Customer Discussions > Science forum

God Particle and time


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 193 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2012 10:16:57 PM PDT
Just to put your mind at ease, DC, I understand all this. But remember that I was talking to a lay audience.

And although the point I was illustrating had a bowling ball in it, as usual, I was pointing out the the 'direction' of the deflection was irrelevant; I wasn't using gravity to explain gravity, I was using gravity to induce stretching, and pointing out that flatness is the minimum amount of curvature. (Even so-called "negative curvature" is more curved than flat space.)

>>>

I don't find the 4D warping of M4 particularly unintuitive. I did, at first, until I came to understand that seemingly "round" orbits in 3-space are actually almost perfectly straight world lines in M4. That is, the world line of the earth's orbit for 1 year is a line that extends 6 trillion 'miles' along t, with a very slight wiggle of 186 million miles in that time. The "curvature" is slight, indeed. The deflection in 3-space is only 0.00003 times as much as the interval's length on t. It is almost impossible to draw a line this straight, with a real ruler & pencil. If we drew these things accurately to scale, the eye would never pick up on its curvature at all.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 12:06:13 PM PDT
Physics, I am really interested in your post, but in the first paragraph, I can't understand a thing that it means. Can you please rewrite it in plain english? Thanks.

What is the difference between a probabilistic theory and a non-probabilistic theory?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 12:14:25 PM PDT
Randall, there's an old joke where a scientist tells God that he can create life. So God says, "prove it". So the scientist shovels up some dirt, but God stops him and says, "No, you have to use your own dirt". That's kinda funny, isn't it?

Well, anyway, a scientist tells God that he can create life. So God says, "prove it". So the scientist says, "I just have to put this DNA right in...", but God interrupts him and says, "Get your own replicator." That's kinda funny, too, don't you think? Especially since it is the replicator that makes inert matter into living matter, right?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 12:26:25 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
"Physics, I am really interested in your post, but in the first paragraph, I can't understand a thing that it means. Can you please rewrite it in plain english? Thanks."

Probability does not mean we know than nothing, with examples.

"What is the difference between a probabilistic theory and a non-probabilistic theory?"

probabilistic theory only predicts a probability of a specific outcome. a non-probabilistic theory, or a deterministic theory, predicts a definite outcome. For example newton's laws are deterministic. Quantum Mechanics is not (and we can be fairly sure of that. Look up Bell's Inequality).

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 12:32:12 PM PDT
Physics said: "probabilistic theory only predicts a probability of a specific outcome. a non-probabilistic theory, or a deterministic theory, predicts a definite outcome."

Physics, would you consider one type of theory any stronger than the other?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012 1:32:51 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
No.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012 5:46:53 AM PDT
Physics, but don't you think that the method that eliminates the most variables would produce more accurate results? I would think that the non-probability method would be much better at eliminating variables than the probability method, right? So wouldn't the non-probability method be stronger than the probability method?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012 9:43:00 AM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Not necessarily. There is no "hidden variable" in evolution or quantum mechanics. The Bell inequality eliminates all reasonable hidden variables in quantum mechanics and mutations of the DNA are essentially quantum events.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012 11:43:41 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 22, 2012 11:45:00 AM PDT
Yeah, it's an old joke.

In Genesis, it says "In the beginning..."

I ask, "In the beginning of what?" What is the relation between the sentence "let there be light", and the instantaneous point of the beginning?

In the case where the sentence exists prior to the 1st point, I submit that the sentence had no structure, no syntax, and does not qualify as a sentence. In the case where the sentence is preceded by the 1st point, I submit that God used someone else's time to utter the sentence in.

I further submit that for the sentence to work as intended, it must have had a meaning, and intent. Thus, meaning and intention must have pre-existed the utterance. Who created these, and when?

God wasn't using his own dirt. Or if He was, He was using it BEFORE He created it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012 2:01:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 22, 2012 6:29:57 PM PDT
D. Colasante says:
It's a very natural mistake for "creatures" to assume everything was created.

I'm sure you realize that Biblically, not everything that exists had a creation. The Trinity describes itself as from "everlasting to everlasting", line-like without origin. A created soul is considered only "everlasting" having a ray-like timeline. The Trinity can have had meaning, intent and even utterance within itself, independent of "the beginning".

edit: shorter

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012 2:22:41 PM PDT
Nova137 says:
"In the beginning was the bit." from Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos

Here is the author in an interview about the book http://www.technologyreview.com/qa/406035/qa-seth-lloyd/

"An It from a Bit".

See http://suif.stanford.edu/~jeffop/WWW/wheeler.txt for another take on quantum theory and information theory being joined in a mind.

