Everything is Unique !

[Strange]

I'm merely saying that the model is the means by which people understand reality and that this understanding is often unjustified by the actual experimental results that comprise the model. The model is applied even where it doesn't apply.

 

I know it is a waste of time but ... Do you have any evidence to support these claims?

 

(And by "evidence" I mean objective data, not your uninformed opinion, which is what you usually rely on.)

Edited January 21, 2015 by Strange

[Phi for All]

The model is applied even where it doesn't apply.

 

Example?

[cladking]

 

Example?

 

Most examples would be considered off topic.

 

But I believe this very subject under discussion here is probably an example. Since I don't understand the math that was suggested proves some things are identical I have to just guess and rely on the logic which everyone seems to hate so very much. How ironic that the "evidence" saying they are identical is simply quantified logic while common sense and logic say you can't prove two things are identical unless you understand all of their characteristics.

 

Nature doesn't make any two things the same that are within the experience and understanding of people so why would exceedingly small things that are largely outside our experience identical? When you use "math" to make 1000 tons of apple sauce there is no such thing as individiual apples. The math will simply ignore everything from green apples to worms. You simply compute wastage, added chemicals/ water, and percentage that might go bad in transit. You don't need an apple at all but rather rail cars full of apples. But not one single apple you use will have grown on a fig tree. Not one will have sprung from the ground or had a tiger as its progeniture. Such is life.

 

But the same things apply everywhere. A molecule of water is very stable and can survive thousands of years passing through the hydraulic cycle as well as life forms. This means each has its own history as do the atoms of which it is composed. One of the molecules may have been in the apple that hit Newton's head or perhaps in his liver at the time.

 

Nature is infinitely complex. You can't predict the future because the things that cause the future haven't happened yet. At any given point in time molecules and atoms are bouncing off one another and the tiniest difference in the trajectories of the collision will become more important like the beat of the Chinese butterfly's wings. Everything is caused by and composed of the tiniest features that reverberate forever. An electron assumes a lower orbit and someday a sperm wins the race because of it. Obviously this sperm is very very different than any of its "brothers". It might look like Granpa Gene while the loser would have looked like aunt Millie.

 

It seems improbable that things that are all different would necessarily be composed of things that are identical. It's not impossible of course but I'd like to see a side by side comparison of two protons with each characteristic measured to at least 50 decimal places before being convinced. Two of anything at all will suffice. And obviously I'm not talking about measuring tiny things in Astronomical Units.

[swansont]

 

Nature is infinitely complex. You can't predict the future because the things that cause the future haven't happened yet.

 

I can launch a projectile and predict where it will hit, to some degree of accuracy, to take a simple example.

 

Mostly your post is an argument from incredulity, and also contains no example of what was requested. Shall we just assume it was another empty claim?

[Sensei]

 

Since I don't understand the math that was suggested proves some things are identical I have to just guess and rely on the logic which everyone seems to hate so very much.

 

Your definition of logic must be different than our definition of logic..

 

Logic is universal. Logic has no language (other than math).

 

If I write f.e.

[math]1 \wedge 0=?[/math]

Do you know what will be result?

 

Edited January 22, 2015 by Sensei

[MomentTheory]

Why has no one pointed out that the theory of relativity already makes clear acknowledgment of what he is saying at light speed.

 

Consider the dark space thought experiment where you are a person in complete darkness with a flash light with no reference point of anything or force of any kind. Suddenly a light appears in the distance and appears to be moving towards you, as it gets closer it is noticed to be another human holding a light just like you. The human passes by and moves away from you, once again you are left with no motion. To the other person, the exact same thing happens, only you appeared to be moving. Both people think they are stationary when in fact they are not. This entire thread can be closed up into that little shell, nothing else need be discussed. At light speed, everything is singular, at slower speeds things become defined and take form, with perspective comes uniqueness, and thus the entire fault of the logic being battled upon.

[Strange]

Both people think they are stationary when in fact they are not.

 

It might be more accurate to say that both think they are stationary and they are. By saying "they are not" you assume there is some definition of who is stationary.

 

This entire thread can be closed up into that little shell, nothing else need be discussed.

 

I don't see how relativity is relevant to the subject of the thread.

 

At light speed, everything is singular, at slower speeds things become defined and take form, with perspective comes uniqueness, and thus the entire fault of the logic being battled upon.

