Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[SelfSim]

I've seen this video before, but since you posted it, I have a couple of questions.

#1 In what sense is it true that every point in the field has a value ascribed to it? I mean it's a 'quantum' field after all, so I would expect that if we measure any specific point in the field we'll find a definitive value there, but does it actually have a distinct value when we're not measuring it?

#2 The field was described as being 3 dimensional but modeled in only 2 dimensions, but does it actually have any extension in space and time at all, or is that also simply a byproduct of our measuring it?

A sure bet is still a prediction (and not assured as being real).
I can draw out a schematic of an amplifier circuit and predict what voltages will be measured at various parts of that circuit (given a minimal set of known values beforehand). Those measurables will only be objectively determined following the measurement and will then become part of our objective reality .. but before that happens, they will be predictions from theory (but still a sure bet under a prespecified context).

 

[stevevw]

Given that time was one of the things that was formed in the Big Bang, I think it's a bit odd to ask what was around "before" the Big Bang.

I think it does matter because time itself needs to be understood and explained within the current standard model. Its an unresolved problem for associated with entropy, the low entropy state of the beginning of our universe which is associated with the arrow of time.

An interesting problem has come up with the new discoveries from the JWST is that galaxies are far to big and numerous soon after the big bang. So this is causing scientists to wonder whether the standard model need adjusting or even completely revised. Possible implications are that the beginning of our universe happened much longer ago or even some are saying that the universe may be infinite having no boundary and the same in all directions.

So the idea of time itself, the concept humans have created may need rethinking. I mean there are other reasons like with ideas such as Multiverses where our universe is one of many. So scientists may want to know what was before our universe in developing those theories. I think its an open question and we should not force any particular concept of time or space for that matter.

 

[partinobodycular]

I can draw out a schematic of an amplifier circuit and predict what voltages will be measured at various parts of that circuit (given a minimal set of known values beforehand). Those measurables will only be objectively determined following the measurement and will then become part of our objective reality .. but before that happens, they will be predictions from theory (but still a sure bet under a prespecified context).

Okay, so before measurement it's in a superposition of all possible states, whatever those possible states may be... correct? And if the same applies to the quantum field then a definitive value for any point in the field doesn't exist until the point is measured.

But the video seems to suggest that the points in the field always have a definitive value. Which means that nothing should ever be in a superposition. Yet observation says that they are, hence the points in the field can't have definitive values, and the field is only fluctuating from the perspective of the observer.

This is one of those times when I want @sjastro to jump in here, and tell me, in a science lingo that I don't comprehend, why I'm mistaken. Then I'll have to set about trying to comprehend his answer. Yeah, good luck with that. But I try.

 

[sjastro]

I've seen this video before, but since you posted it, I have a couple of questions.

#1 In what sense is it true that every point in the field has a value ascribed to it? I mean it's a 'quantum' field after all, so I would expect that if we measure any specific point in the field we'll find a definitive value there, but does it actually have a distinct value when we're not measuring it?

As the video mentions in a classical scalar field each point in space is defined by some scalar value such as temperature which is real, while in a quantum field each point is associated with an “existence value”.

An “existence value” is admittedly a vague description but this was discussed in the thread Spacetime or a vacuum can never be totally empty.
Here each point in space-time is defined by a quantum harmonic oscillator which describes why the field is non static.
Note this is a mathematical not a physical model, quantum harmonic oscillators do not represent any real scalar value.

The energy values of the field are quantized, in energy levels other than the lowest when a quantum harmonic oscillator is excited a fundamental particle is created at that point, in the lowest energy level or vacuum state virtual particles are created and destroyed through vacuum energy fluctuations due the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Despite being a mathematical model, predictions of real events have been confirmed by experimental physics such as the prediction of virtual particles exerting pressure in a vacuum through the Casimir effect.

#2 The field was described as being 3 dimensional but modeled in only 2 dimensions, but does it actually have any extension in space and time at all, or is that simply an assumption based upon the fact that no matter where we go... there it is? Thus we're ascribing to it a dimensionality that it doesn't on its own possess?

