Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
or did it eventually evolve to what we know now as constant.
Is this observed Science? Or is it Religion? Does it require GREATER FAITH to believe that these constants arose by random chance or that these laws are the natural byproduct result from a never changing constant Creator?
Wouldn't we expect randomness? but we observe constant laws of nature. So who is being Rationale?
or did it eventually evolve to what we know now as constant.
Is this observed Science? Or is it Religion? Does it require GREATER FAITH to believe that these constants arose by random chance or that these laws are the natural byproduct result from a never changing constant Creator?
Wouldn't we expect randomness? but we observe constant laws of nature. So who is being Rationale?
If the theory of gravity is true then why are there constant?
Good questions, for those who don't know about the sciences very deeply... not that it is absolutely necessary to know current scientific ideas deeply... its even a good question for those who want to ponder the philosophy of modern physics. anyhow, I doubt that it would be assumed that Plank's constant "evolved" into what it is today... More likely, it arose from the predetermined (at the moment of the Big Bang). Plank's constant (one of the "k's" if I recall correctly) is similar to the Universal Gravitational constant in that it will die once the universe dies. It's a rule that the universe seems to be following, and likely has been following since the beginning of time. Wouldn't it be gory if the universe changes it's constants sometimes! A scary thought.
Indeed, plank's constant is "observed science" in that all pertinent processes seem to follow this "matho-physical" constant. It is as much "observed" as gravity is "observed". Not much faith is required to believe in it, as it can be demonstrated. Comparatively, I would say it would require as much faith as ... I'll give a spectrum: from believing that the Earth's gravitational acceleration is somewhere around 9.81 m/s^2 on average to believing that water molecules are composed of oxygen and hydrogen molecules.
The constants of the Universe... call them "impersonal platonic-epicurean gods" if you will... could have always been meant to exist in the same way a constant, never changing, Demiurge acquires that ability/characteristic. However, if you get down to the hard linguistic logic of it: a never changing constant Creator would not be able to have any "natural byproducts" because such would be a characteristic for change.
In a random existence, we might expect randomness in the big picture, but we don't have the big picture. Our whole universe itself and all of Earth's different religions would be but a measly facet of an entirely bigger existence. Like for example, If you live in a pond, you might think the pond was made to fit the water. You can't escape the pond, it's your entire universe. Lets say the temperature of your pond happens to have a seemingly constant range. That doesn't mean all ponds in existence would have the same temperature range as your pond.
Yet we are both being rational, because we are both trying to make sense of something by breaking it down into smaller more understandable pieces. Randomness might be one of the least understandable concepts; a "never changing constant creator" might be easier to pretend to understand than pure "impersonal platonic-epicurean" randomness.
What do you think? Did you learn something? Spot a mistake in either side of the argument? Some of my metaphors and points might be a bit hard to understand (or koanesque) because I didn't really elaborate.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 05-10-2012 at 06:26 PM..
If evolution was true, why are there constants >> Planks constant etc.. wouldn't we expect randomness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by distraff
If the theory of gravity is true then why are there constant?
I would suggest that you both enroll in university math courses to improve your understanding of Constants.
Constants exist for several reasons.
Some Constants are unchanging, like the Speed of Light. Variations in the speed of light are so minute as to have no affect on any calculations that you might be performing.
Other Constants describe relationships. In the RADAR equation we use Boltzman's Constant. There is a constant relationship between the energy of a particle and the temperature of the energy particle. That relationship never changes. As temperature approaches Absolute Zero, the particle has no energy. That's why everything comes to a complete stand-still at Absolute Zero.
And then you have those Constants that are Fudge Factors.
The Gravitational Constant is a Fudge Factor. There is no possible way we can know the mass of the Solar System or every celestial body in the Solar System, any more than we can know the total mass of Earth. The Fudge Factor (for the Gravitational Constant) accounts for all of the mass/masses that we are not aware exist.
One of the issues related to this is celestial bodies that are not within the confines of the traditional boundary of our Solar System. For example, it's said that none of the sensors on certain satellites detect a change in gravitational forces evidencing the existence of a "Planet X" outside of the Solar System proper.