Posted on Jul 22, 2012 10:34:27 PM PDT
Seth Lloyd seems like a nice guy and a jovial, fun-loving soul. I'm sure he is quite smart, too. However, I found this book to be quite weak on several fronts. Mostly, he failed to pay enough attention to Einstein's dictum:

"Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler." ~A. Einstein

Tellingly, he glosses over the cosmological energy questions that were of particular concern to Einstein and General Relativists, and seems to propose that the total energy of the universe is somehow quantifiable at 0, and that this is not just a convention.

(I suppose I ought to be making allowances for the presumed sophistication of his target audience, but I was hoping for something less discursive and more solidly about his particular expertise.)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012 10:43:54 PM PDT
jpl says:
Physics Geek says: A time machine requires a stable wormhole, and we don't yet have the physics to fully describe one.

jpl: Not only do we not have the physics to "fully describe" a wormhole: Wormholes are theoretical and have been, to date, impossible to test. Nobody knows whether wormholes exist.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012 10:56:40 PM PDT
What interests me on that topic is that when I read "Young's Literal Translation", I find that there is this giant interpretive leap in all the other current translations!

<<Genesis 1
<<Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
<<1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth

Note the word "preparing". It turns out that the Hebrew for this is "bara", which mostly gets translated as "fattening", as in 'fattening a calf for slaughter'.

Making this substitution seems to me to put the whole "ex nihilo" claim on an entirely different footing. Instead of God working from nothing--"without a net", so to speak--this makes it seem as though the claim is simply that God took what was already there, and made it more suitable. That is, there was already stuff, "in the beginning", and God, The Master Chef, simply worked these ingredients into something more palatable.

It goes on to say:
<<2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, >>

...which, as I read it, seems to say that the earth already existed(!) but that it was wasted and without purpose. Plus, there was water, also, which the earth existed "on the face of".

Later, we hear that God says "Let light be." In this passage, I am called to wonder in what sense letting something happen is equivalent to causing it to happen. If I simply step out of the way of something, I am not exactly "causing" it, but merely allowing it.

All in all, it seems to me that most translations of these verses are "Translations with an agenda."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2012 10:56:42 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Quite true. Hence my statement that time time travel to the past requires a stable wormhole however we don't know if they actually exist. I made this statement on the bottom of the second page in the discussion after it turned from the Higgs to general time travel.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2012 2:13:35 AM PDT
Nova137 says:
I have the same complaint and my eventual review will reflect a similar comment. I bought the book in 2009 and read up to chapter 3. I picked it up the other day to provide the contents of one of my posts and then finished it.

In the book, at least twice, he quotes the early formulators of information theory saying, "Information is physical." I think, in the sense that when I excite an electron, a photon is produced (this is the information analog of flipping a bit from a 0 to a 1 or a 1 to a 0), or when I apply a magnetic field to a proton its nuclear spin lays on its side (same analog) or if I apply an electric field to electrons in a Stern-Gerlach device they go from spin up/down to spin down/up (same analog) all of which the author claims is the basis of quantum computing (same analog), i.e., ask the quantum participants to talk and they give definite, physical answers in binary. Furthermore, before measurement, the participants are able to retain both answers at the same time in superposition which is exploited in quantum computing over and above classical computing

Quantum mechanics is a difficult subject and I for one loved to be able, right or not at this point, to find a quantum analog in "It from bit" and then "It from qubit". I love the above analog of quantum behavior being a law of microscopic particles and the analog of flipping a bit. I can better appreciate binary language now. I love the relationship between thermodynamic entropy and information entropy and attempting to tell the difference. Stephen Hawking in his book, The Universe in a Nutshell, uses information theory application to the study of black holes, and our ability to predict the future. I'm going to read that section again. I didn't get the connection about predicting the future as much. I read that book a couple of years ago and have a better appreciation of the difference between thermodynamic entropy and information theory entropy now (mostly after reading wiki articles on them both, not the book, but the books description of entropy, decoherence & entanglement within the two slit experiment really helped). I love that there is no "spooky action at a distance" when information theory is applied to quantum theory. When two quantum bits come together and then separate, there entanglement is just qubits in superposition waiting to be measured. I don't get hung up like EPR on physical limitations, like the speed of light. I'm not saying that its right to say that, but to be able to conceptualize the two slit in different capacities as well as any quantum behaviors that are counter-intuitive to classical behaviors is helpful.

I also like how information theory asks that we reformulate randomness and mutation in the universe into quantum computation. He uses the example of monkeys on typewriters to show randomness that follows no known physical law. A random string of inputs from monkey hitting the typewriter keys is physical, but not quantum mechanically or even classically lawful. The furthest monkey's will get into creating a Hamlet on a typewriter is less than a sentence.

But, if our monkey's are typing on computers, the randomness decreases. If our monkey's are typing on quantum computers, the randomness becomes orderly more quickly, at least in the ability to create small strings of information that can be processed together with other small strings of information to form longer and longer strings (more complexity, enough to create the complexity we see in today's universe).

There are, though, many weak examples. Much appears on the surface to be a contentless mapping of quantum law to laws of bits of information somehow still giving us the world we see. However, the neurons in my brain fire slightly differently with every digestion of that universe in all forms. The quantum computing going on in this process, I can now see more clearly now.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2012 8:09:18 AM PDT
Mr. Young,

Yours: "All in all, it seems to me that most translations of these verses are 'Translations with an agenda.'"

Mine: All, ALL, translations/translators have an agenda. The translator knows about some of his/her agendas but doesn't know about others. Humans are complex. Those agendas may or may not be apparent to the reader/reviewer. The KHV, for example, was translated into stunningly beautiful English (at the cost of textual accuracy) for the purposes of "glorifying god" and seducing more believers into joining the protestant cause.

Posted on Jul 23, 2012 2:28:50 PM PDT
D. Colasante says:
One of my agendas here is to distinguish line from ray in spacetime. When you look at any depiction of M4 containing coordinates for time and space, you have a more glorious view of things. You can point to any number of events at once, regardless of distribution. And of course, you aren't even limited to the depiction.

When you come across a statement like "God formed man from the dust of the ground" *we* naturally assume that means dust scraped together from surrounding spatial locations. But if I put dust on a Minkowski diagram and you scrape it together, your power is much more evident. You assemble a man from the dust of spacetime, reaching back (and forward) as far as you please. Even as far back as microbes or the Big Bang. To have such a perspective and NOT use it would be the more difficult thing to explain. Like using only one crayon to draw a rainbow.

I'm not claiming special knowledge here. Just that we have limited perspective and conceptual capacity. There is nothing, in my view, which would preclude a discerning scientist from having deep religious faith.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2012 5:10:58 PM PDT
Randall said: "I submit that God used someone else's time to utter the sentence in."

Randall, how do you know that time even exists?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 12:21:11 PM PDT
Nova137 says:
Speaking of the Higgs, there is also an "Oh-My-God" particle! lol.

"Cosmic ray particles with even higher energies have since been observed. Among them was the Oh-My-God particle observed on the evening of 15 October 1991 over Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. Its observation was a shock to astrophysicists, who estimated its energy to be approximately 3×1020 eV (50 J)[3]-in other words, a subatomic particle with kinetic energy equal to that of a baseball (5 ounces or 142 grams) traveling at about 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph). It was most probably a proton traveling very close to the speed of light, slower by only about 1.5 femtometers (quadrillionths of a meter) per second, or about 0.9999999999999999999999951c, based on its observed energy. At that speed, in a year-long race between light and the particle, the particle would fall behind only 46 nanometers, or 0.15 femtoseconds (1.5×10−16 s).[4]"

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 2:36:51 PM PDT
I don't. But if it doesn't, then neither does time order.

If time ordering is not possible, then neither are sentences which rely on this idea. That is, other than time order, what is the difference between these utterances?

A: "Let there be light."
B: "Be there let light."


Or:
C:"Randall, how do you know that time even exists?"
and
D:"Randall even know, that you time do how exists?"

Posted on Jul 25, 2012 1:52:46 AM PDT
Ehkzu says:
There is some reason to think that time as we know it is simply a function of entropy--that "time" per se doesn't exist, making it an artifact of human perception rather than a dimension like the three or more spatial dimensions.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 31, 2012 6:52:01 PM PDT
Randall, when I remember something, I always play the whole event in my mind simultaneously; and, yet, strangely, I remember the event's particulars in some kind of order, but not always the order of occurrence; sometimes they get all jumbed up. Is it possible that your mind already perceives everything that has already happened and will happen, and is just playing them back in some order that is understandable to your flesh and blood brain?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 31, 2012 8:32:53 PM PDT
Do you happen to remember tomorrow's stock market major movers? (I could use a tip!)

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 1, 2012 12:49:41 PM PDT
Randall said: "Do you happen to remember tomorrow's stock market major movers? (I could use a tip!)"

Randall, you are begging the question. You are assuming that your brain would allow you any accurate perception of the future. It may just be that the human brain can only understand the past, present, and future model; but tests boundaries by pushing through some glimpses of the future in premonitions and such.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  26
Total posts:  193
Initial post:  Jul 9, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 20, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions