Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[mzungu]

JUST WATCH THIS:

This Super Camera Captures What's Beyond Human Comprehension | Dr. Kaku's Universe | Big Think

 

[createdtoworship]

It's basically a quantum telephone call...without the wire.
When you make a telephone call, the person on the other end does not hear the actual sound waves emanating from your lungs, they hear a reproduced version of it. This is a broad oversimplification of it but it's broadly what's happening.
The photon on the receiving end has the same properties as the sending end, but isn't the same actual photon.

This paper was significant because it was the first time it was done without losing "data", basically...

so how come the light can have same properties?

 

[KCfromNC]

Numerology and astrology have mathematical models too. So what?

Testable and/or falsifiable models?

 

[mzungu]

Numerology and astrology have mathematical models too. So what?

They are not testable, and they cannot be falsified. So what's with the cartoon physics you keep giving us

 

[Michael]

Testable and/or falsifiable models?

Since no cause/effect relationships have ever been established between "dark energy" and acceleration or flatness and inflation, how can these ideas actually be "testable" or falsifiable? How is it that Guth's brand of inflation theory can (and has been) falsified, yet the DOGMA of his personal mental creation lives on? There are so many slightly different metaphysical brands of inflation to choose from now, how could ALL of them ever be falsified?

Since no cause/effect relationship has been established between "acceleration" and "dark energy", how could THAT claim ever be "falsified"?

 

[Michael]

They are not testable, and they cannot be falsified. So what's with the cartoon physics you keep giving us

It's exactly the same cartoon physics (with math) that you keep handing me with your dark sky deities! That math you keep handing me is every bit as "trumped up" as the mathematical presentations of astrology or numerology.

The fact someone slaps some math into the presentation doesn't justify anything, nor does it necessarily allow anything to be "falsified" in the first place! Since "dark energy" never accelerated anything in lab, the claim that "dark energy did it" cannot and never could be falsified, particularly since the "math" was CUSTOM CREATED to fill the gaps of an otherwise falsified interpretation of the redshift phenomenon. It's a circular argument from the start.

 

[mzungu]

It's exactly the same cartoon physics (with math) that you keep handing me with your dark sky deities! That math you keep handing me is every bit as "trumped up" as the mathematical presentations of astrology or numerology.

The fact someone slaps some math into the presentation doesn't justify anything, nor does it necessarily allow anything to be "falsified" in the first place! Since "dark energy" never accelerated anything in lab, the claim that "dark energy did it" cannot and never could be falsified, particularly since the "math" was CUSTOM CREATED to fill the gaps of an otherwise falsified interpretation of the redshift phenomenon. It's a circular argument from the start.

No problem; I stick with Curiosity ( http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/ ) and you stay with your talking snakes! Now everyone is happy!

 

[mkatzwork]

It's exactly the same cartoon physics (with math) that you keep handing me with your dark sky deities! That math you keep handing me is every bit as "trumped up" as the mathematical presentations of astrology or numerology.

The fact someone slaps some math into the presentation doesn't justify anything, nor does it necessarily allow anything to be "falsified" in the first place! Since "dark energy" never accelerated anything in lab, the claim that "dark energy did it" cannot and never could be falsified, particularly since the "math" was CUSTOM CREATED to fill the gaps of an otherwise falsified interpretation of the redshift phenomenon. It's a circular argument from the start.

Do you really think tired light fits the picture better? We observe what appears to be an accelerated expansion of the cosmos, and unless you think we are at the centre of the cosmos and are merely in a density wave from the big bang, or that there is some kind of mechanism thst would slow photons without scattering them (no one has successfully done this yet)...then one must admit to the picture some kind of repulsive force to account for the acceleration as a possible hypothesis. Dark energy is in most of the models...not a "stuff" but a property, a fundamental property of space-time, a constant. Physicists are entirely ready to see it falsified - Einstein wrestled with the cosmological constant for years as he felt it inelegant - but there is no deity involved. You just picked a part of advanced physics you don't like to supposedly ascribe religious aspects to science, and ridiculing 'demonstrations with some maths' just further illustrates your ignorance of the topic (since most of that maths concerns equations of state, something with which you should be familiar if you've read the textbooks you claim to have read).

 

[Michael]

No problem; I stick with Curiosity ( Mars Science Laboratory ) and you stay with your talking snakes! Now everyone is happy!

I would have sworn that we covered the whole literal interpretation of the Bible thing.....

FYI, there are some parts of the space program that are actually quite impressive to me, particularly rockets, satellites and other types of equipment that are designed to explore planets and objects in space. It's just that dogma about invisible magical forms of matter and energy that I lack belief in.

 

[mkatzwork]

so how come the light can have same properties?

Photon, not strictly light. The answer lies in quantum entanglement, and its a bit hard to simplify that. Basically two particles can become linked together in a system such that a change to one causes an instant change to the other without any message travelling between them (again its actually more complicated and less certain than this but that'll do). Both ends of the line have one of two qubits that are in the same "state", i.e. entangled. If both ends measure the state they will get the same answer.

This is one of the more advanced topics currently being explored in physics, so kudos for even having interest.

 

[mkatzwork]

I would have sworn that we covered the whole literal interpretation of the Bible thing.....

FYI, there are some parts of the space program that are actually quite impressive to me, particularly rockets, satellites and other types of equipment that are designed to explore planets and objects in space. It's just that dogma about invisible magical forms of matter and energy that I lack belief in.

No one's asking you to believe anything. Its a hypothesis made to fit the observation, of the acceleration of the universe's expansion . You can either say the observation is wrong or misinterpreted but that is a hypothesis that can be tested just as figuring out the equations of state for the cosmological constant and not finding anything (yet) that contradicts other observations means "dark energy" (as its colloquially known) is still on the table. That table is not an altar though! Proponents defend their theory dogmatically sometimes, that much is true, but you deny it with the same vigor and without apparently having an alternative that is that well supported...

 

[Michael]

Do you really think tired light fits the picture better?

Better than what? Dark energy? Absolutely.

We observe what appears to be an accelerated expansion of the cosmos, and unless you think we are at the centre of the cosmos and are merely in a density wave from the big bang, or that there is some kind of mechanism thst would slow photons without scattering them (no one has successfully done this yet)

Um, nobody has ever successfully accelerated anything with 'dark energy' either.

...then one must admit to the picture some kind of repulsive force to account for the acceleration as a possible hypothesis.

Define 'repulsive force'. I'd entertain the idea that external (to this visible sliver of the universe) EM fields might cause a plasma to accelerate. I wouldn't entertain the concept that magic caused plasma to accelerate.

Dark energy is in most of the models...not a "stuff" but a property, a fundamental property of space-time, a constant.

A "constant" is simply a mathematical construct. It's not a physical cause of acceleration.

Physicists are entirely ready to see it falsified - Einstein wrestled with the cosmological constant for years as he felt it inelegant - but there is no deity involved.

He also called it his greatest "blunder".

You just picked a part of advanced physics you don't like to supposedly ascribe religious aspects to science, and ridiculing 'demonstrations with some maths' just further illustrates your ignorance of the topic (since most of that maths concerns equations of state, something with which you should be familiar if you've read the textbooks you claim to have read).

Those equations of state relate to NOTHING that is actually "observed" in nature and nothing that is an actual "cause" of acceleration. Magic doesn't accelerate anything, nor does 'dark energy'. These are MATHEMATICAL constructs, nothing more.

 

[Michael]

No one's asking you to believe anything.

Sure they are. Astronomers keep producing videos that claim that 70 percent or more of this universe is made of 'dark energy', and they claim that all that 'missing mass' that they haven't found is contained in some exotic (never been seen in the lab) form a matter. They do in fact make such claims and they do in fact expect me to believe those claims.

Its a hypothesis made to fit the observation, of the acceleration of the universe's expansion .

It's a postdicted hypothesis that was created in a purely ad hoc manner, with the express intent of salvaging one otherwise falsified interpretation of the redshift phenomenon. Even the very concept of acceleration is an INTERPRETATION of the data, it's not a direct OBSERVATION of acceleration.

You can either say the observation is wrong or misinterpreted

The observation of redshift is correct. The "interpretation" of that observation is kludged IMO.

but that is a hypothesis that can be tested just as figuring out the equations of state for the cosmological constant and not finding anything (yet) that contradicts other observations means "dark energy" (as its colloquially known) is still on the table.

Since you never showed any actual cause/effect connection between a non zero constant in a GR formula and 'dark energy', you might as well be claiming that 'God energy did it" and wave around that same math at me. There is no empirical justification for even sticking "dark energy' into a constant of a GR formula anymore than there is any justification for sticking God energy into that constant of that very same formula. It's a purely ad hoc insertion and a purely ad hoc claim.

That table is not an altar though! Proponents defend their theory dogmatically sometimes, that much is true, but you deny it with the same vigor and without apparently having an alternative that is that well supported...

Do atheists really have any well supported alternative to God? Can they explain how the 'bang' took place WITHOUT any supernatural constructs?

Why do I even need any alternative to reject a SUPERNATURAL explanation of the universe? FYI, I do actually prefer and favor a different cosmology theory, specifically PC/EU theory. You may not "like it" as much as I do, but so what? At least it's not 96 percent "faith in the unseen" in the lab.

 

[mzungu]

I would have sworn that we covered the whole literal interpretation of the Bible thing.....

It is very difficult to hide one's true intentions.

FYI, there are some parts of the space program that are actually quite impressive to me, particularly rockets, satellites and other types of equipment that are designed to explore planets and objects in space. It's just that dogma about invisible magical forms of matter and energy that I lack belief in.

Some parts of the space program? Really now; What do you think science is? A supermarket where you pick and choose what to buy and what to ignore
The Problem with creationists is that although they adhere to a static and literal interpretation of the Bible; They pick and choose what they want from science while warping what they choose to better suit their beliefs. Sorry but that is not the way science works.

It is obvious that you feel threatened by science; That science will do away with your faith. Well I have news for you; Science couldn't give two hoots what you or anyone chooses to believe. Science is an ongoing struggle for erudition and believe it or not; Nothing will give a scientist more pleasure than to refute his own theory with another. You have also claimed you have no faith in this unseen dark matter yet you put full faith in an unseen God.
Science is not based on faith but why do I even bother.............

 

[mkatzwork]

Better than what? Dark energy? Absolutely.

Suggest a single construct that could decelerate the photon without altering its momentum, scattering the light viewed from distant objects making them blurry, a prediction that is not observed...nobody's successfully managed this yet, which is why it's on the very fringes of cosmology. Added to this the data from supernovae, the absence of blackbody spectra, and the failure to pass surface brightness tests (failed to more than 10 standard deviations, which isn't the worst test result for tired light, amazingly)...see:

[astro-ph/0106566] The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies

It's not IMPOSSIBLE that it happened but the coincidences would be pretty huge, and you enjoy criticising inflation for having (supposed) coincidence issues...

Um, nobody has ever successfully accelerated anything with 'dark energy' either.

The hypothesis doesn't suggest that anybody would be able to either. It's hypothesised as a property of space-time, not a 'stuff' that you can 'do stuff with' in any way yet.

Define 'repulsive force'.

From a mathematical standpoint you could relate the derivatives of the cosmic scale factor (the second is positive, or in effect the first increases over time), and this effect requires a cause, of which the most likely is some kind of force pushing things apart from each other at a rate, the change of which can be described with a mathematical constant.

I'd entertain the idea that external (to this visible sliver of the universe) EM fields might cause a plasma to accelerate. I wouldn't entertain the concept that magic caused plasma to accelerate.

Neither would I. What's being proposed isn't at all magical, despite the answer still being an enigma. It's an open book, which is why your opinion is still valid.

A "constant" is simply a mathematical construct. It's not a physical cause of acceleration.

Yes, but the mathematical constant is there to try and describe the observed acceleration (if indeed that is what it is).

He also called it his greatest "blunder".

Whereas now we know his greatest blunder was probably not realising the other topic we're discussing in this thread, that of quantum entanglement, was correct, but he couldn't have known it with the data available to him...

Those equations of state relate to NOTHING that is actually "observed" in nature and nothing that is an actual "cause" of acceleration. Magic doesn't accelerate anything, nor does 'dark energy'. These are MATHEMATICAL constructs, nothing more.

Actually, you're wrong, and behind on the latest research again...

[0810.5506] Attractor Solution in Coupled Yang-Mills Field Dark Energy Models

[astro-ph/0211522] The State of the Dark Energy Equation of State

[0810.5129] Dark energy constraints and correlations with systematics from CFHTLS weak lensing, SNLS supernovae Ia and WMAP5

[0810.4311] Unified Description of Dark Energy and Dark Matter

and many many more.

