EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: AngraMelo on February 04, 2019, 03:32:57 pm
-
I always thought of the Big Bang as being the beginning of everything. There was nothing. No space, no black emptiness, no energy, no nothing. Just a big nothing that we cant even picture in our minds.
But then I started checking out lectures and written material (that I could understand, given that Im not in the area) and got a bit into the Higg's Boson/field and matter itself.
Now I wonder if I got my interpretation of the Big Bang all wrong. Is the big bang just the creation of matter? I started to imagine just empty space. Thinking of the universe before the big bang as if it was a section of the deadest, emptiest and darkest part of the universe after the big bang. Then, BANG and matter shows up.
Im having a really hard time to interpret the nothingness before the big bang, imagining there was no canvas for matter to exist.
Do we know if before the big bang there was a place for matter to exist? Or that is the very concept of the big bang? As it being the creation of matter and a place for it to exist?
Do scientist refer to the word "universe" as being the place where matter can exist? Or the place where matter travelled through or has the potential of traveling through? Because if it is the first "definition", what prevents the edge of particle that is the furthest on the edge of the universe to be the thing creating the universe? I mean, if the big bang created the space for matter to exist doesnt it mean that it either created the space for matter to exist instantly and infinitely in all directions or the very first particles (or waves, or whatever) that left the big bang and are now the ones defining the boarder of the universe are the ones creating the space for matter to exist as they travel?
-
I need help understanding The Big Bang Theory too, it's one of the most annoying sitcoms out there. :-+
-
I need help understanding The Big Bang Theory too, it's one of the most annoying sitcoms out there. :-+
hahahaha I have to confess that I like it!
-
I need help understanding The Big Bang Theory too, it's one of the most annoying sitcoms out there. :-+
hahahaha I have to confess that I like it!
I used to when I was younger, but now it just seems so stilted.
-
My understanding is that there was no "space" in which matter appeared. The space appeared too during that event. This does not mean that there is nothing outside of our bubble, but it is absolutely non-observable to us, so does not really matter.
So I guess my personal understanding is better described by this:
As it being the creation of matter and a place for it to exist?
.
And also, TBBT was a good sitcom, but it should have been ended at season 5 or so. Now it is just a routine to extract more easy money.
-
There is a lot of evidence that indicate that the known universe started with a big bang about 14 billion years ago. What existed before that point in time is anyone's guess. That's all.
-
What existed before that point in time is anyone's guess. That's all.
That is obvious. What is not too obvious is the behavior of matter during that expansion. Sometimes you see people attach measurements to the very first stages of the expansion. Like how long it took in seconds, and how big was the original "clump" at that stage. But you can only measure this stuff as an outside observer. If you are inside the system and your coordinate system expands as you do the measurement, how do you even do it?
There must be a good explanation for that, I'm not trying to poke the holes in this theory. But this part is usually glossed over and just accepted. At least in popular literature.
-
What existed before that point in time is anyone's guess. That's all.
If you are inside the system and your coordinate system expands as you do the measurement, how do you even do it?
I wonder about this one myself. What if entire civilizations existed and perished during those "first few seconds"? They might consider our current universe cold, empty, dark and dead.
At the other end of things, I have heard physicists talk about the distant dead future of the universe. All of the black holes evaporated, just a dead cold diffuse gas of iron atoms with occasional random quantum fluctuations. What if, in that time, through those random (to our perceptions) fluctuations, there were some, very large, very slow "arrangements" (for lack of a better word) of that "material". What would things "look" like from their point of view? What if they tried to create a "colossal" (from our point of view) machine to force a few of those iron atoms together to "briefly" create a small amount of iron metal? A particle collider like machine.
-
You can work backwards to about 10−12 s before "time zero" but before that physics as we know it breaks down and no one really knows what happened before that. You can obviously not go back in time and measure what happened 13 billion years ago but you can take the observation we make today and combine them with the theory we have and work backwards. There is a fair amount of evidence that is consistent with the big bang theory that would be hard to explain otherwise (like the cosmic background radiation). If you simulate what sort of universe you end up with if you begin with a big bang, you end up with a universe that seems to perfectly match the one we observe today (it has precisely the right composition of elements/isotopes for example).
-
You can work backwards to about 10−12 s before "time zero" but before that physics as we know it breaks down and no one really knows what happened before that.
That is exactly the blank statement repeated everywhere.
How exactly do "seconds" work in that original small and dense universe? When you talk about 10−12 seconds. Is this "modern" second as applied to that "old" world? Is there a strong proof that those seconds make sense as a unit of measurement in the early universe?
-
Seconds are seconds, there is no special "old" or "modern" second. I don't know where that figure comes from exactly, but it's like everything else, it is what the established theories would predict given what we observe today. You would have to ask an astrophysicist to get a better answer I suspect.
I believe it's wrong to say the universe in the past was "smaller", it was more compressed and the energy densities were larger. For example, at one point in time it was so hot that all matter was evaporated like a plasma (which would be opaque and thus provides a wall which em-telescopes can't see through) and that is the wall of matter/energy that produced the cosmic microwave background I believe. We can look back in time through telescope up until that point (em-waves take a long time to travel here so when looking at stars and galaxies we are effectively looking back in time, i.e. distance=time). If you keep compressing things, increasing the energy density, established theory eventually gives nonsensical answers, it's too different from anything we have ever observed. The maths indicate that happens about 10-12 after time zero. Thus what happened before that point can't really be answered using the current best theories. There is no doubt very big uncertainty to such estimates though. As someone said in another thread, all physical quantities comes with an uncertainty attached. Maybe 10-100 is a less impressive estimate if it has an associated +/- 10100 s of uncertainty?
-
It is my understanding that space-time itself is expanding. (Hence the red shift of the CMB).
What is our universe expanding into? We don't know. There are theories such as multiverse.
-
What if entire civilizations existed and perished during those "first few seconds"?
The universe was just a very homogeneous soup. Not enough complexity for anything to exist. Not even molecules.
-
It is my understanding that space-time itself is expanding. (Hence the red shift of the CMB).
What is our universe expanding into? We don't know. There are theories such as multiverse.
Not sure it makes sense to say it's expanding into something even, anything "outside" of the universe is just pure speculation, just as anything that would have happened before big bang. Not because there wasn't/isn't anything, it's just that our current theories gives no information about it.
-
If we accept that time "began" at the big bang, without time there is no before.
"At some point in the distant past, all matter and time existed, for reasons unknown, as a single point, something happened and that single point exploded decompressing initially quickly and at an ever decreasing rate, into matter and time comprising the universe."
Can we as humans comprehend more than that? I suspect not. Even that is hard. Imagine nothingness. No you're imagining an empty space, that's not nothingness, imagine nothingness, no you're still thinking of a bigger empty space aren't you, imaging nothing, nope you're still thinking of a universe with nothing in it, imagine nothing... humans are conditioned to think about things, not nothings, "before the big bang" was nothing.
-
If we accept that time "began" at the big bang, without time there is no before.
"At some point in the distant past, all matter and time existed, for reasons unknown, as a single point, something happened and that single point exploded decompressing initially quickly and at an ever decreasing rate, into matter and time comprising the universe."
I believe saying all of space time existed as a single point is only a simplification and it's wrong to take that as an absolute. In the same way people say that elementary particles (or even atoms/molecules) are "points". In reality what we mean is just that for our purposes they are so small they might as well be considered infinitely small "mathematical" points since it makes calculations and theory easier. (EDIT: In this case, when talking about the big bang and the universe, it's actually wrong to talk about a point because the universe might still have been infinitely big, but it was infinitely compressed.)
On Wikipedia they wrote the following about big bang, "The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state" which is a better description imo.
I think it's also wrong to say time began with the big bang, it's just we don't know what happened before t=10-12 s from big bang so we can only speculate about what the universe was like before that.
Indeed it's hard to imagine nothingness, but it is also wrong to assume there was nothingness before the big bang. We just don't know -- that is the hard thing we have to accept!
-
I don't think there was necessarily nothingness. There could have been "something", but just arranged in a different way.
Maybe a big crunch or collision of some sort. Maybe a energy manifested in a different shape....
-
Right now the theory among multiverse dudes/duddetts is that there are many universes each coming from many big bangs who in turn is the other end of the black hole who in it self is sort of holograms that preserves all information of the galaxies and finally the universe it swallows up along the way, data is contained on the rim of the hole. The whole thing is according to them a oscillation moment, destruction and construction (no god involved).
For me? I have no clue im just an onlooker and accepts any kind of hypothesis. :)
-
What if entire civilizations existed and perished during those "first few seconds"?
The universe was just a very homogeneous soup. Not enough complexity for anything to exist. Not even molecules.
Yes, the supposed conditions in the early universe would prevent atoms and molecules as they exist now. But what if behaviors of matter that (due to our prevailing conditions) we can no longer understand or describe (that we now describe as random and incredibly brief when we glimpse them in a particle accelerator) allowed kinds of order on a very small scale, for very brief periods of time? But the basic questions are "Small compared to what?" and "Brief compared to what?". What do you compare against when the prevailing conditions are such that you would imagine "back then"?
-
What can I say... very imaginative.
-
Imaginative, I guess. And certainly meaningless, as the conditions "back then" can have no more impact on "now" as can events beyond our light cone.
But I still find it interesting to speculate...
I would invite you to go the other direction. Say, ten to the power one-hundred years from now. As I understand it, all of the mass in the universe will be in the form of iron atoms. It will no longer be possible to concentrate enough energy to split or fuse them. They will be the indivisible particles, the point masses. They will be evenly distributed, moving at random. Energy will be minimized at all points. But think of entropy (that universal laws seem to maximize). Suddenly (or maybe very gradually, depending on how you look at it) entropy will be gone. The universe will be highly homogeneous. Will the greater laws of physics and mathematics allow this condition to persist? Maybe there will be some kind of "additional big bang (or "really big ripple")". Some kind of spontaneous symmetry breaking. Pressure waves moving through the gas, caused by some quantum behavior. Those pressure waves might take on very interesting and complex patterns. It might require millions of years of "watching" thousands of cubic light-years of space to see them, but so what? The universe has the time.
-
Isn't there some theory that we "pinched off" from another Universe... parallel to our own but not possible to observe as we are in different dimensions? In that case, things got all started by a "previous" entity. I have trouble understanding time itself, how it can be treated like one of the 3 spacial dimensions (spacetime), and I also have a very naive view of space built up from personal experience. I keep imagining we are just a large MMORPG simulation. :-DD
-
But I still find it interesting to speculate...
Have you heard of a Boltzmann brain? If not you might find this interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhnKBKZvb_U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhnKBKZvb_U)
-
As I understand it, all of the mass in the universe will be in the form of iron atoms. It will no longer be possible to concentrate enough energy to split or fuse them. They will be the indivisible particles, the point masses.
After black holes evaporate, won't there just be white and brown dwarfs and neutron stars accelerating apart? "big rip" theory says that eventually even matter will decay into fundamental subatomic particles. I think any quantum waves will be spread infinitely far apart and very weak and uninteresting.
I have trouble understanding time itself, how it can be treated like one of the 3 spacial dimensions (spacetime)
I don't think astrophysicists treat time as a spacial dimension. Rather space and time are interconnected parts of a overarching concept. You can't affect one without affect the other because they are relative, hence relativity. Minute Physics has nice videos about it.
-
The Big Bang was just a result of existing branes crashing into each other -
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239
Now where did the branes come from? :box:
-
No one really knows. It´s really foolish to spend limited resources on this to find an answer. Let math sort it out. Please stop using inane emogies.
-
maybe branes were always there.
No one really knows. It´s really foolish to spend limited resources on this to find an answer. Let math sort it out. Please stop using inane emogies.
you must be fun at parties
:box: :box: :box: :popcorn: :horse:
-
But I still find it interesting to speculate...
Have you heard of a Boltzmann brain?
Yes, and I've seen other lectures by Dr. Susskind but not this one. Thanks!
-
As I understand it, all of the mass in the universe will be in the form of iron atoms. It will no longer be possible to concentrate enough energy to split or fuse them. They will be the indivisible particles, the point masses.
After black holes evaporate, won't there just be white and brown dwarfs and neutron stars accelerating apart?
If I remember correctly, that's "only" about ten to the thirtieth or so years in the future. Eventually, barring the "big rip", you get iron.
"big rip" theory says that eventually even matter will decay into fundamental subatomic particles.
I think the "big rip" is just as good as "pinching off" another universe. To my mind, a "big rip" looks like the "other side" of a "big bang". I would think the process is "allowed" (whatever that really means) to change physical constants and scale. Again, you end up with "our" universe existing in the "big bang" of someone else's universe.
-
You guys hijacked my thread! hahahahaha Im just kidding!
Very interesting discussions, I guess Im realizing how pathetic I am when trying to imagine nothingness and what lies after the particles on the edge of the expanding universe.
When I started learning about the space being made of fields and the basic particles as being waves, that fucked with my brain big time.
It seems that scientists have thought about the universe being made of fields for a long time and with the recent discoveries (Higg's Boson) there is still a huge gap between what is taught in schools and the recent convictions of science in that area.
Im trying to close this gap by reading but boy the math is insanely complicated and even the thought experiments and explanations are mind boggling
-
You guys hijacked my thread!
Sorry 'bout 'dat. :(
-
Perhaps a more interesting discussion about this, that seems to be somewhat rising from the conversation here is: will we ever be able to teach the average IQ human about what science is doing today? Because it seems so complicated and it takes so much effort and discipline to learn even a bit of the math, the logic, the experiments that it starting to seem to me that we might not be able to teach this to the average joe in school. Im a simple minded individual with a bit of curiosity and a passion for learning but I dont consider myself in anyway less capable than the average human and this topic is incredibly complicated and dense, and Im talking about understanding just the BASIC of it. Maybe an argument can be made that the frontier of any area demands special individuals but what Im trying to say is that the curiosity (and maybe even the necessity of mandatory explanations about where we came from) that we all have even as kids kinda demands that this subject be taught in schools and I cant imagine a bunch of 16yo sitting down and facing the universe as fields where "particles" can behave as waves but if you measure them they behave as particles.
I hope I was clear.
-
You guys hijacked my thread!
Sorry 'bout 'dat. :(
Dont worry about it! I was just kidding!
Im enjoying the conversation!
-
I think of space as one big gas kind of bubble or even liquid that is so dense that there isn't enough for us to absorb it or see it well apart from the radiation and UV rays.
They say that space is also expanding.
It is like everything in slow motion.
Slow motion maybe to preserve life to evolve in smaller life forms where time appears longer (in a shorter life span) and space appears to move slower.
[silly]I think it started off as an idea from something that is not human and maybe in the form of a plant or something non moving that creates the illusion of life itself.[/silly]
Those are just my ideas and you can call them silly if you want.
-
I always thought of the Big Bang as being the beginning of everything. There was nothing. No space, no black emptiness, no energy, no nothing. Just a big nothing that we cant even picture in our minds.
Nope. That's the most common misconception. The coined term of "Big Bang" is only about the explosive part of the expansion that we suppose it started back then.
There are no currently accepted explanations about what was before the "Big Bang", only speculations.
The "Big Bang" is not trying to explain where from all the energy came from, and why it was all there, and if back then there was time and space or not, or why there is something instead of nothing, and so on. None of these.
The "Big Bang" is only about what happened during the expansion of that primordial "something":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhoYKLIcTLM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhoYKLIcTLM)
;D
-
I'm not sure if it will help, but Lawrence Krauss has a great presentation called "A Universe from Nothing" on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo)
-
there is still a huge gap between what is taught in schools and the recent convictions of science in that area.
Much of this stuff is still only conjecture. In fact we may never prove our theories. I am sure they are being discussed at higher levels of University for those who chose to pursue the field.
will we ever be able to teach the average IQ human about what science is doing today?
Only in a superficial way.
I cant imagine a bunch of 16yo sitting down and facing the universe as fields where "particles" can behave as waves
Quantum field theory and such is not part of the compulsory curriculum. It is not needed for most occupations, and would only confuse what people need to know. I first learned it at the 1st year University level.
-
They say that space is also expanding.
It is like everything in slow motion.
We have measured how fast it's expanding. The Hubble constant is around 70km/s.
Slow motion maybe to preserve life to evolve in smaller life forms where time appears longer (in a shorter life span) and space appears to move slower.
The evolution of life on Earth is a microscopic instant in the history of the Universe.
[silly]I think it started off as an idea from something that is not human and maybe in the form of a plant or something non moving that creates the illusion of life itself.[/silly]
You're not far off. We think the first forms of life were neither plant or animal, but a distant ancestor of both. I think it would have been something very simple and lacking its own locomotion.
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frantisek_Zedek/publication/307176048/figure/fig1/AS:406531376992263@1473936042192/Phylogenetic-tree-of-analyzed-clades-A-dated-phylogenetic-tree-of-all-seventeen-analyzed.png)
-
I cant imagine a bunch of 16yo sitting down and facing the universe as fields where "particles" can behave as waves but if you measure them they behave as particles.
You might find this interesting.. I know I did when I recently ran across it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory)
From the history section of the link:
In 1932, John von Neumann published a book, part of which claimed to prove that all hidden variable theories were impossible.[11] This result was found to be flawed by Grete Hermann three years later, though this went unnoticed by the physics community for over fifty years[citation needed].