Since quantum harmonic oscillators are associated with every point in space-time they apply to the entire 3 spatial dimensions of the observable universe.

 

[partinobodycular]

Despite being a mathematical model, predictions of real events have been confirmed by experimental physics such as the prediction of virtual particles exerting pressure in a vacuum through the Casimir effect.

I pretty much got all that from the video, but here's my problem; saying that it agrees with observation doesn't prove anything to me, because I expect an observed system to behave as if it had a definitive value. It doesn't tell me what an unobserved system looks like. And to me the Casimir effect is just a sneaky way of observing the system.

I'm not trying to be quarrelsome, just wondering why a quantum field wouldn't exhibit quantum behavior, i.e. uncertainty.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think it does matter because time itself needs to be understood and explained within the current standard model. Its an unresolved problem for associated with entropy, the low entropy state of the beginning of our universe which is associated with the arrow of time.

An interesting problem has come up with the new discoveries from the JWST is that galaxies are far to big and numerous soon after the big bang. So this is causing scientists to wonder whether the standard model need adjusting or even completely revised. Possible implications are that the beginning of our universe happened much longer ago or even some are saying that the universe may be infinite having no boundary and the same in all directions.

Are there any of these super high redshift candidate galaxies with photometric redshifts that have been confirmed spectroscopically, or do they all end up being not so far away?

 

[sjastro]

I pretty much got all that from the video, but here's my problem; saying that it agrees with observation doesn't prove anything to me, because I expect an observed system to behave as if it had a definitive value. It doesn't tell me what an unobserved system looks like. And to me the Casimir effect is just a sneaky way of observing the system.

I'm not trying to be quarrelsome, just wondering why a quantum field wouldn't exhibit quantum behavior, i.e. uncertainty.

Quantum field theories were developed since Schrödinger’s equation is a non-relativistic version of quantum mechanics.
The relativistic version of the equation known as the Klein Gordon equation gave nonsensical predictions such as the probability of particles having negative values.
This required a rethink such as the energy of an electron not only included the mass of the electron but also the surrounding electric field and since E = mc² according to special relativity one would need to consider the field in the Klein Gordon equation.

The field behaves like a subatomic particle, it exists in quantized energy levels and exhibits uncertainty such as when measuring the energy at some given point.
When the field was incorporated the negative probabilities predicted by the Klein Gordon equation vanished.

There is nothing sneaky about the Casimir effect, virtual particles like subatomic particles have a mathematical wave particle duality.
By reducing the spacing between the plates to below the wavelengths of the virtual particles meant there were fewer virtual particles inside the plate compared to the outside resulting in a differential pressure.
This is an example of a phenomenological theory where the prediction is based on the effects of virtual particles not on the existence of virtual particles themselves which are not real as their description implies.

 

[stevevw]

Are there any of these super high redshift candidate galaxies with photometric redshifts that have been confirmed spectroscopically, or do they all end up being not so far away?

Evidently Maisies galaxy at 390m light years after the big band has been conformed. But as mentioned in the above video the recent discovery of Z-20 is a candidate high redshift of 20.4 and said to be around 168m light years after the big bang which will need confiirming. But even more recent dicoveries have found even earlier galaxies from only a few millions years after the big band when seems impossible and will also need confirming.

But as we have been seeing what we thought we would find with the JWST is already questioning the standard model just by the fact that such large and mature galaxies should be so soon after the BB.

James Webb Space Telescope confirms 'Maisie's galaxy' is one of the earliest ever seen

Named for its discoverer's nine-year-old daughter, this galaxy is one of the oldest realms to be witnessed by humanity.

www.space.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

Evidently Maisies galaxy at 390m light years after the big band has been conformed.

(ie redshift z=11.4 spectroscopically). The original distance photometric redshift estimate was 14 (290 Myr after BB).

