|
A few questions to any budding Physicists
Link |
by vengeful-dreams
on 2006-11-29 21:06:33
|
|
I have some socratic criticisms of scientific models such as the Big Bang theory, the Superstring theory and String theory, and also the reality of the universe. -What happened half a second before the Big Bang? -How many spacetime dimesions are there? There are multiple interpretations but I can't seem to find enough to support any. -How do you reconcile gravitation with quantum mechanics in the superstring theory? -Can there truely be an explanation for all interactions seen in nature? Lastly, how can a one dimensional string exist? Thanks very much for you time.  Haha, you amuse me. |
|
Re: A few questions to any budding Physicists
Link |
by
on 2006-11-29 21:34:24 (edited 2006-11-29 21:43:10)
|
|
1. lots of things, dude! read all about it here and here. 2. There are 4 space-time dimensions. I have never heard any other "interpretation" than this before! 3. The mathematician in me likes superstring theory. The physicist in me does not. I am of the opinion that GR (general relativity) and QM (quantum mechanics) need no reconciliation. Nothing about QM says GR should be different, and nothing about GR says that QM should be different. They get along just like Mac and PC. They each can be used to predict, with astoundingly accuracy, the outcome of their respective experiments. Superstring is for bored (sometimes fame-seeking) mathematicians. Real physicists don't waste their time with stuff that can't be tested. 4. Sure. The most obvious one is, "God works in mysterious ways". This, of course, is an explanation devoid of explanation, and also completely useless for making predictions. Thanks to people who came before us who were not quite satisfied with the former explanation, we can now offer a new explanation in the form of the Schrodinger Equation. This equation describes a whole damn lot, and even fits on my signature! However, it's only nonsense to a person without a math background. Also, you have to apply it right, which requires a physics background. Anyone can understand the first explanation (God) without any specialized training. The point I am trying to make is that we CAN describe everything, but no individual will be skilled enough to solve EVERY problem thrown their way. There is always a problem too tricky for even the highest genius. Sure, we can perform every experiment imaginable, and may do so within a century, to paint a complete picture of the knowable workings universe. The unknowable will still be there, too! I do feel that physics has qualities of an onion. Layers that can be peeled back only to uncover further layers. But, like a real life onion, the physical laws must have some chunky tasteless center, which we will no doubt find, and be utterly disappointed. Ever since the first or second layer, it has been a tearful affair, what with the loss of our friendly fixed universal reference frame (thanks a lot Einstein), and with the realization that there are statistical limits to the accuracy of predictions (thanks a lot Heisenberg). OMFG Cry more plz!!! 5. Ask a mathematician? I have never seen one in any experiment I have done, I don't even know what it looks like! :P 
|
|
Re: A few questions to any budding Physicists
Link |
by
on 2006-11-29 22:23:01 |
|
1- There was no big bang. There is no beginning or end. To try and confine existence is a simple impossibility. 2- This comes down to the idea that the only numbers that exist are 0, 1 and infinity. Once you establish multiplicity, there is no way to put a cap on the number. It simply comes down to how many dimensions can be perceived. Read Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott. A nice novel that does a good job of explaining dimensional perception without being a textbook. 3- Simply apply the idea of practical truth to this problem. There is no real need to combine them. No theory will ever be truly correct. Rather, the emphasis needs to be on theories that work. Gravity, as Newton described it, has been debunked, but it still was effective for predicting the motion of planets and was for all intents and purposes true. There is no need to combine theories that will work as they are for their own purposes. 4- Yes. Everything has to abide by some rules or sets of logic. Even the interactions of living things (yes even humans) can be described and predicted. My favorite idea for this, is that the principals behind the movement of gases can be applied to humans and used to predict the future (in general terms) Of course, then you get into arguments of free will and of figures who break from all conventional wisdom on human actions (See Albert Fish). But if you disallow God for the moment, than all that remains are creatures and systems that have to follow a set of rules because there is nothing else that can sustain them. 5- (Again, read Flatland) From what I am lead to understand, it doesn't exist. Rather, the 1-D strings are more accurately described as infinitely small in every dimension except one.  The greatest joy is the shameful joy |
|
Re: A few questions to any budding Physicists
|
|
@ Pyrric Victory: Everything physical must have a beginning. And anything with a beginning, must eventually reach a conclusion. You can't simply "have" a cake. First it must be baked (beginning), then iced (growth), then eaten (conclusion). I, too, dislike the Big Bang theory but I am force to believe it as there isn't enough evidence to support the Steady-state theory, or any other theory.
Wise Man says: "Take a dog off its leash and it will wander."
|
|
Re: A few questions to any budding Physicists
Link |
by
on 2006-11-30 00:10:56 |
|
@Pyrric Victory: 1. This is just your opinion. While I can pretend to respect it, I would rather you either bring something useful to the discussion or keep your hands off the keyboard. Worse than the fact that your provide no evidence for your claim is the fact that the "evidence" commonly provided to this effect is, most times, full of obvious mistakes. 2. What are you talking about? Show me an experiment that demonstrates the necessity of 5+ space-time dimensions to explain the results, then I might be interested. The reality is, there are not more than 4 observable space-time dimensions at this time. If there were more, they would complicate our results! Try measuring the world in 3-d and you will find it very confusing indeed, because SHIT MOVES AROUND before you can finish measuring it! That's the only reason we acknowledge the dimension of time: it effects our experiments. Same for the rest. 3. This is a big contradiction. Doesn't Newtonian gravitation work just fine for its own purposes? Why is that any different from GR and QM and their special purposes? I say Newton is no more debunked than Einstein. Different applications for different theories, thats all. 4. You sound like a determinist! ^_^ I, myself, am a "practical determinist". I believe that, if we know the initial state, we could calculate anything given sufficient resources. Problem is, we neither know the precise state of nor do we have the resources to calculate the future of anything larger than a few atoms for a few milliseconds. Leave it up to the computer scientists to improve things, but we will still never be able to achieve 100% accuracy on anything. 99% is good enough for most of the day-to-day predictions we need, anyway. 5. Oh, so its a line, like on the chalk board. :D @engineer: what about the right hand side of the number line? it has a beginning (zero or one if you will), and has no end. even a cake doesn't end when we eat it. many of the molecules the cake is composed of are taken into our body, then excreted as waste, or remain in our body when we expire. some of the molecules will go on to be used in the body of wheat plants which will be ground into flower which will be used to make another cake! energy is neither created nor destroyed, so it will be around forever. its inevitable form may be that of black holes surrounded by vast emptiness, but the energy will still be out there, slowly escaping in the form of electron-positron pairs at the event horizon (thanks hawking!).
|
|
Re: A few questions to any budding Physicists
Link |
by MiCHiYo μ
on 2006-11-30 03:45:52
|
|
about the 5th dimension: i have to agree with gendou that there is no proof to a dimension that exists past the observable 4. pyrric, perhaps you've been reading a science-fiction book? i've picked one up about two years ago, saying something about a 5th dimension existing... but, seriously, it hasn't been proven. although the books we've picked up may be significantly different because it's a different author, i think that they're talking about the same thing. that book of yours, well, novel, may be ficitonal as well. go ahead and check it out. =P about the one-dimensional string: as explained by my maths teacher, yes, it's just a line, but if drawn on the whiteboard/chalkboard, it's already a 2-d... and if a piece of string or thread is used to represent this, it's already in 3-d. so, as he explained it, try to imagine it not being either of the two... i don't know how i'm supposed to that, but i think that's the only way to do it? -michiyo- 
 beware. the QueeN oF SiGGieS is here. kill that mr. scrolly or your siggy goes BAI BAI. it's solidarity month! let's be united! +[-- GeNDouNiaNS: i am half-back! visit my blog by clicking on the siggie banner! updated: 12.07.07 --]+
~*..:: i'm never going to give up... if i do, then it wasn't worth trying. ::..*~
|
|
Re: A few questions to any budding Physicists
Link |
by
on 2006-11-30 18:16:01 |
|
With the 5th+ dimension, string theory predicts the existence of multiple dimensions. 10, 11, or 26, depending on the version that you listen to (I believe that 11 is the most prevalent, though I never liked the description of the 11th as a dimension that allows strings to become surfaces for some reason) Aside from that, for gravity to pass through multiple universes, and hence explain its relatively low strength, additional dimensions are required for it to pass through and to house the other universes. Beside that, consider that we can only observe four dimensions. That is no proof in and of itself that others do not exist. Instead, it is proof of human limitations. I will admit that additional dimensions have not been proven, but they are still worth consideration. As for the cake, didn't it exist as other forms of energy before it was baked? Aside from that, doesn't everything have to exist within some context? The big bang (unless part of a theory of recurring “big bangâ€s) defies this rule by existing outside of any context before creating a context for all other events. Either that or it existed within, instead of comprising, the scope of "existence," in which case the question of what caused the big bang to occur at that moment, instead of sooner, is raised. These have ideas have far too many questions for me, so I have to side with the lack of a beginning to existence in favor of the recurring big bang or an ever-changing universe with no need for a "big bang" The greatest joy is the shameful joy |
