Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 232
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Does things that happens without a cause mean that it might not have happened at that time?

  1. #1 Does things that happens without a cause mean that it might not have happened at that time? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    Does things that happens without a cause mean that it might not have happened at that time?

    it sounds confusing, let me put it straighter:
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It certainly seems that at the quantum level, things can happen purely randomly, with no apparent cause. For example, there is a particle called a muon (like a heavy version of the electron) which decays after an average time of ~2 Ás. So you van have an isolated muon, a fundamental particle with no constituent parts (as far as we know) and after some time it will spontaneously decay. Nothing causes it to decay at that instant. What causes it to wait that long? Nothing as far as we know.
    because, if your answer is no, doesn't it mean that determinism agrees with the many worlds theory? (although its still unpredictable, due to HUP)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,320
    There's a difference between "without a cause" and "randomly - or variably - spaced in time".
    The example above indicates that ALL muons WILL decay, shortly after they're created.
    IOW whatever event creates a muon means that ~2 Ás later the muon will go pfft. They WILL decay (the thing without an apparent cause 1) in a set time after creation.
    Shorter answer: I dunno. I can't quite see the connection.
    I'm not sure how a "no" answer indicates determinism OR MWI, let alone how why it should mean that one agrees with the other 2.

    1 But it's something to do with the weak force.
    2 In fact I could argue that determinism removes a lot, if not all, of the MWI.


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    Well, isn't it possible for a muon to NOT decay "forever"?
    since nothing causes it to decay, and nothing causes it to not decay
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Einstein was never agree with the concept that things at quantum level can work randomly and without a cause or have probability.

    I think Einstein was wrong in the way he was not much happy with the way quantum mechanics works.
    This is the best way with we can deal with quantum problems.

    But overall I firm believe in reality as Einstein said " Everything is deterministic & there can never be probability in events in quantum in real terms".

    There must be a cause of anything and it is logical acceptable concept.

    It is impossible to have probability at quantum level as things here also happen according to laws of nature.

    Yes , the way by which quantum mechanics works, is possibly most suitable .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    272
    Einstein was wrong abut probability because he didnt see it cause come from the future
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Nosfim View Post
    Einstein was wrong abut probability
    Correct. (Amazingly. But even a broken clock is right occasionally)

    because he didnt see it cause come from the future
    More ignorant drivel. Please stop it.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    It is impossible to have probability at quantum level as things here also happen according to laws of nature.
    What you think is "impossible" is irrelevant. The "laws of nature" appear to be purely probabilistic.

    Yes , the way by which quantum mechanics works, is possibly most suitable .
    This appears to contradict what you said before. The way quantum mechanics works is probabilistic; this is very suitable: to the evidence.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Well, isn't it possible for a muon to NOT decay "forever"?
    since nothing causes it to decay, and nothing causes it to not decay
    A muon does not have sufficient potential to remain a muon. It does break down into smaller particles.

    wiki,
    Thus all muons decay to at least an electron, and two neutrinos. Sometimes, besides these necessary products, additional other particles that have a net charge and spin of zero (e.g., a pair of photons, or an electron-positron pair), are produced.

    The dominant muon decay mode (sometimes called the Michel decay after Louis Michel) is the simplest possible: the muon decays to an electron, an electron antineutrino, and a muon neutrino. Antimuons, in mirror fashion, most often decay to the corresponding antiparticles: a positron, an electron neutrino, and a muon antineutrino. Muon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    In quantum , the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously

    No doubt ,most possibly it is a true law which Einstein did not like.
    But its completely true everything has a reason and no thing can happen without a reason. So this cause and effect nature of things in space make everything deterministic. Human being deals quantum problems with Quantum Mechanics and use probability Distribution at huge level. This is the best method for us to deal such problems.

    But this does not mean things happen at quantum level without any reason and law of nature does not work here.
    Due to so micro level , it is really a measurement problem for human beings and this is reason why quantum mechanics has so much high role of observation.
    But in real term reality is reality and every thing happen with a cause . WHAT HAPPENED THAT MUST HAPPENED. Law of nature works everywhere from micro to macro level and no chance of probability at any level in space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Law of nature works everywhere from micro to macro level and no chance of probability at any level in space.
    Again: the evidence appears to show that you are wrong. Simply repeating your belief does not make it true.