In 1952, David Bohm, dissatisfied with the prevailing orthodoxy, rediscovered de Broglie's pilot wave theory. Bohm developed pilot wave theory into what is now called the de Broglie–Bohm theory.[12][13] The de Broglie–Bohm theory itself might have gone unnoticed by most physicists, if it had not been championed by John Bell, who also countered the objections to it.
In 1987, John Bell[14] rediscovered Grete Hermann's work, and thus showed the physics community that Pauli's and von Neumann's objections "only" showed that the pilot wave theory did not have locality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ)
-
If as some theorists think space time curves in on itself, the universe will expand back into itself at which point there will be a big bang or crunch, so we are just at some point in a continuous cycle.
-
They say that space is also expanding.
It is like everything in slow motion.
We have measured how fast it's expanding. The Hubble constant is around 70km/s.
Actually, nobody measured how fast is expanding.
We have measured some other indirect indicators (i.e. Doppler shift), then try to interpret the results in such a way that it will make the most sense, according to current knowledge.
- So far, the best explanation to what we measure was that the Universe expands.
- Then, if the Universe is now expanding, then it must have been smaller in the past. (<- many tacit assumptions here, e.g. a continuous inflation)
- Then, we measured that some galaxies are spinning other than we expect (according to our known laws of Physics), we also measured that apparently the assumed expansion is accelerating, and thus we come up with something called "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy", and "blame" those two for messing with our expectations, and so on.
What I am trying to say is the "Big Bang" was NOT probed, tested or measured directly. The Big Bang theory is our best story that fits with what we know for now as the law of physics.
Not trying to demolish the Big Bang theory here. So far, the Big Bang is the best match for what we measured in many, many other experiments or observations (not only the Doppler Shift).
The point is: Question everything.
Yet, don't deny what we have, unless some other better scientific explanation (that matches all the data) can replace the already established explanation.
-
They say that space is also expanding.
It is like everything in slow motion.
We have measured how fast it's expanding. The Hubble constant is around 70km/s.
Actually, nobody measured how fast is expanding.
We have measured some other indirect indicators (i.e. Doppler shift), then try to interpret the results in such a way that it will make the most sense, according to current knowledge.
- So far, the best explanation to what we measure was that the Universe expands.
- Then, if the Universe is now expanding, then it must have been smaller in the past. (<- many tacit assumptions here, e.g. a continuous inflation)
- Then, we measured that some galaxies are spinning other than we expect (according to our known laws of Physics), we also measured that apparently the assumed expansion is accelerating, and thus we come up with something called "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy", and "blame" those two for messing with our expectations, and so on.
What I am trying to say is the "Big Bang" was NOT probed, tested or measured directly. The Big Bang theory is our best story that fits with what we know for now as the law of physics.
Not trying to demolish the Big Bang theory here. So far, the Big Bang is the best match for what we measured in many, many other experiments or observations (not only the Doppler Shift).
The point is: Question everything.
Yet, don't deny what we have, unless some other better scientific explanation (that matches all the data) can replace the already established explanation.
The CMB is surely pretty strong evidence.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPpUxoeooZk&t=808s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPpUxoeooZk&t=808s)
-
FYI, it is generally assumed that the universe is properly infinite; any finiteness of the universe is determined only by the horizon we can see. Which is 13.8 Gly proper distance, or ~45Gly of visible universe (which includes matter that has since passed beyond our horizon).
The expansion of space-time should not be understood as a mechanistic motion of bodies. It is the consequence of setting up boundary conditions, and solving for the field equations over time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric
As it turns out, if you fill space with a constant density of matter, it is the nature of space that it expands over time. There is a single parameter corresponding to the density of matter, and its consequential expansion rate and history (the curvature of spacetime). A parameter which, so far as we can tell, is very nearly neutral (the curvature is flat), so that the universe is expanding precisely fast enough to avoid falling back in on itself (a "big crunch" would be spiritually satisfying, but is not supported by any data), which also gives the longest possible lifetime of the universe before objects fall out of each others' horizons ("big rip", give or take if the expansion accelerates or not, which currently it looks like it is tending to accelerate).
So, considering where we are now, if we wind the clock back, the universe remains infinite in extents, though there is much more matter within a given horizon.
Distance itself is not changing over time. Size scales are fixed. Particles and objects are the same sizes they've always been (well, as far as we can tell). The distances between reference points are what's changing.
At least, we have no particular reason to doubt that objects have the same dimensions as usual -- that, for example, in the early history of the universe, the highest stable density of an object is still given by the same formula and constants as we observe today. So, for example, not so much the Chandrasekhar limit which has to do with white dwarfs (which weren't seen until much later in the history of the universe), but, the Schwarzschild radius should be the same. That is, the radius within which matter collapses to form black holes -- primordial black holes are predicted to have been produced in the early universe. Or the relations of energy to wavelength (Planck's constant), stuff like that.
If we continue winding the clock back, we expect ever-higher energy levels, with ever-higher mass densities, eventually culminating in some exotic states of matter in the earliest zeptoseconds of the universe.
At time zero, the universe is still infinite, but its size is zero. All particles are within each others' horizons (if particles are even a meaningful concept at this scale), density is infinite, energy is infinite... Suffice it to say: it isn't meaningful to think about physics at zero time -- you're looking at a point where the value is undefined. It's only meaningful to consider the limit up to, approaching, that point.
Some have toyed with the idea of complex time, as an analytical tool. Where a real-ranged function gives an infinite or undefined result, we can look beside the point, at complex values (assuming a complex analytical extension to the function exists, and is reasonable), and try to go around it instead. We can still get reasonable answers out of this method, even if we've performed the analysis through completely unreasonable means (what the fuck is "complex time" supposed to mean? Nothing, so don't worry about it!), and as long as we understand that those means may or may not be applicable to all cases.
I forget if anything significant came of imaginary time; this,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time
looks like it's a casual thing, as much a quirk of how one chooses to write the equations, as it is useful to solving them, so not remarkable in and of itself. ("Complex numbers" are another one of those things in mathematics that's regrettably named. The domain is really not much more complicated than the reals -- which I say are named even worse, there's nothing "real" about them -- and indeed the complex numbers are more general, so you don't have stupid special cases like not being able to say sqrt(-1), or not being able to solve x^2 + 2x + 2 = 0, or not needing half a dozen trig functions when only one (exp) will do, or...)
Tim
-
big bang is just a theory, nobody really knows what. there is clue though from indisputable text that big bang is true (or something alike), but how and what is unknown to human. leave big bang alone, ask a simpler question like "help me to understand a black hole", well the real answer is nobody knows, you can watch all videos, youtubes, documentaries all you like, they are all just very good made up dramas (hypothesis). if black hole is a singularity, big bang is super singularity. there is scientific movement to fight or rule out big bang theory (mainly due to unreligious bias) but they are not popular since observation says otherwise (in favor of big bang theory). as einstein quoted... "there is logical implication" (if big bang is theorized)... he was trying to avoid that by introducing a universe constant, but it is inevitable.
-
leave big bang alone ...
... like you did just now?
-
I'm not sure if it will help, but Lawrence Krauss has a great presentation called "A Universe from Nothing"
ohh please, trying to solve the bigger issue, the smallest issue still cant be answered... nothing made universe... universe made astronomers. cosmological selection? :palm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mC2ASSomhk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mC2ASSomhk)
-
I always thought of the Big Bang as being the beginning of everything. There was nothing. No space, no black emptiness, no energy, no nothing. Just a big nothing that we cant even picture in our minds.
But then I started checking out lectures and written material (that I could understand, given that Im not in the area) and got a bit into the Higg's Boson/field and matter itself.
Now I wonder if I got my interpretation of the Big Bang all wrong. Is the big bang just the creation of matter? I started to imagine just empty space. Thinking of the universe before the big bang as if it was a section of the deadest, emptiest and darkest part of the universe after the big bang. Then, BANG and matter shows up.
Im having a really hard time to interpret the nothingness before the big bang, imagining there was no canvas for matter to exist.
Do we know if before the big bang there was a place for matter to exist? Or that is the very concept of the big bang? As it being the creation of matter and a place for it to exist?
Do scientist refer to the word "universe" as being the place where matter can exist? Or the place where matter travelled through or has the potential of traveling through? Because if it is the first "definition", what prevents the edge of particle that is the furthest on the edge of the universe to be the thing creating the universe? I mean, if the big bang created the space for matter to exist doesnt it mean that it either created the space for matter to exist instantly and infinitely in all directions or the very first particles (or waves, or whatever) that left the big bang and are now the ones defining the boarder of the universe are the ones creating the space for matter to exist as they travel?
As I understand it space and time as we know it were created at or around the Big Bang. There wasn't emptiness, as that implies something being present and being empty. Empty time and space aren't the same as nothingness.
-
As I understand it space and time as we know it were created at or around the Big Bang. There wasn't emptiness, as that implies something being present and being empty. Empty time and space aren't the same as nothingness.
i'm not a relativistic expert but the way i see... time is our own definition... one may invent or call whatever they like but its nothing more than just a... "the occurence between two observable/senseable events" some atomic clock in our case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard . since it is based on some tangible matter, "our" definition of time does not exist when there is no "matter". but if we change definition of time to something "unobservable", then there is time, it just different kind of time. we (the holy grail of scientists) just created our own "frame of reference" and play around it. when euclid played around flat plane of reference (sum of internal angles of a triangle is 180 degree), another scientists created curved type space reference and found out internal angles sum is 270 degree, now euclidan space collapsed, of course it collapse you genius! time, just like space may warp just like doppler effect, atomic oscillate differently relatively between 2 objects at different speed, hence our time is also relative, because we define time from something that exists in "space" (or matter) axis :palm:
otoh, talking about emptiness, that genius Lawrence Kauss talked about energy that existed (dark or not dark regardless) around those "emptiness" in the beginning of "time" to create that big bang in the first place, the golden question is... where do those energies comes from? oh i forgot... there are 2 possibilities...
1) they always be (omnipotent or omnipresent or whatnot)... so that ruled out ID...
2) they are from nothing... similar to this universe. so there is no ID involved.
right! :palm:
ps: why the heck i'm looking at this section, yeah last night i got 502 bd gateways, so i looked around what happened. so it seems big bang happened ;D
-
the smallest issue still cant be answered... nothing made universe... universe made astronomers. cosmological selection? :palm:
Is there point somewhere here in this nonsense? If there is, can you please explain it for us that don't understand sentence fragments?
All I see is a video of Richard Dawkins, heavily edited by a cretin. Again, please explain...
-
"Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose is an interesting read on the subject. More pages than Lord of the Rings though!
Large parts of it fly way way over my head, but bits of it are very understandable and enlightening. For example, discussion on entropy is well worthwhile.
My own worthless take on it is that it somehow relates to there being more negative binary numbers than positive ones. If you smooth a out a field of random signed binary numbers you end up with a small negative bias. To me this seems very much like the small quantum-level biases in the big bang that allowed more matter than antimatter in the otherwise uniform early universe.
-
the smallest issue still cant be answered... nothing made universe... universe made astronomers. cosmological selection? :palm:
Is there point somewhere here in this nonsense? If there is, can you please explain it for us that don't understand sentence fragments?
All I see is a video of Richard Dawkins, heavily edited by a cretin. Again, please explain...
if i'm allowed, i'll explain in details, but... anyway, its going to be way off topic albeit we have to go to the great depth of science. in short he (Lawrence guy) talked as if its that easy for "universe created astronomers" connotation to prove his "offtopic" point, not much more a sound from that wormy hole i hear. here's the unedited... but dont expect much more from it though...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnHT2imgWT0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnHT2imgWT0)
explanation (is this hoax?) https://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again (https://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again)
search positive mutation. can a rock progressively mutates into something more intelligent? (increasing info in genome) can a hurricane (assuming its indefinitely exist) build a modern fully functional airplane from shrapnels? (can we assume big bang is a big chaotic hurricane? or what?) another golden question will be intermediary creations/fossils of "our" (or others, pick one you like) ancestor... where are they? the beginning of "natural" protein synthesis etc there are many more simpler questions than a big bang. well this is off topic i know, but i hate where there is BS slipped in, esp from people who claimed their works and statements are based on empirical study. but i guess its just "popular misunderstanding", you may do your own homework from there, good luck... ;)
-
Completely off topic. But Dawkins is 100% correct in the non-edited version of the video you posted.
can a rock progressively mutates into something more intelligent? (increasing info in genome) can a hurricane (assuming its indefinitely exist) build a modern fully functional airplane from shrapnels?
No. That's the most idiotic idea I've ever heard. It has nothing to do with our scientific understanding. How did you come up with it?
fossils of "our" ancestor... where are they?
Spreading out from Africa. But I'm sure you knew about that.
the beginning of "natural" protein synthesis etc
Can you please complete your sentence fragments? Is this a question or statement? ...
there are many more simpler questions than a big bang.
Yes there are ....
i hate where there is BS slipped in.
What is BS?
i guess its just "popular misunderstanding"
What is? The big bang? Natural evolution? Are you trying to make an argument, because I'm very confused.
you may do your own homework from there
About what? What are you even talking about ? ? ? ?
-
Completely off topic. But Dawkins is 100% correct in the non-edited version of the video you posted.
yes he is correct, but not answering the question, typical..
can a rock progressively mutates into something more intelligent? (increasing info in genome) can a hurricane (assuming its indefinitely exist) build a modern fully functional airplane from shrapnels?
No. That's the most idiotic idea I've ever heard. It has nothing to do with our scientific understanding. How did you come up with it?
now you are being insulting ;) what idiotic about that? what existed after the big bang? birds? proteins?
fossils of "our" ancestor... where are they?
Spreading out from Africa. But I'm sure you knew about that.
show me. it must be in the net already. ;)
the beginning of "natural" protein synthesis etc
Can you please complete your sentence fragments? Is this a question or statement? ...
i need to know how first protein was synthesized. in other word... how to synthensize a protein from not protein?
What is BS?
What is? The big bang? Natural evolution? Are you trying to make an argument, because I'm very confused.
About what? What are you even talking about ? ? ? ?
doesnt matter, i think wont that really important to you. you have your life, i have mine, each of us responsible for our own. you are waiting i'm also waiting. cheers ;)
-
i'm not a relativistic expert but the way i see... time is our own definition... one may invent or call whatever they like but its nothing more than just a... "the occurence between two observable/senseable events" some atomic clock in our case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_standard . since it is based on some tangible matter, "our" definition of time does not exist when there is no "matter". but if we change definition of time to something "unobservable", then there is time, it just different kind of time. we (the holy grail of scientists) just created our own "frame of reference" and play around it. when euclid played around flat plane of reference (sum of internal angles of a triangle is 180 degree), another scientists created curved type space reference and found out internal angles sum is 270 degree, now euclidan space collapsed, of course it collapse you genius! time, just like space may warp just like doppler effect, atomic oscillate differently relatively between 2 objects at different speed, hence our time is also relative, because we define time from something that exists in "space" (or matter) axis :palm:
otoh, talking about emptiness, that genius Lawrence Kauss talked about energy that existed (dark or not dark regardless) around those "emptiness" in the beginning of "time" to create that big bang in the first place, the golden question is... where do those energies comes from? oh i forgot... there are 2 possibilities...
1) they always be (omnipotent or omnipresent or whatnot)... so that ruled out ID...
2) they are from nothing... similar to this universe. so there is no ID involved.
right! :palm:
ps: why the heck i'm looking at this section, yeah last night i got 502 bd gateways, so i looked around what happened. so it seems big bang happened ;D
I probably should have been more clear in my previous post, but space and time seem to be intertwined into space-time. They don't really seem separable. Changing the definition to "something" unobservable doesn't work when nothing was.
I second timelessbeing. Can you please express yourself in less fragmented sentences? This is quite hard to follow.
-
Can we please not make this into another one of those threads? This is about the Big Bang, not about how amino acids make proteins or the evolution of our recent and distant ancestors. Both are easily found with a minimum of effort.
-
Your mistake was giving in to mechatrommer trolling. :)
Tim
-
not about how amino acids make proteins
how to synthensize amino acid then? from non biological or non proteinous source?
or the evolution of our recent and distant ancestors. Both are easily found with a minimum of effort.
i'm talking about in between, in the middle, and earlier middle (1st quarter), and later/after middle (3 quarter), or anything in between. i got a few samples already in billions of years thank you. a definitive link will help, i need to learn ;)
Your mistake was giving in to mechatrommer trolling. :)
yeah i was trolled by a video by so called scientist/astronomer. when something wrong can happen it must happen ;) do you experienced 502 error few hours ago? isitjustme (https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/) said its not just me. it should be on daylight in your place? when that happened ;)
-
Completely off topic. But Dawkins is 100% correct in the non-edited version of the video you posted.
yes he is correct, but not answering the question, typical..
alright. In a clear way, can you please present your question, and the relevance to the topic?
can a rock progressively mutates into something more intelligent? (increasing info in genome) can a hurricane (assuming its indefinitely exist) build a modern fully functional airplane from shrapnels?
No. That's the most idiotic idea I've ever heard. It has nothing to do with our scientific understanding. How did you come up with it?
now you are being insulting ;) what idiotic about that? what existed after the big bang? birds? proteins?
You do not seem to know the meaning of the word insult. I did not insult you.
