Ask a physicist anything. (6)

[Wiccan_Child]

Is movement in spacetime at the planck level stepped or is it uniform?

The idea is that it's stepped, but this comes from the idea that, below the planck level, we can't know what's happened, so it may as well be stepped. I suspect it's continuous.

If it is stepped then this leaves room for chaos to reign supreme within the interval boundaries. But as I suspect; since we are talking at the planck level then chaos is the order of the day anyway!

Also As I suspect that if the Multiverse theory were proven; Will this mean that each universe will have its own creator and thus God is not alone? Just kidding on this one but imagine if it were proven that there are infinite universes, then God's role becomes the more lesser by each new big bang!

Maybe God becomes something of a clan mother: as each of his daughters has their own family, he gets an ever greater clan of followers.

 

[chris4243]

The Moon did not cause plate tectonics per se, though the 'great impact' certainly would have contributed towards it. When the Earth formed, its surface was molten rock. It's still in the process of cooling. Nuclear fusion in the core keeps the mantle hot, so the outer crust is geologically active, so it can't cool into one solid crust. It's like a glass of milk that's gone bad, but because bubbles come up now and then, it can't form a single skin.

Is it too late to point out that you misspelled "fission"?

 

[chris4243]

Yeah, um, faith itself is spurious reasoning (as faith is belief in the absence of evidence). Saying it's based upon reason and logic is rather like saying murder is based upon love and empathy. It's positively absurd.

I think that is a common misconception of what faith is (common even among some Christians, who inevitably go on to use it against what the evidence shows). A Christian has faith in God, or in a trusted friend, like a physicist has faith that the laws of physics will remain the same... certainly, there is no proof that the laws of physics will remain the same tomorrow as they have for all of known history, there is no proof your friend won't betray you tomorrow despite having been reliable his whole life, etc. Faith an trust are basically the same thing, though I guess trust is supposed to be more evidence based and always considered superior to faith.

What you were describing seems to me what is called "blind faith" and most people consider it bad.

 

[chris4243]

So your response is "lalala, I can't hear you." I was hoping we might avoid that part.

"One of the ideas involved in the concept of entropy is that nature tends from order to disorder in isolated systems."

That would be, the opposite of Ev theory. Gee I guess you're right, no conflict worth mentioning.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Even answersingenesis is ashamed of the "entropy forbids evolution" meme.

 

[Chalnoth]

I think that is a common misconception of what faith is (common even among some Christians, who inevitably go on to use it against what the evidence shows). A Christian has faith in God, or in a trusted friend, like a physicist has faith that the laws of physics will remain the same... certainly, there is no proof that the laws of physics will remain the same tomorrow as they have for all of known history, there is no proof your friend won't betray you tomorrow despite having been reliable his whole life, etc. Faith an trust are basically the same thing, though I guess trust is supposed to be more evidence based and always considered superior to faith.

What you were describing seems to me what is called "blind faith" and most people consider it bad.

I expounded about this point a bit later. Faith as trust in god doesn't make any sense when there is no evidence this god even exists.

Edit: And by the way, there is very good evidence that the laws of physics will remain the same: they've remained the same for the past 13.7 billion years, so the likelihood of a significant change in the near future is quite low.

 

[Jazer]

Faith as trust in god doesn't make any sense when there is no evidence this god even exists.

Of course it makes sense because even if there was no God, people still get good results when they pray or believe in God. 85 - 90% of the people have faith and believe for good reason. Study after study after study shows the benifit of having faith, praying and believing in God.

"With two experiments, the researchers showed that when people think about religion and God, their brains respond differently -- in a way that lets them take setbacks in stride and react with less distress to anxiety-provoking mistakes" Brain study shows that thinking about God reduces distress

"Those who choose to pray find personalized comfort during hard times, according to a University of Wisconsin-Madison sociologist. The 75 percent of Americans who pray on a weekly basis do so to manage a range of negative situations and emotions -- illness, sadness, trauma and anger" Prayer can help people handle difficult emotions, study suggests

The medical profession encourages people to have faith, believe and trust in God because they know the benifit. They could care less if God really exists or not. They just know that to believe has a positive effect on the patients and helps them to recover from their sickness or their disease.

 

[Chalnoth]

Of course it makes sense because even if there was no God, people still get good results when they pray or believe in God.

Say what? Sorry, but faith being useful in no way, shape, or form supports the idea that it's true. You could also stand to read up on confirmation bias.

"With two experiments, the researchers showed that when people think about religion and God, their brains respond differently -- in a way that lets them take setbacks in stride and react with less distress to anxiety-provoking mistakes" Brain study shows that thinking about God reduces distress

Different doesn't necessarily mean better. This might make people less likely to work to improve their situation, for example, making them complacent with injustice.

"Those who choose to pray find personalized comfort during hard times, according to a University of Wisconsin-Madison sociologist. The 75 percent of Americans who pray on a weekly basis do so to manage a range of negative situations and emotions -- illness, sadness, trauma and anger" Prayer can help people handle difficult emotions, study suggests

Apparently this study shows that people who pray more are more content with spousal abuse. Hardly seems like a good thing to me.

The medical profession encourages people to have faith, believe and trust in God because they know the benifit. They could care less if God really exists or not. They just know that to believe has a positive effect on the patients and helps them to recover from their sickness or their disease.

Yeah, um, that's a load of hooey.

 

[mzungu]

Enjoy: Through the Wormhole: Does Time Exist? | Watch Free Documentary Online

 

[Chalnoth]

Enjoy: Through the Wormhole: Does Time Exist? | Watch Free Documentary Online

Quite a good survey of the views on time in physics. Though I feel I should point out that the last perspective, that of Sean Carroll, was addressing a very different question about time. The previous discussion was on the very existence and nature of time. His was all about the direction of time. The previous discussions didn't address the direction of time at all, and Sean Carroll's idea doesn't address whether time is an illusion or real.

Also, as a small addendum, Morgan Freeman implied that a universe like ours couldn't exist without an "evil twin", a universe moving backward in time. This isn't entirely accurate: rather, within Sean Carroll's idea, each baby universe will have a random arrow of time. Some with time moving forward, some moving backward. And, I strongly suspect, some moving off at oblique angles.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is it too late to point out that you misspelled "fission"?

Whoops, my bad.

I think that is a common misconception of what faith is (common even among some Christians, who inevitably go on to use it against what the evidence shows). A Christian has faith in God, or in a trusted friend, like a physicist has faith that the laws of physics will remain the same... certainly, there is no proof that the laws of physics will remain the same tomorrow as they have for all of known history, there is no proof your friend won't betray you tomorrow despite having been reliable his whole life, etc. Faith an trust are basically the same thing, though I guess trust is supposed to be more evidence based and always considered superior to faith.

The 'faith' you're talking about certainly does sound like trust, trust based on evidence and past observations. I trust that my partner loves me, not because it is a statement of faith for which I have no proof, but because I do have evidence. Thus, I am confident, and thus, I have trust. Trust, after all, is earned.

Faith, on the other hand, doesn't appear to be based on anything at all. Whenever a religious person says they have faith, they mean they believe regardless of anything else. It's a badge of pride, they can say, "Look, God! I believed in you even when everything said not to!". It strikes me as... desperate.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a badge of pride...

We get accused of that a lot, and it only makes you guys look bad.

Here's my 'badge of pride':

Proverbs 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We get accused of that a lot, and it only makes you guys look bad.

How? We openly admit our mistakes and learn from them. The majority of conservative Christians stubbornly refuse to acknowledge any error on their part.

Here's my 'badge of pride':

Proverbs 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

So you deny you have pride because of Proverbs 16:18. That doesn't mean you really aren't prideful.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't want to adorn your thread with theological vs technological arguments, but for the record:

We openly admit our mistakes and learn from them.

That's because you have to.

Your mistakes are found after-the-fact.

Take Thalidomide, for example.

You say 'we openly admit our mistakes' -- well, you would have to.

To do otherwise would not be cool.

The majority of conservative Christians stubbornly refuse to acknowledge any error on their part.

If by 'error', you mean Christians' paradigms (Gap Theory, Embedded Age, Day-Age, etc.) conflicts with the current scientific paradigm(s), then yes, I suppose each side could argue a refusal to acknowledge error.

So you deny you have pride because of Proverbs 16:18. That doesn't mean you really aren't prideful.

I agree -- but the difference is, we see being prideful as a sin.

In any event, this is your thread, not mine --

 

[Cabal]

You say 'we openly admit our mistakes' -- well, you would have to.

To do otherwise would not be cool.

How does this not apply to other groups? How does this not apply to adherents of a belief that prioritises truth?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't want to adorn your thread with theological vs technological arguments, but for the record:

That's because you have to.

Your mistakes are found after-the-fact.

Take Thalidomide, for example.

You say 'we openly admit our mistakes' -- well, you would have to.

To do otherwise would not be cool.

Obviously. What's your point?

If by 'error', you mean Christians' paradigms (Gap Theory, Embedded Age, Day-Age, etc.) conflicts with the current scientific paradigm(s), then yes, I suppose each side could argue a refusal to acknowledge error.

Errors such as, "The Curse of Able (or Cain, or Ham, or w/e) is black skin, therefore slavery is all good and proper!".

 

[AV1611VET]

Errors such as, "The Curse of Able (or Cain, or Ham, or w/e) is black skin, therefore slavery is all good and proper!".

I'll admit -- some of these are "theories" -- only they should be called "suppositions", instead.

When a supposition becomes a "doctrine" -- look out!

A good example from Scripture would be the Nicolaitans.

Revelation 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Revelation 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

Notice what first starts out as deeds, ends up as doctrine.

Anyway, to address your examples made:

It is the Mark of Cain and the Curse of Ham -- both shown to be clearly wrong.

The theory (or supposition) that God turned Cain and his progeny black is clearly refuted when we understand that Cain's line died in the Flood.

The theory (or supposition) that God turned Ham into a black man is clearly refuted when we realize:

1. God didn't curse Ham -- He cursed his son Canaan.
2. Canaan settled north of Africa, in the Promised Land; thus the Promised Land (Israel) was also called Canaan, and its inhabitants "Canaanites".

 

[chris4243]

I expounded about this point a bit later. Faith as trust in god doesn't make any sense when there is no evidence this god even exists.

Ah, that was a pretty good post.

Edit: And by the way, there is very good evidence that the laws of physics will remain the same: they've remained the same for the past 13.7 billion years, so the likelihood of a significant change in the near future is quite low.

It only seems that way because assuming that the laws of physics have remained the same gives a good match to what we observe. However, certain combinations of different laws, or coincidences, or such, could give the same results. The simplest example is the "God poofed everything into existence 5 seconds ago" universe. Certainly that has its problems, but if you can't disprove it you can't claim to be 100% certain that the laws of physics have stayed the same for more than 5 seconds.

Meanwhile, if I observe an atom of tellurium-128 for 1,000,000,000,000 billion years (ie, several orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe), and it doesn't decay, does that make me justified in claiming that it won't decay? (it has a half-life of 7.7 x 1024 years) Or if I lived in a house for 50 years without experiencing leaks would I be justified in saying that it is unlikely to develop a leak anytime soon? Likewise, I don't see how belief that the laws of physics won't change can be properly justified. Do we not accept the laws of physics as unchanging due to a mixture of faith and necessity?

The 'faith' you're talking about certainly does sound like trust, trust based on evidence and past observations. I trust that my partner loves me, not because it is a statement of faith for which I have no proof, but because I do have evidence. Thus, I am confident, and thus, I have trust. Trust, after all, is earned.

Faith, on the other hand, doesn't appear to be based on anything at all. Whenever a religious person says they have faith, they mean they believe regardless of anything else. It's a badge of pride, they can say, "Look, God! I believed in you even when everything said not to!". It strikes me as... desperate.

Christians see faith in God as being in fact based on evidence. Some would point to the Bible as evidence (yes, yes, circular reasoning). Others would point to personal experience, of themselves or of others (yes, yes, confirmation bias).

However, here's something different to think about: almost all humans are blindingly optimistic, at least in certain areas. The most common is that people hugely overestimate their skill, abilities, and positive traits, while discounting their mistakes and negative traits. It is pretty clear that evolution has favored those who make fools of themselves trying to do stuff, over those who sit around paralyzed by their realization of how stuff is hard to do. Similarly, self-discipline is one of the most vital traits for success. Thus, any religion helping people act with confidence or practice self-discipline, will push them towards success... and considering people don't generally go practicing various different religions to see which is better, would it not be reasonable for the individual to conclude that he is successful because he is being blessed by God? And, if God likes to act mostly through His established laws of physics rather than despite them, can you really say that he in fact wasn't being blessed by God?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It only seems that way because assuming that the laws of physics have remained the same gives a good match to what we observe. However, certain combinations of different laws, or coincidences, or such, could give the same results. The simplest example is the "God poofed everything into existence 5 seconds ago" universe. Certainly that has its problems, but if you can't disprove it you can't claim to be 100% certain that the laws of physics have stayed the same for more than 5 seconds.