    Can you define what you mean by "law of nature" and how you know it is correct?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Law of nature means if there is proper reason for why everything happens, then probability can not exist
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,320
    In other words a circular, unsubstantiated argument.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,629
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Law of nature means if there is proper reason for why everything happens, then probability can not exist
    Ridiculous. So, the universe behaves according to how you command it to, eh? Didn't realize you were appointing yourself the position of Supreme Being.

    The rest of us mere mortals study nature to find out how nature actually behaves. One "law" of nature that we have uncovered is that many phenomena have a probabilistic character. Another law of nature is that nature doesn't give a hang for what you think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Law of nature means if there is proper reason for why everything happens, then probability can not exist
    Where does this "law" come from? And what evidence is there to confirm it is correct?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Law of nature means if there is proper reason for why everything happens, then probability can not exist
    Ridiculous. So, the universe behaves according to how you command it to, eh? Didn't realize you were appointing yourself the position of Supreme Being.

    The rest of us mere mortals study nature to find out how nature actually behaves. One "law" of nature that we have uncovered is that many phenomena have a probabilistic character. Another law of nature is that nature doesn't give a hang for what you think.
    Ok you are super commander of Universe I am not.
    I have right I will believe what I think right.
    I feel quantum Mechanics itself never rule out Deterministic behavior of matter. There is no theory in Quantom Mechanics which deny the deterministic behavior of Nature.
    Uncertainty Principle, wave-particular duality etc are never say there is a probability in real term.
    Quantum Mechanics is clearly based on measurement and its law predicts mostly about measurement.
    They never deny deterministic behavior of nature. They just describe all facts based on observation.
    I will always believe that there is deterministic approach of nature.
    You may be right on your own position.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,618
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Ok you are super commander of Universe I am not.
    I have right I will believe what I think right.
    I feel quantum Mechanics itself never rule out Deterministic behavior of matter. There is no theory in Quantom Mechanics which deny the deterministic behavior of Nature.
    Uncertainty Principle, wave-particular duality etc are never say there is a probability in real term.
    Quantum Mechanics is clearly based on measurement and its law predicts mostly about measurement.
    They never deny deterministic behavior of nature. They just describe all facts based on observation.
    I will always believe that there is deterministic approach of nature.
    You may be right on your own position.
    This is a very contradictory post. You say you "will never" and then talk about evidence. There is no theory or there is a theory has no particularly strong influence on what we may learn in the future. I've participated in debates as to whether or not the Universe is Fully Deterministic or not. The end result is that we do not know at this time and all you've done is put forth your beliefs on the issue.

    You do have the right to believe.

    You do not have the right to claim belief as fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    There is no theory in Quantom Mechanics which deny the deterministic behavior of Nature.
    Bell's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Uncertainty Principle, wave-particular duality etc are never say there is a probability in real term.
    They are all explicitly probabilistic.

    Quantum Mechanics is clearly based on measurement and its law predicts mostly about measurement.
    It predicts probabilities of outcomes. Experiment confirms that (a) they are probabilities and (b) the right probabilities.

    They never deny deterministic behavior of nature.
    Yes they do. They are all explicitly probabilistic.

    It doesn't matter how often you deny it, you won't change it.

    I will always believe that there is deterministic approach of nature.
    Feel free. But you will be wrong.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    I just believe its not due to different behavior of quantum but due to smallest size and measurement problems.
    Although I fully believe probability distribution is best way to work on quantum problems. No doubt I cannot claim my beliefs as facts. In science truth is always what is proved.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,320
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    I have right I will believe what I think right.
    "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,618
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    I just believe its not due to different behavior of quantum but due to smallest size and measurement problems.
    Although I fully believe probability distribution is best way to work on quantum problems. No doubt I cannot claim my beliefs as facts. In science truth is always what is proved.
    Almost everything you said is agreeable, however the last line is not accurate. In maths, there are proofs, but in science, 'truth' is never proven.
    RAJ_K likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    I just believe its not due to different behavior of quantum but due to smallest size and measurement problems.
    Although I fully believe probability distribution is best way to work on quantum problems. No doubt I cannot claim my beliefs as facts.
    Your beliefs are, of course, irrelevant. Doubly so because they are contradicted by evidence.

