It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Resonance: Music, Quantum, and Chaos

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



from the first thread and response I have read from you till this last one, I dont know if I had made great progress with comprehending how what you have been saying relates to the reality we inhabit.


I get that your questions are in earnest. however, it is my honest assessment that you have not done your due diligence, and I refuse to debate fundamental issues such as the definition of chaos theory.

if you ask for an example of noise and chaos, and I put up two pictures of birds, and you do not understand .....

.....then that is something you need to take up with wiki. I have fulfilled your request.

I have spent one hell of a lot of time and effort not just composing these threads, but also in developing what I feel are effective platforms for communicating these concepts in simple and intuitive terms. so, I feel really disrespected when I have to roll the whole train backwards because you weren't clear on something that you could do a quick Google on.

that makes me an egotist?




posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


Very well, I will remain on the sidelines out of your way, eagerly awaiting the privilege of witnessing your brilliance unfold. You may commence.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
in honor of my continued unfolding brilliance, i was inspired today to write some prose.
 


THE PARABLE OF THE TRAVELER AT A WAYPOINT.

a certain traveler, pausing at a waypoint of his journey, decides to draw a map which leads the way to a location in the local terrain from which the traveler claims to have been able to view, all at once, a panorama of many of the destinations which are of significance to the community at large.

the traveler gives this map to his local fellows at the waypoint, and offers as evidence for the existence of this fabulous lookout, a second map, showing pathways between the significant destinations which appear to be much simpler than the long and perilous traditional pathways.

many of the local fellows compare their own maps to the new one and are able to identify many similarities and differences between the two. other fellows immediately identify positions along these new pathways where they believe exist mudpits and other various obstacles. a third group, already familiar with most of the terrain, sets out upon the new pathways drawn and in shorttime returns to the waypoint, reporting that the lookout exists and was, indeed, worth the trip.

the first group, largely satisfied with their own maps, congenially decline the new one.

the second group, compelled by the success of the third group, petition the traveler to add additional trails and demarcations around the obstacles which they are certain exist. the traveler attempts to assure this group that if they set out upon the path and are careful to heed the demarcations which have been provided, they will share in the success of the third party.

but, rather than following the carefully laid plans of the explorer, members of the second group determine that they must examine the new map more carefully, summarily deciding that its demarcations are mere contrivances of the explorer who is clearly a pompous idiot because he has no desire to lead the group to the lookout directly.

having not set upon the pathway, nor heeding the demarcations which were deliberately given for assistance, the second group berates the traveler for not providing additional demarcations to their liking (in spite of the fact that no attempt was made at heeding the original demarcations), crumbles the map into a ball and hurls it at the traveler.

the second group remains, trapped, at the waypoint.

the traveler stores his new map in his pocket, and sets himself upon another path.


THE END.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Ima, David Lorentz in relation to comprehending weather patterns, using computer simulations is a pretty good way to begin to understand Chaos theory.

And what about Susskind at Stanford in relation to Holograms and black holes a vid was posted of one of his lectures in this thread.

edit on 13-8-2013 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


That is a very good example.

A man dies and he finds himself on a walk way surrounded by a field of grass, except along a path. He begins to walk along that path and after perhaps an hour of walking he encounters a dog. Not just any dog but one he had lived with as a child and the dog remembers him. Both he and the dog begin to walk along the path and several hours later they reach a fork in the road. The man decides to go right and the dog follows him.

Several more hours pass and they encounter an incredible sight. As they approach the man sees and incredible city, surrounded by a 10 foot fence made of pearls. There is a gate both sides made of solid diamond and behind that gate is another man behind a desk.

The man approaches the gate in order the speak to the man behind the desk. He asks if he could have some water? The man behind the gate tells him that the only thing he need do in order to get water, is open the gate and enter the city. The man asked the person behind the desk if his dog could enter and the man responded
that dogs were not allowed in the city.

