilities which reach the criteria of experiments and based on that, our BB theory is the theory which fits the bill.

Scientists 'will say they are 99.99% certain' the particle has been found

 

http://www.dailymail...-Wednesday.html

I am glad they have found it, with such a high degree.

I should admit I find myself ever-so-slightly disappointed... I did say it would not be found two years ago... but at least I am in good company. Even Hawking believed it would not be found.

Yes, sure. God exists outside the universe. To me that is saying that God does not exist, because anything that exists, exists in space and time.

yes, I think I agree. Saying God is outside of the universe, is like saying he has no implications at all in the universe. If that was the case of course, why should we care about him or her? He may as well be a separate system... I guess... if there was an outside to the universe, the most implications he would have is defining an energy, but this kind of nature is unheard of, at least from the physical implications of quantum mechanics.... which is perhaps ironic considering the massive implications it would have.

In his book "QED, The strange theory of Light and Matter" Feynman writes:

 

 

 

Yes Feynman agrees, as virtually everyone else, that light is made of particles. Of course, as emphasized above by at least two posters, particle does not mean classical particle. The transition "classical particle" --> "quantum particle" is firmly rooted to the transition classical physics --> quantum physics.

Did you read my link sir?

It's ok to wrong, I've been wrong quite a few times in my lifetime.

The wave function is certainly not a myth. Quantum mechanics has been built from such things, and as you know, quantum mechanics is all about experimental evidence.

In everyone else's favor, Aethelwulf, your posts can be a bit (more than a bit) abrasive. You also post in areas that are naturally going to stir emotions, and some of your posts go against the religious/political biases of the frequent visitors to this site. People will downvote you even if it's not deserved in your mind.

 

One solution is to grow a thick skin and embrace your negative rep. Multiple members of this site apparently have done just that. Another solution is to become a milder, gentler version of Aethelwulf. Just don't be so abrasive! Attack the ideas rather than the people espousing those ideas.

 

Whichever route you take, do try to refrain from personal attacks. Too much of that can garner you something much worse than negative rep: A ban.

Well... yes. I did accept that talking about a God would indeed stir emotions.

I think it should not be a free ticket mind you, to slander my posts... (and yes) everyone else is right, I could try and stop being a **** about it sometimes. I feel a lot of the time I am being baited, especially in my second last thread. I don't think this will impede my ability to talk about physics, it might alter anyone's perception of me mind you being able to talk about physics. We will see.

In the end, I have no intentions to be negative intentionally... I respect many posters here. Some are simply here for questions, and since being here, I feel I have got to know many people, as much as they have got to know me. I think in the future, I will be more careful, not about the topics I choose, but to make absolutely sure that my topics are not misread.

I appreciate this newer post, because in spite of my OP, it shows there is no real favoritism, a point I might have been worried about in this forum, but has now been partially quelled.

i give my humble apologies to anyone I may have .... insulted.

Quote: For example Lawerence Krauss says that the Universe began from literally nothing.

 

If the universe some how began from nothing, Is there a chance that we have got someting in several steps???

 

So, instead of just one big bang which was started from nothing, why there is no possibility to get several or even many steps that generate the energy/matter which was needed for the Big Bang?

 

Hence, there was someting long before the big bang...

If you want to talk about steps, there was the first. This was energy. After that era, there was the second step, which was matter. The later step is often called the dark energy era, but I have never fully understood this. Maybe someone with better knowledge on me on these ''latter steps/era's'' could explain it to me.

What I can tell you however, is that there are no steps required for Big Bang... the mechanical problem of cause and effect may induce the idea that maybe more is needed in our theory, but certainly not in the sense you are meaning.

You have to clearly understand that the meaning of the word nothing does not allow it to be used in a sense that it could be even the infinitessimal small something you refer to. Nothing is just nothing not the contrary of itself.

 

Without there being something (whatever it is, whatever way it can be determined) neither there is nothing, because something and nothing are just like the two coins of the same medal. One can not be defined without the other.

 

(likewise in physics, you can not define matter without space and vice versa).

good example, ''the coin'' example.

Yes, I should have pointed out, an entire system will never reach absolute zero... not even a macroscopic one. No entire system, being made of smaller constituents can completely freeze that the constituents have zero kinetic energy. If it did, a system would never thaw out.

Yes, I do often write a lot of physics, but you know... the word wavicle had never really caught onto me. Of course, the entity was indeed a wave and a particle simultaneously, but for some reason a name adopted towards this nature never really caught on for me... maybe somewhere embedded in my psyche my brain still likes the idea of thinking it as two distinct forms... who knows eh?

Nice quote

Let's try a thought experiment; of course you can use mathematics if you want to also.

 

Let's remove the earth and place it in another universe that is absolutely void and lacking energy of any type, absolute cold at absolute zero.

 

How long do you think it would take the entire earth from atmosphere, oceans, crust right down to the very core to freeze solid (This might not be the right expression) or put another way, reach the now almost the absolute zero of the empty universe it now inhabits?

 

Alan

It could possibly take not too long... space is very cold, and heat tends to leave a system quite quickly... The Earth's core is very hot. Because of this, this is a very hard question to answer without employing the relevant equations describing a thermodynamical runaway of heat. I don't know of any equations which have properly tackled this, but I do not doubt there have been attempts.