 

Your thought experiment has nothing to do with light speed (it no longer applies at light speed).

 

All electrons are identical and travel at less than light speed.

All photons are identical and travel at light speed.

 

So light speed seems totally irrelevant.

 

 

[cladking]

 

Your definition of logic must be different than our definition of logic..

 

Logic is universal. Logic has no language (other than math).

 

If I write f.e.

[math]1 \wedge 0=?[/math]

Do you know what will be result?

 

 

Yes! My definition of logic is different because it doesn't employ "words" that aren't defined in each instance. And you are quite correct that logic is universal but it has language other than math. It is the means by which nature and all things operate. "Math" is simply a set of definitions appended to a system of logic. Math is quantified logic. But a rabbit doesn't need math to know that one stomach plus zero food equals no rabbit. A spruce doesn't sit down and compute combustion temperatures before awaiting its own demise in a forest fire. It doesn't figure how deep scorching has to go before being killed. The logic of nature handles all this automatically and humans are notoriously weak at using their knowledge to predict whether the tree will die before or after the fact. Even the most complex math is of no value in the real world without the variables to solve the equations or when it is misapplied. You are assuming that math is the only logic because you know that "logic" expressed in language can produce any result including inconsistency, contradiction, and total nonsense. One person uses the same facts and logic to prove Intelligent Design as the person who shows with great statistical certainty that life originated in the big bang. It's very obvious from your perspective that logic is the failure but perhaps the real failure is related to your perspective. The problem is misapplication of experimental results and knowledge combined with a perspective that eliminates the logic of nature and imposes a "quantified logic" that is not natural. This is made possible by an inability to even see that paradigms and models aren't real but rather constructs that are no more solid than the experiment and theory that underlie them.

 

I can not parade by you every single thing and subatomic particle in pairs along with all other particles and things like some modern day Noah to show that no two things are identical. Even if we toss out comparing rabbits to photons or apples and oranges the task is still rather monumental. I'd be interested in a nice dumbed down explanation of how we know tho photons are identical. The last I heard they are thought to have characteristics of both energy and matter. Perhaps even photons can't quite achieve the speed of light because their tiny matter becomes too great at such speed. Perhaps some are slightly more like energy than others.

 

Of course math is logical. If it weren't than two times two wouldn't equal two plus two. The fact remains though that it is a construct that has no independent reality in the real world. The real world doesn't reflect math unless we see it in terms of math but then other people will see it in terms of God, dirty floors, or people who drive too fast. Perhaps animals are notoriously bad at math because animals use different math. A rabbit sees two individual predators not two cats or a fox and a badger. What does it need with knowing one plus one equals two? A cop doesn't need to compute horse power to know a moped is being driven faster than the legal limit. The world will operate just fine without math. We can use "math" to understand experiment because experiment reflects reality and ties science to nature and nature is logical. Man's languages are not logical. There's a world of difference between "logic has no language" and the reality that nature is completely logical but we lack the words to describe it as such so are forced to use math.

 

How ironic that even the existence of reality is beginning to be questioned by science. Initially it simply wasn't defined or assumed and now it is being proposed that it doesn't exist at all except in the minds of those who lack a means of tying reality to logic except through a math which is, quite obviously, being increasingly misapplied.

Edited January 22, 2015 by cladking

[swansont]

 

I can not parade by you every single thing and subatomic particle in pairs along with all other particles and things like some modern day Noah to show that no two things are identical. Even if we toss out comparing rabbits to photons or apples and oranges the task is still rather monumental. I'd be interested in a nice dumbed down explanation of how we know tho photons are identical. The last I heard they are thought to have characteristics of both energy and matter. Perhaps even photons can't quite achieve the speed of light because their tiny matter becomes too great at such speed. Perhaps some are slightly more like energy than others.

 

 

Perhaps…

 

Gosh, if only there were some way to test such an idea, possibly in a rigorous fashion. Oh, snap. Maybe we give science a try. You know, that way of finding things out, and whose body of knowledge remains true whether or not an individual is aware of (or believes) it or not.

 

You can test whether photons have mass, causing light to travel at different speeds, rather than just some wistful pondering of the possibility, because that condition has ramifications elsewhere in physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass

 

Similarly, if other particles (such as electrons) were not identical, physics and chemistry would be different from what we observe it to be. There is no point to discussing the topic while ignoring these facts.

[Sensei]

Different is velocity (especially true for vectors, not scalars), different is momentum.