 

[mkatzwork]

Do atheists really have any well supported alternative to God? Can they explain how the 'bang' took place WITHOUT any supernatural constructs?

EU/PC theory (at least post-1988) generally rejects the idea of creationism or a deity...you do realise that, right? Which sort of screws with the first three words of the bible...

Why do I even need any alternative to reject a SUPERNATURAL explanation of the universe?

FYI, I do actually prefer and favor a different cosmology theory, specifically PC/EU theory. You may not "like it" as much as I do, but so what? At least it's not 96 percent "faith in the unseen" in the lab.

There's nothing supernatural in it, it describes what we think is happening in the natural world. There's no arbitrary deity, there's just a process with observable results that we don't fully understand yet. You need an alternative because the cosmological constant (for one) fits the observations rather well.

I'm glad you have a theory you like better, because now we can discuss merits. I'm not going to arrogantly dismiss your ideas on EU/PC theory as "supernatural", I'm just going to pick them apart using physics. I have to run to
a meeting but I'll post some questions for you later on.

By the way, asking "Why do I even need any alternative to reject a SUPERNATURAL explanation of the universe?" and then writing this in the very same post:

Do atheists really have any well supported alternative to God?

is somewhat beneath your level of intelligence, which is clearly pretty high.

 

[Michael]

EU/PC theory (at least post-1988) generally rejects the idea of creationism or a deity...you do realise that, right? Which sort of screws with the first three words of the bible...

I'm well aware of the fact that PC/EU theory is religion neutral and it can be embraced and described independently of any sort of theistic view of the universe, just like mainstream theory. I also know it doesn't exclude the concept of God anymore than mainstream theory excludes a creator.

There's nothing supernatural in it, it describes what we think is happening in the natural world.

But you're using no less than THREE supernatural/metaphysical entities to describe that "natural" world. More importantly you only actually 'observe' redshift and galaxy rotation patterns, not "dark energy' or 'dark matter'.

There's no arbitrary deity,....

No, it just includes and describes three arbitrary "sky entities" that serve no useful purpose other than to save ONE cosmology theory from otherwise certain falsification.

there's just a process with observable results that we don't fully understand yet.

Ya, it's called redshift.

You need an alternative because the cosmological constant (for one) fits the observations rather well.

I technically already provided one with that tired light theory I cited. It fits just as well, and no new forms of matter or energy are required to explain it.

I'm glad you have a theory you like better, because now we can discuss merits. I'm not going to arrogantly dismiss your ideas on EU/PC theory as "supernatural", I'm just going to pick them apart using physics. I have to run to
a meeting but I'll post some questions for you later on.

Ok.

By the way, asking "Why do I even need any alternative to reject a SUPERNATURAL explanation of the universe?" and then writing this in the very same post:



is somewhat beneath your level of intelligence, which is clearly pretty high.

Well, you might have a valid complaint about the verbiage I suppose, but the point I was trying to make is completely valid. I don't NEED to have any alternative waiting in the wings to reject some other concept. I can simply reject any theory for any number of legitimate scientific reasons, including a lack of empirical justification for the claims being made. That is in fact why I reject mainstream theory. It may be well quantified, but it utterly lacks any legitimate kind of valid qualification of any sort. I reject that particular theory for exactly the same reason that I tend to reject any and all "supernatural" concepts of God. For God to exist and be real, God must have a physical form of some kind, and God must have a physical way to interact with our physical universe. There is therefore no need IMO, nor any value in claiming that God (or anything else) is 'supernatural' or "invisible/dark" or to literally "make up" properties that cannot be tested here on Earth.

 

[mzungu]

Do atheists really have any well supported alternative to God?

Atheists do not need an alternative to God simply because we do not believe in the supernatural. Our only path to understanding the physical world is through Science!

 

[sandwiches]

I thought I explained it already:

So much for Biblical "literalism."

 

[AV1611VET]

Atheists do not need an alternative to God simply because we do not believe in the supernatural. Our only path to understanding the physical world is through Science!

If I don't believe in medicine, I don't need an alternative, do I?

In fact, I don't need an alternative if I do believe in medicine, do I?