I would argue that is because the gravitational force exerted by Planet X is already accounted in the Gravitational Constant. It would have to be within ~5.9 Billion km of Pluto in order to exert a force greater than the Gravitational Constant (and be discovered).
Also, a Constant does not negate randomness. In the classic equation
e = m c ^2 we see that while c is a constant representing the speed of light, m is a variable representing mass.
The fact that all equations have variables guarantees randomness.
In any event the existence or absence of Constants has no bearing on Evolution, which is by nature, chaotically random since natural background radiation is (well, at this stage of the game maybe "was" is more accurate) the primary driving force behind mutations.
I would suggest that you both enroll in university math courses to improve your understanding of Constants.
Constants exist for several reasons.
Some Constants are unchanging, like the Speed of Light [though a vacuum]. Variations in the speed of light [through a vacuum] are so minute as to have no affect on any calculations that you might be performing.
Other Constants describe relationships. In the RADAR equation we use Boltzman's Constant. There is a constant relationship between the energy of a particle and the temperature of the energy particle. That relationship never changes. As temperature approaches Absolute Zero, the particle has no [kinetic] energy. That's why everything comes to a complete stand-still at Absolute Zero.
And then you have those Constants that are Fudge Factors.
The [Earth's]Gravitational Constant is a Fudge Factor. There is no possible way we can know the mass of the Solar System or every celestial body in the Solar System, any more than we can know the total mass of Earth. The Fudge Factor (for the Gravitational Constant) accounts for all of the mass/masses that we are not aware exist.
One of the issues related to this is celestial bodies that are not within the confines of the traditional boundary of our Solar System. For example, it's said that none of the sensors on certain satellites detect a change in gravitational forces evidencing the existence of a "Planet X" outside of the Solar System proper. [O.k. now I'm not even sure what you are talking about, how is the "g" in F=Gm1m2/r^2 a Fudge Factor?]
I would argue that is because the gravitational force exerted by Planet X is already accounted in the Gravitational Constant. It would have to be within ~5.9 Billion km of Pluto in order to exert a force greater than the Gravitational Constant (and be discovered).
Also, a Constant does not negate randomness. In the classic equation
e = m c ^2 we see that while c is a constant representing the speed of light, m is a variable representing mass.
The fact that all equations have variables guarantees randomness.
In any event the existence or absence of Constants has no bearing on [mutations in]Evolution, which is by nature, chaotically random since natural background radiation is (well, at this stage of the game maybe "was" is more accurate) the primary driving force behind mutations [while natural selection is the primary driving force behind biological evolution].
Constantly...
Mircea
speed of light changes when it goes through substances. you mistakenly forgot to say some things completely.
I would suggest that you both enroll in university math courses to improve your understanding of Constants.
Constants exist for several reasons.
Some Constants are unchanging, like the Speed of Light. Variations in the speed of light are so minute as to have no affect on any calculations that you might be performing.
Other Constants describe relationships. In the RADAR equation we use Boltzman's Constant. There is a constant relationship between the energy of a particle and the temperature of the energy particle. That relationship never changes. As temperature approaches Absolute Zero, the particle has no energy. That's why everything comes to a complete stand-still at Absolute Zero.
And then you have those Constants that are Fudge Factors.
The Gravitational Constant is a Fudge Factor. There is no possible way we can know the mass of the Solar System or every celestial body in the Solar System, any more than we can know the total mass of Earth. The Fudge Factor (for the Gravitational Constant) accounts for all of the mass/masses that we are not aware exist.
One of the issues related to this is celestial bodies that are not within the confines of the traditional boundary of our Solar System. For example, it's said that none of the sensors on certain satellites detect a change in gravitational forces evidencing the existence of a "Planet X" outside of the Solar System proper.
I would argue that is because the gravitational force exerted by Planet X is already accounted in the Gravitational Constant. It would have to be within ~5.9 Billion km of Pluto in order to exert a force greater than the Gravitational Constant (and be discovered).