So the man left and the dog followed him. He followed the path back to the fork in the road and then followed to the left and continued along that path. Several hours past and by this time both the man and the dog were tired and very thirsty.

At that time they came across a vast farm with, a house at its center. They approached the property and noticed an old fashion well water pump. And as well a man sitting in a chair that was leaning against the house in the center of the property. The man with the dog called out to him and asked if he and his dog could have some water. The man that was in the chair said "of course you can. " and began walking towards the pump to provide
water for the man. The man then asked," is it ok for my dog to also have some". To which the man walking towards the water pump said, " no problem at all please feel free to approach. "

The man and the dog approached the other man and the water. He noticed there was only one bowl from, which to drink the water. He took the bowl and first provided water to his dog and only after his dogs thirst was quenched did he also drink from the same bowl.

Once the mans thirst was quenched he turned to the man who had allowed both he and his dog to have access to water. He then said, "You know prior to coming here I found an incredible city but they would not allow my dog in, what is going on"? The man who had helped them responded " Oh you see that was hell and you just made it to heaven".

Author Unknown.

Perhaps yes it is of topic, perhaps

Any thoughts?



edit on 13-8-2013 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


How diseases are transmitted that result in pandemics.

The mythos related to the Chicago Fire.

A time in the life of the Universe where it began expanding at the speed of light (probably)


edit on 13-8-2013 by Kashai because: modifed content



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


in order to smooth over these confusions and bad feelings, i offer yet another solution.

this is my fourth attempt at fixing the problems of one thread by opening another. i honestly dont know if that is a good or a bad thing. oh well.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


I am not totally sure, myself. haha perhaps this:

The aim of science is to make difficult things understandable in a simpler way. -Paul dirac


but I find it difficult to understand why chaos is math, but quantum isn't. mathematics and physics are often the same thing. I am not the first person to do so. sure, there is always a more precise language. but I do not want to overwhelm the topic. it can be a tricky balance. I think I am improving.


mathematics is mathematics, it's numbers.. without an application it is nothing more than a plain, ordered numerical system.. physics applies mathematical formulae to explain the relationships of observable forces..

chaos theory is the mathematical study of systems starting with certain conditions and developing from there over time.. it is i suppose you could call theoretical mathematics..

chaotic mathematics can be used to create pretty random fractal patterns and diagrams, but it is not enough to explain the laws of physics, which are as far as we know concrete and unchanging, in an ordered system..

quantum physics attempts to explain the mechanisms behind quantum particles, it has had much success so far in certain fields such as quantum electrodynamics, which completely agrees with special relativity and describes all interactions between matter and light through the exchange of photons between electrically charged particles..

the difference between chaos theory and physics is that they are both separate specialisations of mathematics.. chaos mathematics has many uses in different fields, including geology, (micro)biology, computer science, economics, engineering, meteorology, philosophy, physics, politics, psychology, robotics etc. etc..

it's basically a way of studying the potential behaviour of any system you know the starting conditions of, unfortunately we still haven't arrived at a conclusive answer for the starting conditions of our universe..


It can be difficult to tell from data whether a physical or other observed process is random or chaotic, because in practice no time series consists of pure 'signal.' There will always be some form of corrupting noise, even if it is present as round-off or truncation error. Thus any real time series, even if mostly deterministic, will contain some randomness.

All methods for distinguishing deterministic and stochastic processes rely on the fact that a deterministic system always evolves in the same way from a given starting point. Thus, given a time series to test for determinism, one can:

1. pick a test state
2. search the time series for a similar or 'nearby' state; and
3. compare their respective time evolutions.

Define the error as the difference between the time evolution of the 'test' state and the time evolution of the nearby state. A deterministic system will have an error that either remains small (stable, regular solution) or increases exponentially with time (chaos). A stochastic system will have a randomly distributed error.


wikiwikimath
edit on 20-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


Just thought id bring this up here as its something I thought of. The universe has a specific quantity of stuff/energy right? So I was wondering what kind of changes in the outcome of the universe could be predicted, if the quantity of energy was incrementally lessened. Would the same number of fields develop, what dark energy be the same, would subatomic particles form, would charge exist, etc.? Because I was thinking how difficult it may be for an intelligence of ignorance of this universe, to be given the rawest and most minimum data of the universe, the starting conditions, quantity of potential energy, subatomic particles, fields, nature of space, laws of physics, if it could be predicted that a stable universe of billions of spinning globes with billions of beings on them would arise.

If you and I were ghosts, and we had an infinite vacuum or finite vacuum of our choosing. And we had a huge grab bag of different potential particles/fields we could put into it, what would we have to do/how would we have to establish the materials and initial conditions in order to result in a universe like the one we exist in?



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by tgidkp
 


Just thought id bring this up here as its something I thought of. The universe has a specific quantity of stuff/energy right? So I was wondering what kind of changes in the outcome of the universe could be predicted, if the quantity of energy was incrementally lessened. Would the same number of fields develop, what dark energy be the same, would subatomic particles form, would charge exist, etc.? Because I was thinking how difficult it may be for an intelligence of ignorance of this universe, to be given the rawest and most minimum data of the universe, the starting conditions, quantity of potential energy, subatomic particles, fields, nature of space, laws of physics, if it could be predicted that a stable universe of billions of spinning globes with billions of beings on them would arise.


considering the amount of energy packed in the nucleus of a single uranium atom, or the energy that has been continuously radiating from the sun for billions of years, or the fact that there are 10^80 particles in the observable universe, it seems that the total energy in the universe must be an inconceivably vast quantity.. but it's not, it's probably zero..

light, matter and antimatter are what physicists call "positive energy".. and yes, there's a lot of it, though there is no known finite or specific amount of energy in the universe.. most physicists think, however, that there is an equal amount of "negative energy" stored in the gravitational attraction that exists between all the positive-energy particles. the positive exactly balances the negative, so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all..


If you and I were ghosts, and we had an infinite vacuum or finite vacuum of our choosing. And we had a huge grab bag of different potential particles/fields we could put into it, what would we have to do/how would we have to establish the materials and initial conditions in order to result in a universe like the one we exist in?


how would a ghost build a universe? is this what you are asking? my personal finding is that our three dimensional membrane of a universe most likely was born through the collision/mating of two parent universes floating around in the 12 or 13 dimensional soup/hyperspace/quantum field described by string and m theories.. the big bang effectively being the collapse/orgasm of hyperspace into a stable three dimensional membrane we call home..


Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Kashai
 


in order to smooth over these confusions and bad feelings, i offer yet another solution.

this is my fourth attempt at fixing the problems of one thread by opening another. i honestly dont know if that is a good or a bad thing. oh well.


the op of the linked thread reads like an old "science is a view of duality" argument, i have to respectfully disagree with its premise.. however;


i have a few questions:

- what is the difference between meaning and information?
- is science's description of reality regarding *strictly* information valid? how?
- can you think of an example in which science embraces "meaning", as defined here?
- does the example given offer any insights about what a "physics of life" might entail?
- is a "physics of life" necessary?


-information is objective truth, meaning is subjective interpretation/opinion

-it is valid in that it is objectively verifiable and repeatable/provable, independent and separate from any subjective interpretations of meaning

-the meaning of material science is the mathematical explanation of observable forces, any other "meaning" is a subjective interpretation.. an example of science embracing subjective interpretations of meaning would be in philosophical science, i.e;
"my focus should be on what i do in life, not knowing everything, excluding knowledge on what you do.. the is key to find a purpose, whatever it truly is that God wills me to do; it's crucial to find a truth which is true to me, to find the idea which I am willing to live and die for." -kierkegaard

-physics describes the interactions of forces, the "meaning" of those forces is philosophical, not physical

-physics can't describe "life", it can only describe the forces that create life.. to find the answer to your final question, you need to redefine the terms..
edit on 21-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind


considering the amount of energy packed in the nucleus of a single uranium atom, or the energy that has been continuously radiating from the sun for billions of years, or the fact that there are 10^80 particles in the observable universe, it seems that the total energy in the universe must be an inconceivably vast quantity.. but it's not, it's probably zero..

light, matter and antimatter are what physicists call "positive energy".. and yes, there's a lot of it, though there is no known finite or specific amount of energy in the universe.. most physicists think, however, that there is an equal amount of "negative energy" stored in the gravitational attraction that exists between all the positive-energy particles. the positive exactly balances the negative, so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all..


Thats the biggest cop out. So there is no energy, energy doesnt exist, glad that is settled. I understand what you are saying but I dont think its accurate. We agree a quantity of energy (positive energy exists now? so lets say that quantity equals 9999, or 99999 if you like, or 9999999...but yes for argument sake, right now it is 9999 value, positive quantity of energy/matter relative to if 0 quantity of energy/matter existed)so is this then an argument that a quantity of 0 energy/matter existed... and then 9999 existed, and then 0 will exist after time, times, and this is how you concluded that "it's probably zero"?



If you and I were ghosts, and we had an infinite vacuum or finite vacuum of our choosing. And we had a huge grab bag of different potential particles/fields we could put into it, what would we have to do/how would we have to establish the materials and initial conditions in order to result in a universe like the one we exist in?

how would a ghost build a universe? is this what you are asking? my personal finding is that our three dimensional membrane of a universe most likely was born through the collision/mating of two parent universes floating around in the 12 or 13 dimensional soup/hyperspace/quantum field described by string and m theories.. the big bang effectively being the collapse/orgasm of hyperspace into a stable three dimensional membrane we call home..


I hope you were just being silly and poking fun by asking how a ghost could build a universe, if you really didnt get my gist, allow me to hold your hand while I tell you that I was alluding to a hypothetical situation in which we as insignificant values to the outcome of the energetic universal system we wished to create (besides our intellectual and hypothetical maneuvering of material into the starting position for the thought experiment)would be able to conduct a physical thought experiment in which we tampered with the quantitative values in the universe, for I was wondering what the potential qualitative results may be, and what that says about the inherent qualitative aspects of the 'building blocks and fields' of this universe.



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by tachyonmind


considering the amount of energy packed in the nucleus of a single uranium atom, or the energy that has been continuously radiating from the sun for billions of years, or the fact that there are 10^80 particles in the observable universe, it seems that the total energy in the universe must be an inconceivably vast quantity.. but it's not, it's probably zero..

light, matter and antimatter are what physicists call "positive energy".. and yes, there's a lot of it, though there is no known finite or specific amount of energy in the universe.. most physicists think, however, that there is an equal amount of "negative energy" stored in the gravitational attraction that exists between all the positive-energy particles. the positive exactly balances the negative, so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all..


Thats the biggest cop out. So there is no energy, energy doesnt exist, glad that is settled. I understand what you are saying but I dont think its accurate. We agree a quantity of energy (positive energy exists now? so lets say that quantity equals 9999, or 99999 if you like, or 9999999...but yes for argument sake, right now it is 9999 value, positive quantity of energy/matter relative to if 0 quantity of energy/matter existed)so is this then an argument that a quantity of 0 energy/matter existed... and then 9999 existed, and then 0 will exist after time, times, and this is how you concluded that "it's probably zero"?


that's not what i said.. i said according to the thinking of current physics, there is an equal amount of positive and negative energy in the universe, which balance out into a stable three dimensional membrane.. energy doesn't exist until its affects are measured, it cannot be destroyed or created..




If you and I were ghosts, and we had an infinite vacuum or finite vacuum of our choosing. And we had a huge grab bag of different potential particles/fields we could put into it, what would we have to do/how would we have to establish the materials and initial conditions in order to result in a universe like the one we exist in?


how would a ghost build a universe? is this what you are asking? my personal finding is that our three dimensional membrane of a universe most likely was born through the collision/mating of two parent universes floating around in the 12 or 13 dimensional soup/hyperspace/quantum field described by string and m theories.. the big bang effectively being the collapse/orgasm of hyperspace into a stable three dimensional membrane we call home..



I hope you were just being silly and poking fun by asking how a ghost could build a universe, if you really didnt get my gist, allow me to hold your hand while I tell you that I was alluding to a hypothetical situation in which we as insignificant values to the outcome of the energetic universal system we wished to create (besides our intellectual and hypothetical maneuvering of material into the starting position for the thought experiment)would be able to conduct a physical thought experiment in which we tampered with the quantitative values in the universe, for I was wondering what the potential qualitative results may be, and what that says about the inherent qualitative aspects of the 'building blocks and fields' of this universe.


i was kinda poking fun a little, but my point still remains that you haven't defined the "quantifiable values" we would manipulate.. are you asking, for instance, what would happen if we created a universe were the force of gravity was halved? we'd end up with no matter.. if you change the laws of physics then everything becomes unstable and collapses..
edit on 21-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by tachyonmind


considering the amount of energy packed in the nucleus of a single uranium atom, or the energy that has been continuously radiating from the sun for billions of years, or the fact that there are 10^80 particles in the observable universe, it seems that the total energy in the universe must be an inconceivably vast quantity.. but it's not, it's probably zero..

light, matter and antimatter are what physicists call "positive energy".. and yes, there's a lot of it, though there is no known finite or specific amount of energy in the universe.. most physicists think, however, that there is an equal amount of "negative energy" stored in the gravitational attraction that exists between all the positive-energy particles. the positive exactly balances the negative, so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all..


Thats the biggest cop out. So there is no energy, energy doesnt exist, glad that is settled. I understand what you are saying but I dont think its accurate. We agree a quantity of energy (positive energy exists now? so lets say that quantity equals 9999, or 99999 if you like, or 9999999...but yes for argument sake, right now it is 9999 value, positive quantity of energy/matter relative to if 0 quantity of energy/matter existed)so is this then an argument that a quantity of 0 energy/matter existed... and then 9999 existed, and then 0 will exist after time, times, and this is how you concluded that "it's probably zero"?


that's not what i said.. i said according to the thinking of current physics, there is an equal amount of positive and negative energy in the universe, which balance out into a stable three dimensional membrane.. energy doesn't exist until its affects are measured, it cannot be destroyed or created..




If you and I were ghosts, and we had an infinite vacuum or finite vacuum of our choosing. And we had a huge grab bag of different potential particles/fields we could put into it, what would we have to do/how would we have to establish the materials and initial conditions in order to result in a universe like the one we exist in?


how would a ghost build a universe? is this what you are asking? my personal finding is that our three dimensional membrane of a universe most likely was born through the collision/mating of two parent universes floating around in the 12 or 13 dimensional soup/hyperspace/quantum field described by string and m theories.. the big bang effectively being the collapse/orgasm of hyperspace into a stable three dimensional membrane we call home..



I hope you were just being silly and poking fun by asking how a ghost could build a universe, if you really didnt get my gist, allow me to hold your hand while I tell you that I was alluding to a hypothetical situation in which we as insignificant values to the outcome of the energetic universal system we wished to create (besides our intellectual and hypothetical maneuvering of material into the starting position for the thought experiment)would be able to conduct a physical thought experiment in which we tampered with the quantitative values in the universe, for I was wondering what the potential qualitative results may be, and what that says about the inherent qualitative aspects of the 'building blocks and fields' of this universe.


i was kinda poking fun a little, but my point still remains that you haven't defined the "quantifiable values" we would manipulate.. are you asking, for instance, what would happen if we created a universe where the force of gravity was halved? we'd end up with no matter.. if you change the laws of physics then everything becomes unstable and collapses.. there is only one way the universe could exist, and that is how it is..

why over think/analyse when what we have currently to study already is so accurate?

edit on 21-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind

energy doesn't exist until its affects are measured, it cannot be destroyed or created..


Energy doesnt exist until its affects are measured...really...

It cannot be destroyed or created, implies that a value greater then 0 exists. There exists something, that something can be described in as many ways as needed to describe it, and as many ways that may correlate to exactly what and how and why and where that something is. And what the something is at its more fundamental level, that somethingness which allows all somethingness to ever exist, is not 0, and cannot be created or destroyed. This implies that there is a specific non 0 quantity of 'energy/stuff/something' that truly exists. Yours and/or sciences idea of negetive energy and the universe equaling 0 energy may be totally speculative and mathematically beneficial but realistically nonsensical and meaningless.

Why does science think the universes energy = 0, I udnerstand all you have explained and have heard this before, but all I have to say is, using the deffinition of energy to mean, somethingness which exists, or the ability to do work. Does the universe as a system have the ability to do work? Does it have energy/is it energy? Cant potentially 'negative energy' do work? Making even 'negative' energy' energy?




i was kinda poking fun a little, but my point still remains that you haven't defined the "quantifiable values" we would manipulate.. are you asking, for instance, what would happen if we created a universe were the force of gravity was halved? we'd end up with no matter.. if you change the laws of physics then everything becomes unstable and collapses..
edit on 21-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)


Yes a mixture of that is what im asking. Take the believed minimum ingredients for the existence of this universe right before it began, a singular quantity of energy? And adjust its quantity, how is it thought that would affect the outcome, and why so certain 'it would collapse', why is it impossible that other harmonic and orderly outcomes would not result? Gravity isnt a thing, it is a result of initial conditions of energy, and the initial force of expansion (why it happened/what caused it to happen with the exact force it did). In the beginning of the universe it is thought all that existed was a quark gluon plasma, or at least thats what ive gathered is the leading scientific theory. I admit out of my ignorance, I still have yet to comprehend how field theory works, instead of quark-gluon plasma the big bang poped out a perfectly connected perfectly infinitely overlapping establishment of multiple fields? So yea, my question would then cater to adjusting the earliest values of the potentials of those fields.



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind

why over think/analyse when what we have currently to study already is so accurate?

edit on 21-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)


Unless you are a genius or the greatest thinker and smartest man alive, why would you question someones passion and obsession with thought and contemplation. Just because you have failed to make leeway or garner insight does not mean it is not possible or worthwhile.

Ill comment on that video when I watch it



edit on 21-8-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by tachyonmind

energy doesn't exist until its affects are measured, it cannot be destroyed or created..


Energy doesnt exist until its affects are measured...really...

It cannot be destroyed or created, implies that a value greater then 0 exists. There exists something, that something can be described in as many ways as needed to describe it, and as many ways that may correlate to exactly what and how and why and where that something is. And what the something is at its more fundamental level, that somethingness which allows all somethingness to ever exist, is not 0, and cannot be created or destroyed. This implies that there is a specific non 0 quantity of 'energy/stuff/something' that truly exists. Yours and/or sciences idea of negetive energy and the universe equaling 0 energy may be totally speculative and mathematically beneficial but realistically nonsensical and meaningless.


i'm not following you here.. are you saying the current model is wrong? perhaps the phrasing i should have used is, "energy is only measurable by its affects".. does this help? you can't quantify energy, only how different energies make matter behave..


Why does science think the universes energy = 0, I udnerstand all you have explained and have heard this before, but all I have to say is, using the deffinition of energy to mean, somethingness which exists, or the ability to do work. Does the universe as a system have the ability to do work? Does it have energy/is it energy? Cant potentially 'negative energy' do work? Making even 'negative' energy' energy?


in physics, energy is a conserved extensive property of a physical system, which cannot be observed directly but can be calculated from its state..

science doesn't think that the universe's energy equals zero, only that any interaction it can measure has to produce an equal and symmetrical reaction.. kinetic energy for instance, is the measure of the energy possessed by a body of mass by virtue of its movement, potential energy is the energy possessed by a body by virtue of its position or state..

energy is just a term for describing the interactions of forces, it is not in itself a "somethingness that exists", it is the byproduct of forces that govern somethings which exist..




i was kinda poking fun a little, but my point still remains that you haven't defined the "quantifiable values" we would manipulate.. are you asking, for instance, what would happen if we created a universe were the force of gravity was halved? we'd end up with no matter.. if you change the laws of physics then everything becomes unstable and collapses..
edit on 21-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)


Yes a mixture of that is what im asking. Take the believed minimum ingredients for the existence of this universe right before it began, a singular quantity of energy?


well, for a start, we don't know what the minimum ingredients are, other than flux/space/ether, and there definitely is no single quantifiable amount of energy..


And adjust its quantity, how is it thought that would affect the outcome, and why so certain 'it would collapse', why is it impossible that other harmonic and orderly outcomes would not result?


it is entirely possible that other harmonic and orderly outcomes could result, but if they are not set in the same laws of physics, we cannot measure them, only speculate about them..


Gravity isnt a thing, it is a result of initial conditions of energy, and the initial force of expansion (why it happened/what caused it to happen with the exact force it did).


agreed, gravity is a force, not a thing.. it is the measurable effect of a body with mass on the space in which it floats.. it was not born out of energy, it is a (comparatively weak) force governing all energetic interactions..


In the beginning of the universe it is thought all that existed was a quark gluon plasma, or at least thats what ive gathered is the leading scientific theory. I admit out of my ignorance, I still have yet to comprehend how field theory works, instead of quark-gluon plasma the big bang poped out a perfectly connected perfectly infinitely overlapping establishment of multiple fields? So yea, my question would then cater to adjusting the earliest values of the potentials of those fields.


quark-gluon plasma is a probable state of matter which existed just after the universe's creation, a zero friction liquid in which particles form and collide, exploding into "pure energy" powerful enough to melt down atoms and break apart protons and neutrons (the building blocks of atomic nuclei) into their constituent quarks and gluons. protons and neutrons contain three quarks each, and gluons are the mass-less glue that holds the quarks together..

the big bang created this plasma and as it cooled and expanded it formed matter..
edit on 21-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by tachyonmind

why over think/analyse when what we have currently to study already is so accurate?

edit on 21-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)


Unless you are a genius or the greatest thinker and smartest man alive, why would you question someones passion and obsession with thought and contemplation. Just because you have failed to make leeway or garner insight does not mean it is not possible or worthwhile.

Ill comment on that video when I watch it


i'm not questioning your passion or obsession, just your motivation and perspective.. i fail to see the point in wondering how our universe could have been different had it been different, when it isn't.. it clearly couldn't exist if it were any different than it is now.. the constants of nature prove this.. change the fundamental laws of the universe and it either cannot exist or quickly collapses back into the current stable formation..

"what i'm really interested in is whether God could have made the world a different way; that is, whether the necessity of logical simplicity leaves any freedom at all. so far, it doesn't." -albert einstein
edit on 21-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind


i'm not following you here.. are you saying the current model is wrong? perhaps the phrasing i should have used is, "energy is only measurable by its affects".. does this help? you can't quantify energy, only how different energies make matter behave..
So is energy non existent in and of itself, it is merely a result of the existence of matter (chicken in the egg situation going on here)? Or you do think that exact areas/amounts of energy exists whether we measure it or not? Like If I create a photon and then create a photon at a higher energy, the photon of higher energy is quantitatively more energetic then the prior?



science doesn't think that the universe's energy equals zero, only that any interaction it can measure has to produce an equal and symmetrical reaction.. kinetic energy for instance, is the measure of the energy possessed by a body of mass by virtue of its movement, potential energy is the energy possessed by a body by virtue of its position or state..

energy is just a term for describing the interactions of forces, it is not in itself a "somethingness that exists", it is the forces that govern somethings which exist..


Ok sorry, I think I was using energy and matter interchangeably, which I understand may be incorrect, so it would be false to say an electron is a quantity of energy? An atom contains potential and kinetic energy, but the system of atom is matter? And so would it be an appropriate question to ask, why and how energy exists, why doesnt only matter exist?

I understand it is not a somethingness that exists, like the gravity field of earth for instance, or the waves in the ocean. Is this semantics? Yes the time dependent action of a body of water experiencing continual disturbance of equilibrium resulting in waves is not a 'thing', because a wave is not a 'piece of matter', and a gravity field is not a thing, for it is also dynamic, and 'not a solid thing'. Though that does not mean the gravity field of earth takes up infinite amount of space right now, or has an infinite area, or the energy value of waves is not a give or take wave function value. Energetic phenomenon can be quantized and compared.



edit on 21-8-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Its structured information at its most infinitesimal state - God calls it Word - but most call it energy...

If we can't call hadron dust energy or Word, then I don't want to play anymore.



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by tachyonmind


i'm not following you here.. are you saying the current model is wrong? perhaps the phrasing i should have used is, "energy is only measurable by its affects".. does this help? you can't quantify energy, only how different energies make matter behave..

So is energy non existent in and of itself, it is merely a result of the existence of matter (chicken in the egg situation going on here)? Or you do think that exact areas/amounts of energy exists whether we measure it or not? Like If I create a photon and then create a photon at a higher energy, the photon of higher energy is quantitatively more energetic then the prior?


energy is only measurable when it acts on something, and is converted. i wouldn't say that it is the result of matter, rather matter is the result of energy, and energy is the result of the interaction of forces. a photon with higher energy is no longer a photon, it would have to become another kind of particle.




science doesn't think that the universe's energy equals zero, only that any interaction it can measure has to produce an equal and symmetrical reaction.. kinetic energy for instance, is the measure of the energy possessed by a body of mass by virtue of its movement, potential energy is the energy possessed by a body by virtue of its position or state..

energy is just a term for describing the interactions of forces, it is not in itself a "somethingness that exists", it is the forces that govern somethings which exist..


Ok sorry, I think I was using energy and matter interchangeably, which I understand may be incorrect, so it would be false to say an electron is a quantity of energy? An atom contains potential and kinetic energy, but the system of atom is matter? And so would it be an appropriate question to ask, why and how energy exists, why doesnt only matter exist?


an electron is a charged particle, or quantity of mass, which has the energies of gravitational, electromagnetic, and weak interactions. the system of the atom is matter and charge, charge creating electrical energy and matter causing gravitational energy.. the system of the atom is more than just matter, and more than just energy, it is both, and was born out of force.


I understand it is not a somethingness that exists, like the gravity field of earth for instance, or the waves in the ocean. Is this semantics? Yes the time dependent action of a body of water experiencing continual disturbance of equilibrium resulting in waves is not a 'thing', because a wave is not a 'piece of matter', and a gravity field is not a thing, for it is also dynamic, and 'not a solid thing'. Though that does not mean the gravity field of earth takes up infinite amount of space right now, or has an infinite area, or the energy value of waves is not a give or take wave function value. Energetic phenomenon can be quantized and compared.


yup, but when using scientific terms, semantics are everything.. the gravity field of earth and indeed all planets do in fact have infinite reach, it drops off exponentially the further away you are from the centre of its mass, but no matter how far out you go, it never completely reaches zero.. we can only quantize and compare the conversion of energy that creates the "phenomenon", not the energy itself..


Originally posted by Bleeeeep
Its structured information at its most infinitesimal state - God calls it Word - but most call it energy...

If we can't call hadron dust energy or Word, then I don't want to play anymore.


you can call it what you like, just be mindful of semantics, otherwise the science stops making sense =)
edit on 21-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join