    You are free to belive what you want. But I am curious why you would continue to believe something that is not support (in fact, is contradicted) by the evidence. How much other well-established science do you reject on a whim?

    In science truth is always what is proved.
    It would be more accurate to say that, "in science what is currently accepted as the best description is that which has not yet been disproved". "Truth" and "proof" are not really part of the scientific method.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    @strange Possibly with some Time my thinking may be change or may not be
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,618
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    @strange Possibly with some Time my thinking may be change or may not be
    Well quick question: What's your thoughts on the Copenhagen Interpretation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    It would be more accurate to say that, "in science what is currently accepted as the best description is that which has not yet been disproved". .
    As an examiner (!) I grade this response as

    However, I have a slight unease about this thread. Are we suggesting that probabilistic is the same as not deterministic? I have a problem with this
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    @strange Possibly with some Time my thinking may be change or may not be
    Well quick question: What's your thoughts on the Copenhagen Interpretation?
    I am agree with almost all conclusion of Copenhagen interpretation until there is no alternative
    But laws like Correspondence Principle etc does not seem opposite to deterministic behavior
    As almost predictions are related to measurement
    There should be facts without measurement
    I am agree almost facts of Copenhagen Interpretation
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist View Post
    As an examiner (!) I grade this response as


    However, I have a slight unease about this thread. Are we suggesting that probabilistic is the same as not deterministic? I have a problem with this
    I think the difference is that, in principle, one could look at all the parameters involved in the roll of a die and predict what the outcome will be (because it is deterministic). The same is not true at the quantum level, we genuinely can only say what the probabilities of outcomes are.

    On the other had, I am not entirely comfortable with words like deterministic (and have explicitly avoided addressing that) because I don't really know what it means....
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist View Post
    As an examiner (!) I grade this response as


    However, I have a slight unease about this thread. Are we suggesting that probabilistic is the same as not deterministic? I have a problem with this
    I think the difference is that, in principle, one could look at all the parameters involved in the roll of a die and predict what the outcome will be (because it is deterministic). The same is not true at the quantum level, we genuinely can only say what the probabilities of outcomes are.

    On the other had, I am not entirely comfortable with words like deterministic (and have explicitly avoided addressing that) because I don't really know what it means....
    That 's exactly what I am saying . Its true we can not determine the output at quantum level. We can determine it only in Probabilities.
    We must use probability Distribution for solving a quantum problem.
    But should not mean , what is happened at quantum level about half an hour ago , it may not
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The same is not true at the quantum level, we genuinely can only say what the probabilities of outcomes are.
    It is apparently not fully understood or known. We do not know if it is deterministic or not, rather that we cannot determine it. There is a very fine line, here... I've seen both sides of it; That the double slit experiment shows otherwise and all of that... But to me, personally, I lean toward the idea that our observations of such a scale are in their very early stages, still.
    forrest noble and RAJ_K like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    one could look at all the parameters involved in the roll of a die and predict what the outcome will be (because it is deterministic). The same is not true at the quantum level, we genuinely can only say what the probabilities of outcomes are.
    Wouldn't it STILL be technically impossible to confirm our predictions, even if we do know speed+position at the same time(although HUP says we can't)?
    After all, negligible events that happen at the quantum level (W/o a cause, e.g. radioactive decay/quanFlux) may cause a huge difference at a big non-quantum level, right? refer: butterfly effect






    Also, what does "Deterministic" mean actually?
    is it:
    1) Things happen, and will happen as they did(Just at the quantum level, including QuanEntanglement)?
    2) Things happen, and will happen as they did(because of causalty)?
    3) Things happen, and will happen as they did(because of causalty, INCLUDING things that do not happen with a cause e.g. QuanFlux)?

    and btw, is causalty correct? the auto correct seems to come out like its a wrong word...




    And also, How do we know which pairs of particles get entangled when they interact with each other?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    [QUOTE=ryanawe123;400995]
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    one could look at all the parameters involved in the roll of a die and predict what the outcome will be (because it is deterministic). The same is not true at the quantum level, we genuinely can only say what the probabilities of outcomes are.
    Wouldn't it STILL be technically impossible to confirm our predictions, even if we do know speed+position at the same time(although HUP says we can't)?
    After all, negligible events that happen at the quantum level (W/o a cause, e.g. radioactive decay/quanFlux) may cause a huge difference at a big non-quantum level, right? refer: butterfly effect


    I think it is more related to technical aspect of measurement and different cases vary to a high degree.
    In some cases it may possible to predict outcome based on available data much accurately & some cases specially at quantum level possibly we are unable to predict a perfect outcome.

