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.
Absolutely. The idea that we are sure that something like the elongation of electromagnetic wavelengths can ONLY be the result of increasing distance is pure hubris. Who is to say that it is impossible for EM radiation to be stretched due to interaction with an incredibly thin concentration of dark matter, or something inherent in the structure of space itself that we simply haven't discovered yet? Yet the vast majority of researchers just accept that you can scale the Doppler Effect to the entire universe, and that's that.
It's pretty simple actually. The light from the Andromeda galaxy which is gravitationally bound to our own Milky Way galaxy is blue shifted while the light from all non-gravitationally bound galaxies is red shifted. Why the difference? Because light from an approaching object is shortened and therefore gets shifted toward the blue end of the spectrum while light from a receding object is lengthened toward the red end of the spectrum. Since the light from the Andromeda galaxy is blue shifted while the light from all non-gravitationally bound objects is red shifted it's a pretty good bet the Andromeda galaxy is approaching our galaxy and that non-gravitionally bound galaxies are receding from us.
Quote:
Quantum physics and all sorts of advanced maths are amazing tools, but that is all they are, man-made tools. We CREATED math, we didn't discover it. For a long time it helped us model the universe, but at some point there is more than we can understand with the tools at hand.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Whether math was created by man or discovered by man has been debated. But while man created the names for mathematical principles, it's pretty clear that the mathematical principles for which man has supplied names exist within nature apart from man.
A circle for instance involves the mathematical principle of pi. Pi is defined as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. The concentric rings that travel outward from splashes in a pond involves the principle of pi. Man gave the name 'pi' to the principle, but the principle naturally existed with or without a name put to it.
Another example is the Sunflower for which I'll post the following;
Bright, bold and beloved by bees, sunflowers boast radial symmetry and a type of numerical symmetry known as the Fibonacci sequence, which is a sequence where each number is determined by adding together the two numbers that preceded it. For example: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 24, 55, and so forth.
Scientists and flower enthusiasts who have taken the time to count the seed spirals in a sunflower have determined that the amount of spirals adds up to a Fibonacci number. This is not uncommon; many plants produce leaves, petals and seeds in the Fibonacci sequence. It’s actually the reason it’s so hard to find four-leaf clovers.
So, why do sunflowers and other plants abide by mathematical rules? Scientists theorise that it’s a matter of efficiency. In simple terms, sunflowers can pack in the maximum number of seeds if each seed is separated by an irrational-numbered angle.
The most irrational number is known as the golden ratio, or Phi. Coincidentally, dividing any Fibonacci number by the preceding number in the sequence will garner a number very close to Phi. So, with any plant following the Fibonacci sequence, there will be an angle corresponding to Phi (or ‘the golden angle’) between each seed, leaf, petal, or branch.
Mathematical principles, with or without man to supply names for the principles, exist in nature. Man discovered the principle of pi. He didn't create it. Nor did man create the Fibonacci sequence which exists in nature. He discovered it.
The universe arose from a quantum fluctuation, OK, great, and you sold some books.
Fairy tale? Hardly not.
In order to understand the origin of the universe, we need to combine the General Theory of Relativity with Quantum Theory.
Krauss is not the only person who published papers and wrote books on this subject.
Sounds like you have a personal vendetta against Krauss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimAZ
Now Dr. Krauss, can you explain where the laws of quantum mechanics came from since they had to predate your initial state?
A natural scientific law is a general statement that can be used to summarize observations of natural phenomena.
Quote:
A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the universe.
Like theories and hypotheses, laws make predictions (specifically, they predict that new observations will conform to the law), and can be falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data.
Asking where scientific laws come from is no different then asking where did the Universe come from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimAZ
Physicist John Wheeler once warned his young grad students about things they should avoid. He said never chase women, busses, or theories of cosmology, another will come along in a few minutes.
Do you have a link to Wheeler stating these exact words or is this just your own personal narrative?
I wonder why a scientist who should know how long it takes for a hypothesis to become a scientific theory would make such a statement? Seems rather odd.
Then you've never listened to any of his condescending sermons.
Can you take your personal vendetta against Kruass somewhere else?
We are here to discuss science not petty personal vendettas against Krauss who has contributed a lot in helping others to understand difficult concepts in science.
So you believe mathematics is a man-made tool? Philosopher Karl Popper found an interesting paradox in that line of thinking: Science tells us with great certainty that humans are living creatures emergent from a physical world. By extension human consciousness must also be part and parcel of that same physical world, yet we cannot fully explain consciousness or recreate it using inanimate, physical objects.
In particular, the mathematical concepts of zero and infinity find no expression anywhere in our physical world, yet we routinely manipulate and use them in conscious thought processes. How is this possible if our minds (and mathematics) are solely products of a physical world?