Astronomers Confirm Maisie’s Galaxy is Among Earliest Ever Observed

Another overestimate from the photometric redshift models. They all seem to miss and over estimate the redshift for these early-universe high-redshift galaxies, so I see no reason to take any specific claim as accurate.

But as mentioned in the above video the recent discovery of Z-20 is a candidate high redshift of 20.4 and said to be around 168m light years after the big bang which will need confiirming. But even more recent dicoveries have found even earlier galaxies from only a few millions years after the big band when seems impossible and will also need confirming.

But as we have been seeing what we thought we would find with the JWST is already questioning the standard model just by the fact that such large and mature galaxies should be so soon after the BB.

James Webb Space Telescope confirms 'Maisie's galaxy' is one of the earliest ever seen

Named for its discoverer's nine-year-old daughter, this galaxy is one of the oldest realms to be witnessed by humanity.

www.space.com

I'm not going to believe any high redshift value unless it is spectroscopic or they build better galaxy photometry models for high redshift. The "falsification" of early galaxy formation models will have to wait.

 

[stevevw]

(ie redshift z=11.4 spectroscopically). The original distance photometric redshift estimate was 14 (290 Myr after BB).

Astronomers Confirm Maisie’s Galaxy is Among Earliest Ever Observed

Another overestimate from the photometric redshift models. They all seem to miss and over estimate the redshift for these early-universe high-redshift galaxies, so I see no reason to take any specific claim as accurate.


I'm not going to believe any high redshift value unless it is spectroscopic or they build better galaxy photometry models for high redshift. The "falsification" of early galaxy formation models will have to wait.

Still Maisie's galaxy is too big, bright and mature to exist only 390 million years after the big bang. It seems another galaxy was confirmed late last year with a redshift of 13.2.

James Webb Space Telescope finds 2 of the most distant galaxies ever seen

These two galaxies, magnified by a gravitational lens, have properties that support the basic picture of galaxy formation as described in the Big Bang theory.

www.space.com

I think they will keep discovering earlier and earlier galaxies. If they are that mature at 320 million years after the big bang then there has to be earlier ones. They are not seeing an immature universe with no galaxies but mature ones.

If the universe is expanding faster and faster even beyond the speed of light then Maisie's galaxay is going to continue to expand beyond the limits of our known universe let along what other celestial bodies are beyond that measure. Like they say it could go on forever and there may not be any immature universe but its all mature in all directions to infinity.

As the video mentions it may be that the radiation from the BB seen in the CMB may not be the measure of the BB but of a universe where mature galaxies came into being together and not evolved from a singularity and immature universe. I guess a bit like the Cambrian explosion in evolution.

 

[carloagal]

Dio dice che la terra ha prodotto esseri viventi. Gli credo. Dovresti anche tu.


Ecco cos'è l'abiogenesi. Quindi abbiamo risolto il problema.


Più o meno come i predicatori creazionisti di YE. Ecco perché non diamo loro molta credibilità su questo tema.


La parola di Dio è un fuoco piuttosto buono, IMO. Mi spiace, non è tuo.


Ci sono interi diari che mostrano nuove prove. Che tu non lo sappia è patetico.

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know - PMC

The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. In this essay, we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Indovina come faccio a sapere che non hai mai letto una proposta di ricerca.


Se comprendessi questi termini, sarebbe più efficace discuterli. Un'ipotesi deve essere, almeno in linea di principio, verificabile. Deve fare previsioni verificabili. E solo le ipotesi le cui previsioni sono state ripetutamente verificate diventano teorie. La teoria di Darwin è una teoria perché fa numerose previsioni, molte delle quali sono state verificate. Per inciso, l’abiogenesi non è una di quelle previsioni. Darwin presupponeva semplicemente che Dio avesse creato i primi esseri viventi.


Mostracelo. Fonti controllabili.

Search on YouTube Ron Tesoriero and Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires....