 

If we take electron gun (or two electrodes in vacuum tube), accelerate electrons to several keV, after hitting material, x-rays will be produced.

When doing the same experiment with smaller acceleration, x-rays won't be created.

So difference between electrons from 1st experiment and 2nd is their kinetic energy.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Sensei

[swansont]

 

The world will operate just fine without math.

 

Just as long as you like the Pleistocene, or earlier.

[Commander]

Just taking a Clue from what was suggested by Phi for All :

 

I will not make proposals or statements about what I think or have decided about.

 

Instead I will ask Questions !

 

I for one have never understood what is a Wave, Particle or String.

 

Can someone explain to me what they are how they present themselves and how they can be visualized/perceived.

 

Also , if Bosons are occupying the same Spatial Position, and if that is possible how do we assume Neutrons in a Nucleus are not doing the same and how do we prove that their position and behaviour is different from that of Bosons ?

[Sensei]

I for one have never understood what is a Wave, Particle or String.

 

Can someone explain to me what they are how they present themselves and how they can be visualized/perceived.

 

If you want to see particles, build Cloud Chamber particle detector. See this post and watch video

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87341-high-energy-physics-cosmology-today-are-closer-to-scams-than-science/?p=847413

Edited January 22, 2015 by Sensei

[swansont]

 

Also , if Bosons are occupying the same Spatial Position, and if that is possible how do we assume Neutrons in a Nucleus are not doing the same and how do we prove that their position and behaviour is different from that of Bosons ?

 

Nuclei with more neutrons are bigger.

[cladking]

 

I can launch a projectile and predict where it will hit, to some degree of accuracy, to take a simple example.

 

 

 

Anyone can see a speeding freight train coming. You can predict it will stay on the tracks because it really has nowhere else to go. Of course there's no certainty a car won't get in its path and its engine block derail it or that it won't suddenly disintegrate but experience says there is a very high probability that it will arrive at most points in its path eventually. The same would apply to well engineered and exactingly built missiles and rockets. Most will usually hit the intended points in their trajectory. Anything from gremlins to cold temperatures to improper translation of english and metric units might intercede. This is less true with fireworks and other types of crude missiles.

 

Precision and predictability are things invented in the lab. They are a physical manifestation of man's understanding of basic forces and processes that govern nature. They are a sort of magic trick that allows things learned from experiment to be engineered so they can be introduced to the real world. Man can use nature at his whim only to the degree he understands the basic concepts. It has always been this way.

 

But being able to manipulate rabbit population equations or the math of photons does not allow us to make proper inferences about the causes of changes in population or the nature of any one single rabbit or where one single photon will end up.

 

Science is an attempt to understand ALL the properties of nature and it's very obvious to even casual observers that it has a very very very long way to go. We not only can't predict the future, in most cases experts won't even agree on the causes of things that have already happened. We're blind and describing an elephant and have yet to deduce it's all one thing and it's alive. We've barely started on the journey of understanding all of nature's processes, matter, and forces.

[swansont]

Anyone can see a speeding freight train coming. You can predict it will stay on the tracks because it really has nowhere else to go. Of course there's no certainty a car won't get in its path and its engine block derail it or that it won't suddenly disintegrate but experience says there is a very high probability that it will arrive at most points in its path eventually. The same would apply to well engineered and exactingly built missiles and rockets. Most will usually hit the intended points in their trajectory. Anything from gremlins to cold temperatures to improper translation of english and metric units might intercede. This is less true with fireworks and other types of crude missiles.

 

Good. You agree that you can predict the future, contrary to your prior claim.

 

Precision and predictability are things invented in the lab. They are a physical manifestation of man's understanding of basic forces and processes that govern nature. They are a sort of magic trick that allows things learned from experiment to be engineered so they can be introduced to the real world. Man can use nature at his whim only to the degree he understands the basic concepts. It has always been this way.

 

No, not so much. For example, there are a number of older civilizations that could predict the eclipses and other astronomy-related phenomena well before gravity and orbits were understood. Lodestones were used to navigate before magnetism was understood. Ships built before Archimedes' principle. "Red sky at night…" does not require an understanding of meteorology. People modified plants and animals without knowing of evolution, much less genetics.

 

Another bold claim turns out to be false. It has never been this way.