|
Re: A few questions to any budding Physicists
Link |
by
on 2006-11-30 19:41:43 |
|
Yes, the cake did exist before it was baked! Good observation! But, it was nothing like a cake before. Maybe small and dense, and very high temperature. Then, it expanded and cooled. Now I don't even know myself wether I am talking about leavening a cake or the big bang! :P Do the "extra" dimensions described by string theory count as space-time dimensions?! I think not, my friend! They are dimensions of our universe, but they are neither space-dimensions, nor time-dimensions, so they certainly aren't space-time dimensions! They may be real dimensions in the theory, but that doesn't make them real space-time dimensions. They don't describe a location in time or space, but in "branes" and alternate universes and crap like that. I dunno, its just a terminology thing, really. The scope of existence is local to the the function, of course! Unless it is a global existence.... Hmmmm...... Remember, if you dynamically create an existence, you have to free up the space-time after you're done using it, or you will cause an existence leak!
|
|
Re: A few questions to any budding Physicists
|
|
Here's a question: is the third question wrong? I always thought that the problem that confounded Einstein was that gravitation couldn't be reconciled with electromagnetism. The last I heard, which was many moons ago, was that this 'theory of everything' may be solved using string theory, which is reliant upon quantum mechanics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's been a long time since I studied physics, or even picked up a book about it. Actually, the extra dimensions thing sounds a lot like what I'm studying in philosophy at the moment. Maybe Spinoza had a point. *Heh*
Wait a minute, are you sure about that?
|
|
Re: A few questions to any budding Physicists
Link |
by
on 2006-12-05 13:28:10 (edited 2006-12-05 13:41:40)
|
|
the wave equation is one single elegant equation that describes the behavior of nature excluding gravitation. i see no reason why the relativistic laws of gravitation should be considered wrong just because they don't fit into that equation. there is an equally valid argument that this shows the WAVE equation is wrong, in vice versa. Come to think of it, define "reconciled"? What does this mean? Does it mean they are in contradiction? I can't come up with an example that shows they are.
|
|
Re: A few questions to any budding Physicists
Link |
by
on 2006-12-05 22:24:08 |
|
Wasn't Spinoza a philosphe who tried to bring God into nature, only to link them too closely and be labeled a pantheist and persecuted? As for Einstein, he died working on unification in large part because he obsessed over it and refused to accept new research, but cloistered himself and worked on the problem with limited data. As for string theory, it is a non-scientific theory. Even if the scientific community can agree on a single string theory, most predictions will still likely be made using current theories and equations because they can be, and have been, proven accurate. The greatest joy is the shameful joy |
|
Re: A few questions to any budding Physicists
|
|
Gendou said: The scope of existence is local to the the function, of course! Unless it is a global existence.... Hmmmm...... Remember, if you dynamically create an existence, you have to free up the space-time after you're done using it, or you will cause an existence leak! LOL :D I wouldn't want to find out what happens when we use up all of the available existence and crash the universe... I don't think I would survive a reboot... In my philosophy class, I heard there was a theory which stated that one unified system of axioms and logical rules cannot describe every possible mathematical problem. I wonder if the same would be true of physics.
>,>; Did I just say that...?
|
|
Re: A few questions to any budding Physicists
Link |
by
on 2006-12-06 13:56:58 |
|
current physics relies on math. i have reason to believe any form of physics (study of natural phenomena) would require math (be it counting in a computer, using an abacus, on your fingers, or on your yazelbons). In your philosophy class, it sounds like you were discussing Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem which concludes that there is no complete, consistent formal system that correctly describes the natural numbers. I think that math need not be complete in order to solve all out practical, scientific problems. The instruments we use to measure can never have a zero margin of error, but that doesn't bother me much. We get that error down to ~10-10 often enough to satisfy me! Math is a tool, and like any tool, it has a margin of error. No worries.
|
|
Re: A few questions to any budding Physicists
|
|
Hi all, what I was getting at was a supposed unification of gravitation and electromagnetism, the two fundamental forces in classical physics, not that they were inconsistent with each other. For all extents and purposes, Einstein was a classical physicist, which was why quantum mechanics was so hard to accept. That's why, in this context to me, the third question seems strange. Spinoza was, to my knowledge, the only philosopher who was disowned by the Jewish and Christian communities. He was not a pantheist was the romantics would have it though, that is a misconception. For Spinoza, the only thing that exists is God or Nature. ('Or' is used as a sort of equivalence.) The world is within, or a part of God, but God is not in the world as such. The last thing I want to comment on is Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, which seems to have scope over more than just the natural numbers? Actually, it's just set theory I think. Anyway, it can be seen as a problem due to the apparent fundamental nature of mathematics. If maths is the basic foundation for our physics, and hence pretty much all science that follows it, then it could seem to be pretty dodgy. It does the job, but if the tool is not complete as such, then what is built upon those foundations are not as secure as you would want them to be. Mind you, nothing's imploding or going to pot, so I guess all is OK. Going back to the whole nth-dimensions thing in string theory, that would be pretty neat in a Spinozist system of reality.
Wait a minute, are you sure about that?
|
|
Re: A few questions to any budding Physicists
Link |
by
on 2006-12-08 14:13:36 (edited 2006-12-08 14:19:25)
|
|
Labeling everything as "just a theory" is a great way to waste time. Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem states that, like i argued in my last post, math is no better and no worse than any other tool we use. You can feel free to go around worrying that physics and all of science is "insecure", but be aware you run the risk of people thinking you an insecure fellow. Person A: "Why doesn't that guy ever take the elevator?" Person B: "Goedel scared him into mistrusting technology." Person A: "That Goedel fellow is a naughty stinker." Santa: "Somebody is getting COAL in their stocking this Christmas *stares at Goedel unhappily*"
|
|
Re: A few questions to any budding Physicists
|
|
You know, it's not as if I have an actual physical problem of existence. I studied theoretical physics at university for three years, so I'm well aware of the applications. The problems that arise are strictly theoretical, and I am questioning those foundations on a theoretical basis. I am not questioning whether my desk will be there if I'm not around to see it. Quite frankly, you get too many questions of this type because people don't understand the different applications of quantum mechanics and classical physics. I'm taking a Cartesian method of enquiry as it were. The likes of Frege and Russell were immense mathematicians trying to reduce everything into the realm of mathematics, because they believed that maths could be the foundations of all. It wasn't until Russell discovered the paradox that carries his name that seriously threw a spanner in the works of their project. We've lived goodness knows how many years without the need of knowledge that science now provides us, that knowledge is not fundamental to our existence. (Though that would be another argument and thread all together. Getting off topic me thinks.) The basic idea for a need of completeness in maths is, as I believe, fundamental for physics because perhaps there are problems that physicists have yet to come across. If maths is not complete, then what are the possibility that physicists do not have the tools to carry the next step of enquiry out? Surely you'll need the availability of the tool to do a job. That was the point I wanted to make. (And yeah, I tend to waffle a fair bit too. I guess that's why my essays aren't that good.) I guess it could be the case that when physicists can't solve a problem due to the inadequacy of maths, then they, or mathematicians, will need to create a new branch of mathematics. Mind you, there was that fuss about the use of complex numbers, so anything is possible. Everything as just a theory? I don't actually think like that, and I don't think that was what I was saying. But on this basis, if there needs to be an argument, I will simply turn to the problem of induction. Goodness knows how much time has been spent on that over the past few centuries. But if you are familiar with it, then you'll know why some people will question it. Me? I separate my philosophical enquiries from real life. For sake of discussion, argument and debate though, anything's up for grabs! There aren't many good debates going around. Oh well, back to those essays and revision for course tests. *Sigh* I'll check in after a week's time or so, this has peaked my interest. I was going to mention the screwdriver being invented before screws to with the whole maths as a tool thing. I'm sure you understand what I'm trying to get at, even if you disagree. Later.
Wait a minute, are you sure about that?
|
|
Re: A few questions to any budding Physicists
|
|
Well you did say you thought Godel's Theorem might be just a theory. In that case, we better make sure nothing in mathematics relies on the Pythagorean Theorem or any other mathematical theorems :P A theorem is a proposition that has been or is to be proved on the basis of explicit assumptions. Proving theorems is a central activity of mathematicians. Note that "theorem" is distinct from "theory".(wikipedia.org)
>,>; Did I just say that...?
|