- Mar 26, 2018
- 1,080
- 280
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
No, I wasn't aware, but will watch if it's on youtube. I think in a closed system the laws of thermodynamics are absolute.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, physical laws are not necessarily absolute (e.g. the laws of thermodynamics are probabilistic, aka statistical mechanics) and energy is not conserved under GR. Didn't you watch the Sabine Hossenfelder video posted by sjastro?
Laws are not absolute.No, I wasn't aware, but will watch if it's on youtube. I think in a closed system the laws of thermodynamics are absolute.
Laws are not absolute.
The Rayleigh-Jeans law for blackbody temperature is clearly wrong for short wavelengths which led to a major crisis in classical physics known as the UV catastrophe which led to the formulation of quantum mechanics.
A good explanation of the UV catastrophe is found here.
I saw the last hour of your video.
Thanks. I saw the above which is about an hour, but it explains the UV catastrophe and photoelectric effect and Einstein winning his Nobel Prize for his discovery of the photoelectric effect. We're still battling the quanta explanation of Bohr. The electron is a mysterious particle that acts like a wave. Can it really be two places at once as a wave and just act like a particle when measured? Start from around 21:50.
I don't even know what you know or evidence that you have to get up on your high horse and criticize me. @Warden_of_the_Storm has been debunked and put in her place as someone who doesn't have much evidence for her scientific beliefs.
I have. They seem to be a mix of rather confused science and unsubstantiated objections interspersed with naïve questions... very odd.Just read my previous posts in this thread for starters.
I'm talking about the standard model of cosmology, Lambda CDM.Please explain your std model of cosmos.
Citation? where are these 'edges'? People who work in the field think that it is most likely that the universe is either infinite, or finite and unbounded, so no edges.The universe being flat like a scroll backs up creation science. I'll add we found the edges of the universe curve, too. It means the universe has a boundary.
The best candidate for the basic expansion is just Einstein's equations, which predict either an expanding or a contracting spacetime. To get static spacetime you need to add a cosmological constant (remember Einstein's biggest blunder?). The cause of the acceleration of spacetime is known as 'dark energy', and may well be due to this cosmological constant after all - this time contributing a repulsive effect, a constant density vacuum energy. Alternatively, it may be a scalar field called 'quintessence'.That's why I asked where the energy came from for this "infinite" space to accelerate and continue expanding?
There are several possible answers to that. For example, if our universe is a 'bubble' or 'pocket' universe, birthed from a rapidly expanding metaverse (as in inflation theory), the energy comes from the phase change that initiates the universe. More generally, one can say that the universe has zero net energy, as the positive energy (of E=mc²) warps spacetime, producing an equal and opposite gravitational energy (which can be considered to be 'negative' energy). This would mean that you need no additional energy resource to create a universe, just some catalysing event.Even the energy for the stars, moon, planets, etc aren't explained. Instead, all of your origin hypotheses have whatever you need already assumed to be there such as spacetime.
Kind of. The arrow of time and the expansion of the universe are related by increasing entropy. It's the overall increase in entropy that distinguishes past from future. At thermodynamic equilibrium, there's no change in entropy, so no arrow of time.Maybe space has to continue expanding in order for time to move forward. What's weird is if we look out into space and see heavenly objects, those objects are from the past. We can't see the present in space except to project their movements (which may be enough) to get us there assuming we can. We need to use a telescope to see what's out in the deep field, but even then it's the past. This shows the one way direction of time and we can't see the present.
Why troubling? - it's not likely to happen any time soon.The most troubling is the stars exploding and galaxies colliding of the deaths of these heavenly objects that has already happened. That's why there is cosmological belief that the Milky Way, too, could end up as space fodder. That would be one extinction event, but not just one relegated to the Earth only.
No, it really doesn't - it's a product of theoretical physics as currently understood; if it violated those laws it would have been rejected out of hand. Which laws do you think it violates?Do you mean cosmic inflation? I hate that as it violates the laws of physics.
No. QM is what is observed - the laws of physics are descriptions of what is observed, they're not some sort of absolute Platonic ideal. The laws of physics emerge from our observations of QM.There isn't a physical explanation that doesn't violate the laws of physics, so we wait to find out more about its nature.
What about our macro view of the universe do you think we can't explain with QM?At this time, we can't explain our macro view of the universe based on it.
What would you say are the benefits of a quantum internet, and why do you think we need QM for space communications?We can use the knowledge of it and it seems possible to build a quantum internet and space communications.
That's an unscientific attitude. Multiverses are widely accepted as plausible hypotheses. You don't have to believe in them - as Aristotle didn't actually say, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."I'm going skip Mr. Tegmark because he's a believer of multiverses.
Yup.I have an explanation for what we see as observation. Strictly my thoughts. I think an individual light particle acts as a wave when it goes through both slits. Thus, we get the wave patterns.
Sorry, can't make sense of that - although it sounds vaguely like 'Many Worlds'. When your particle goes through the slits, it's in a superposition of every path through those slits. When it interacts with the screen, the formalism says that it becomes a superposition of every possible outcome, each entangled with the screen. IOW the screen joins a superposition of all those outcomes. Very rapidly, the whole environment becomes similarly entangled, and the superposed outcomes can no longer interfere - this is 'decoherence'.The collapse explains what we see in quantum entanglement. We can only observe one pairs and its entangled pairs. The other particles to show the wave for some reason just aren't recorded or observed, but I think they're there. The collapse is the illusion. Maybe the observation can't record the others because of some strange time function.
That's not clear enough to comment on - perhaps you could relate it to the description I gave above.ETA: What I'd like to do is shoot entangled particles through one-at-a-time. Then we should just see the two bands. Next, use a measuring device to record and observe. It should be the same.
We'd have to account for each particle to make sure. Then shoot non-entangled ones and we should see the wave pattern. Keep track of how many were fired. Next, observe those with the measuring device. We should just get the entangled pairs, but it will be less than the number of shots fired. That would mean the wave pattern is there, but we just couldn't see it or record it.
You don't have to go to YouTube, you can watch it in the comment I gave you the link to.No, I wasn't aware, but will watch if it's on youtube.
I used to think that too.I think in a closed system the laws of thermodynamics are absolute.
First off, I'm a guy. I chose the avatar because it's funny to me. Just like how your avatar is Sean Connory's James Bond but I definitely know that you do not even have an ounce of his charisma.
And you've also done nothing to debunk anything. All you've done is make claim after claim after claim and not presented a single shred of evidence to support your claims. Par for the course for you lot.
I have. They seem to be a mix of rather confused science and unsubstantiated objections interspersed with naïve questions... very odd.
I'm talking about the standard model of cosmology, Lambda CDM.
Why troubling? - it's not likely to happen any time soon.
No, it really doesn't - it's a product of theoretical physics as currently understood; if it violated those laws it would have been rejected out of hand. Which laws do you think it violates?
No. QM is what is observed - the laws of physics are descriptions of what is observed, they're not some sort of absolute Platonic ideal. The laws of physics emerge from our observations of QM.
What about our macro view of the universe do you think we can't explain with QM?
That's an unscientific attitude. Multiverses are widely accepted as plausible hypotheses. You don't have to believe in them - as Aristotle didn't actually say, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Since when did the bible have anything to do with 'valid science'?Perhaps you do not understand and comprehend valid science. To get down to brass tacks, there has been no evidence whatsoever for aliens while plenty have come up show no aliens as implied in the Bible.
It's a model that is current best fit to the data. Sure, we could invoke gods, mythical beasts, cosmic serpents, or what have you, but they are superfluous - we have a number of plausible hypotheses based on fundamental physics to explore that don't need to invoke ill-defined, undemonstrable, inexplicable, supernatural entities that have no explanatory power. The point is to test explanations by their predictions, so as to gain an understanding of the phenomena involved, not pretend some meaningless label is an explanation.It's just a claim that our universe data favors Lamda CDM. It's largely a myth that atheists and their scientists wishes were true. What if God is the dark energy? Why isn't the possibility of a creator in the Lambda CDM model?
General Relativity - nothing in the universe can accelerate to the speed of light, but there's nothing to stop space expanding faster than light; it's FTL movement through space that's not possible. I already explained where the energy might come from - in the post you're quoting. Inflation isn't a slam-dunk, it's popular because it solves a number of cosmological puzzles, but it may be wrong. More data is needed - science at work.Nothing can travel faster than light. And where did this created energy come from to do it? So let's get rid of cosmic inflation.
Sure - Einstein was criticising the von Neumann-Wigner version of the Copenhagen interpretation, which suggested consciousness collapses the wavefunction; no mainstream physicist gives that credence that any more.We can't know where the electron is until observed. We know the electron exists with EMS. We can counter the argument that they have to be observed by setting a battery connected to a wire to a light. We flip the switch in-between and the electrons flow to light the light. It flows whether there is an observer or not because of the potential difference (+ to -) and the battery runs down even when not observing. So that answers Einstein's quote about the moon existing if we aren't there to observe.
Inflation was not an electromagnetic phenomenon (how would that work?). The current (see what I did there?) explanation for it is a quantum field, the inflaton.Now, it may not answer where the electron is in an open system, but I assume its flow is universal for potential difference. Thus, cosmic inflation does not explain why it inflated the way it did. Even dark energy, assuming it existed, should follow potential difference. With cosmic inflation, there was no potential difference, but the expansion did follow a vector direction.
That's an ongoing debate, but the fact is that most (if not all) scientific theories make predictions that are or were untestable, e.g. people used to say black holes were unscientific. It's the 'demarcation problem', a philosophy of science debate.Sure multiverses are unscientific because there is no evidence for it.
Well, firstly, science isn't about belief, it's about degrees of confidence in explanations. Secondly, your God is not a prediction of any theory - there are lots of ancient books about various ill-defined and inexplicable gods and other supernatural entities; why should we pick any of them? they're redundant - unnecessary (Occam's razor), and they have no explanatory power.Why don't you believe in God as scientific when a Bible was discovered and science backs it up even though it isn't a science book?
I'm sorry if you feel I've insulted you - oddly, I thought the insults were coming the other way...I'm going to skip the rest as it has become tiresome having to endure insults and arguing against someone who believes in multiverses.
Ok, my bad, but I do have wit, charm, and charisma. I wouldn't put it close to even being on par with Sean Connery (RIP Sean Connery) had with his JB.
I think I've shown plenty of evidence to show and explain for no intelligent aliens and it's enough to conclude there aren't any. Not even a microbe. Else we would've seen it by now. We've spent enough billions of dollars to have found them.
I realize it goes against some of the greatest scientific minds in science, such as Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Nikola Tesla, Richard Feynman, etc., but they all died without finding one. Neil deGrasse Tyson is still living and he states sometimes he stays awake at night in trying to find a way to find them. Some of those new ways I've discovered are optical SETI and Alien Telescope Array, but still nothing. Even seti@home was shut down this year. Why is it you aren't the one mentioning them, but I. I use them as proof there aren't aliens (nor abiogenesis).
Most of these scientists were going by a belief in the vastness of our universe before the fine tuning facts were discovered. They also discount the anthropic principle in that Earth is a special place and witnessing the glory of our universe in the great and imaginative mind of God.
Better to say, 'unknown'.The chances of finding life are 1 in 10 to the order of several million (to use a nice number), but they aren't zero.
Better to say, 'unknown'.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?