Notices
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: A few quick questions.

  1. #1 A few quick questions. 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    213
    Why are we here?
    Who put us here?
    Is the universe infinite?
    What is the makeup of a quark or lepton?
    Who created time? And who created the concept that it takes time to create?
    Who created creation and how can you create something without the concept of creation?
    How many demensions are their?
    What is reality?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Demen Tolden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    475
    42


    The most important thing I have learned about the internet is that it needs lot more kindness and patience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: A few quick questions. 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    Why are we here?
    If this question has any answer at all then I would say that someone thought that life would be a good idea.


    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    Who put us here?
    I don't know about you but I grew up here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    Is the universe infinite?
    No, the physical universe is finite.


    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    Who created time?
    Which time? If you are you talking about the time that is part of the mathematical structure of the physical universe then this was created by whoever or whatever created the rest of that structure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    And who created the concept that it takes time to create?
    It is implicit in the concept of creation itself as an action that an acting being can take. Take the concept of time out of creation and there is no acting or becoming but only being. In other words, without the concept of time you cannot say that the universe was created or even that it became. You can only say that it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    Who created creation and how can you create something without the concept of creation?
    Babies create poop without any concept of creation in their budding little minds. In other words there is no evidence at all that a thing must be conceptualized before it can be done.


    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    What is reality?
    Well being consists of various forms of energy. You are one of them albeit a complex one and the physical aspect of your being is only one part of a much larger form of energy that is known of as the physical universe. Is that all that is real? The (metaphysical) naturalist thinks so but I do not. I believe there is a spiritual aspect of reality as well and that means spiritual forms of energy in addition to the physical ones.


    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    What is the makeup of a quark or lepton?
    These are forms of energy with no component parts. They are one of the end results of a reductive analysis (looking at the composition of things) of the physical universe.


    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    How many dimensions are their?
    This question can only apply to the physical aspect of things for the essence of the concept of "dimension" is a quantifiable relationship and I do not see that as playing any part in the spiritual aspect of things in any objective manner.

    So the answer is eleven. One of time. Three large dimensions of space. And seven more that allow the degrees of freedom that are implicit in mathematical structure of the laws of physics.





    This is fun. Any more questions?
    LOL
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    213
    If a quark and lepton are made up of energy, what exactly are the properties of energy in that form and what makes it different from energy that isn't in the form of mass?

    How was the first thing of existance in the universe created if it takes existance to create something?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    If a quark and lepton are made up of energy, what exactly are the properties of energy in that form and what makes it different from energy that isn't in the form of mass?
    my suspicion is that leptons and quarks are entities that can be described as being mass OR energy, but are in reality neither - as to what exactly they are, i suspect the first person who can give a satisfactory answer to the question can start packing his or her bags to collect his or her nobel prize

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    How was the first thing of existance in the universe created if it takes existance to create something?
    easy : if something exists in a multiple-dimensional universe, it can have the appearance of abruptly coming into existence to us poor 3-dimensional creatures

    this has always reminded me of the process where an uncoloured piece of cloth is dunked into a clear liquid and as if by magic (which we now know to be simple chemistry) the cloth becomes coloured - if you phrase your question the wrong way, you might wonder where the colour came from
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    If a quark and lepton are made up of energy, what exactly are the properties of energy in that form and what makes it different from energy that isn't in the form of mass?
    Well I think that energy is the pure potentiality of being and as such it has no properties in of itself, for properties are elements of its form. However physical forms of energy certainly have one property all in common and that is quantity.

    According to M-theory the quark and leptons can be thought of as different vibrational modes of an 11 dimensional space time, which is a like a drum in the sense that it has large extension in some dimensions and is very thin in other dimensions, though of course the higher dimensionality allows for many more kinds of vibration than the drum.

    The difference between massive and massless particles must have something to do with how their particular vibrational modes interacts with the 3 large dimensions of space because the one definite distinction between these two types of particles is that massive partices can be at rest (motionless) while massless particles must always move at the speed of light.

    If you want more details than that you will have to spend a few decades at least studying physics and the mathematical language that it uses to describe things. For example I could say that both the quark and the lepton are fermions, but this is really a mathematical statement about the mathematical nature of these particles and their mathematical representation as wavefunctions or state vectors.


    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    How was the first thing of existance in the universe created if it takes existance to create something?
    Your phrasing of this question is flawed. The first thing that became or was created "in this universe" is the physical universe itself. As to how that could happen, I think we must conclude that the potentiality for such a creation or becoming must have existed before it did and thus it logically follows that the physical universe cannot be the first thing to have existed. However I do not believe that the methods of science can provide us any answers about such a thing. The best we can do is speculate.

    Some will prefer to speculate that the physical universe is just one part of a larger system (a larger universe) or part of a longer history (such as bounce theory). Others will prefer to speculate that some intellegent being is responsible. But I flatly deny that there is any possibility of proving the correctness of either of these types of speculation either by science or by any sort of reasoning. Not by science because it depends upon the mathematical measures that came into existence with the physical universe itself and not my reasoning because reasoning will always depend on what premises you start with.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: A few quick questions. 
    Forum Junior DivideByZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    260
    Why are we here?
    Just cauz.
    Who put us here?
    My mom.
    Is the universe infinite?
    no but its boundless.
    What is the makeup of a quark or lepton?
    strings.
    Who created time? And who created the concept that it takes time to create?
    time existed before time.
    Who created creation and how can you create something without the concept of creation?
    creation always existed.
    How many demensions are their?
    infinite..?
    What is reality?
    what you can identify.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    The difference between massive and massless particles must have something to do with how their particular vibrational modes interacts with the 3 large dimensions of space because the one definite distinction between these two types of particles is that massive particles can be at rest (motionless) while massless particles must always move at the speed of light.
    Isn't it more accurate to say that massive particles also always have relative motion, but that this motion is always less than C? Is the movement then of these massive particles always relative to any other as a result of the properties of gravity, in that it gets less by the inverse square rule, but never reaches zero (so no matter how large the universe gets, any two particles are always gravitationally bound to some degree) in some way? Would the relativity between particles separated by large distances then change if it was discovered that gravity did have a maximum reach (maybe with the discovery of gravitons)? I hope this is not too off-topic.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: A few quick questions. 
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    Why are we here?
    Does there have to be a reason behind us being here? Evolutionary speaking, we are here to reproduce.

    Who put us here?
    If you're religious: God.
    If you're not: Nobody.

    Is the universe infinite?
    It seems probable, although I would not be sure at all, the universe has many mysteries and this concept could easily just be another.

    What is the makeup of a quark or lepton?
    So far we don't know, but it obviously must have a Higgs Boson(s)

    Who created time? And who created the concept that it takes time to create?
    Again a religious concept of, who. Why not say what instead? I believe that everybody has the conept to understand that it takes time to create something, at least patient people may have that concept. But I may be wrong.

    Who created creation and how can you create something without the concept of creation?
    Religious again. But to create something without the concept of creation, I would say is possible, and that possibility is evident in not intending to concieve a child when having sex.

    How many demensions are their?
    Whats a demension? A number of states of retardation? Ahem, sorry about that. Anyway. There are at least 3 space dimensions and at least one of time (forwards). There may be many more, but they are all theory as I'm sure you know. If you want to know more, simply look into string or M-theory. But there are no scientifically proven extra dimensions that we know of other than those I have already described...

    What is reality?
    Electrical signals interpretated by your brain.
    Whatever you want it to be...
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: A few quick questions. 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Who put us here?
    If you're religious: God.
    If you're not: Nobody.
    correction : my parents put me here
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Isn't it more accurate to say that massive particles also always have relative motion, but that this motion is always less than C?
    Not more accurate just more information. Adding relativity to my statement, I would simply say that a massive particle can be at rest (motionless) relative to any intertial frame while a massless particle always moves at the speed of light relative to any inertial frame.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Is the movement then of these massive particles always relative to any other as a result of the properties of gravity, in that it gets less by the inverse square rule, but never reaches zero (so no matter how large the universe gets, any two particles are always gravitationally bound to some degree) in some way?
    No because the relations of space and time are not perfectly continuous and at a certain degree of accuracy the differences are overwhelmed by quantum uncertainty. There simply is no such thing as a state, measurement or initial condition to an infinite degree of precision.

    We have two pictures of the world: the macroscopic and the quantum views. Looking to closely in the sense of precision at the macroscopic view and you have to switch to the quantum view. But you must not make the mistake of thinking that the disparity between these two views means that the quantum view invalidates the macroscopic one. It is like the truth of generalties, the fact that they are not universally true does not make the generalities any less true. The macroscopic universe is deterministic in its behavior and that remains true even though this determinism is not absolute because when we look too closely we have to switch to the quantum veiw where there this large scale determinism falls apart.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Would the relativity between particles separated by large distances then change if it was discovered that gravity did have a maximum reach (maybe with the discovery of gravitons)?
    Relativity is a consequence of the local geometry of space time and gravity is a feature of its large scale structure, so these things are not really related. All forces can be said to have a maximum reach in a certain sense as a consequence of quantum physics. Gravity is the weakest of the forces but it is one that can never be canceled because there is no "negative charge" -- no antigravity. And so the reach of gravity depends on the size of the objects we are discussion. Between elementary particles it is too weak to be relevant at all. Only the accumulation of the unopposed 'gravitational charge" (mass) of trillions of trillions of trillions of massive particles generates enough force to be significant. But then this unopposed accumulation is in the end what makes gravity a powerful force in the universe to the point where it can even break down the structure of space-time completely.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: A few quick questions. 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Who put us here?
    If you're religious: God.
    If you're not: Nobody.
    correction : my parents put me here
    You might want to think of the question a little deeper. By "we" I mean everything in existance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: A few quick questions. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Who put us here?
    If you're religious: God.
    If you're not: Nobody.
    correction : my parents put me here
    You are irrevelent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: A few quick questions. 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Who put us here?
    If you're religious: God.
    If you're not: Nobody.
    correction : my parents put me here
    You might want to think of the question a little deeper. By "we" I mean everything in existance.
    you might want to think about the answer a little deeper - by it i mean that after excluding the supernatural explanation there is still plenty of scope for natural explanations, hence not left with Chaotic's "nothing"

    besides, i HAD answered the question "how did everything come into being", so didn't really feel that i needed to repeat myself, but i'll do it for your sake anyway

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    if something exists in a multiple-dimensional universe, it can have the appearance of abruptly coming into existence to us poor 3-dimensional creatures
    so next time you feel you want to talk down to people, think again
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: A few quick questions. 
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Who put us here?
    If you're religious: God.
    If you're not: Nobody.
    correction : my parents put me here
    And if it weren't for their parents, and their parents, and their parents. The whole world and all of its past events technically put you here.

    PS I answered in the context of the OP.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •