|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Aug 13th, 2004 06:37 PM | ||
| Sethomas | Yeah, I don't know of anyone that takes zero-point energy seriously, and I've never seen credible evidence for why I should either. | |
| Aug 13th, 2004 05:51 PM | ||
| FartinMowler |
Quote:
|
|
| Aug 13th, 2004 05:45 PM | ||
| Sethomas |
Actually, 11 demensions is a facet of M-theory, which seems to have more respect than any other GUT out there. Spinster: I believe the initial appeal of the many worlds theory came from a handfull of jerks (whose name I forget at the moment) who couldn't live with a quantum mechanical aspect of some particle having 40% matter waves that can't be atoned for anywhere by consistent observation, so they threw out the idea that they are manifested in parallel multiverses. On paper this also works well to explain how interference patterns are obtained in light-slit experiments when the intensity is reduced to one photon roughly every eight seconds. Granted that's totally a "what the fucking hell?" kind of result, I don't see it as requiring an outlandish conclusion. I really should have studied for my physics test, which incidentally had a question on light slit interference phenomena. Yeah, 
|
|
| Aug 13th, 2004 03:57 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
Quote:
|
|
| Aug 13th, 2004 06:06 AM | ||
| pjalne |
Quote:
Which are these 11 dimensions? |
|
| Aug 13th, 2004 02:10 AM | ||
| camacazio |
There's a theory of one alternate "shadow universe" that accounts for gravity holding stars in place in this galaxy when the mass of the seen galaxy does not account for the gravity holding the stars. Gravity can pass through all dimensions, from our percieved 3 to the discovered 11. Light on the other hand cannot cross dimensions in such a way. That's how gravity can affect this universe from the shadow world, but we cannot see it because it's light doesn't cross the dimensions. As for big bang, even after parts of theory of Special Relativity (opposed to General Relativity) have been disproved, the part about Big bang holds true to all present theory, including the passage of time. What happened before the big bang cannot ever be realized, and there's absolutely no evidence to say that it'll happen again or anything like it happened before. Just that it is physically proven that the universe is expanding and there must have been tremendous energy to start the push. I can't really explain it all, but there's a nice easy to read and very colorful 100 page book it's in. Read "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking. |
|
| Aug 13th, 2004 02:00 AM | ||
| Perndog |
Quote:
|
|
| Aug 13th, 2004 01:57 AM | ||
| kahljorn | That's called Microcosm and macrocosm, and that is something widely accepted as well. | |
| Aug 13th, 2004 12:48 AM | ||
| ScruU2wice |
I, with very little knowledge I might, thought that the many worlds theory meant that we were just in a universe in an atom in the toenail of some guy in a bigger universe. It really seems stupid and logical at the same time to me becuase there can be matter so minute that we cannot measure it. And it can rearrange itself without us being able to account for it. Then I think about it and the whole idea of there being infinite number of worlds contained with in another just kinda seems like a childishly assenine way of thinking |
|
| Aug 13th, 2004 12:46 AM | ||
| AChimp |
Quote:
|
|
| Aug 12th, 2004 11:59 PM | ||
| kahljorn | I'd say it's designed to help understand the structure of existance, other than that it's not really all that useful. Same as trying to understand the source. | |
| Aug 12th, 2004 11:43 PM | ||
| theapportioner | Well, I know in a general sense what it explains, but does it resolve that say, the Copenhagen theory leaves unresolved? | |
| Aug 12th, 2004 11:41 PM | ||
| theapportioner | Seth, what specifically is the many worlds theory designed to explain? | |
| Aug 12th, 2004 09:03 PM | ||
| Preechr |
No, no... Art is subjective. Knowledge is not. AChimp is right. Somebody needs to shut this whole "internet" thing down immediately. I dunno WHAT they were thinking when they thought this stupid crap up! *stomps off angrily* |
|
| Aug 12th, 2004 08:52 PM | ||
| kahljorn | Pieces of paper are what make you smart. | |
| Aug 12th, 2004 08:37 PM | ||
| Helm |
Quote:
|
|
| Aug 12th, 2004 08:21 PM | ||
| Preechr |
Quote:
|
|
| Aug 12th, 2004 08:11 PM | ||
| kahljorn | Anyway, to go "On topic" every single one of the other universes could have had their own big bangs. If energy magically appeared here, then it could magically appear elsewhere-- past the borders of our existance. | |
| Aug 12th, 2004 08:08 PM | ||
| AChimp |
It is LOL when people without doctorates in physics start feeling they are qualified to argue for or against physics theorems because they have read a philosophy book.
|
|
| Aug 12th, 2004 08:04 PM | ||
| Preechr | ...which has nothing to do with Sethomas' topic, which would be governed by Physics. | |
| Aug 12th, 2004 08:02 PM | ||
| Preechr |
You're both right, I think. Known and knowable Physics governed the process of the big bang, but can't be relied on to describe what happened prior to the beginning of that process. We can assume everything up until that point of beginning was governed by Physics as we can know it, but there is a wall at that one point in time we can never see through. IN MY OPINION. |
|
| Aug 12th, 2004 07:56 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
anything can be witnessed in a lab innumerable times, any person can prove any theory if given enough time to stir over it. It's more a matter of them becoming convinced that their results are real, rather than the law is true. The simple fact of the matter, sethomas, is we can sit around and discuss how thermodynamics took place in the actual big bang, but that does absolutely nothing to explain how the energy got there in the first place. It's just like, "If god created the universe, whom created God"? Quite simply, thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created. Yet, scientists have this giant lump of clay energy they somehow believe "created the universe" as we know it, yet they cannot explain what created the lump of clay because it defies every single set of scientific laws they have. So you can attire in symantics, that somehow thermodynamics have an importance because they play a part in the already created universe, but just try to keep your mind focused on the difference between "Created" and "Non created". "Initial" and "Proceeding". |
|
| Aug 12th, 2004 07:45 PM | ||
| Sethomas |
Current big bang models don't try to explain the source of the primeval matter, they merely describe what happens at certain points in time ATB in regards to energy levels, mass, matter-antimatter ratios, and the like. So yes, thermodynamics are indeed rather important at such levels, so your point is moot. And Pern, wave particle duality is something that's actually been witnessed, by light slit experiments and lots of other fun things. You would have a point if there had ever been an experiment wherein energy comes from nothing. Science has to be anchored by both reason and observation. Not only do the laws of thermodynamics make rational sense, but it has been witnessed in the lab innumerable times. |
|
| Aug 12th, 2004 07:38 PM | ||
| Helm | Finally something intelligent in this thread! | |
| Aug 12th, 2004 07:37 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
Like I previously mentioned, the laws of Thermodynamics don't come into play when getting involved with any form of creation theories. Why? Because thermodynamics does not allow for the energy of the first initial big bang to even exist. Energy does not come from nothing. Cycles are cycles, beginings are ends, to a rough degree the centipede knows this. Inhibited in a spiral. |
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