For a system to be efficiently hot, which runs into an environment which is cold, is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is all about. Space is very cold... which is about -270 celsius. (If my memory serves)

(Got my Kelvin and celsius mixed up there... been a while since I read up on the temperature of space)

What can be quite fascinating, is that some of the coldest environments in the universe, can be found in your local lab

Not only does such a reality not exist it is not even possible to exist. You can not have total absence of some stuff, if there ain't no stuff in the first place. A universe without light isn't dark, since dark is absence of light, and if there is no light, neither there is absence of light.

Yeah, totally.

Anything that has a meaning, is contained within space and time. Anything without this meaning, has no meaning or context in physics.

Same question here. And btw. I just happened to e-mail lawrence kraus about this particular issue. Hope he responds.

Yes, please inform us what he says.

No, he hasn't.

 

In Aethelwulf's favor, the term "knocked up" is sometimes vulgar.

Thank you very much, DH.

What do you mean?

Well, if nothing existed, then it can't be spoke about. This isn't about a nothingness, like having no eggs in your basket. Nothingness is the absolute definition of no characteristic whatsoever, so one cannot speak about such a reality, because it isn't one.

Here... I found you a link. One of the most direct experiments we have confirming the quantum behaviour

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8570836.stm

I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt, that not only is the wave function real, but it is also physical.

Particle wave duality is a myth, which arose in the early times of quantum mechanics when only classical particles or classical waves were known and the myth was born to try to explain the experiments where the objects under study did not behave as classical particles or classical waves. The idea that photons sometimes behave as waves and sometimes behave as particles is a recurrent, but completely incorrect, claim. A well-known joke about this is

 

 

 

In modern physics the photon is defined as a particle, always. Everything around us is made of particles as CERN remarks:

 

http://public.web.ce...rdModel-en.html

 

An electron or a photon are always particles and all particles behave as particles. Danger! Particle does not mean "little-hard-sphere-following-Newtonian-laws".

 

Are particles and waves somewhat related? Yes. An electromagnetic wave is a large collection of photons. Therefore a wave has momentum and energy. Note, however that the description of a collection of photons as a electromagnetic wave is only an approximation. Quantum optics is more general and requires a photon treatment.

Have you ever heard of the quantum resonator Juangra???

If not could you please look it up, and once you have, can you still tell me the wave function is a myth?

And how do you jump from current belief about QM to near certainty that we know why the multiverse was created (ignoring for the moment that multiverse theory is one interpretation). Even if all your assumptions and "proofs" are correct, the why question shouldn't even enter into it.

Because nothing can be absolutely certain. But I am certain enough myself that... God is not the traditional biblical text God.

And, I don't believe parallel universes exist for a number of reasons.

I honestly can't take your assertions any other way, you seem to be applying definitions that are your own and no one else's...

 

 

 

This is another assertion that cannot be taken at face value, how can you know that a creature has a state of conscious awareness or does not and how is intelligence automatically a part or not a part of self awareness? I am not trying to bait you, I think these are reasonable questions...

Animals which have consciousness have been tested for ''self-awareness'' or as it is often called ''self-reflectiveness''. There are about three animals I know of in the animal kingdom which are able to ''recognize'' themselves.

This is not to say that a Cat or Dog cannot ''feel''. just don't think they are capable of the level of consciousness required for extremely high thinking. And yes, many of these definitions of God are my own, but not too far off Einstein's, since I am basing this on the natural world, the same stance Einstein believed in.

Has the Hawking's No boundary proposal proved to be a scientific fact? There are many scientists who have their own theories and leads to different cosmoslogical conclusions.

It emmm.... it has good scientific reference to our theories. Even before the No Boundary Proposal, it was taken as a natural prediction of relativity. I think... Einstein had at some point made a few references to the universe having no edge.

I mean, if we want to deal with other theories, that's fine. But in the context of our most tested theory, the no-boundary proposal seems to fit the Big Bang most precisely.

Why would "it" have to be intelligent of even an entity?

I'll need to be careful, but I often change the words intelligence and information about --- God could be an intelligence or information - I just don't believe it is a sentient being. It's just a very high ordered state, which in a sense has very strong correlations with the thermodynamical view that entropy was very very highly ordered at the point of ''creation''. Again, I don't want the word ''creation'' here to be thought of as an sentient decision.

The highly ordered state of entropy could be something which has a ''buzz'' of intelligence about it: I just don't take intelligence and sentient beings as being synonymous. There are many animals in the kingdom which do not have a state of conscious awareness but can be looked upon as quite intelligent, driven by their gene's.

Then why some scientists say that universe can start duo to the Quantum fluctuations, from nothing?

 

For example Lawerence Krauss says that the Universe began from literally nothing.

I've called this a mechanical problem of the universe. One can argue our normal sense of cause and effect breaks down. I've often thought that of a solution. But many physicists will say, a universe from nothing... which is a bit of paradox, after all, if it truly was the kind of ''nothingness'' one can try to think about, then what good does it to infer on such an existence? I believe Steven Hawking has made a similar argument.