 

[sjastro]

If the universe is expanding faster and faster even beyond the speed of light then Maisie's galaxay is going to continue to expand beyond the limits of our known universe let along what other celestial bodies are beyond that measure. Like they say it could go on forever and there may not be any immature universe but its all mature in all directions to infinity.

As the video mentions it may be that the radiation from the BB seen in the CMB may not be the measure of the BB but of a universe where mature galaxies came into being together and not evolved from a singularity and immature universe. I guess a bit like the Cambrian explosion in evolution.

So where are all the galaxies that are red shifted into the microwave range which should be detected by radio telescopes?
By comparison the JWST which is an IR telescope is puny compared to the largest radio telescopes which probe into the microwave spectrum and further back into time, so a lack of aperture is not a reason why not a single galaxy in the microwave range has ever been detected.

The answer is there were no galaxies let alone stars prior to the reionization era of the Universe.

 

[The Barbarian]

Search on YouTube Ron Tesoriero and Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires....

Non sapevo che YouTube avesse un promotor fidei.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think they will keep discovering earlier and earlier galaxies. If they are that mature at 320 million years after the big bang then there has to be earlier ones. They are not seeing an immature universe with no galaxies but mature ones.

Speculation.

If the universe is expanding faster and faster even beyond the speed of light then Maisie's galaxay is going to continue to expand beyond the limits of our known universe let along what other celestial bodies are beyond that measure. Like they say it could go on forever and there may not be any immature universe but its all mature in all directions to infinity.

So you've discovered the horizon. Cool. Not new in the slightest.

As the video mentions it may be that the radiation from the BB seen in the CMB may not be the measure of the BB but of a universe where mature galaxies came into being together and not evolved from a singularity and immature universe.

You mean the video you posted earlier that repeatedly claims that these "too early galaxies" will change the age of the universe? The age of the Universe is not determined by the maturity of the galaxies inside of it. It is measured by the expansion history.

I guess a bit like the Cambrian explosion in evolution.

It took 10s of millions of years??? What is the point you are trying to make?

 

[The Barbarian]

It took 10s of millions of years??? What is the point you are trying to make?

And it was preceded by 10s of millions of years of complex Ediacaran fauna.

Nat Ecol Evol
2019 Apr;3(4):528-538.

Integrated records of environmental change and evolution challenge the Cambrian Explosion ​

Abstract ​

The 'Cambrian Explosion' describes the rapid increase in animal diversity and abundance, as manifest in the fossil record, between ~540 and 520 million years ago (Ma). This event, however, is nested within a far more ancient record of macrofossils extending at least into the late Ediacaran at ~571 Ma. The evolutionary events documented during the Ediacaran-Cambrian interval coincide with geochemical evidence for the modernisation of Earth's biogeochemical cycles. Holistic integration of fossil and geochemical records leads us to challenge the notion that the Ediacaran and Cambrian worlds were markedly distinct, and places biotic and environmental change within a longer-term narrative. We propose that the evolution of metazoans may have been facilitated by a series of dynamic and global changes in redox conditions and nutrient supply, which, potentially together with biotic feedbacks, enabled turnover events that sustained multiple phases of radiation. We argue that early metazoan diversification should be recast as a series of successive, transitional radiations that extended from the late Ediacaran and continued through the early Palaeozoic. We conclude that while the Cambrian Explosion represents a radiation of crown-group bilaterians, it was simply one phase amongst several metazoan radiations, some older and some younger.

​

 

[stevevw]

So where are all the galaxies that are red shifted into the microwave range which should be detected by radio telescopes?
By comparison the JWST which is an IR telescope is puny compared to the largest radio telescopes which probe into the microwave spectrum and further back into time, so a lack of aperture is not a reason why not a single galaxy in the microwave range has ever been detected.

The answer is there were no galaxies let alone stars prior to the reionization era of the Universe.

So when do we find this universe with no galaxies or stars. Where now back to 320 million years after the BB. Galaxies have been discovered only a 100 million years after the BB but are yet to be confirmed. But according to the standard model we should not be seeing these big and mature galaxies so soon after the Big bang but as you said no galaxies or at least minimal forming galaxies. But not mature galaxies bigger than our Milky Way which took some 1 to 2 billion years to form.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So when do we find this universe with no galaxies or stars.