    "Deterministic" means what is happening in space , it is unchangeable as there is no other option.

    Everything that has presence also has properties,features or characteristics .
    These characteristics/features/properties determine the behavior of matter/energy for all conditions.
    Nothing happens in this space without these rules. Anything need a reason to happen.
    There is no duplicability of rules means to say for a same condition there are no two rules in nature.
    For example water boiled at 100 degree. Even if water does not boiled at 100 degree on any other universe . This means there is difference between conditions or other thing. Means both case can never be same. Otherwise water must boiled at 100.

    From quarks to planets everything has auto built features and there is no option to go out of these features.

    This is the way how matter/energies or other things behave in deterministically. On place copper melts at 1084 c, on other place (suppose any other Universe)it melts at 1090c than there must be different between both conditions and properties and it is no possible for identical cases to have different melting point.
    Last edited by RAJ_K; March 9th, 2013 at 09:08 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I think the difference is that, in principle, one could look at all the parameters involved in the roll of a die and predict what the outcome will be (because it is deterministic). The same is not true at the quantum level, we genuinely can only say what the probabilities of outcomes are.
    Why do you think there may a difference? Look....

    Suppose I drink and smoke heavily, and am obese. Each of these will be considered as a risk factor to my developing heart disease, and to each of these I can can assign a probability of my dying of heart disease. Let us assume these probabilities can be summed in the obvious way.

    What is the objection to saying that the probability of my developing heart disease is "determined" by my life-style choices?

    Conversely, one frequently hears statements like "probable cause of death was so-and-so" Of course "cause" invokes determinism, so in neither case does probabilistic mean non-deterministic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    But in real term reality is reality and every thing happen with a cause . WHAT HAPPENED THAT MUST HAPPENED. Law of nature works everywhere from micro to macro level and no chance of probability at any level in space.
    then why was the Many Worlds interpretation created, where the universe splits into infinity possible different ones where different future events may occur, since no other events can occur?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    But in real term reality is reality and every thing happen with a cause . WHAT HAPPENED THAT MUST HAPPENED. Law of nature works everywhere from micro to macro level and no chance of probability at any level in space.
    then why was the Many Worlds interpretation created, where the universe splits into infinity possible different ones where different future events may occur, since no other events can occur?
    Although I do not see very high possibility of Many Worlds interpretation, Even if it is true this to not break the rules of nature. If these exist they must have some rules regarding this and after all any thing exist must have properties which has a great set of rules that determine the behavior of that thing in different conditions. So everything has to follow rules.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,320
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    WHAT HAPPENED THAT MUST HAPPENED. Law of nature works everywhere from micro to macro level and no chance of probability at any level in space.
    So everything has to follow rules.
    Following rules precludes neither probability nor randomness.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    But in real term reality is reality and every thing happen with a cause . WHAT HAPPENED THAT MUST HAPPENED. Law of nature works everywhere from micro to macro level and no chance of probability at any level in space.
    then why was the Many Worlds interpretation created, where the universe splits into infinity possible different ones where different future events may occur, since no other events can occur?
    Although I do not see very high possibility of Many Worlds interpretation, Even if it is true this to not break the rules of nature. If these exist they must have some rules regarding this and after all any thing exist must have properties which has a great set of rules that determine the behavior of that thing in different conditions. So everything has to follow rules.
    so MWI is saying that a rules of nature is that "things that have had happened in the state of the past of the current dimension may not have happened the time it had happened at that passed instant"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    MWI just means there may be many simultaneous parallel universes but each with different mathematical and chemical constants. Some even completely chaotic, some nearly static due to limitations on expression.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    MWI just means there may be many simultaneous parallel universes but each with different mathematical and chemical constants. Some even completely chaotic, some nearly static due to limitations on expression.
    Information about MWI is reliable or not it is another issue!
    If simultaneous parallel universes exist they must have properties that determined their behavior in different position and time.