Also, a Constant does not negate randomness. In the classic equation
e = m c ^2 we see that while c is a constant representing the speed of light, m is a variable representing mass.
The fact that all equations have variables guarantees randomness.
In any event the existence or absence of Constants has no bearing on Evolution, which is by nature, chaotically random since natural background radiation is (well, at this stage of the game maybe "was" is more accurate) the primary driving force behind mutations.
Constantly...
Mircea
Dang! I guess Lee's arguments don't disprove gravity. I should have known.
Of course, this also depends on which came first, the evolution within a constants-driven system, or that the constants that preceded Evolution which thus shaped its eventual outcomes.
This is at the basis of the rather silly argument that arises far too often: that the perfect fit of our lives and the earth's (and even the universe's) existence owes itself entirely to some pre-determined set of Godly created "perfect for life!" conditions.
I'll argue that, logically ond obviously, the events and outcomes we do see around us are precisely the end-result of those very constants which presented themselves as things fit themselves to those pre-existing conditions! Chicken vs. egg vs. chicken!
That if Imaginary Constant X were different, and, let's say, the freezing point of water were, say, 25 degrees colder, then by golly, the earth would indeed be different. I agree! But it would still exist, all without God's hand.
If the ice age had happened at different temperatures, it would indeed have spread over different areas, at a different rate and to different points on the globe! And? So what? Then some would be saying" "Why, if the temp of water's freezing were even two degrees different, then it could not have happened at all!"
Rubbish! It would just be "different" is all!
How insightful! But it only goes to show that the world and universe as we observe it (which is no doubt a lot different than the true reality of it all, since we know so very little of it as of now...), is purely a byproduct of the conditions in which it all evolved. This is so patently logical that I cannot for the life or mind of me understand why it's so easily mis-understood. And why this is then somehow seen as "Absolute proof of divine Godly intervention!"
In fact, it's more proof of an un-Godly "happening" according to the simple facts of nature and a facultative Evolution under the existing conditions of that nature! That argument that the water in the puddle was "Designed" to fit the puddle exactly, rather than the puddle "adapting" to the existing hole. Which one do you believe in?
If the Constant is NOT constant, you can throw all the Physics equations out the window. You've only proved that Scientists don't hold all the answers.
They are only observing Creatures not Creative beings. They can only copycat from the Great designer - the Almighty.
Last I checked, Planks constant is indeed a Constant - observed in the time space continuum.
If the Constant is NOT constant, you can throw all the Physics equations out the window. You've only proved that Scientists don't hold all the answers.
.
But the priests do?
That's not quite true, the part about the constants being necessary.
The Physics equations aren't dependent upon the constants being constant. In fact, science is very adept to changing when better equations arrive.
We will only throw the old equations out when they are proven false or proven inferior.
Quote:
They are only observing Creatures not Creative beings. They can only copycat from the Great designer - the Almighty.
Scientists observe creative beings all the time. The Sun creates higher elements, people make t.v. Scientists don't copy from some "great designer" otherwise, there would be "great designs" which there aren't. There is mostly "good enough" designs. What scientists do is STAND on the shoulders of Giants. In fact, most scientists don't copy natural patterns, they learn about and uncover their existence.
Quote:
Last I checked, Planks constant is indeed a Constant - observed in the time space continuum.
I'm not sure which person said Plank's constant was not constant. Someone pointed out that the word "constant" means and is used for some different things in the noble practice of Science. I said that it could have perhaps evolved (or be subject to eventual change) as you suggested, but that was unlikely given the evidence and use of induction and Occam's razor.
If the Constant is NOT constant, you can throw all the Physics equations out the window. You've only proved that Scientists don't hold all the answers.
They are only observing Creatures not Creative beings. They can only copycat from the Great designer - the Almighty.
Last I checked, Planks constant is indeed a Constant - observed in the time space continuum.
When have you ever heard a scientist, any scientist say that they have all the answers...If they did there would be no more need for science.
Your "great designer" is a figment of the imagination and does not exist in the real world...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Logic or illogic? You be the judge.