The CMB. That's the only thing your going to "see" in a Universe without stars.

Where now back to 320 million years after the BB. Galaxies have been discovered only a 100 million years after the BB but are yet to be confirmed.

Don't go counting them until they are spectroscopically verified. Until then they are just speculative.

But according to the standard model we should not be seeing these big and mature galaxies so soon after the Big bang but as you said no galaxies or at least minimal forming galaxies.

What is this "standard model"? The only "standard model" I know of in cosmology is LamdaCDM which doesn't specify the details of structure formation. To get structure formation (including galaxies) you need a 3D computer simulation of structure formation.

But not mature galaxies bigger than our Milky Way which took some 1 to 2 billion years to form.

I see blobs in those images. Why do you call them "mature"? How do you think we know how the Milky Way formed and how it "matured"?

 

[sjastro]

So when do we find this universe with no galaxies or stars. Where now back to 320 million years after the BB. Galaxies have been discovered only a 100 million years after the BB but are yet to be confirmed. But according to the standard model we should not be seeing these big and mature galaxies so soon after the Big bang but as you said no galaxies or at least minimal forming galaxies. But not mature galaxies bigger than our Milky Way which took some 1 to 2 billion years to form.

The cosmic radiation background is detected by radio telescopes and has a redshift z ~ 1100 when the Universe was around 300,000 years old.
So where are all the microwave shifted galaxies that should readily detected in the 70 - 500 metre single dish radio telescopes where the photon collecting capacity is vastly superior to the JWST which has an aperture of only 6.5 metres.

Then there is the fact many astronomers don’t believe the z values of these high redshift galaxies as they were determined using photometric analysis which has a high degree of uncertainty when compared to measuring the redshift directly from its spectrum.
This was demonstrated by the JWST team when a galaxy with a reported value of z~16 using photometric analysis was found to have a redshift of only z = 4.9 from its spectrum.

​

​

During the first 500 million years of cosmic history, the first stars and galaxies formed, seeding the Universe with heavy elements and eventually reionizing the intergalactic medium. Observations with JWST have uncovered a surprisingly high abundance of candidates for early star-forming galaxies, with distances (redshifts, z), estimated from multi-band photometry, as large as z≈16, far beyond pre-JWST limits. While generally robust, such photometric redshifts can suffer from degeneracies and occasionally catastrophic errors. Spectroscopic measurement is required to validate these sources and to reliably quantify physical properties that can constrain galaxy formation models and cosmology. Here we present JWST spectroscopy that confirms redshifts for two very luminous galaxies with z>11, but also demonstrates that another candidate with suggested z≈16 instead has z=4.9, with an unusual combination of nebular line emission and dust reddening that mimics the colors expected for much more distant objects. These results reinforce evidence for the early, rapid formation of remarkably luminous galaxies, while also highlighting the necessity of spectroscopic verification. The large abundance of bright, early galaxies may indicate shortcomings in current galaxy formation models, or deviation from physical properties (such as the stellar initial mass function) that are generally believed to hold at later times.​

Confirmation and refutation of very luminous galaxies in the early universe

During the first 500 million years of cosmic history, the first stars and galaxies formed, seeding the Universe with heavy elements and eventually reionizing the intergalactic medium. Observations with JWST have uncovered a surprisingly high abundance of candidates for early star-forming...

arxiv.org

 

[NxNW]

If the fine structure constant was off by a bit, we wouldn't be here. If other constants were off slightly, the universe or life would not exist.

Young-Earth Christians often claim that the speed of light or rate of radioactive decay have changed, and therefore the processes used to date the universe are wrong.

How can Christians claim the constants are both changing and unchanging?

 

[The Barbarian]

How can Christians claim the constants are both changing and unchanging?

Most of us don't.