Then you've never listened to any of his condescending sermons.
Have you listened to any of his open-minded explanations? You have to catch the guy when he hasn't been recently exposed to too much blatant stupidity.
And no, he doesn't say that. In all the talks I've seen, he always explains that humanity has always thought of the (particle and wave-particle) emptied vacuum of space as "nothingness." To say that his "nothing" is "something" is to say that we have NEVER and WILL NEVER be exposed to or be around "nothingness." Becuase for our bodies/brains to exist, they have to follow the laws. A lawless place existing would be more powerful than anything ever imaginable or labeled but unimaginable. Anything "lawful" by definition has a constraint! While lawless nothingness would not have any constraints to control or define it.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 03-18-2018 at 02:34 PM..
So you believe mathematics is a man-made tool? Philosopher Karl Popper found an interesting paradox in that line of thinking: Science tells us with great certainty that humans are living creatures emergent from a physical world. By extension human consciousness must also be part and parcel of that same physical world, yet we cannot fully explain consciousness or recreate it using inanimate, physical objects.
In particular, the mathematical concepts of zero and infinity find no expression anywhere in our physical world, yet we routinely manipulate and use them in conscious thought processes. How is this possible if our minds (and mathematics) are solely products of a physical world?
Not by magic or appeal to possible "higher planes of existence" certainly.
LOL It's too much of a stretch when sober awareness of our questions would be adequate.
...Where Consciousness Comes From
One step closer every day, one step further from pretenders.
Have you listened to any of his open-minded explanations? You have to catch the guy when he hasn't been recently exposed to too much blatant stupidity.
And no, he doesn't say that. In all the talks I've seen, he always explains that humanity has always thought of the (particle and wave-particle) emptied vacuum of space as "nothingness." To say that his "nothing" is "something" is to say that we have NEVER and WILL NEVER be exposed to or be around "nothingness." Becuase for our bodies/brains to exist, they have to follow the laws. A lawless place existing would be more powerful than anything ever imaginable or labeled but unimaginable. Anything "lawful" by definition has a constraint! While lawless nothingness would not have any constraints to control or define it.
You appear to be trying to explain that 'nothing' is 'something.' But Lawence Krauss explains it in terms I can better relate to.
As Lawrence Krauss explains it, 'nothing' is something and has weight because in Physics 'nothing' is understood to be a brew of virtual particles fluctuating in and out of existence. He explains in this 3 minute video.
These virtual particles which are constantly being created and destroyed on very small time scales form in particle/anti-particle pairs which annihilate each other. But because of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, sometimes these fluctuations can result in a universe coming into existence from 'nothing.'
There's a hypothesis called the 'Vacuum Genesis hypothesis' that the Universe itself is one big virtual particle. The idea being that the entire universe began as a big fluctuation in the 'nothing', the vacuum energy field of fluctuating virtual particles from which it arose. That then would be the so called 'big bang.'
Last edited by Michael Way; 03-18-2018 at 05:11 PM..
You appear to be trying to explain that 'nothing' is 'something.' But Lawence Krauss explains it in terms I can better relate to.
As Lawrence Krauss explains it, 'nothing' is something and has weight because in Physics 'nothing' is understood to be a brew of virtual particles fluctuating in and out of existence. He explains in this 3 minute video.
These virtual particles which are constantly being created and destroyed on very small time scales form in particle/anti-particle pairs which annihilate each other. But because of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, sometimes these fluctuations can result in a universe coming into existence from 'nothing.'
There's a hypothesis called the 'Vacuum Genesis hypothesis' that the Universe itself is one big virtual particle. The idea being that the entire universe began as a big fluctuation in the 'nothing', the vacuum energy field of fluctuating virtual particles from which it arose. That then would be the so called 'big bang.'
Well I'm glad he was more succinct for you than I was. But I was trying to say basically the same thing.
What quality of "something" did you see in my (wholly non-something, or perhaps not, as a constraint put on it IS something) nothing?
Was it when I called it "more powerful" because all I meant by that is that "nothing" would automatically have zero constraints (even to the point of illogic) compared to "something." Therefore, "something" would be more constrained than "nothing" and thus be "less powerful/capable."
Nothing would "both AND neither" be more capable because of its lack of constraints, and be less capable because of its lack of directives. A true conundrum.
Yet what "zero" and "lack" defines IS nothing, after all.
So then perhaps "nothing" simply can't exist nor be made.
Yet, oddly enough, there IS tiny forms of "nothing" in order to allow constraints to keep existing on "something."
What effect does an electron have by itself on creating a photon a thousand feet away from it? Answer: Nothing...
or no? I guess quantum physics might eventually have something contradictory to say about that. (i.e. the existence of "micro/partial-nothings" rather than fractional somethings)
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 03-18-2018 at 09:51 PM..
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.
