Topic: from one scientist to the next...

[JAG]

I wish you guys can keep this going, or maybe I need to go find a physics/science/... /.../...  forum!

Although my knowledge on these theories are quite limited, I would love to continue it further, however some of these books I check out from the library or try and read are so much above my realm/scope of knowledge.

I suppose I need things dumbed down for me. Kind of like an explanation that comes along with an illustration.

I love watching The Universe on History Channel, Science Channel The Secret, What the bleep do we know. All of those things. Anything or anyone that can input a question to the balance and ask the question Why/What/How, etc.

Any advice or readings that will allow me to take it to the next step, so therefore instead of reguritating what everyone else says, may be get to the point where I can ponder and theorize myself??

Thanks for the posts guys.

[Markcb750]

Nice thread.

I have read:

The Relativity of Wrong

Isaac Asimov’s  essays on science topics from a magazine.  He covers topics from atomic isotopes to the accuracy of 22/7 in computing the circumference of a circle.  His Discussions on how isotopes where “discovered” is great.  My tag line is one of his quotes BTW

A Brief History of Time

Hawking's book on the debate between quantum mechanics and general relativity.  Only one equation in the book, E=mC^2.

The First Three Minutes

Steven Weinberg’s excellent description of what happen from one plank time instant after this quantum zero state came into being to three minutes after that event. The events are based on what is now termed classical quantum mechanics.  


Wrinkles in Time

George Smoot's book on the COBE (cosmic background explorer) satellite and the detection of light from the early universe and how its minor variations indicate the universe was not smooth, hence it is filled with lumps we see as galaxies today.

The Elegant Universe

Brian Green’s attempt to make string theory accessible to the masses. He also did a series on TV titled the same. Difficult to come to a viable conclusion about string theory, it makes predictions of the basic parameters of the universe such as the weak and strong atomic force, but it’s underlying hypothesis is beyond current science’s ability  to confirm.  How does one confirm something that requires 11 dimensional space to exist from inside a 4 dimensional environment?  WTFK

Origins of Existence

Fred Adam’s attempt to establish a rational basis for slimy bags of protein trying to understand the universe.  Because of holes in knowledge he makes several leaps.  (Some time we may know it all, but not now.)

The End of Time

Julian Barbour makes a case for altering our understanding of the universe by removing time as a fundamental dimension.  Interesting but…


The Mind of God

Paul Davies' book that attempts to show we live within a computer programmed hologram…Interesting but I was not impressed.  I guess I include it because it is my attempt to examine an alternative to the uncertainty principle based universe I have come to accept.

Mark

[wannabridin]

just to let y'all know, i'm not ignoring anything, it's just i haven't seen my gf in a week, so we've been hanging out a lot to make up for it...

and ya, Brian green is an amazing author!!

i'll reply as soon as i can with replies to the comments and other books i have and will read! 

please keep this going, any topics are appreciated!!!  well i should say any scientific topics are, i don't want this to turn into a religious or life discussion... 

[sangyo soichiro]

Origins of Existence

Fred Adam’s attempt to establish a rational basis for slimy bags of protein trying to understand the universe.  Because of holes in knowledge he makes several leaps.  (Some time we may know it all, but not now.)

I know Fred.  I was going to try to have him be my advisor had I went to Michigan.  I chose a different school though.  He's a really cool guy in real life.

[sangyo soichiro]

But I'll leave you with this little tidbit for a possible future discussion...

∞≠∞   

By the way, I was serious about this.... 

[Markcb750]

But I'll leave you with this little tidbit for a possible future discussion...

∞≠∞   

By the way, I was serious about this.... 

Then we can move on to what does 1/0 equal...

[mystic_1]

But I'll leave you with this little tidbit for a possible future discussion...

∞≠∞   

By the way, I was serious about this.... 

Then we can move on to what does 1/0 equal...

"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
  --  Steven Wright





mystic_1

[Markcb750]

Steven Wright is a comic genius.

OK, so what's the speed of dark?

[wannabridin]

what's the speed of thought??  oohhhhhhhhhhh

ya, so gf got WAY too drunk tonight and caused a LOT of drama, so i might actually have some time to talk about this in the morning.

i was serious about any and all questions raised in this thread too soichiro!  we can discuss that soon!  i'm excited!!  sorry for the delays guys

[sangyo soichiro]

But I'll leave you with this little tidbit for a possible future discussion...

∞≠∞  

By the way, I was serious about this....  

If anyone is interested in this, then I suggest some study in number theory, real analysis, and set theory.

Okay, so here's how it goes. Any set of numbers has what is called cardinality. Cardinality is nothing more than the number of elements in a set. For example, take the set of even numbers between, and including, 0 and 10: {0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10}. The cardinality of this set is 6 (it has 6 elements).

Now, with the definition of cardinality in hand, let's talk about infinity. For our set, let's take the positive integers (1, 2, 3, ..., ∞). This is denoted by a "fancy" capital Z+. (I say "fancy" because on the chalkboard it is written with two diagonal lines instead of one, and the + signifies the positive ones.) The cardinality of Z is... you guessed it... infinity. The cardinality of this set is denoted by the Hebrew letter aleph. More precisely, aleph-null (the letter aleph with a subscript zero).

Now... let's take for our set, all the integers (not just the positive ones, but the positive, negative, and the element zero). You may think that we just doubled our set and added another element (zero) so it must be larger. Can anyone guess what the cardinality of this set is?

It is still infinity (aleph-null)!

This kind of set, such as the set of positive integers, and the set of all integers, is further defined as being countably infinite, - it is denumerable.  For example, we can start with the number zero, then increment one positive and one negative, and keep repeating this forever as we count (0, 1, -1, 2, -2, ...). We can count them. And the cardinality of the two sets I gave as examples can be proven to be the same if we can define a one-to-one and onto mapping between the two sets (which we can).

Now, you may have guessed that there are sets that are infinite and not countable. For example, there are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1. Try to count them. Here, I'll get you started: 0. But where do we go from there? See... we can't count them!

Okay, almost done...
Now let's take as our set the set of all real numbers (R). (Z and Z+ are subsets of this set by the way, and R is a subset of C - the set of all complex numbers. Just an aside....) With the set of all real numbers, R, in our mind's grasp, can anyone guess what the cardinality of this set is?

Yup. Infinity. But...
Do you think it is the same as the infinity of Z?

The answer is NO!

The cardinality of R is not equal to the cardinality of Z!
(The cardinality of R may be aleph-one, but it is still unproven - see the continuum hypothesis).)

So how would we prove this you might ask?  If they are one-to-one and onto, then the cardinality is the same.  But we are not able to define a one-to-one and onto mapping between the two sets, which means the cardinality is not the same.  Mathematically, you start by assuming you can make this mapping, and do a proof by contradiction.

The moral of all this is that sometimes infinity does not even equal infinity. There are different "degrees" of infinity!


The person who first realized this was Georg Ferdinand Ludwig Philipp Cantor.  He suffered from mental illness.  Coincidence...?  I don't think so....

[Markcb750]

I find things like this to be exercises in thought, nothing more.  Infinity is what it is.  It is unending.  

You mathematical friend has made an analogy of it, then debated the analogy's characteristics, then said the analogy is not it.  Word games played by philosophers, meaningless.

Just an engineers view.


So are you a, 1/0 is irrational, or a 1/0 is another way to express infinity person.

[sangyo soichiro]

It's also interesting that you can get a conditionally convergent series to converge to any number by simply rearranging the terms.  Learned that in Calc II.  It's too late to go into this though....

[Markcb750]

On to my favorite theory " The Big Bang"

There are lots of problems in this theory, most of them taking many paragraphs to explain. 

The Foremost problem is the name,  “The Big Bang”, which is attributed to British astronomer Fred Hoyle.  When Einstein’s Relatively theories where first subjected to peer review during the first half of the 20th century Hoyle was part of the group that felt Einstein was mistaken because his theory requires space to be expanding.  Hoyle's group felt that space must be in what they described as Steady State.  The Big Bang label was meant to be derogatory, and to this day leads laymen to think of the event as a giant firecracker, that the expanding universe is the sparkles we see in our telescopes.

There was no Bang, Depending on which theory you want to examine it was either a spontaneous perturbation of the zero state of empty space (which is not really empty, but contains virtual particles that are being created/destroyed within something labeled the Plank time), or it is the passing collision of higher dimensioned branes (think of branes as planes with more then 2 dimensions).

Either way as this event expands the energy within its boundaries coalesces into the mater we see and be.  Put  baking soda and vinegar inside a balloon, tie the balloon and shake it, as it expands look at the water condense into a mist inside the balloon, what we see in the sky is analogous to what forms inside the balloon.  All of the energy available to the universe was there in the beginning, all the mater we can see condensed from this energy very close to the beginning. ( perhaps this is why E=MC^2) What we see today is that mater slowly turning back to energy within stars, gravity wells and chemical reactions.


I have followed this debate as far as my intellectual skills will allow.  What I come away with is a belief in infinity.  There is one, what we see cannot exist with out it.  Even if we are only holograms dancing through a cosmic computers logic gates. 

[sangyo soichiro]

This may be interesting to some...

According to the energy diagram in the original post, the universe has put out 10⁷⁰ Joules since creation.

Using the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years, this corresponds to an average power of
3.1 x 10⁴⁹ horsepower, or
31,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 hp.

A stock CB 750 gets somewhere between 60 to 70.

[Markcb750]

This may be interesting to some...

According to the energy diagram in the original post, the universe has put out 10⁷⁰ Joules since creation.

Using the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years, this corresponds to an average power of
3.1 x 10⁴⁹ horsepower, or
31,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 hp.

When you say put out, what do you mean?

[sangyo soichiro]

This may be interesting to some...

According to the energy diagram in the original post, the universe has put out 10⁷⁰ Joules since creation.

Using the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years, this corresponds to an average power of
3.1 x 10⁴⁹ horsepower, or
31,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 hp.

When you say put out, what do you mean?

Look at the diagram.

[Markcb750]

This may be interesting to some...

According to the energy diagram in the original post, the universe has put out 10⁷⁰ Joules since creation.

Using the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years, this corresponds to an average power of
3.1 x 10⁴⁹ horsepower, or
31,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 hp.

When you say put out, what do you mean?

Look at the diagram.

There is no diagram grasshopper.

BTW I know what you are saying, it is just porly stated...

You could say the universe has "created" energy through various processes which convert mass into energy, fusion being the primary method.

You could say the Universe has re-converted mass to energy.


My old girlfriend put out.

[sangyo soichiro]

This may be interesting to some...

According to the energy diagram in the original post, the universe has put out 10⁷⁰ Joules since creation.

Using the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years, this corresponds to an average power of
3.1 x 10⁴⁹ horsepower, or
31,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 hp.

When you say put out, what do you mean?

Look at the diagram.

There is no diagram grasshopper.

BTW I know what you are saying, it is just porly stated...

You could say the universe has "created" energy through various processes which convert mass into energy, fusion being the primary method.

You could say the Universe has re-converted mass to energy.


My old girlfriend put out.

 

There's a figure attached to the very first post.  It's also mentioned in the very first sentence of the very first post.  I just took that number, multiplied it by another number, and divided that by yet another.

That airplane thread must still be bugging you. Ha ha ha.   

[Markcb750]

So you meant output not put out, interesting.  Sorry I could not see it with out processing the jpeg to darken it a little.  My bad.


The airplane thread doesn't bother me grasshopper, obfuscation does...and the extent poor knowledge of physics is displayed by some, promoted by others for entertainment.


The really interesting part of the airplane thread was how some cannot even understand the evidence before their eyes, makes me afraid every time I think about making a mistake and winding up being tried by a group of people with this level of reasoning capability...scary.


So tell us are you a "1/0 is irrational". or a, "1/0 is an expression of infinity", type of guy?

[mlinder]

lol.

[Duke McDukiedook]

I know, to think that people actually thought it would fly... fools, all fools

[mlinder]

I know, to think that people actually thought it would fly... fools, all fools

...... . . .  .  .   .   .    .     .      .       .

[wannabridin]

yes, the joule amount of energy "converted" so far in the universe is quite astounding.  but when one thinks about it, and an infinite universe, does this mean that energy is infinite?  one might be able to comprehend this based on M-theory by suggesting that the "big-bang" was actually two parts of two other dimensional planes coming into contact with each other.  couple this with the multiverse theory, and there is your infinite amount of energy...  now it's just a matter of our galactic engines to convert it into something we can use and appreciate,  LIGHT!!!  maybe if one looked at black holes as not a point of singularity where matter MIGHT be "destroyed" but as a wormhole where it was simple transferred to another dimensional plane and vice-versa, this could help explain the unexplained energy concentrations that dot our cosmic landscape.  one can hypothesize all day and just get angry though...  maybe Asimov was onto something; maybe there IS something in this universe that is reversing entropy and causing an unexplained stream of energy.  dark matter perhaps??  zero point energy?  

So tell us are you a "1/0 is irrational". or a, "1/0 is an expression of infinity", type of guy?

who was this aimed at oh-wise-one?  is there any way to be both?  Schrodinger would state that one would be able to know what both sides of the coin say simultaneously, so why can't i feel that 1/0 is irrational yet infinite?

maybe 0=∞.  wait, it DOES, when it's taken relative to the proper set of data.  

i do feel behind in one area of this discussion, and that is math/number theory.  never have read too much about it, or been exposed to too much really, which is unfortunate, considering how important it can be...  


just to defend myself, i never claimed to be a physics master, but i feel that compared to the rest of the general population, even a majority of those in and around my age group and profession, i am more well read and versed in this matter than most...  this just comes from my insatiable thirst for new knowledge and my ability to be "bothered" by that which i don't know.  like I've said before, this just leads to my incurable ignorance!  

 i LOVE this thread!!!

[Markcb750]

wannabridin :

Not aimed at anyone in particular, would like to have a comment from the zen master soichiro, but...


I think the intersting thing about both the partical theories and the string theories, and even Einstein's theories is they all can be wrong. 

That is the point of Isaac Azimov's essay "The Relativity of Wrong".  All out theories of cosmology and particle physics could be wrong, but they provide a way to predict events so they are useful to us.  It could be turtles all the way down, from "A Brief History of Time", but them turtles act like space time is warped in the vicinity of mass.


To me zero is a construct that makes our math system function, like the theories  above it has no absolute relationship to the universe The universe does not do math it just is.  sounds like eastern mysticism I know but it is how I look at it.  Until somebody pulls a big old slide rule out of zero space, its my story and I am sticking to it.


Mark

[wannabridin]

good response mark, enjoyable read.  i do feel that zero is a beautiful part of math, i actually have a book over it, along with a book on the constants, the constants of nature.  great reads, if you can appreciate them.  i appreciate you and soichiro chiming in so much, so keep things coming.  early bedtime for me tonight, so hopefully i can get some more thoughts out tomorrow at work! 

this has become a slight place of zen inside of my comfort zone (the forums).