Nobody suggested that anything evolved out of a rock. That is just stupid.
What existed after the big bang? subatomic particles, quark-gluon plasma, then atomic nuclei, electrons, finally atoms, molecules etc... There's plenty of material about it. I don't need to point it out.
fossils of "our" ancestor... where are they?
Spreading out from Africa. But I'm sure you knew about that.
show me. it must be in the net already. ;)
It is. Search "Lucy"
the beginning of "natural" protein synthesis etc
Can you please complete your sentence fragments? Is this a question or statement? ...
i need to know how first protein was synthesized. in other word... how to synthensize a protein from not protein?
There are theories, which I'm sure you're capable of finding yourself. I won't go into it because it's off topic.
What is BS?
What is? The big bang? Natural evolution? Are you trying to make an argument, because I'm very confused.
About what? What are you even talking about ? ? ? ?
doesnt matter, i think wont that really important to you. you have your life, i have mine, each of us responsible for our own. cheers ;)
Cheers. If it's not important to you, then perhaps consider NOT POSTING next time.
-
how to synthensize amino acid then? from non biological or non proteinous source?
what does it have to do with big bang?
i'm talking about in between, in the middle, and earlier middle (1st quarter), and later/after middle (3 quarter), or anything in between. i got a few samples already in billions of years thank you. a definitive link will help, i need to learn ;)
Between what? middle of what? what quarters? What are you even babbling about and what does it have to do with the big bang?
i was trolled by a video by so called scientist/astronomer.
Who? Can you be any more vague, Mechatroller?
-
Your mistake was giving in to mechatrommer trolling. :)
Tim
So it was.
-
I need help understanding The Big Bang Theory too, it's one of the most annoying sitcoms out there. :-+
Always hated it. Especially that stupid tune !
Then after I watched it a few times, more because it was just coming up and I was to lazy to crap the remote. I actually started to like it. Now I love it, even seen everything multiple times ...
So I guess, a guilty pleasure here :D
-
Excuse me but did any one see the Big Bang ?
-
Excuse me but did any one see the Big Bang ?
The TV show? Yes. :-DD
-
Excuse me but did any one see the Big Bang ?
The closest we can get currently is the cosmic microwave background - which is an image of the universe 380,000 years after the big bang:
(http://planck.cf.ac.uk/files/imagecache/result/PLANCK_FSM_03_display_black.jpg)
(Ignore the purple bit - that's our galaxy getting in the way).
Optical (EM) telescopes probably wont be able to see further back than that, as before then, the universe was opaque to light.
However, in the future, a neutrino-based telescope may be able to see further back in time. The cosmic neutrino background would be an image of the universe when just 1 second old.
-
Excuse me but did any one see the Big Bang ?
The closest we can get currently is the cosmic microwave background - which is an image of the universe 380,000 years after the big bang:
(http://planck.cf.ac.uk/files/imagecache/result/PLANCK_FSM_03_display_black.jpg)
(Ignore the purple bit - that's our galaxy getting in the way).
Optical (EM) telescopes probably wont be able to see further back than that, as before then, the universe was opaque to light.
However, in the future, a neutrino-based telescope may be able to see further back in time. The cosmic neutrino background would be an image of the universe when just 1 second old.
Despite our best efforts to "explain" Big Bang, the explainations short of observations in real time, remain clouded as assumptions, conjecture, guesswork , suppostions and open to questions owing to non avaialabilty of data of observations of the actual event of Big Bang
We have a premise( a theory) , but no authenticated observations therefore the conclusion drawn fail to satisfy the run of logic.
So by dint of which log shall I accept Big Bang in 2019
-
Despite our best efforts to "explain" Big Bang, the explainations short of observations in real time, remain clouded as assumptions, conjecture, guesswork , suppostions and open to questions owing to non avaialabilty of data of observations of the actual event of Big Bang
We have a premise( a theory) , but no authenticated observations therefore the conclusion drawn fail to satisfy the run of logic.
Gonna have to agree with you there. There is a careful balance in discussions of physics between asking questions to understand a theory, and actively criticizing current theories. If one criticizes a current theory, there is the very valid point that one simply doesn't understand it. But at the same time, science requires criticism.
I cannot claim to understand much of cosmology, or the standard model, but that doesn't stop me and others having to point out the long list of assumptions that current theories rest on. Granted these aren't just random, and have good reasoning behind them, but again that doesn't necessarily mean they should be accepted. Theories such as the big bang, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, block holes (we haven't actually directly observed one yet) are not exactly completely solid, but have been around so long that many are just accepted as fact. I'm not suggesting they aren't true, just that there are varying degree's of certainty for each one.
In the past couple of decades, at least since I've been interested in modern physics, theories have come and gone, but the ones that stuck are essentially untestable. Aside from the higgs, and perhaps gravitation waves from LIGO, what new discoveries have been made in the past say 30 years?
-
Excuse me but did any one see the Big Bang ?
Excuse me but did anyone see atoms and molecules?
Did anyone see electrons? Electronics is actually just a big hoax. ::)
-
Excuse me but did any one see the Big Bang ?
Excuse me but did anyone see atoms and molecules?
Did anyone see electrons? Electronics is actually just a big hoax. ::)
Yes.
(https://i.imgur.com/72ElU9i.jpg)
Though according to current theory, electrons are literally all we see, and are*, and electrons are indistinguishable so you can't know if the electron wot dunnit just teleported into your eye or if it was actually waves and all that... :P
*In the sense that electronic interactions determine the properties of ordinary matter around STP.
Tim
-
"you’re seeing light emitted from an atom and not the atom itself"
- David Nadlinger, a quantum physicist and PhD candidate at Oxford University, is the person who put it all together.
Good try though.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_(atoms)
-
Yup some electron microscopy there. Good find. But we came up with this contraption long after we knew about the atom
:P
-
Yup some electron microscopy there.
Scanning tunneling microscope, not electron microscope. Not the same thing.
-
Scanning tunneling microscope, not electron microscope. Not the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_microscope#Scanning_transmission_electron_microscope_(STEM)
Well wiki considers the tunneler as a type of electron microscope, and so do I. Totally relevant to the point as well, good job. :box:
-
It is a good point. A lot of people weren't convinced atoms really existed until Einstein published his famous paper on Brownian motion in 1905 (that's only 114 years ago).
In the end everything comes down to measurements and logical deduction. Even when seeing things with our own eyes, we're relying on our built in optical sensor arrays (which btw are very poor and unreliable, especially when combined with our even less reliable built in computer/memory). People come up with a lot of hypotheses, then we make experiments trying to disprove them (gather data) and in the end the hypothesis that best matches the data is the one we keep.
It's the same with the big bang, it's the best theory that matches the data from the measurements and experiments we've made. That is also why saying that there was no spacetime before the big bang is bogus, since there is no evidence of that, all we know is that it appears that the universe was once very very dense and very very hot, but whatever happened before that is a complete mystery and will likely remain so for a very very long time.
-
That is also why saying that there was no spacetime before the big bang is bogus, since there is no evidence of that,
So then you must have some evidence that it's bogus ...
-
That is also why saying that there was no spacetime before the big bang is bogus, since there is no evidence of that,
So then you must have some evidence that it's bogus ...
Nope. Whoever claims that needs some evidence to support the idea or else it's just metaphysics (which might still be fun and interesting to speculate about, but that is not science).
-
Whoever claims that needs some evidence to support the idea.
It seems to me that whatever was before the big bang is pretty up in the air right now. Since you are so convinced that it happened a certain way, then you must have some really conclusive evidence to support your idea mate.
-
Whoever claims that needs some evidence to support the idea.
It seems to me that whatever was before the big bang is pretty up in the air right now. Since you are so convinced that it happened a certain way, then you must have some really conclusive evidence to support your idea mate.
Not sure what gave you that idea? What I wrote was that:
all we know is that it appears that the universe was once very very dense and very very hot, but whatever happened before that is a complete mystery and will likely remain so for a very very long time.
I.e. data indicates that the universe started with a big bang, but we don't know what started it or what was before. Maybe there was no spacetime, maybe there was, no one knows. Anyone who says it was one way or another is making a bogus claim.
-
Whoever claims that needs some evidence to support the idea.
It seems to me that whatever was before the big bang is pretty up in the air right now. Since you are so convinced that it happened a certain way, then you must have some really conclusive evidence to support your idea mate.
It depends what you mean by the big bang - there are two loose definitions in use: One where it refers to what is believed to have occurred after inflation - and one before. There is some (but not conclusive) evidence that inflation occurred (See figure 1.5 - http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/db275/TEACHING/INFLATION/Lectures.pdf (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/db275/TEACHING/INFLATION/Lectures.pdf)), but just speculation for what might have happened before that.
-
block holes (we haven't actually directly observed one yet)
What will you accept as being directly observed, for something that doesn't emit light (other than via Hawking radiation)?
The gravitational effects have been observed: http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/10/scientists-confirm-the-milky-way-has-a-supermassive-black-hole (http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/10/scientists-confirm-the-milky-way-has-a-supermassive-black-hole)
-
I just finisehd reading Steven hawkings last book, Breif answers to the big questions.. A chapter is dedicated to the Big Bang, ( but he does talk about it a lot in other chapters ) and he explains it very well. Well worth reading the book.
The answer, he said, is simultaneously simple and incredibly complex: There was nothing.
-
It depends what you mean by the big bang - there are two loose definitions in use: One where it refers to what is believed to have occurred after inflation - and one before.
Big Bang theory is not two definition, it is only one theory and it never tried to explain what was before the Big Bang.
I would be curious to read about "the second definition", can you post the exact sources for it, please?
-
It depends what you mean by the big bang - there are two loose definitions in use: One where it refers to what is believed to have occurred after inflation - and one before.
Big Bang theory is not two definition, it is only one theory and it never tried to explain what was before the Big Bang.
I would be curious to read about "the second definition", can you post the exact sources for it, please?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=N3mHJlxA3PcC&pg=PA223&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/01/12/q-a-did-inflation-happen-befor
-
Are Newtons Laws of Motion applicable to entire spectrum of ingredients like waves, gases and solids of the Big Bang ? Has any one attempted to understand the beginning and end of Big Bang time framework? I mean what actually happened? ?
-
Are Newtons Laws of Motion applicable to entire spectrum of ingredients like waves, gases and solids of the Big Bang ?
No - Einstein showed that Newton's Laws are inaccurate when things are moving close to the speed of light and in strong gravitational fields.
Even Einstein's relativity doesn't quite work either when we get very close to the start of the big bang.
Has any one attempted to understand the beginning and end of Big Bang time framework? I mean what actually happened? ?
Yes! Quite a bit is believed to be understood from a fraction of a second onwards (i.e. something like 10^-30seconds). Before that, not so much.
At CERN, they have actually recreated the quark-gluon-plasma state of matter that existed a nanosecond or so after the big bang.
-
Not sure what gave you that idea? What I wrote was that:
all we know is that it appears that the universe was once very very dense and very very hot, but whatever happened before that is a complete mystery and will likely remain so for a very very long time.
I.e. data indicates that the universe started with a big bang, but we don't know what started it or what was before. Maybe there was no spacetime, maybe there was, no one knows. Anyone who says it was one way or another is making a bogus claim.
We do know the universe i.e. space-time is expanding and was likely "compressed" into a point or very small area. There's no reason to assume it was anything like we know now before.
-
I just finisehd reading Steven hawkings last book, Breif answers to the big questions.. A chapter is dedicated to the Big Bang, ( but he does talk about it a lot in other chapters ) and he explains it very well. Well worth reading the book.
congratulation. sooner or later, when somebody else proved his mistake, you just spent few hours of your time did just that. no disrespect but the book just only to made him lived longer or made him occupied, like every body else, or worse when someone giving lecture about crap like cosmological selection.
there is no hard ground about something near (black hole) how can he claimed he understand something so far and greater. cut to the end, in short... any place with laws (read as anything non random) like a law of a country to make people in harmony... must have creator... simple induction, i believe similar methodology used by many of them when writing such book or giving lecture, based on what they already know (read as observed or sensed) so far, but failed to see the end conclusion/consequence to all of this after lifetime of learning. they are correct though on several aspect, like.... this world is an illusion, what we see actually not what we think they are. its been stated thousand years before, and i will bet on that statement for eternity.
btw, to bablo.. you are wasting your time asking such question in applied science forum. better go ask the man or simply just let them do their homework peacefully, and err, influence others by their so called expertise or respectable position. as sagan said, extraordinary statement needs extraordinary proof, but sadly some of them violate that rule.
At CERN, they have actually recreated the quark-gluon-plasma state of matter that existed a nanosecond or so after the big bang.
as said, just an induction from what they already know. but without actually seeing it, it just a nice simulation... but many tend to believe that as real thing which is pretty ironic to me.
anyway, when i have free or boring time, watching such science induced documentaries is quite fullfilling, much better than watching a hero throwing few bad guys few blocks away and later start dancing in colorful dressing with girls.
-
any place with laws ... must have creator ... you are wasting your time asking such question in applied science forum.
It sounds to me like you're trying to preach religion in a science forum. :horse:
-
Here is a great 7 hours on the subject, well, 3.5 hours if you watch it at 2x speed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFcQuEw0oY8&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m&index=8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFcQuEw0oY8&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m&index=8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM47acQ7pEQ&index=6&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM47acQ7pEQ&index=6&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do4HGjmjobw&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m&index=7 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do4HGjmjobw&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m&index=7)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjsZEZMR7I&index=5&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjsZEZMR7I&index=5&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry_pILPr7B8&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m&index=4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry_pILPr7B8&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m&index=4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79LciHWV4Qs&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m&index=3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79LciHWV4Qs&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m&index=3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVDJJVoTx7s&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m&index=2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVDJJVoTx7s&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m&index=2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbHBBtsrU1g&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m&index=1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbHBBtsrU1g&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m&index=1)
-
Episodes 4 through 8 get really good. The interviews are thorough.
The first are a little slow, but the OP did say:
Help to understand the Big Bang
This cannot be done in a paragraph of text, and we don't know everything, so these 8 docus put together some of the leading ideas.
(Ok, I admit this may confuse the shit out of him.....) ;)
-
congratulation. sooner or later, when somebody else proved his mistake, you just spent few hours of your time did just that. no disrespect but the book just only to made him lived longer or made him occupied, like every body else, or worse when someone giving lecture about crap like cosmological selection.
there is no hard ground about something near (black hole) how can he claimed he understand something so far and greater. cut to the end, in short... any place with laws (read as anything non random) like a law of a country to make people in harmony... must have creator... simple induction, i believe similar methodology used by many of them when writing such book or giving lecture, based on what they already know (read as observed or sensed) so far, but failed to see the end conclusion/consequence to all of this after lifetime of learning. they are correct though on several aspect, like.... this world is an illusion, what we see actually not what we think they are. its been stated thousand years before, and i will bet on that statement for eternity.
btw, to bablo.. you are wasting your time asking such question in applied science forum. better go ask the man or simply just let them do their homework peacefully, and err, influence others by their so called expertise or respectable position. as sagan said, extraordinary statement needs extraordinary proof, but sadly some of them violate that rule.
as said, just an induction from what they already know. but without actually seeing it, it just a nice simulation... but many tend to believe that as real thing which is pretty ironic to me.
anyway, when i have free or boring time, watching such science induced documentaries is quite fullfilling, much better than watching a hero throwing few bad guys few blocks away and later start dancing in colorful dressing with girls.
You keep hinting at what's clearly a theological explanation, even if you're unwilling to explicitly call it that because you know you'll get blown cleanly out of the water with sound science. You keep referring to scientific evidence which supposedly wouldn't prove anything, while it's the hardest and most real thing we have. Don't make the mistake of thinking that hard science isn't hard because there's a boundary of uncertainty where we haven't figured things out yet and need to test various possibilities to discover which hold water, or because you don't fully comprehend the subject at hand. Not understanding the body of evidence and how the scientific community reached the conclusions it did does not invalidate any of it. Nor does a lack of imagination about the natural processes involved, many of which are happening at time scales, distances or energies vastly beyond typical human experience and comprehension. The fact that our monkey brains have trouble understanding what a light year really means or how many atoms the Earth consists of or how much time has truly passed since the dinosaurs roamed the Earth doesn't mean any of them aren't real. It just means that our brains evolved to deal with a much more narrow bandwidth of experiences. We obviously have tremendous trouble wrapping our heads around phenomena like black holes, as they're completely outside of any of our experiences.
Just call your beliefs what they are and accept they're separated from fact or even plausible conjecture. Nobody will attack a personal belief if it's presented as such.
-
Well put Mr. Scram.
That is kind of why I think it was important to point out that any discussion about what happened before big bang (or to be precise, from about 10−12 s after the big bang) is just speculation, while what happened after is supported by evidence and can be considered facts.
It's fine to speculate about such things but it's important to make it clear it is just speculation (and not likely to be correct) otherwise the line between scientific fact and speculation becomes blurred. Even if it is very sophisticated speculation (like that by Hawking or Penrose) it's still only speculation.
It's my impression that this distinction is not clear to many people. Too often popular science tv-shows and books don't explain what is supported by evidence (like most of quantum physics and relativity for example) and what is only speculation (like string theory and much of cosmology). The risk is that they undermine peoples trust in physics and natural science. There are lots of tv-shows that talk about multiverses for example, which is a cool idea, but it's just speculation, yet it's presented as a fact. While at the same time there are lots of shows that implies that quantum physics and relativity are weird and paradoxical (which they are not, for the most part, they are really on very solid experimental ground and well understood theoretically).