True, but it's contrived, so it's improbable. Such improbable things can be dismissed en masse; otherwise, we'd have to take seriously such suggestions like "Magic gnomes cause gravity" and "The Queen is a reptile". Possible, certainly, but so implausible we can dismiss them out of hand.

Meanwhile, if I observe an atom of tellurium-128 for 1,000,000,000,000 billion years (ie, several orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe), and it doesn't decay, does that make me justified in claiming that it won't decay? (it has a half-life of 7.7 x 1024 years) Or if I lived in a house for 50 years without experiencing leaks would I be justified in saying that it is unlikely to develop a leak anytime soon? Likewise, I don't see how belief that the laws of physics won't change can be properly justified. Do we not accept the laws of physics as unchanging due to a mixture of faith and necessity?

In a word, no. There are experiments we can perform to test the consistency of the laws of physics. We can simply assume that they're fixed, and then work out what we should observe. We should observe light from distant starts behaving exactly as 'modern' light does. We should observe those stars behaving just like the Sun does. We should observe geological strata obeying the same basic physical laws over geological time. We should expect the countless independent dating techniques to all converge on one date when applied to the same relevant thing.

The last one is the one I like. If the laws of physics did change in the past, did they change in just the right way so that all the radiometric dating, all the dendrochronology, all ice core sample, all of these dating techniques which rely on completely different physical mechanisms... did these all change in just the right way to give coherent results? The theory of common descent has a mechanism for explaining such apparent impossibilities: evolution by natural selection, the preferential preservation of benefitial traits. But the 'physical laws change' thing can only work if contrived, and that's so implausible as to be dismissed.

Christians see faith in God as being in fact based on evidence. Some would point to the Bible as evidence (yes, yes, circular reasoning). Others would point to personal experience, of themselves or of others (yes, yes, confirmation bias).

However, here's something different to think about: almost all humans are blindingly optimistic, at least in certain areas. The most common is that people hugely overestimate their skill, abilities, and positive traits, while discounting their mistakes and negative traits. It is pretty clear that evolution has favored those who make fools of themselves trying to do stuff, over those who sit around paralyzed by their realization of how stuff is hard to do. Similarly, self-discipline is one of the most vital traits for success. Thus, any religion helping people act with confidence or practice self-discipline, will push them towards success... and considering people don't generally go practicing various different religions to see which is better, would it not be reasonable for the individual to conclude that he is successful because he is being blessed by God? And, if God likes to act mostly through His established laws of physics rather than despite them, can you really say that he in fact wasn't being blessed by God?

I'd say it's a bit arrogant on his part to assume the entire universe and all its laws and all its preceding events were set up for the sole purpose that he would have a good life. If God acts in such a manner, you'd think he could send a few rain clouds over Africa more often.

 

[Chalnoth]

It only seems that way because assuming that the laws of physics have remained the same gives a good match to what we observe. However, certain combinations of different laws, or coincidences, or such, could give the same results. The simplest example is the "God poofed everything into existence 5 seconds ago" universe. Certainly that has its problems, but if you can't disprove it you can't claim to be 100% certain that the laws of physics have stayed the same for more than 5 seconds.

Well, the main issue here is that if you change the laws of physics, even subtly, you end up with wide and far-reaching effects. I mean, sure, if you could come up with a completely different set of laws that give basically the same experimental predictions then that would be interesting. But in reality it is extraordinarily difficult to do this, just due to the extremely wide variety of experiments and observations we have, and due to the number of different ways in which those observations depend upon theory.

Meanwhile, if I observe an atom of tellurium-128 for 1,000,000,000,000 billion years (ie, several orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe), and it doesn't decay, does that make me justified in claiming that it won't decay? (it has a half-life of 7.7 x 1024 years) Or if I lived in a house for 50 years without experiencing leaks would I be justified in saying that it is unlikely to develop a leak anytime soon? Likewise, I don't see how belief that the laws of physics won't change can be properly justified. Do we not accept the laws of physics as unchanging due to a mixture of faith and necessity?

What you can do, however, is say that given these trillion years of observation, chances are pretty good that the atom will remain stable for the next trillion years. And that would be a perfectly-valid conclusion.

Now, if there were some evidence of a change in natural law, then that would be interesting to pursue. But at present there is no such evidence, so we can be pretty confident that natural law, as we know it, isn't going to change much over the next few billion years.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Are the spirals in this picture anything to do with particle "spin"? What about the dots and lines?