 

But being able to manipulate rabbit population equations or the math of photons does not allow us to make proper inferences about the causes of changes in population or the nature of any one single rabbit or where one single photon will end up.

 

Science is an attempt to understand ALL the properties of nature and it's very obvious to even casual observers that it has a very very very long way to go. We not only can't predict the future, in most cases experts won't even agree on the causes of things that have already happened. We're blind and describing an elephant and have yet to deduce it's all one thing and it's alive. We've barely started on the journey of understanding all of nature's processes, matter, and forces.

Having a long way to go is not the same as not having begun. There are things we do know, despite your unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary. Unlike certain behaviors of QM, there is knowledge out there that exists even though you are unaware of it.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

MomentTheory, I have warned you previously about making insulting remarks. Cut it out. While you're at it, keep your posts in topic. I have hidden your recent post.

[Commander]

I had asked for clarity about wave , particle and string ! [i did read sensei's post]

 

I understand if I am unable to visualize these myself then others too will have difficulty in explaining them out.

If we consider Light [perhaps the purest form of energy] as an Electromagnetic Wave which gets generated in a Source :

 

[a] What causes it to travel, that too at such a high Speed and where is it headed and why

 

As a Electromagnetic Wave does it spread omni-directionally from its source and what exactly is the Wave which defines its propagation

[c] What is then a Photon and its relation with [a] and

Further to this I am thinking of a theory about some physical phenomenon and am wondering whether it is OK for me to propose it here !

Edited January 24, 2015 by Commander

[Sensei]

Wave nature of particles we examine using f.e. single slit (diffraction), double slit (Young's double slit experiment)

You should buy red, green, blue lasers, single slit and double slit, prism, polarization filters, diffraction grating.

They're pretty cheap.

 

Different color laser, will give slightly different result with them.

 

Make separate threads about each of these effects in mainstream physics, and I will make photo showing you how they look like.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Sensei

[cladking]

 

Good. You agree that you can predict the future, contrary to your prior claim.

 

 

My friend predicted he's going to win the lottery tonight but I know for a fact he's wrong because I am.

 

No, not so much. For example, there are a number of older civilizations that could predict the eclipses and other astronomy-related phenomena well before gravity and orbits were understood. Lodestones were used to navigate before magnetism was understood. Ships built before Archimedes' principle.

 

 

I believe the inventors of astronomy and magnets for navigation understood math and nature well enough to make such predictions. You probably do need to understand gravity to predict eclipses but you don't need to to fall off a mountain.

 

Another bold claim turns out to be false. It has never been this way.

 

 

All life must use observation and logic to survive. Modern man simply uses experiment as an intermediary for logic. "Logic" can be based on visceral knowledge or it can be based on facts established by experiment and understood largely through math which is quantified logic. A rabbit survives by out thinking, out guessing, and out running a predator. That this isn't obvious to human observers is because we have been trained to see something different, but even more, is that we see what we believe to be true. We see what we know and understand and most of us don't even believe the rabbit is conscious much less capable of understanding and learning about his surroundings. No behavior is encoded in genes but specific genes cause propensities to some behavior.

 

Having a long way to go is not the same as not having begun. There are things we do know, despite your unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary. Unlike certain behaviors of QM, there is knowledge out there that exists even though you are unaware of it.

 

 

Science has made remarkable progress but most of the progress is not so much in understanding nature as it is in things like technology. Obviously we don't need a unified field theory to have rocket science. We don't need to really understand gravity to land on the moon. We didn't even know the speed of gravity until long after the men came home.

 

I've never said science doesn't work. I've never said it should be abandoned. I'm merely trying to say that it isn't understood much better than nature itself and, I believe, it can be modified to be more effective. I "know" teaching of science can be modified to make students more effective.

 

But much of this is really beside the point that nature is infinitely complex and this would still be true even if every photon were exactly like every other photon. If nature cheated and used a cookie cutter to make a subatomic particle it simply doesn't change the facts that collisions aren't predictable even a moment before the fact so the future can't be predictable either. It doesn't change the fact that no two apples or rabbits are alike and it doesn't change the fact we see things from a perspective imparted by our paradigms. These paradigms are mere constructs and their applicability to the real world is merely assumed. Obviously the model works well for computing the distance a 60 MPH freight train engine will go in 5 seconds but it works much less well to predict where that same engine will be in five years.

 

You can't predict what route an untrained rat will take in a maze.

Edited January 24, 2015 by cladking