-
You keep hinting at what's clearly a theological explanation, even if you're unwilling to explicitly call it that because you know you'll get blown cleanly out of the water with sound science.
no. because the landlord of eevblog has a heavy sided on unreligious clan. just an example, there is no noise when there is youtube video link slipping in "unreligious there is no god involved" blabber bullsheet. so i have to keep it as close as possible to science related but... i will fire ;) in my own way.
if you or others (i know they asked earlier but i choosed to ignore as it will not go anywhere) still in "confucious" mind what i was talking about, watch back the video i quoted the first time i entered this thread by Lawrence Krouss, throughout the length of the video there are religious hatred statements in many places i dont know what is his problem, a great scientist with some personality problem. he claimed universe made astronomers, a crappiest statement from a scientist we can get, i wont bother searching timeline when he said that on the presentation screen, but he did. he simply wont be able to present a hard proof on that i can bet. a way of saying that atheists usually point to religious people of how they talked, now a scientist talked in the same way, no hard proof just out of an arse hole (now i say it plainly). whats he's right tough is yes, there is no god involved in the equation, but what he is missing why is, of course there is no observable god, because god not even in the universe, God is the one who created the big bang from the "outside", by energy by mass or whatever it was who knows. God is in different reality, different dimension, the higher dimension (good luck finding it) not even bound by any law that scientists have ever formulated or observed. if he's thinking god was created by the big bang and quest for searching god shows nothing hence there is no god concluded, then he is just a f*cking lunatic. he dont even understand ( or got the twisted or wrong idea) the concept and definition of god (even if let say God is just in theory).
thats why i keep asking about black hole, dont ask what is big bang if you (scientists, i'm talking to great scientists here, who think they are) cant define black hole because big bang was black holes, matters anti matters dark or not dark energies in one single point. dont tell me big bang if you cant describe how a black holes can shrink to one single point, just forget it (the attempt to convince people). dont show me sweet simulation as if its a real thing. you dont even know for certain what was going on 1500 years ago on earth. this is billions years worth of historic event the farthest away known to man, only can be traced from afterglow dusts and speed propagation (before you sidetrack avoiding the unavoidable, i know its not dust)
now i'm all for particle studies, CERN and all, they are the practical research of what can exist or what not, what we can gain and harness from matters and anti matters higg boson whatever around us for benefit in every day life. but when there is unproven blabbers slipped in a scientific explanations, that is just a moronic unreligious piety imho, given your respectable position in the community. when you slip in false (unproven) statement in proven true statements, every body tend to believe and blind faith start to kick in unconsciously in subliminal core, this is typical... like those err... <insert your favourite type> people. that what i think happened to people around those influential (well not so influential to me) people like Lawrence or Dawkin. me? i'm not so dragged about it because i have a clearer picture. like his presentation about plato's caveman in the other video. he Lawrence is the caveman and i'm the plato 8)
now dont ask me to prove God or not i'm not into that and i didnt provoke that, he did first. and i believe it will be pointless talking to people who got really fascinated by this topic. what my point was, if you (esp if you hold a tag as scientist) make a statement, make sure you can provide the proof, the hard the logical undisputable one, because thats the methodology you adhere to you spent your whole life entirely on it. not some lunatic imaginistic from some fancy equations. if there is "universe made astronomers" or "cosmological selection", then show us so we can joint the party of fellow atheists if the reasoning is good enough. but so far its just a theory and dont talk like it is a real thing. fascinating no doubt.
and dont talk evolution if you cant point out a single example of positive mutation (dont side track please explaining reptiles), because evolution needs positive mutation. and dont talk "creation by chance" if you cant show how easy it is to synthesize the simplest thing like amino acid from elements in periodic table in some boiling gas in a hurricane (or the "big bang explosion" if you lack of imagination). if you cant, dont even talk about cosmological selection duh. they all just nice drama and preaches to keep people occupied out of the real thing, waste people's time. just say it with me.... "i dont know" ... thats the most nobble answer a man can give. now go back to your cave man and study harder whats being asked to you, you are the scientist, do your job, not preachers job. you even got paid and money from it (by selling books) well... well there are many things to say, but i dont want to waste time any further ;)
-
Once more, your own confusion and lack of understanding is no grounds to dismiss science. That you don't understand evolution and are unwilling to see it around you or put some effort into filling the gaps and understanding it doesn't mean it isn't real. If you don't understand the scientific method or the equations it produces or the phenomena it looks at and describes and insist on accepting stories like some magic being zapping everything into existence while lazily dismissing matters with a large body of supporting evidence there's no basis for a rational discussion. Again, it's fine to have a completely baseless personal belief as long as you don't make the mistake of mixing it with facts or science or the real world. It's silly to reject anything you can't see or experience yourself directly while musing about some magic being outside of our universe which very likely must exist even if there's not a shred of evidence to support it.
I don't even know why I'm writing this, because applying logic to irrationality isn't ever going to work. No matter how much evidence is stacked in front of you, you'll just delude yourself into believing what you already do.
-
Too often popular science tv-shows and books don't explain what is supported by evidence
I have noticed this too. There are shows masquerading as educational or science, but they are closer to science-fiction or fantasy-fiction. They take really fringe ideas, present them as theories, make fancy CGI animations for them, and play them on TV. The layman who doesn't know the first thing about physics can't separate sound science from overreaching conjecture, especially when everything that can't be directly disproved is named "theory". It does a real disservice to education.
-
I have noticed this too. There are shows masquerading as educational or science, but they are closer to science-fiction or fantasy-fiction. They take really fringe ideas, present them as theories, make fancy CGI animations for them, and play them on TV. The layman who doesn't know the first thing about physics can't separate sound science from overreaching conjecture, especially when everything that can't be directly disproved is named "theory". It does a real disservice to education.
It honestly isn't much different from shows taking topical subjects and weaving lengthy broadcasts around them. Relatively minor events are spun into what seem endless stories. When famous people or politics are involved, the sky is the limits. Hours can be filled with what's effectively no real content. It's just a lengthy game of creating tension and possibly outrage to keep people interested and around to watch commercials.
-
dont tell me big bang if you cant describe how a black holes can shrink to one single point, just forget it (the attempt to convince people).
It's called gravity. You may have heard of it. It's what forms stars, planets etc. and black holes. Big bang has nothing to do black holes.
you dont even know for certain what was going on 1500 years ago on earth.
this is a joke right?
if you (esp if you hold a tag as scientist) make a statement, make sure you can provide the proof, the hard the logical undisputable one, because thats the methodology you adhere to
It sounds like you're a bit of a philosophy fan. Have you read Descartes? Then you should know that, aside from simple things like 1+1=2, we can't really prove anything. So no, that is not the methodology that science adheres to. We just believe the things that agree the most with our observations.
dont talk evolution if you cant point out a single example of positive mutation
I'll give you two
1. sickle cells
2. CCR5-Δ32
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#CCR5-%CE%9432
dont even talk about cosmological selection duh. they all just nice drama and preaches to keep people occupied out of the real thing
and by "real thing" I'm guessing you mean religious dogma?
-
I'd like to add that we don't just value ideas which match our observations, but generally expect them to predict other observations correctly too. That gives credence to the accuracy of the idea. You can have all kinds of ideas about the nature of comets, but if you can not only predict when one will appear but also where in the sky it will appear you know you have a fairly good grasp on how they move and how other parts of the solar system move by extension.
-
Can't tell if poe's law is at work here..
"Good" Science makes predictions, and allows them to be tested so hypotheses can be refuted, validated, or modified. The "bigger" the problems, the harder it becomes to do that. Many of the big theories in this thread haven't just come out of thin air - they are based on many different observations from many different areas.
Again when people argue about these things it quickly becomes an argument about what constitutes "evidence", since confirmation bias makes us much more likely to consider something as evidence if it confirms our assumptions. We have those who are religious who call in to question almost everything that they haven't observed directly, to the other end where people bash religion and claim science is pure and flawless, with the vast majority laying somewhere on that continuum. There is quite a bit of anti-religion with atheists, who conveniently ignore that many of the major scientific advances were done in the name of (a) God. To that I have to point out the reason we have the scientific method - and by abiding by it you're accepting this - is to overcome our own limitations in our senses and biases. If you believe yourself to be a rational creature who is immune to believing things that aren't true - I guarantee you believe something that isn't true. Time and again those who bash religion ultimately have their own faith, and often that is in scientific theories. Granted science adjusts its views which is something religion struggles with (although it does, and can, change quite radically).
Trying to convince someone an assumption they hold isn't true is remarkably difficult. Framing it as "educating" someone is only going to make matters worse as it implies they are ignorant, wrong, and are somehow less intelligent. At the same time, if say a creationist asks a biologist about evolution - what else can they do? If scientists are brutally honest, and point out all the holes in their theory (which is good practice for formal papers) it leaves more than enough doubt for "alternative" ideas to breed. This is how science can become contaminated (just look at CAM in medicine), so you can understand why scientists gets frustrated - damned if you do, damned if you don't.
We dont' make our minds up based on accumulation of evidence sadly, and changing ones views isn't something that can happen quickly or easily.
This thread - about the big bang - really goes to the heart of creation, where, instead of it being seen as a pretty solid scientific theory, like much of chemistry for example, it actually does have room for a God/creator/deity, and so it will always be topic that creates a lot of strong opinions. Evidence relies on a long chain of observations and theories, the further back we go, the longer the chain and the less confident we can be about something. This literally goes back to the dawn of time (or so I've been told!), and so far all I have seen is people stating their views - something I'm only adding too.
-
Can't tell if poe's law is at work here..
"Good" Science makes predictions, and allows them to be tested so hypotheses can be refuted, validated, or modified. The "bigger" the problems, the harder it becomes to do that. Many of the big theories in this thread haven't just come out of thin air - they are based on many different observations from many different areas.
Again when people argue about these things it quickly becomes an argument about what constitutes "evidence", since confirmation bias makes us much more likely to consider something as evidence if it confirms our assumptions. We have those who are religious who call in to question almost everything that they haven't observed directly, to the other end where people bash religion and claim science is pure and flawless, with the vast majority laying somewhere on that continuum. There is quite a bit of anti-religion with atheists, who conveniently ignore that many of the major scientific advances were done in the name of (a) God. To that I have to point out the reason we have the scientific method - and by abiding by it you're accepting this - is to overcome our own limitations in our senses and biases. If you believe yourself to be a rational creature who is immune to believing things that aren't true - I guarantee you believe something that isn't true. Time and again those who bash religion ultimately have their own faith, and often that is in scientific theories. Granted science adjusts its views which is something religion struggles with (although it does, and can, change quite radically).
Trying to convince someone an assumption they hold isn't true is remarkably difficult. Framing it as "educating" someone is only going to make matters worse as it implies they are ignorant, wrong, and are somehow less intelligent. At the same time, if say a creationist asks a biologist about evolution - what else can they do? If scientists are brutally honest, and point out all the holes in their theory (which is good practice for formal papers) it leaves more than enough doubt for "alternative" ideas to breed. This is how science can become contaminated (just look at CAM in medicine), so you can understand why scientists gets frustrated - damned if you do, damned if you don't.
We dont' make our minds up based on accumulation of evidence sadly, and changing ones views isn't something that can happen quickly or easily.
This thread - about the big bang - really goes to the heart of creation, where, instead of it being seen as a pretty solid scientific theory, like much of chemistry for example, it actually does have room for a God/creator/deity, and so it will always be topic that creates a lot of strong opinions. Evidence relies on a long chain of observations and theories, the further back we go, the longer the chain and the less confident we can be about something. This literally goes back to the dawn of time (or so I've been told!), and so far all I have seen is people stating their views - something I'm only adding too.
Educating someone or concluding a person is wrong or ignorant does not imply that person is less intelligent. Ignorance generally has to do with external factors or a lack thereof like a lack of knowledge, facts or framework to work with, while intelligence is mostly an internal factor which isn't really possible to change.
Leaving room for a creator does not prove or imply there is one. Russell's teapot shows us why it's not very reasonable to consider it true or possible because it cannot be proven wrong.
-
We have those who are religious who call in to question almost everything that they haven't observed directly
You got that backwards. In religion you take the core tenets on faith alone, and believe in things that are impossible to verify objectively (and often things that are directly contradicted by evidence). This is usually encouraged, as long as it is in the interest of the elite of the church. Religions typically also persecute and punish those who do not share the same beliefs.
to the other end where people bash religion and claim science is pure and flawless
There might be someone who thinks so but I have never heard anyone claim that. Dawkings, for example, famously did a lot of bashing of religion, but I don't believe he considered science to be pure and flawless even for a second.
To that I have to point out the reason we have the scientific method - and by abiding by it you're accepting this - is to overcome our own limitations in our senses and biases. If you believe yourself to be a rational creature who is immune to believing things that aren't true - I guarantee you believe something that isn't true.
Indeed.
Time and again those who bash religion ultimately have their own faith, and often that is in scientific theories.
I disagree. People believe in scientific theories because they agree with experiments, i.e. they are objectively verifiable. You could perhaps say people believe that the scientific method is the best way we know of for finding knowledge about the world. (Although I also doubt that most religious people would deny that the scientific method is very effective, in fact many religious persons embrace science). However, that in itself is not nearly enough to constitute a religion.
Granted science adjusts its views which is something religion struggles with (although it does, and can, change quite radically).
I think that is a bit backwards as well; as you say religions often change quite radically. Religions don't have a problem with change since they don't have to match some objective reality, only whatever is convenient for the religious leaders.
Scientific theories on the other hand are usually only improved by small incremental steps. Even radical new theories like general relativity and quantum mechanics still agree with classical mechanics "in the classical limit". I.e. classical mechanics is still valid but only as an approximation. And it is generally accepted that neither relativity nor quantum mechanics are complete theories either. New scientific theories must still agree with all the previously gathered experimental evidence.
Trying to convince someone an assumption they hold isn't true is remarkably difficult.
Not if the person is scientifically minded. Since in that case experimental evidence is what is important, and the best thing you can do is to continuously adjust your beliefs so that they agree with all the data. Consequently it can't be considered a failure to be wrong, only to not be able to change ones mind in the face of evidence. That isn't easy to do necessarily since we are only human and sometimes our psychology works against us.
Conversely, for a religious person it might be disastrous to admit one was wrong regarding something important to the church. It could lead to excommunication, and even severe punishments like torture and death.
-
so far all I have seen is people stating their views
Not just our views, but views presented by people who study the subjects all their lives, and supported by decades of research. Not all views are created equal.
For some reason Mecha (Mecca?) is chastising us for discussing prevailing theories. Theories which, by the way, have FAR more observable data behind them. He ignores the evidence (yes, evidence) in favor of magical beings. You do not throw out an entire body of knowledge because some of it is incomplete. Not knowing is one thing, but ignoring evidence is literally the definition of ignorance, and it deserves ridicule. Inability to learn is the opposite of intelligence, and is unfortunate, but in this case, refusal to learn is absolutely inexcusable.
Just to bring context back to this topic, the OP wanted help understanding specifically scientific theories about the big bang. He wasn't asking for our views.
-
Trying to convince someone an assumption they hold isn't true is remarkably difficult.
Not if the person is scientifically minded.
Well said apis. Thank you for unpacking a lot of the misconceptions about science mentioned there.
If a thesis or paper is proven unequivocally wrong, scientists don't cross their arms, stomp out of the room and go sulk in the corner. That would be embarrassing. Nobody defends something that goes against data. They either fix the theory if it's salvageable, or they throw it out and come up with a new one. Either way, proving something right or wrong is considered a positive thing because everybody learns something.
-
I am a simple guy and I seek simple answers.
My conclusion, after reading about big bang theories and thinking about it is this:
1) Consider time as a spatial dimension ("4th dimension"). Add the twist that it is one way only: you cannot move back and forth as you can in X, Y and Z.
2) This is easy to compreehend (at least for me): in order to arrange a meeting with someone, you need to settle X, Y, Z and t. These are 4 dimensions.
3) Now imagine the "big bang" as an explosion at a point (a point does not have any size). Imagine that the whole universe is confined in that point (no size = no dimension).
4) At the big bang, this point (singularity) begins to expand. This creates dimensions (think: volume). And time.
5) BEFORE the big bang, there was not only no space: there was no time either - remember that we are considering time as a dimension like X, Y and Z.
The problem our mind has is that we consider "nothing" as empty black space, like what we mostly find in the universe.
But that SPACE did not exist before the big bang. Nor did time. Without space and time, there truly is nothing. Not even black empty space.
I am at a point, where I consider that the whole universe is like a small imperfection in the nothingness. Imagine I own no money, but suddenly I simultaneously (due to a bank error) have a debth of -1.000.000 and an asset of +1.000.000. In sum I still have nothing. Imagine this is a computer error that lasts 1 cycle at 4Ghz. I never had anything, I still don't have anything, but for a minute duration there was a debth and an asset - the sum still was nothing, but if I lived the dream for that short duration, I could either be a very poor man or a very rich one.
This is how I see the universe. We just happen to live in the rich one and experience time on a different scale. This brief existence of the singularity is NOTHING against INFINITY.
Might be silly, but I am happy with it.
Well, not really happy. I wish I had faith in some religion with a great after-life, which I have not.
Regards,
Vitor
-
Once more, your own confusion and lack of understanding is no grounds to dismiss science.
and then, you cant distinguish between what is science talk and what is bollock talk. higg bosson is a fact, universe radiation background is a fact, because they can be sensed, they are the proven hard facts. theory is theory, havent been proved, so not in reality, theory is just a nice simulation applies only when it seems to agree with what already sensed. but sooner or later when better sensors are developed, current theories may be trashed, theory is kind of "soft fact", but we cannot say them as real fact. its just a projection, extrapolation from known hard facts, conclusion by induction or deduction, not what existed, remember? both hard and this soft facts is a known and accepted science methodology, we can distinguish between what is real (sensed/observed) and what is not yet (theory/hypothesis). but then when you concluded to the ultimatum such statement as "universe made astronomers" without giving proper theory or formulation, that is bollock talk, its not science. as i said i have no objection to science but few scientists like to include bollock talk in their science talk, thats what.
please learn how to see a person behind the mask, just because he wear science mask doesnt really necessary means he is a real scientist. remember the quotation.... "why is that so? because they says so! because the book says so" sound familiar? so in science... "why is that so? because the scientists says so! they wrote it so" sounds similar? ;) dont hide behind the "this is complicated yet from nothing" wall. show us, literate us the formulation how you derived to that conclusion, not just empty aka bollock talk. oh cant, why cant? because normal people cant comprehend it, its too complicated, you just have to believe what a scientists said... sounds familiar? ;)
1) Consider time as a spatial dimension ("4th dimension"). Add the twist that it is one way only: you cannot move back and forth as you can in X, Y and Z.
for me, the time scientist have defined is derivation from space axis. its just a concept somehow connected to matter property existed in space, when that property changed due to other forces in space, the time we know is also changed. but i dont says its wrong anyway, its just how we practically live in this space. we move forward just because our brain or molecular structure vibrate accordingly relative to this time definition so we can perceive it through our metacognition ability. just imagine if today all atom stop vibrating, i guess we also stop functioning and our sensation to time effect also no more. but for other matters outside this dimension, in higher dimension not affected by this atomic vibrational effect, they still can perceive something esp on us that we cant on to them. much like when you watch a video you are the operator you see something happened and moving in that video, when you hit stop button, the movie is stopped until you hit the resume button again, but the operator still can move around and perceive his time while the movie is stopped. so the analogy when we apply on us is... we are the movie, something else on higher dimension have much more control on us. yes it sounds highly philosophical but dont be too certain like the other scientists who made bollock statement as if this is the only dimension where we live in that existed. scientists proved there are higher dimension out there isnt it? or do they got it correctly? he's right when he said, we are far from understanding "conciousness" alone, yet he claimed like he knows something far extraordinary. time is just our definition applicable to our frame of observable space, worse is that definition is affected by laws that happened in space, so not much special about it, but its the only thing we know, we understand and can perceive.
-
theory is theory, havent been proved, so not in reality, theory is just a nice simulation
Plate tectonics is a theory. Do you think it is "bollock talk"?
please learn how to see a person behind the mask ... you just have to believe what a scientists said... sounds familiar? ;)
Nice try, but the person is totally unimportant. Science deals with what people say, not who said it.
I have never seen a scientific argument saying "X is true/not true because Y said it."
-
something else on higher dimension have much more control on us. yes it sounds highly philosophical
it sounds highly theological
scientists who made bollock statement as if this is the only dimension where we live ... scientists proved there are higher dimension out there isnt it?
So which one is it? How many dimensions are there according to scientists? Make up your mind Mecca.
hint: no we didn't prove higher dimensions.
-
dont even talk about cosmological selection duh. they all just nice drama and preaches to keep people occupied out of the real thing
and by "real thing" I'm guessing you mean religious dogma?
yes if you want to call it so, and if you got the term right before goggle existed (religion = way of safe life) hence yes religious dogma such as how to improve life? how to solve social problem like... abortion? thief, murder poverty etc. but you wouldnt call such things as religion are you? you will call it as something else, some scientific words right? ;)
-
hint: no we didn't prove higher dimensions.
funnily, you are the one who should enlighten us...
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0011/0011042.pdf (https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0011/0011042.pdf)
http://mesosyn.com/mental7.html (http://mesosyn.com/mental7.html)
;)
-
yes if you want to call it so, and if you got the term right before goggle existed (religion = way of safe life) hence yes religious dogma such as how to improve life? how to solve social problem like... abortion? thief, murder poverty etc. but you wouldnt call such things as religion are you? you will call it as something else, some scientific words right? ;)
No I don't need to explain religion. I think we all understand what it is, and the obedience and suspension of logic that it asks of people. I just wanted everybody to be clear about your agenda.
By the way one problem it doesn't seem to solve is raping of nuns and children.
-
hint: no we didn't prove higher dimensions.
funnily, you are the one who should enlighten us...
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0011/0011042.pdf (https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0011/0011042.pdf)
http://mesosyn.com/mental7.html (http://mesosyn.com/mental7.html)
;)
So you found a paper talking about some theories, and website with a hodge podge of information.
Yes, higher dimensions are theoretically possible. But nobody has observed one or proven that they actually exist.
-
hint: no we didn't prove higher dimensions.
funnily, you are the one who should enlighten us...
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0011/0011042.pdf (https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0011/0011042.pdf)
http://mesosyn.com/mental7.html (http://mesosyn.com/mental7.html)
;)
So you found a paper talking about some theories, and website with a hodge podge of information.
Yes, higher dimensions are theoretically possible. But nobody has observed one or proven that they actually exist.
the fundamental theories to explain everything contemporary, higgs boson, big bang, dark matter etc everything you fascinated about... are basing on just that (string theory)... on something that "nobody has observed one or proven that they actually exist" ;) without dependency to higher dimension, just forget about understanding/modelling gravitation, let alone black hole and big bang.
the irony is when i provide a link complete with math derivation, its a hodge podge of information. but when i asked about how amino acid is sythensized from raw material... "go check the internet you can find that "theory" easily", well those seem to add up very well!? ::) no thanks i'm sure CCR5-Δ32 provided earlier that probably applies to only a virus positive "adaptation" has some sensical application on more complex intelligent being in skeletal level. wiki wiki ::)
yes if you want to call it so, and if you got the term right before goggle existed (religion = way of safe life) hence yes religious dogma such as how to improve life? how to solve social problem like... abortion? thief, murder poverty etc. but you wouldnt call such things as religion are you? you will call it as something else, some scientific words right? ;)
I think we all understand what it is, and the obedience and suspension of logic that it asks of people. I just wanted everybody to be clear about your agenda.
an example in military you need to obey without question, to ensure your own and team (society) safety ;) you play genius you break everything... ;) another example is a kid should follow his dad without question if he dont want to get hit by a motorcar, dont fool around with bad people, and dont want to be illiterate believing some influental figures blindly, because they says so. the love of a father is not something can be proven mathematically ;)
By the way one problem it doesn't seem to solve is raping of nuns and children.
the bigger problem is not capable of distinguishing between what the religion really asked for and what human desire and tendency to do when religion is taken in the wrong way (a normal and capable man should marry and not being suppressed you know? ;) ) its just a misinterpretation of religion that created problem, to both extremist religious fanatics and illiterate atheists.
-
btw, to bablo.. you are wasting your time asking such question in applied science forum. better go ask the man or simply just let them do their homework peacefully, and err, influence others by their so called expertise or respectable position. as sagan said, extraordinary statement needs extraordinary proof, but sadly some of them violate that rule.
Ok here is an applied science question though not in physics but relevant to junctional zones of Biochemistry, Biology and Biophysics
By what dint of logic it has been proved that unicellular organism like an amoeba did emerge after Big Bang? It has perplexed me a lot perhaps some one may help
-
dont talk evolution if you cant point out a single example of positive mutation
I'll give you two
1. sickle cells
2. CCR5-Δ32
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#CCR5-%CE%9432
[/quote]
By sickle cells you are referring to morphology of RBCs in sickle cell anaemia?
-
FWIW, Lawrence's Krauss has given his presentation "A Universe From Nothing" several times. One of the videos circulating was during his presentation at an atheist convention. That's why this version has more anti-religion statements - to cater to his audience at the event. Having said that, Dr. Krauss is an outspoken atheist and has stated that our current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe is incompatible with theistic religion beliefs.
-
our current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe is incompatible with theistic religion beliefs.
That will never be the case since religion can always adapt and change to fit with new scientific findings. Some choose to wilfully ignore or deny science and they are obviously never going to be compatible, but not all religions do that.
-
We have those who are religious who call in to question almost everything that they haven't observed directly
You got that backwards. In religion you take the core tenets on faith alone, and believe in things that are impossible to verify objectively (and often things that are directly contradicted by evidence). This is usually encouraged, as long as it is in the interest of the elite of the church. Religions typically also persecute and punish those who do not share the same beliefs.
My point was, those who follow science aren't particularly different than those who are religious. We all require some form of "faith" otherwise we would have to work from the most basic principles every time - we have "faith" that those before us were rigorous in their work, we have faith that our instruments don't racially change in accuracy. Some theories in science are (currently) impossible to verify objectively, and yet are clung to much like a religion. Inflation, or string theory for example. I'm trying to hammer the point that science isn't entirely objective (although it should be, and strives to be) and (organised) religion isn't entirely non-empirical. Again I'm not trying to claim they are one and the same.
to the other end where people bash religion and claim science is pure and flawless
There might be someone who thinks so but I have never heard anyone claim that. Dawkings, for example, famously did a lot of bashing of religion, but I don't believe he considered science to be pure and flawless even for a second.
This is true but it was an example of the "extreme" end of that spectrum. With the majority "inbetween" the two extremes. Again perhaps I didn't make my point clear. You seem to think I was claiming this is common.
Granted science adjusts its views which is something religion struggles with (although it does, and can, change quite radically).
I think that is a bit backwards as well; as you say religions often change quite radically. Religions don't have a problem with change since they don't have to match some objective reality, only whatever is convenient for the religious leaders.
How is that backwards? So you're suggesting religion changes more than science as it has no empirical evidence to anchor it? I can agree with that.
Scientific theories on the other hand are usually only improved by small incremental steps. Even radical new theories like general relativity and quantum mechanics still agree with classical mechanics "in the classical limit". I.e. classical mechanics is still valid but only as an approximation. And it is generally accepted that neither relativity nor quantum mechanics are complete theories either. New scientific theories must still agree with all the previously gathered experimental evidence.
Again this comes down to what people consider to be evidence, and how strong that evidence is - it is never a black and white thing and framing everything as "fact" or "fiction" is naive at best. New scientific theories must improve in terms of predicting powers, or satisfy more accurate observations, but not necessarily "agree with all previous experimental evidence". It depends on how that previous evidence is interpreted.
Trying to convince someone an assumption they hold isn't true is remarkably difficult.
Not if the person is scientifically minded. Since in that case experimental evidence is what is important, and the best thing you can do is to continuously adjust your beliefs so that they agree with all the data. Consequently it can't be considered a failure to be wrong, only to not be able to change ones mind in the face of evidence. That isn't easy to do necessarily since we are only human and sometimes our psychology works against us.
You're making out like being "scientifically minded" is somehow separate and distinct from "people who are religious". So, was Newton "scientifically minded" or religious? It isn't an all-or-nothing situation. Plenty of "scientifically minded" people are stubborn, and plenty of non-scientific minded people (how would you even measure that anyway?) can change their minds. Agreed that our psychology works against us, but that goes for everyone, this idea that just because someone studies science that they can adjust their views more easily is again, naive. Assumptions and instinct drive our thinking and how we perceive evidence much more than you think, studying science can allow one to attempt to counter that, but not eliminate it. In fact it is those who seem to be more logical that are drawn towards science, and those who are more.. superstitious to religion rather than science driving how we think. I suppose thats your definition of "scientifically minded", but again its hardly black and white.
-
the fundamental theories to explain everything contemporary, higgs boson, big bang, dark matter etc everything you fascinated about... are basing on just that (string theory)... on something that "nobody has observed one or proven that they actually exist" ;) without dependency to higher dimension, just forget about understanding/modelling gravitation, let alone black hole and big bang.
We never claimed any of the origin of the universe stuff was PROVEN.
However, we have observed evidence for black holes, higgs boson, and the big bang. That is why we have theories about them. And do you really need more evidence for gravity? All you have is verbal diarrhea, and it shows that you don't understand anything that you are trying to argue.
i asked about how amino acid is sythensized from raw material... "go check the internet you can find that "theory" easily", well those seem to add up very well!?
NOBODY commented the beginnings of life. Nobody. It's not even the subject of this topic. You are just making shit up now.
You asked for examples of genetic mutations, and I gave you some. And now you're picking fights with microbiologists too! Holy shit you must have a lot of education and degrees under your belt.
an example in military you need to obey without question ... a kid should follow his dad without question...
I'm not a kid anymore. I grew up to think for myself. The soldier has to do his job at work same as everyone else, and then he goes home and does whatever he wants. These are not the same as putting your fingers in your ears to real evidence, and pledging your life to an invisible bearded man in the sky. A practice that was put into place to control some people, and put others into power (which they abused of course).
its just a misinterpretation of religion that created problem
No you are confused. Religion IS the problem. Everybody interprets it their own way and thinks their faith is the truth. In order for Religion to work you have to indoctrinate as many people as possible. Religion is fundamentally corrupt. People to do good because they think they will be rewarded at the end of their life, not because they want to or should. It is for sheep.
-
By sickle cells you are referring to morphology of RBCs in sickle cell anaemia?
Yes
Ok here is an applied science question though not in physics but relevant to junctional zones of Biochemistry, Biology and Biophysics
First of all, you shouldn't hijack people's topics. That's a no-no. Second, does it make any sense to ask biology questions in an electronics forum?
-
The misinformation here is just mind boggling.
My point was, those who follow science aren't particularly different than those who are religious. We all require some form of "faith" otherwise we would have to work from the most basic principles every time - we have "faith" that those before us were rigorous in their work, we have faith that our instruments don't racially change in accuracy. Some theories in science are (currently) impossible to verify objectively, and yet are clung to much like a religion. Inflation, or string theory for example. I'm trying to hammer the point that science isn't entirely objective (although it should be, and strives to be) and (organised) religion isn't entirely non-empirical. Again I'm not trying to claim they are one and the same.
No you're absolutely dead wrong. There is no faith in Science. Nothing is "clung" to. Science is fundamentally objective. Bad science is discredited all the time.
Again this comes down to what people consider to be evidence
No. Opinion doesn't come into it.
it is never a black and white thing and framing everything as "fact" or "fiction" is naive at best.
It is OFTEN black and white. If my water sample boils at 100deg there is nothing to "interpret".
New scientific theories must improve ... but not necessarily "agree with all previous experimental evidence".
Yes they do.
You're making out like being "scientifically minded" is somehow separate and distinct from "people who are religious".
It must require some serious internal conflict.
Assumptions and instinct drive our thinking and how we perceive evidence much more than you think, studying science can allow one to attempt to counter that, but not eliminate it.
No. Evidence is the opposite of instinct and perception.
It is exactly for this reason -- eliminating human perception -- that we can build incredible complex and precise instruments like particle accelerators.
-
the fundamental theories to explain everything contemporary, higgs boson, big bang, dark matter etc everything you fascinated about... are basing on just that (string theory)... on something that "nobody has observed one or proven that they actually exist" ;) without dependency to higher dimension, just forget about understanding/modelling gravitation, let alone black hole and big bang.
None of these have anything to do with string theory.
1. Higgs Boson - part of the standard model - observed (to 5 sigma *) in 2012 at the LHC in CERN.
2. Big Bang - currently the best explanation we have based on observations of the redshift of distant galaxies and the CMB.
3. Dark matter - named as 'Dark' because we can't see it. It's existence is inferred by it's gravitational effects. No-one knows what it is yet, but we can see what it does.
No deity required. You don't believe they are correct? Prove them wrong, you don't even need to come up with a better explanation, and then we'll all be wiser.
* 5 sigma is a measure of how confident scientists feel their results are. If experiments show results to a 5 sigma confidence level, that means if the results were due to chance and the experiment was repeated 3.5 million times then it would be expected to see the strength of conclusion in the result no more than once.
-
timeless, I'm replying not because I'm taking the opposite position, just that either I am not stating my opinion very well, or you're misinterpreting it.
My point was, those who follow science aren't particularly different than those who are religious. We all require some form of "faith" otherwise we would have to work from the most basic principles every time - we have "faith" that those before us were rigorous in their work, we have faith that our instruments don't racially change in accuracy. Some theories in science are (currently) impossible to verify objectively, and yet are clung to much like a religion. Inflation, or string theory for example. I'm trying to hammer the point that science isn't entirely objective (although it should be, and strives to be) and (organised) religion isn't entirely non-empirical. Again I'm not trying to claim they are one and the same.
No you're absolutely dead wrong. There is no faith in Science. Nothing is "clung" to. Science is fundamentally objective. Bad science is discredited all the time.
Ok, so, we can agree that those who study science, aren't that different from those who don't. Correct? Now, as to faith, this comes down to your definition of faith. I am suggesting that one does have "faith" in science, in the theories, the mathematics, the logic, and all the work up until present that has successfully passed many tests. I am not suggesting this is the same "faith" that religion has. Yes bad science is discredited all the time, and rightly so. But this does not mean all current theories are universally considered as fact. The weight of evidence varies, and different people can interpret "evidence" in different ways and to varying degree's. Science should be fundamentally objective - but humans are not, and never will be. This is my point - you are stating the ideal, I am stating the reality.
I get the impression you think I am trying to devalue scientific inquiry in some way. Far from it. Merely pointing out that reality is a lot messier than "this is evidence, it is all true, where-as this is all wrong". And ignoring that is ignoring your own biases.
Again this comes down to what people consider to be evidence
No. Opinion doesn't come into it.
Ok, so, people do not have different opinions about say, the microwave background? There is only one universal view that experts in the field share exactly? And the evidence for the various hominin species, that is all completely agreed upon? And of course, inflation, no opinions there, just facts. You see my point? Again, I am not suggesting its all wrong, just that evidence is interpreted differently by different people, and as it progresses becomes more accepted as meaning one thing. Ignoring that fact does science a disservice. I'm amazed how offended people get when the F-wrd is used in science, almost like one is attacking their beliefs?
it is never a black and white thing and framing everything as "fact" or "fiction" is naive at best.
It is OFTEN black and white. If my water sample boils at 100deg there is nothing to "interpret".
Yes, many things are pretty unambiguous (although the boiling point depends on the pressure, and the purity of the sample) but just because one area of science is pretty solid, does not mean all areas are.
New scientific theories must improve ... but not necessarily "agree with all previous experimental evidence".
Yes they do.
Not really. Plenty of theories have been superseded, and even bolstered by re-interpretation of the evidence. So one could argue the previous "evidence" was based on one opinion, whilst that same data is now shown to mean something else from another point of view. The experimental results haven't changed, by the evidence has.
You're making out like being "scientifically minded" is somehow separate and distinct from "people who are religious".
It must require some serious internal conflict.
I do wonder how some physicists who believe in God reconcile that, the only one I know puts it as claiming that god created the big bang :) But again you're assuming people consciously decide to be religious or rational
Assumptions and instinct drive our thinking and how we perceive evidence much more than you think, studying science can allow one to attempt to counter that, but not eliminate it.
No. Evidence is the opposite of instinct and perception.
It is exactly for this reason -- eliminating human perception -- that we can build incredible complex and precise instruments like particle accelerators.
Evidence is a body of facts, but that still requires interpretation. Interpretation is based on experience and opinion. The scientific method tries to minimize, even eliminate, that bias, but I'm saying it can't be truly eliminated - there will always be bias.
I was going to reply to mecha too, but.. I'll just type waaay too much.
-
so far all I have seen is people stating their views
Not just our views, but views presented by people who study the subjects all their lives, and supported by decades of research. Not all views are created equal.
For some reason Mecha (Mecca?) is chastising us for discussing prevailing theories. Theories which, by the way, have FAR more observable data behind them. He ignores the evidence (yes, evidence) in favor of magical beings. You do not throw out an entire body of knowledge because some of it is incomplete. Not knowing is one thing, but ignoring evidence is literally the definition of ignorance, and it deserves ridicule. Inability to learn is the opposite of intelligence, and is unfortunate, but in this case, refusal to learn is absolutely inexcusable.
Just to bring context back to this topic, the OP wanted help understanding specifically scientific theories about the big bang. He wasn't asking for our views.
Also, you don't throw out an entire body of knowledge because part of it is wrong or because someone talking about it is wrong. One scientist being overly rosy or making ridiculous claims doesn't indicate a problem with science. Discourse and peer review weeding out the nonsense are actually key to producing sensible results.
It unfortunately does seem the thread is falling prey to people posting posts with endless quotes, which typically indicates the transition from a healthy discussion to an internet trench war uninteresting to anyone else.
-
Ok, so, we can agree that those who study science, aren't that different from those who don't. Correct?
I don't understand the question.
this comes down to your definition of faith.
No it is not MY definition of faith. It is the THE definition of faith.
Faith is complete unquestioning allegiance/belief/trust/loyalty in something. It is the opposite of the scientific method.
Science doesn't require anybody's personal loyalty. The Earth will still be round whether I trust science or not. Science says QUESTION EVERYTHING, take nothing for granted, don't be loyal to your ideas. Science is external to the person. Faith is all about the person. Science attempts to remove subjectivity. Faith is underpinned by it. Please stop with this utter nonsense. Stop now. You don't even have a basic understanding of science
But this does not mean all current theories are universally considered as fact. The weight of evidence varies, and different people can interpret "evidence" in different ways and to varying degree's. Science should be fundamentally objective - but humans are not, and never will be. This is my point - you are stating the ideal, I am stating the reality.
I am struggling to see what you're actually arguing. Ok I guess a lesson is in order ...
theory: a generalization that is consistent with all available data and theories.
For all our intents and purposes, they are true. It explains things reliably. You can call if fact if you like.
If it doesn't reflect known reality, it is wrong and rewritten or thrown out until it does.
And the evidence for the various hominin species, that is all completely agreed upon?
I feel like a teacher here. Please go do some reading or take a course before you argue with people.
You are confusing evidence and theory/hypothesis.
Hominid fossils are not under dispute. They are definitely real. The hypotheses linking them are not completely agreed upon.
just because one area of science is pretty solid, does not mean all areas are.
What? You mean we don't know everything. That is quite a revelation sir.
New scientific theories must improve ... but not necessarily "agree with all previous experimental evidence".
Yes they do.
Not really. Plenty of theories have been superseded, and even bolstered by re-interpretation of the evidence. So one could argue the previous "evidence" was based on one opinion, whilst that same data is now shown to mean something else from another point of view. The experimental results haven't changed, by the evidence has.
Yes really. It is literally in the definition. Yes theories can be disproved AFTER they have been created, not before. If evidence is re-interpreted, then it's new evidence. You make no sense at all.
you're assuming people consciously decide to be religious or rational
Yes I do make a conscious choice. And you make a good point, you'd have to be sleeping or unthinking to accept religion. :)
Evidence is a body of facts, but that still requires interpretation.
Again, interpretation is not evidence. The moment you start interpreting, you are making a hypothesis.
Interpretation is based on experience and opinion.
Existing body of knowledge, yes. Opinion no.
The scientific method tries to minimize, even eliminate, that bias, but I'm saying it can't be truly eliminated - there will always be bias.
Yes we can definitely eliminate existing bias (preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.). That doesn't mean that science is a crystal ball. We can't foresee all future evidence that is found. That doesn't mean our understanding can't evolve as new evidence is found.
-
Science, math, engineering and logic have limits - places where it is not be able to work due to the limitations and constraints.
In math you can't divide by zero.
Mechanical systems have the Double Pendulum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum)
Physicals has the very small (plank scale), the dense, the very fast, and events that can be modeled statistically but not when you have a small sample size.
Mathematical logic has been proven to be incomplete - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
Computing is has its own issues - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem, NP Hard problems and so on, people's inability to write secure code in C.
So cosmology there is a time where we have no firm understanding of what might have been, as space-time didn't exist or was just forming, but there is pretty good working model of what happened after that..
The big bang isn't a good foundation for arguing the existence of any sort of creator, unless it is one that cares nothing for the affairs of humans. Such an indifferent creator is pretty useless for theology or anything spiritual.
IMO invoking a creator is a far worse way to resolve this than just saying "we don't yet know, but boy are we keen to try to find out if we can!".
-
Invoking a creator doesn't solve the problem either. Who created the creator? I won't pretend I'm the first person to ask that question, but the explanations theists come up with bob and weave but ultimately fail to explain why a deity is required. It's either gods all the way down, or there's an eternal god which might just as well be an eternal but evolving universe without a deity.
Science having limitations is a feature and not a bug. Proclaiming you don't know something is both humbling and empowering.
-
you are stating the ideal, I am stating the reality.
is your whole point that we sometimes get things wrong?
Because if it is, then you should get the medal for most obvious fact stated.
No, science does not give us all the answers. But it is the best way that we know of to get them. It is robust and really resistant to human failures. It is slow, but it has really stood up to time.
The best part of science is that you don't need to talk to invisible friends to practice it.
-
In math you can't divide by zero.
Sucks for math, but how often does this actually stymie us in the real world? (yes we discussed the big bang)
Also we have methods for getting around this problem which we learn in first year calculus. One way is to rearrange things and I forget the name of the technique (I can't be bothered to get out my textbooks right now). We also have the idea of the limit and l'Hopital's rule.
Mechanical systems have the Double Pendulum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum)
Chaos theory , "the butterfly effect", the three body problem...
Yes these are limits of our current understanding. Maybe we'll solve these in the future.
Physicals has the very small (plank scale),
The plank scale could be the smallest thing that exists. If there's anything smaller, then maybe there must be a way to find it.
Mathematical logic has been proven to be incomplete - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
We are not doomed. There are limitations on this theorem. If logic were incomplete then how can you use logic to prove this theorem. It's paradoxical.
Further,
"A formal system is said to be effectively axiomatized if its set of theorems is a recursively enumerable set. This means that there is a computer program that, in principle, could enumerate all the theorems of the system."
"Bob Hale and Crispin Wright argue that it is not a problem for logicism because the incompleteness theorems apply equally to first order logic as they do to arithmetic. They argue that only those who believe that the natural numbers are to be defined in terms of first order logic have this problem"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems#Discussion_and_implications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_second_problem#Modern_viewpoints_on_the_status_of_the_problem
The theorem also says you can't use procedures or algorithms. We still have geometry and statistical analysis for example.
It also says that no single system can prove all truths. Well what about using two or more?
Same for the halting problem.
-
We have those who are religious who call in to question almost everything that they haven't observed directly
You got that backwards. In religion you take the core tenets on faith alone, and believe in things that are impossible to verify objectively (and often things that are directly contradicted by evidence). This is usually encouraged, as long as it is in the interest of the elite of the church. Religions typically also persecute and punish those who do not share the same beliefs.
My point was, those who follow science aren't particularly different than those who are religious. We all require some form of "faith" otherwise we would have to work from the most basic principles every time - we have "faith" that those before us were rigorous in their work, we have faith that our instruments don't racially change in accuracy. Some theories in science are (currently) impossible to verify objectively, and yet are clung to much like a religion. Inflation, or string theory for example. I'm trying to hammer the point that science isn't entirely objective (although it should be, and strives to be) and (organised) religion isn't entirely non-empirical. Again I'm not trying to claim they are one and the same.
Hmm, I think I understand what you are saying, but I wouldn't call that faith. As social beings we have to trust each other or society would collapse. We trust that the liquid in the milk bottle we bought in the store is indeed milk, etc. When we learn that there are 8 planets in the solar system we are typically expected to believe it without proof (since if all schoolchildren would repeat all the observations necessary it would take too much time and effort). We simply have to trust that the teacher isn't lying, that we are not victims of some grand conspiracy to fool us into believing the earth is a spheroid. If you push it you can't really be certain of anything, except maybe that you exist (cogito, ergo sum), yet we tend to have some degree of trust in our senses. But is that what you would call faith?
When learning physics, or chemistry, the teachers usually try to demonstrate the theory by doing experiments, and often the students are asked to repeat some experiments themselves. Like verifying that everyday objects fall with about 10 m/s2 acceleration regardless of mass (if we can disregard air resistance). And in maths, proofs are central, or you aren't really learning maths! You should be able to derive everything from first principles.
The whole point with the scientific method is to remove any element of trust. We never trust the result from a single experiment. Results always have to be confirmed by other independent experiments before they can be assumed to be valid. This was a problem when looking for the Higgs boson for example, since there is currently only one particle accelerator big enough for the experiment. They went to the trouble of building two different detectors, working by different principles, which were manned by two different teams of researchers who weren't allowed to compare notes. Experiments are always repeated many times by independent teams before they are considered proven.
If you doubt something, you should do the experiments yourself. You need no special licence to repeat them. There is no central authority that rubber stamps your findings. There is no science police (although when listening to flat earthers and over unity scammers you sometimes wish there were ;)) Science is just lots and lots of people working independently and comparing notes and sharing ideas. Sometimes a consensus emerges regarding certain things, and those things most consider established facts. But you don't have to trust anyone, or have faith in anything. In fact, it's probably most physicists dream to prove that some famous theory is wrong. That would be considered progress!
All this is very different from organised religion. Sadly there are plenty of examples of religious thought police for example.
-
Peer review is an essential part of science and could be called the organised doubting or criticising of findings. Criticism is literally built into the process, which is the opposite of trust.
-
We have those who are religious who call in to question almost everything that they haven't observed directly
You got that backwards. In religion you take the core tenets on faith alone, and believe in things that are impossible to verify objectively (and often things that are directly contradicted by evidence). This is usually encouraged, as long as it is in the interest of the elite of the church. Religions typically also persecute and punish those who do not share the same beliefs.
My point was, those who follow science aren't particularly different than those who are religious. We all require some form of "faith" otherwise we would have to work from the most basic principles every time - we have "faith" that those before us were rigorous in their work, we have faith that our instruments don't racially change in accuracy. Some theories in science are (currently) impossible to verify objectively, and yet are clung to much like a religion. Inflation, or string theory for example. I'm trying to hammer the point that science isn't entirely objective (although it should be, and strives to be) and (organised) religion isn't entirely non-empirical. Again I'm not trying to claim they are one and the same.
Faith is one of the many words in the English language that has more than one meaning. When one speaks of a scientist having faith in his/her instruments and methods, faith means confidence or trust. When one speaks of doing something in good faith, it means doing something with good intentions. When one talks of religious faith, it refers to a strong belief in a God or religious doctrine. The argument that both science and religion rely on faith is a non-starter -- the word has different meanings in those two contexts.
-
We never claimed any of the origin of the universe stuff was PROVEN.
but Lawrence guy seems to stated otherwise. "we are living in the great time! during the pinnacle of knowledge!" or some sort of crap like that. i've heard that since the time of plato. not sure what the term is, but its kind of fascination to human ability or consider it as the "holy" thing. human ability is limited accept that, we only can think in 3 dimensional space, not many can think in higher level, even that, only through some mathematical formulation, and still not much we can make out of that. this is not the great day, we are stil far far behind, just admit that. to Lawrence not you, i know you are only a believer to him ;)
NOBODY commented the beginnings of life. Nobody.
i was replying to Lawrence video, so you wont get too fascinated by him ;) he's the one who claimed "universe made astronomers". now i dont have problem when he said "this is the great day", part of it is correct in sense that we know "more" than before. but nowhere anything near greatness, we know only very very little. but when he claimed some crap like "universe made astronomers" with no hard proof, its getting on my nerve, not to mention his other hate comments on religious sector.
I'm not a kid anymore.
lets get into some philosophical subject shall we? we consider kids as limited knowledge, sometime we know all too well we just give instruction to them to do (for their safety) we expect them just to obey in order for safety. trying to explain the reason why will just take too long time sometime we dont have time for complete explanation. if they obey, they should be safe, if not, usually something bad will happen in the future, thats from our the bigger guy experienced. correct? we consider us as bigger guy is wiser compared to kids but... there are older people, they have more experiences and usually a wise guy will follow older people advices. the one who followed usually will be in the correct direction. correct? now lets go even further. since older people dye, we have no more wiser people (i'm talking the good kind of people, not the bad guy) because they dye out. we consider them as wiser than us. but lets say there older people that can live longer, they sure will gather more experiences and become wiser and wiser in time than before. so by rationale 1000 years old guy, should be much wiser than 100 years old guy, this is logic. cut short... what i'm trying to say is, we think we are the big guy is wise enough, but wisdom is a relative term, the longer lived one than us by nature should be much wiser and we should follow him if we dont want to do the same mistake again, reinventing the wheel as people says it. now... philosophically... if there is a creator of a system, he knows every bits of the system every laws to the single atom. he is the wisest and have good intention to his creation, he laid out rules for safety to interact with the system... trying to explain all the details of the system is beyond your comprehension and capability anyhow anyway.. give me reason why you should not follow Him? ;)
No you are confused. Religion IS the problem. Everybody interprets it their own way and thinks their faith is the truth. In order for Religion to work you have to indoctrinate as many people as possible. Religion is fundamentally corrupt. People to do good because they think they will be rewarded at the end of their life, not because they want to or should
i bet my bottom dollar this is what you have been brainwashed by hearing from peoples or from your own delusional imagination. i bet you never study religious books. this obviously shows your ignorance. i am a religious person (albeit cynical) like many other citizerns here with different religion belief. and nobody indoctrinated me or us, this is our free will from logical thinking and some simple factual and historical research. i'm the one who read religious text and blended among it... and you are trying to say that i'm the one who are confused and indoctrinated? ;) ironic. go do your homeworks scientists. list me all the bad things asked by religion from the book how many? and then to be fair, list me how many good things asked from it. i'm sure the bad things you will list is just your misinterpretation of the contexts, like many others religious fanatics out there.
FWIW, Lawrence's Krauss has given his presentation "A Universe From Nothing" several times. One of the videos circulating was during his presentation at an atheist convention. That's why this version has more anti-religion statements - to cater to his audience at the event. Having said that, Dr. Krauss is an outspoken atheist and has stated that our current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe is incompatible with theistic religion beliefs.
yes its understandable, thats why he is a good "entertainer", but the fact he himself is an atheist like his friend dawkin, and probably he will only choose to talk to the people like him or "on the fence" belief (agnostics) this add insult to injury, and a great disservice/shame to scientific community, who claimed "giving conclusion by proof". be it he tried to give talk to religious scholars (or philosophians), i'm sure he will get more jaw drops like his friend there, let me replay it again, remember this is just simpler scientific question, not some highly philosophical or religious one.... hilarious :-DD
https://youtu.be/-mC2ASSomhk
Lawrence did admit his theory is incorrect, thats a bit of noble thing from him. but guess why? if you go against the stream, the "indisputable text", thats what. like the one who tried to counter fight Einstein's Big Bang theory just because of his unreligious biased flavour. the idea died out, years time of work wasted for good down the drain ;)
-
By sickle cells you are referring to morphology of RBCs in sickle cell anaemia?
Yes
Ok here is an applied science question though not in physics but relevant to junctional zones of Biochemistry, Biology and Biophysics
First of all, you shouldn't hijack people's topics. That's a no-no. Second, does it make any sense to ask biology questions in an electronics forum?
Sickle cell anaemia is a severe blood disorder owing to alteration of haemoglobin chemical conjugations leading to emergence of cell becoming birefringent and its contained haemoglobin undergoes tactoid changes resulting in appearance of the red blood cell which now assumes looks of sickle under microscope. It is not a mutation. This trait is inherited. Mostly the African ancestry, the homozygous sufferers inheriting from both heterozygous parents who carry the trait but do not suffer from symptoms. (very simply put)
Secondly it seems to me that you have missed the point implicit in my reference to emergence of unicellular organism. If there is no Big Bang there is no life. That is what the general spirit behind this discussion implies. But if you a believer of the "Deluge" of Noah that is your prerogative.
If you cast a look over threads, peripheral subjects are discussed upon and not all are electronically orientated. As a matter fact of you have introduced a biological entity "sickle cell" as an example of mutation which is very refreshing as it adds another dimension to this thread. In a topic like this one should expect wide response and be ready to accept it.
So now, some one may say some thing about relevance of Big Bang to emergence of life. After all there is purpose behind the "Scheme of Things".
-
It is not a mutation.
Every source on the subject describes it as a mutation. Unfortunately, when people can't agree on simple facts, discussing things as subtle as the Big Bang and the Meaning of Life are quite pointless.
Inevitably, questions like this become an analysis of human psychology, rather than the physics of the Universe. Perhaps that makes sense, because humans are definitely the weirdest entities in the Universe.
-
Isn't there some theory that we "pinched off" from another Universe... parallel to our own but not possible to observe as we are in different dimensions? In that case, things got all started by a "previous" entity. I have trouble understanding time itself, how it can be treated like one of the 3 spacial dimensions (spacetime), and I also have a very naive view of space built up from personal experience. I keep imagining we are just a large MMORPG simulation. :-DD
Read in a SCI FI decades ago something like this:
" Civilizations are running parallel with ours but a fraction of a second earlier or a fraction of a second later. Problems arise if one crosses over
the line of separation".
So now we are not that lonely, may be aliens are already with us.
-
It is not a mutation. This trait is inherited.
Inherited from where?
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-441 (https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-441)
If there is no Big Bang there is no life. That is what the general spirit behind this discussion implies.
No, that is not the implication I gathered.
Physics is still somewhat related to EE. I think bio is somewhere completely different but suit yourself. I won't be joining you.
-
i bet my bottom dollar this is what you have been brainwashed by hearing from peoples or from your own delusional imagination.
Well folks you heard it. I'm accused of being delusional and brainwashed by a guy who follows a dogma of invisible overlords, in a science forum no less. On that note, I think I'm done here.
-
like the one who tried to counter fight Einstein's Big Bang theory just because of his unreligious biased flavour. the idea died out, years time of work wasted for good down the drain ;)
Einstein's intuition was that the universe was static (something he later considered his biggest blunder). The one who is often credited with the big bang theory is a priest called Georges Lemaître. ::)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL6ndOAOEeE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL6ndOAOEeE)
-
It is not a mutation.
Every source on the subject describes it as a mutation. Unfortunately, when people can't agree on simple facts, discussing things as subtle as the Big Bang and the Meaning of Life are quite pointless.
Inevitably, questions like this become an analysis of human psychology, rather than the physics of the Universe. Perhaps that makes sense, because humans are definitely the weirdest entities in the Universe.
Perhaps there is some difficulty in appreciating at what point in time a mutation ceases to be a mutation and becomes a trait.
The way I look at it is as follows:
"Elementary forms of life increse their mass and maturity unti, at a critical point they reproduce by simple division of their substance. Each successive organism has the same physico-chemical constitution as the parent and part of its structure operate as information store, that is
a chemical (genetic) memory system so that an offsprings grow into identical replica of the parent. However occasionally spontaneous changes occcur in the organization of genetic memory store and such mutations lead to emergence of organisms with altered characteristics. Often such mutants are less well fitted for survival under environmental stress and they succumb but sporodically
favourable mutations occur. The transmission of this to succeeding generations leads to the establishment of species with an enhanced probability of survival and the ability to populate new environments."
Now what do I understand after reading the aforementioned paragraph?
That the mutation is one time phenomenon the case being the sickle cell,
Some inheritors succumb to environment stress
Further transmission creates inheritors (succeeding generations) with this trait and they possess ability to populate new environments like some Negro population mainly in Africa.
My point is that by refering to sickle cell as mutant one refers to an episode that took place long ago but has continued occuring as a trait in survivors.
Incidently your assertion of human beings as weird is reciprocated since its application is universal?
Personally I believe I am chasing words to get to hard hitting facts.
-
It is not a mutation. This trait is inherited.
Inherited from where?
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-441 (https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-441)
If there is no Big Bang there is no life. That is what the general spirit behind this discussion implies.
No, that is not the implication I gathered.
Physics is still somewhat related to EE. I think bio is somewhere completely different but suit yourself. I won't be joining you.
Q. inherited from where?
A. The parents.
-
It is not a mutation. This trait is inherited.
Inherited from where?
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-441 (https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-441)
If there is no Big Bang there is no life. That is what the general spirit behind this discussion implies.
No, that is not the implication I gathered.
Physics is still somewhat related to EE. I think bio is somewhere completely different but suit yourself. I won't be joining you.
I wish there was a time machine available.
I woud put it in reverse gear along good old Darwin road back to the begining.
-
Q. inherited from where?
A. The parents.
It seems I don't understand the question being asked. Evolution is powered by mutations which turn out to be beneficial. You and everything around you are a collection of thousands of positive mutations. What proof is asked for? It's everywhere.
-
Fact check of where we actually are:
1. We live in a universe we did not make. This we know for certain.
2. We are obviously not in charge of the universe as we are subject to it and it is not subject to us. This we know for certain.
3. We are unable to find ways of getting around the limitations placed upon on us: we age, we get sick, and we eventually die.
How we deceive ourselves:
1. We think we are the highest beings in the universe.
2. If there is something higher than us, it can't be God. We would be fine thinking it is an alien race that just got a temporary leg up on us in terms of technology, I mean that does fit our narrative!
3. We certainly have the ability and comprehension to figure it all out.
4. And we have it all figured out.
5. Everything resolves around us.
6. It makes perfect sense to us that we randomly developed from dead matter, but yet somehow, even as brilliant as we think we are, we are unable to create life from nothing. Don't get me wrong, we never tire of butchering life into something different and try to take credit for it. Even so, we are only somewhat successful at that...
There is a theme that feeds the delusion of list 2 - human arrogance. An accurate picture of the situation is that gulf of what we think about ourselves vs. reality is much wider than a caveman thinking he is master chess champion playing 50 concurrent chess games.
-
Fact check of where we actually are:
1. We live in a universe we did not make. This we know for certain.
2. We are obviously not in charge of the universe as we are subject to it and it is not subject to us. This we know for certain.
3. We are unable to find ways of getting around the limitations placed upon on us: we age, we get sick, and we eventually die.
How we deceive ourselves:
1. We think we are the highest beings in the universe.
2. If there is something higher than us, it can't be God. We would be fine thinking it is an alien race that just got a temporary leg up on us in terms of technology, I mean that does fit our narrative!
3. We certainly have the ability and comprehension to figure it all out.
4. And we have it all figured out.
5. Everything resolves around us.
6. It makes perfect sense to us that we randomly developed from dead matter, but yet somehow, even as brilliant as we think we are, we are unable to create life from nothing. Don't get me wrong, we never tire of butchering life into something different and try to take credit for it. Even so, we are only somewhat successful at that...
There is a theme that feeds the delusion of list 2 - human arrogance. An accurate picture of the situation is that gulf of what we think about ourselves vs. reality is much wider than a caveman thinking he is master chess champion playing 50 concurrent chess games.
I'm not sure where you got that second list from, but it doesn't seem to be very accurate.
1. We're the most intelligent beings in the universe, that we know of. We readily admit to not knowing most of the universe. We consider ourselves one amongst many species and do not attribute ourselves a special status on account of being created for a purpose.
2. We have have as much evidence of a god as we have for Russel's teapot or a Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is none. This doesn't mean any of those don't exist, it just means it's best to work under the assumption they don't exist until we have anything to go on.
3. We don't know whether we'll even be able to figure it all out, especially now that quantum physics is throwing us all kinds of curve balls. The final answers may forever evade us due to the nature of the universe. This is hard to grasp for our brains used to a deterministic universe at our own human scale, but we're slowly wrapping our heads around the possibility.
4. We definitely haven't figured out major questions about the nature of time, space and matter. We have a somewhat reasonable grasp of the universe and physics at our own human scale.
5. We've known the universe isn't revolving about us since Copernicus. We readily accept we're insignificant and fleeting primates clinging to a rock floating through an unimaginable emptiness, with more similar stars and systems in existence than any human can count. Our individual or collective existence doesn't have a purpose or use and is essentially completely insignificant. For practical purposes many of us focus on the part of the universe we're living in, as it's as insignificant as us, but significant to us.
6. We're willing to accept we don't understand how life begins. We do have many bits and pieces of evidence which point in a certain direction. We are carefully and methodically working on understanding each step which may or may not be involved. We're learning more about complex organic molecules forming without life and finding them in various places across the universe. We're finding phenomena which fit the concept of complex life slowly emerging from lifeless matter over billions of years, and so far none which forbid it. The fact that the human brain isn't very good at understanding the vast time scales involved complicates matter and confuses many people.
-
This is an extra ordinarily open topic and has attracted knowledgeable contributers from varied background. At the same time IMHO, I feel being stymied, may be others too, by aberrations of lexical as well as logical semanticity which hinders each other to think alike following deciphering visual information ie words, on this board.
But Mr Scram is right when he says we are all mutants. After all world is full of homo-sapiens. Cheers
-
There is a theme that feeds the delusion of list 2 - human arrogance. An accurate picture of the situation is that gulf of what we think about ourselves vs. reality is much wider than a caveman thinking he is master chess champion playing 50 concurrent chess games.
By now, computer programs repeatedly beat the best humans at chess (or at any game really). Many people arrogantly believed this wouldn't be possible because humans were somehow special magical beings that were above all other things and creatures. That clearly isn't the case; we are just a bunch of hairless monkeys that got a bit too clever for our own good.
-
By now, computer programs repeatedly beat the best humans at chess (or at any game really). Many people arrogantly believed this wouldn't be possible because humans were somehow special magical beings that were above all other things and creatures. That clearly isn't the case; we are just a bunch of hairless monkeys that got a bit too clever for our own good.
What's impressive is that we're now at the point that we can have computer analyse human matches, and learn the game from them without learning them the rules. Or more recently, learn them the rules and have them work out how to beat humans themselves without looking at a database of human matches. This means that even though computers can't beat us at all games yet, they can now find out how to do so themselves. This is technology at a completely different level than a programmed single purpose chess engine and has all sorts of consequences for science and society, both good and bad.
The beautiful thing is that this is essentially a technological version of natural selection, which is further evidence the mechanism does produce meaningful results from randomness.
-
Be careful not to equate AI with the human mind. It is impressive how AI can now analyze past games, and come up with new and interesting tactics, but it doesn't "know" what a game is. Facial recognition software doesn't "know" what a face is, and many don't even work by shape, and so can be fooled by changing the colour of the rims of glasses ( https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/3/13507542/facial-recognition-glasses-trick-impersonate-fool (https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/3/13507542/facial-recognition-glasses-trick-impersonate-fool) ). I'll admit I'm very impressed with voice and facial recognition, and the ability for so-called AI to perform specific tasks, even creating human faces, and "art".
I'm not saying that humans are supreme beings, far from it - as I keep posting, we all too easily fool ourselves, and that can't be eliminated completely, only mitigated. But I'm noticing more and more, intelligent and reasonable people either commenting on fears of AI, or that it is completely separate from standard computer software, and grossly over stating its capabilities.
Agreed, often people can believe our species as being somehow sacred, but to compare us to AI both devalues us and our capacity, and overstates AI's capabilities.
-
Be careful not to equate AI with the human mind. It is impressive how AI can now analyze past games, and come up with new and interesting tactics, but it doesn't "know" what a game is. Facial recognition software doesn't "know" what a face is, and many don't even work by shape, and so can be fooled by changing the colour of the rims of glasses ( https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/3/13507542/facial-recognition-glasses-trick-impersonate-fool (https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/3/13507542/facial-recognition-glasses-trick-impersonate-fool) ). I'll admit I'm very impressed with voice and facial recognition, and the ability for so-called AI to perform specific tasks, even creating human faces, and "art".
I'm not saying that humans are supreme beings, far from it - as I keep posting, we all too easily fool ourselves, and that can't be eliminated completely, only mitigated. But I'm noticing more and more, intelligent and reasonable people either commenting on fears of AI, or that it is completely separate from standard computer software, and grossly over stating its capabilities.
Agreed, often people can believe our species as being somehow sacred, but to compare us to AI both devalues us and our capacity, and overstates AI's capabilities.
Do we "know" what a face is? Pareidolia tells us we don't. Our brains are full of tricks and shortcuts. Internally we experience profound feelings, but in the end we're just complex machines made up of cells and matter. There's no reason to think man made machines of sufficient complexity are intrinsically different.
-
Today AI isn't on the same level as humans. But certain people keep arrogantly making things up that humans supposedly are the only ones that can do. Yet they keep being proven wrong.
They used to say that (other) animals don't have a sense of ethics, or that we are the only species that can plan ahead, turns out that was not true at all. They used to say machines can never translate language, or that machines can never play chess better than humans, now they can.
There is no reason to think we (the human mind) are more than a complex machine that can be understood and copied. At the moment it looks like AI is making huge progress, we are also learning more and more about how the brain works using advanced imaging techniques, and we are beginning to understand how the cells works on a molecular level. Keep in mind that the first computer was built less than 100 years ago and a lot of people didn't believe matter consisted of atoms before 1905.
Of course, it doesn't mean we should treat humans as machines, but maybe in the future there are machines that should be treated as humans, and maybe there are some animals that should be treated better, etc.
-
Just released
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itpLU7OzNV8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itpLU7OzNV8)
-
Today AI isn't on the same level as humans. But certain people keep arrogantly making things up that humans supposedly are the only ones that can do. Yet they keep being proven wrong. They used to say machines can never translate language, or that machines can never play chess better than humans, now they can
Artificial intelligence refers to "a broad set of methods, algorithms and technologies that make software 'smart' in a way that may seem human-like to an outside observer, thats not real full AI.
By now, computer programs repeatedly beat the best humans at chess (or at any game really). Many people arrogantly believed this wouldn't be possible because humans were somehow special magical beings that were above all other things and creatures. That clearly isn't the case; we are just a bunch of hairless monkeys that got a bit too clever for our own good.
Just because a computer (made by a human feat in it self) can beat an human in chess is then by default smarter and AI yet it was the human who invented the chess game and computer and not the computer itself, a HUGE difference. What counts in evolution is the progress of evolution and if AI can crack that on its own then Homo sapiens is in trouble.
There is no reason to think we (the human mind) are more than a complex machine that can be understood and copied.
We already do, its called sexual intercourse.
At the moment it looks like AI is making huge progress,
Nope it dosent, it havent even passed the first requirements , cognitive reasoning and self awareness.
Cognitive computing (whatever that is defined as such) refers to computing thats focused on reasoning and understanding at a higher level, often in a manner that is inspired by human cognition. it deals with symbolic and conceptual information rather than just pure data or sensor streams, with the aim of making high-level decisions in complex situations, then add human feelings into that model and your in deep AI trouble and a off switch is needed
and not human rights laws as some progressive leftists says. No we need a firm Hitler like hand to these Ai figures
trying to kill us all!
Cognitive systems often make use of variety of machine-learning techniques, but cognitive computing is not a machine-learning method per se. Instead, it is often a complete architecture of multiple A.I. subsystems work all together. Cognetive system is subset of A.I. that deals with cognitive behaviors associated with thinking as opposed to perception and motor control.
Cognitive systems/computing is marketing buzz implying computing machines of today has AI therefore think. Utterly bull crap off course. Wicked/self trolled assumptions leads to similar conclusions.
The point is, humans cant create AI in its full meaning unless human understand how self awareness comes to existence in the human brain to begin with, and we dont. Self awareness shows up around 2.5years old detected by the mirror experiment so how do you translate that into a non biological(i assume) machine that does that on its own?
Ai today is just a buzz word based on many techniques such as neural networks, support vector machines, decision trees, Bayesian belief networks, k-nearest neighbors, self-organizing maps, case-based reasoning, instance-based learning, hidden Markov models and truck load of regression analysis, non is AI. AI is born when it evolve it self but then do spiders have self awareness? We dont know , how do you measure it? Could we create a spider like creature? Likely but we dont need Ai to make it look as if it was AI.
we are also learning more and more about how the brain works using advanced imaging techniques, and we are beginning to understand how the cells works on a molecular level. Keep in mind that the first computer was built less than 100 years ago and a lot of people didn't believe matter consisted of atoms before 1905.
yet the ancient greeks was fully aware that planet was round circling the sun, yet 4000years later loads of flat earthers walking the planet!
The machinlearning folks entertain themselfs by adding noise into the image to completely fool the image algo.
Of course, it doesn't mean we should treat humans as machines, but maybe in the future there are machines that should be treated as humans, and maybe there are some animals that should be treated better, etc.
One problem you have with your reasoning is that you constantly refers humans to the idea of machines and that is a an outdated philosophical idea from René Descartes (1596-1650). but then what really defines a machine and what is free will, does it exist at all? It can be guaranteed that Philosophers and neuroendocrinologists want to have a say or two in that.
Currently AI is in a stalemate state of: what is it? and Why didnt you say!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLc5mvOGgxc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLc5mvOGgxc)
-
They used to say that (other) animals don't have a sense of ethics, or that we are the only species that can plan ahead, turns out that was not true at all.
Conversely, by observing nature on a large scale, we could even go as far as stating that we are one of the worst species when it comes to ethics and planning ahead. This is debatable, but the only real fact is that we just keep talking about it. We consistently tend to confuse talking with doing, concepts with reality, and this characterizes us as a species much better than a supposed sense of ethics, planning or even consciousness. That and clearly the urge to control and change everything that surrounds us, which I think has links to our tendency to emphasize concepts over reality. Not sure what is ethical about that either. (Of course this is just my opinion.) All in all, we seem to have an extra ability to conceptualize things. That doesn't make us morally superior, nor even necessarily more efficient, but that makes us modify our environment much faster than other species.
There is no reason to think we (the human mind) are more than a complex machine that can be understood and copied. At the moment it looks like AI is making huge progress, we are also learning more and more about how the brain works using advanced imaging techniques, and we are beginning to understand how the cells works on a molecular level. Keep in mind that the first computer was built less than 100 years ago and a lot of people didn't believe matter consisted of atoms before 1905.
Just a side note, but I personally don't think AI per se has progressed that much. The main principles we still use date back to decades ago. What has progressed dramatically is the processing power and amount of usable storage. As far as I get it, most of what we call AI these days is mainly "big data": enormous pools of data that are analyzed with (relatively simple) statistics. Current AI systems (outside of research labs) mostly consist of that. They don't have algorithms that try and make sense of things; they just have basic algorithms that can decide what is the most likely response to some inputs based on huge pools of relevant data. Remove the data and the ability to get anything useful out of an AI system reaches zero. One typical and familiar example is the automated translation tools (for instance Google translate). As earlier tools actually tried to figure out the structure and meaning of sentences (with modest success), current tools basically triy to match groups of words and sentences against large sets of known text. Although it's not particulary efficient come to think about it, we can afford to do that with current technology, and it kind of works decently. Is that how our own "intelligence" works? Maybe. I have no real proof or that, but I'm willing to think at this point that there is just a little more than that. Maybe we'll be able to approach it in the future, but we are nowhere near at this point IMO.
That said, there is no reason to think we are better or worse than just anything else in the universe. But, although the distinction between living and non-living could prove hard to make as our knowledge progresses, I still think making this distinction is essential to our mental sanity. The moment we accept there is no difference between living and not living, our reason and drive for living disappears, with all the consequences we can figure out (and probably many others we can't).
-
Chances are that our intelligence is a pile of relatively simple systems piled cleverly on top of each other, optimised to the hilt by millions of years of evolution.
-
The reason the "hard problem" is considered hard is that, unlike engineered systems, natural selection co-opts systems making things incredibly complicated. Our technology is based on very simple systems/devices, connected and stacked very simply, to make more complicated devices - computers can be reverse engineered in a reductionist approach so easily, because they were designed from the ground up, and as such, can be understood very well. Although evolution does indeed "evolve" to create more and more complex systems in organisms based on simpler systems, it isn't as simple as just breaking things down into smaller and smaller constituents to understand them. We were not designed, so things are the way they are not because of intention, but by environment, time and chance.
Not that I'm completely disagreeing with you, just that "systems cleverly piled on top of each other" is too simple, and is why the reductionist approach tends to fail when it comes to understanding the mind. And its why there is still a huge gap between psychology and neuroscience.
-
There is no reason to think we (the human mind) are more than a complex machine that can be understood and copied. At the moment it looks like AI is making huge progress, we are also learning more and more about how the brain works using advanced imaging techniques, and we are beginning to understand how the cells works on a molecular level. Keep in mind that the first computer was built less than 100 years ago and a lot of people didn't believe matter consisted of atoms before 1905.
Just a side note, but I personally don't think AI per se has progressed that much. The main principles we still use date back to decades ago. What has progressed dramatically is the processing power and amount of usable storage. As far as I get it, most of what we call AI these days is mainly "big data": enormous pools of data that are analyzed with (relatively simple) statistics. Current AI systems (outside of research labs) mostly consist of that. They don't have algorithms that try and make sense of things; they just have basic algorithms that can decide what is the most likely response to some inputs based on huge pools of relevant data. Remove the data and the ability to get anything useful out of an AI system reaches zero.
It is also my understanding that a lot of the algorithms used were developed decades ago. But they weren't practically usable back then because there wasn't enough processing power nor training data. That has changed which means it's now possible to put these techniques into praxis and experiment and develop them further. So for a long time there was no progress but now things are moving again. It's not like there isn't room for improvement, for example, it's not clear how to layer neural networks for best result or how to connect networks into larger structures.
It's true that it can help to have a lot of training data, but it's not always necessary. AlphaGo trained using a lot of previously recorded games played by professionals. AlphaZero, however, taught itself by only playing against itself and managed to beat AlphaGo after a relative short time (and it also beat the best humans of course). AlphaZero used only the rules of the game as input. It's not Go specific either, they can use the same architecture to master any perfect knowledge game (e.g. it's also the best Chess player now). Recently they beat the best human players at real time strategy games like StarCraft II, which has a lot of hidden state. Pretty spectacular progress. Human players also say their impression is that Alpha* plays like a human.
Neural tissue also consists of simple elements (neurons), which are connected in large networks and given enough training data they can learn to respond to a certain input with a certain output. For fun we could make a simple estimation of how much data a hairless monkey need before it begins outputting anything intelligible? Babies begin saying words about 2 year after birth (it is also listening in the womb but I'm not sure you can tell when that starts so I'm not including that period) (source: interesting list (https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby-talk-your-babys-first-words)). Two years of CD quality stereo audio is: 44 khz, 16 bit is 2*365*24*60*60*44000*4*8/1e12 = about 90 TB of training data. If you add stereo video and other senses you need several orders of magnitude more. (e.g. adding stereo 1080p@30hz you get an additional 190 PB) That is what we need to learn to pronounce simple words. A two year old is not very capable so you really need many more years of interactive training before we can be considered capable to do anything autonomous.
One typical and familiar example is the automated translation tools (for instance Google translate). As earlier tools actually tried to figure out the structure and meaning of sentences (with modest success), current tools basically triy to match groups of words and sentences against large sets of known text. Although it's not particulary efficient come to think about it, we can afford to do that with current technology, and it kind of works decently.
As far as I know the automated translation is fairly simplistic yes (I don't think it uses neural networks, but the details aren't public knowledge so who knows). I'm not so sure that is a good measure of ai-progress, but it's an example of things that people used to arrogantly claim was something only humans would ever be able to do. To ultimately be able to correctly translate a text you need to be able to disambiguate and reformulate the text which requires deep knowledge and understanding of the text which isn't feasible at the moment, but probably will be eventually. (A lot of translators probably doesn't fully understand the texts they are translating that well either.) Personally I find it amazing that Google can translate as successfully as they currently do by using only "simple" statistical methods.
Is that how our own "intelligence" works? Maybe. I have no real proof or that, but I'm willing to think at this point that there is just a little more than that. Maybe we'll be able to approach it in the future, but we are nowhere near at this point IMO.
There is reason to believe that neural networks works in a way that is similar to how the brain works on some level. I.e. one step up from the neurons. But we are still a long way from figuring out how to connect different types of networks to get something that is self aware, or to understand what self awareness actually means.
That said, there is no reason to think we are better or worse than just anything else in the universe. But, although the distinction between living and non-living could prove hard to make as our knowledge progresses, I still think making this distinction is essential to our mental sanity. The moment we accept there is no difference between living and not living, our reason and drive for living disappears, with all the consequences we can figure out (and probably many others we can't).
Isn't it buddism that teaches that life is an illusion, and that the goal is to free oneself from that illusion, or some such. Why would you accept there is no difference between living and not living? I wouldn't say that. There is a difference, but it is something that likely can be understood and reproduced artificially. There is no magic smoke inside us, but there is still something that makes us different from a stone or a bench grinder, something we don't fully understand yet. I don't see why our reason and drive for living would disappear once we do?
-
Episodes 4 through 8 get really good. The interviews are thorough.
The first are a little slow, but the OP did say:
Help to understand the Big Bang
This cannot be done in a paragraph of text, and we don't know everything, so these 8 docus put together some of the leading ideas.
(Ok, I admit this may confuse the shit out of him.....) ;)
This year's episode #9 has just been released:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CChnwOsg9I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CChnwOsg9I)
This link has the first 8 episodes: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/helpto-understand-the-big-bang/msg2196393/#msg2196393 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/helpto-understand-the-big-bang/msg2196393/#msg2196393)
-
I always thought of the Big Bang as being the beginning of everything. There was nothing. No space, no black emptiness, no energy, no nothing. Just a big nothing that we cant even picture in our minds.
But then I started checking out lectures and written material (that I could understand, given that Im not in the area) and got a bit into the Higg's Boson/field and matter itself.
Now I wonder if I got my interpretation of the Big Bang all wrong. Is the big bang just the creation of matter? I started to imagine just empty space. Thinking of the universe before the big bang as if it was a section of the deadest, emptiest and darkest part of the universe after the big bang. Then, BANG and matter shows up.
Im having a really hard time to interpret the nothingness before the big bang, imagining there was no canvas for matter to exist.
Do we know if before the big bang there was a place for matter to exist? Or that is the very concept of the big bang? As it being the creation of matter and a place for it to exist?
Do scientist refer to the word "universe" as being the place where matter can exist? Or the place where matter travelled through or has the potential of traveling through? Because if it is the first "definition", what prevents the edge of particle that is the furthest on the edge of the universe to be the thing creating the universe? I mean, if the big bang created the space for matter to exist doesnt it mean that it either created the space for matter to exist instantly and infinitely in all directions or the very first particles (or waves, or whatever) that left the big bang and are now the ones defining the boarder of the universe are the ones creating the space for matter to exist as they travel?
Some things are just un knowable. How does something come from nothing? Some explain it as the work of a diety. That is as good an explanation any.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
-
"We don't know" is the only correct explanation. Saying the flying spaghetti monster did it (or some other deity) is practically guaranteed to be wrong and thus misleading.
"We don't know who robbed the bank, so we might as well say God did it? or Kermit the frog?" :-\
Just stick with "we don't know everything".
-
Some things are just un knowable. How does something come from nothing? Some explain it as the work of a diety. That is as good an explanation any.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
It's not an explanation though.
-
"We don't know" is the only correct explanation. Saying the flying spaghetti monster did it (or some other deity) is practically guaranteed to be wrong and thus misleading.
"We don't know who robbed the bank, so we might as well say God did it? or Kermit the frog?" :-\
Just stick with "we don't know everything".
A diety is wrong? You can't prove or disprove that either. When I look at the complex systems that have evolved it is hard to believe it is just evolution or chance. If something fails in you the body makes repairs or has backup systems. I can't concieve how natural selection produced that. I just never cease to be amazed at the complexities of the World. The odds this planet has what is needed to sustain life in such a hostile Universe is amazing, too.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
-
a diety sounds like something you need to eat.
Look the fact that you can't conceive things that other people understand really well, only shows your ignorance. That's it!
Yes the fact that we exist is absolutely amazing. And I find it disappointing to simplify to something so crude as magical invisible beings did it, because it's far more beautiful than that.
-
A diety is wrong? You can't prove or disprove that either. When I look at the complex systems that have evolved it is hard to believe it is just evolution or chance. If something fails in you the body makes repairs or has backup systems. I can't concieve how natural selection produced that. I just never cease to be amazed at the complexities of the World. The odds this planet has what is needed to sustain life in such a hostile Universe is amazing, too.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
When you don't know whether something is true or not and you don't have anything to point either way the correct answer is "we don't know". See Russel's Teapot for why we can't just assume a random explanation. Finding something hard to believe doesn't make it untrue. Many people have trouble understanding the time or scales involved or lack the imagination to see the potential of such a multiform process. None of those things mean it's untrue. Things like backup systems are as much part of evolution as everything else. Almost anything and everything which improves the chances of survival until reproduction add to the success of a species and will be selected for. The odds of life arising on a planet which will not sustain life is effectively nil. It will always end up successfully developing on a planet which can sustain it, which is another example of natural selection.
If natural complexity is deemed unlikely and hard to understand, the spontaneous existence or creation of an intelligent omnipotent deity should be considered exponentially less likely. Instead of having a gradually escalating process, you now have instant ultimate complexity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
-
"We don't know" is the only correct explanation. Saying the flying spaghetti monster did it (or some other deity) is practically guaranteed to be wrong and thus misleading.
"We don't know who robbed the bank, so we might as well say God did it? or Kermit the frog?" :-\
Just stick with "we don't know everything".
A diety is wrong? You can't prove or disprove that either. When I look at the complex systems that have evolved it is hard to believe it is just evolution or chance. If something fails in you the body makes repairs or has backup systems. I can't concieve how natural selection produced that. I just never cease to be amazed at the complexities of the World. The odds this planet has what is needed to sustain life in such a hostile Universe is amazing, too.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
The fact I can't prove Kermit the frog didn't rob the bank doesn't mean he did it. If there are many possible suspects, then the probability that it was Kermit is very low. So it's misleading to say Kermit did it, in fact it is more likely it was someone else. It only makes sense to say we don't know who robbed the bank.
Wouldn't you protest if the police said "we don't know who robed the bank so we might as well assume you did it"?
We don't know how the universe started, and there are millions (if not an infinite) number of possible explanations, so picking one at random and saying it is the correct one is most likely wrong and very misleading.
-
It still comes back to what existed before there was anything. It is not ignorance to concede it is unknowable but it is arrogant ego to think more research is going to supply the answer. To put a name to a prme mover is a philosophical choice not one debated in the physics dept.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
-
It still comes back to what existed before there was anything. It is not ignorance to concede it is unknowable but it is arrogant ego to think more research is going to supply the answer. To put a name to a prme mover is a philosophical choice not one debated in the physics dept.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
The only thing that's "arrogant ego" is to think you shouldn't endeavour to discover what was before. We may not know now and we may not ever know, but we're definitely are going to try our hardest to find out. The only way to literally and figuratively know our place is finding out more about it.
-
it is arrogant ego to think more research is going to supply the answer
Holy shit. That's the dumbest thing I've heard all week. Talk about arrogance!
-
My favourite definition of the word faith (in the religious sense of the word) is; “Believing something you know ain’t so”
Thanks to Mark Twain for that insightful gem.
What distinguishes knowing something like what colour your front door is, and knowing that God is listening when you think thoughts directed to him?
One is called knowledge, the other is called faith. Why the distinction?
I have enjoyed this thread a lot. Especially Mr Scram’s posts. He has patiently and lucidly posted my thoughts for me without me having to lift a finger [emoji3]
-
Episodes 4 through 8 get really good. The interviews are thorough.
The first are a little slow, but the OP did say:
Help to understand the Big Bang
This cannot be done in a paragraph of text, and we don't know everything, so these 8 docus put together some of the leading ideas.
(Ok, I admit this may confuse the shit out of him.....) ;)
This year's episode #9 has just been released:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CChnwOsg9I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CChnwOsg9I)
This link has the first 8 episodes: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/helpto-understand-the-big-bang/msg2196393/#msg2196393 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/helpto-understand-the-big-bang/msg2196393/#msg2196393)
This year's episode #10 has just been released:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXL0N3elFLE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXL0N3elFLE)
-
I need help understanding The Big Bang Theory too, it's one of the most annoying sitcoms out there. :-+
hahahaha I have to confess that I like it!
I used to when I was younger, but now it just seems so stilted.
The authors seem to hold some grudge against the quantum physics crowd, which by itself is rather funny.