    Can there be two rules for identical situation for an object which it follows ?
    If there are two objects purely identical , is it possible both can behave differently even if both are 100% identical in all matters .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    272
    as i see it , MWI entring "randomnes" to the world in colapsing half determining worlds , half becuse thay afected by the futuer of ater worlds in MWI ( in colapsing )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    Are you asking if universal constants in this universe are the same for all possible universes? Or if they can be? Or if our universe is just the right combination of constants?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    hey u meant different universe have different universal constants?

    means light could travel at 10m/s^2?
    and electrons could attract other electrons?
    and neutrons could have a charge?
    and protons may not exist?
    etc.....

    how could that be possible in a parallel universe (if it exists)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    Yes, some universes may exist for an instant and then disappear, in others, gravity works differently and things may fall upward instead of down.

    Brian Greene: Welcome to the Multiverse
    May 21, 2012 1:00 AM EDT
    The latest developments in cosmology point toward the possibility that our universe is merely one of billions. ...Brian Greene: Welcome to the Multiverse - Newsweek and The Daily Beast
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    So, apparently we do not, at all know whether those universes exist, and it is totally an imaginative idea that is created, that seems legit, and is covered in the fool-proof blanket that says "they exist, but there is no way that we can get evidence that they exist" as we do not have any contact with any of the other universes, and also someone said before that we can never prove/have any evidence that points to their existance, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    Well, no one is claiming anything other than this theory does not seem to conflict with what we do know about this universe. Similar as CDT (causal dynamic triangulation) is a non-perturbing cosmic geometry.

    I was trying to offer information to the question if other universes could have different constants. Seems there is some consensus that this might be the case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    If it does not conflict with what we know about this universe, do we assume that parallel universes exist, or do we assume they do not exist?

    how does science work in this aspect?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    I don't think any of this has functional value at this time. But who knows, the more we learn the more we understand and maybe.........., someday........?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    From what i've been reading on this forum,
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    until there is evidence for them, we assume they don't exist. That is just the way science works.
    so,
    since we dont have evidence what causes quanflux, we assume quanflux happens w/o a cause,

    since we dont have evidence parallel universes exist, we assume the parallel universes dont exist too,

    right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    No, that is not correct. It is not an either/or question.

    We don't have evidence because we have just begun to study it, we are just exploring possible answers which may shed light on what we do know. As our knowledge evolves, so will our refinements of fundamental assumptions of cosmological qualities, such as a "Universal Holomovement" (David Bohm), "multiverses", "Steady State", and my intuitive favorite, Potential.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Does things that happens without a cause mean that it might not have happened at that time?

    it sounds confusing, let me put it straighter:
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It certainly seems that at the quantum level, things can happen purely randomly, with no apparent cause. For example, there is a particle called a muon (like a heavy version of the electron) which decays after an average time of ~2 Ás. So you van have an isolated muon, a fundamental particle with no constituent parts (as far as we know) and after some time it will spontaneously decay. Nothing causes it to decay at that instant. What causes it to wait that long? Nothing as far as we know.
    because, if your answer is no, doesn't it mean that determinism agrees with the many worlds theory? (although its still unpredictable, due to HUP)
    There is as yet no proof that something can happen without a cause.
    What we know about a single muon is the probability for a single muon to decay at a certain moment of time.
    Its not known what decides if it is time for the muon to "die"...
    So it is still possible to believe in the principle of causality.
    So... Yes! Things that happens without a cause might not have happened at that time.
    Still... I believe that to happen is to be caused.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    From what i've been reading on this forum,
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    until there is evidence for them, we assume they don't exist. That is just the way science works.
    so,
    since we dont have evidence what causes quanflux, we assume quanflux happens w/o a cause,

    since we dont have evidence parallel universes exist, we assume the parallel universes dont exist too,

    right?
    Strange goes from saying "we assume they don't exist." to "That is just the way science works."
    This is wishful thinking of his: Science does not care about what he assumes.
    Science does not assume that what Strange dont have evidence of does not exist.
    Be warned: If you assume anything in here the norm is to assume that you are wrong
    unless you copy their assumptions.
    I have wondered what makes one of the alternatives of undecided questions popular,
    is there perhaps a religious explanation.

    Edit: In the nineteenth century the view that Reality is determinable in its minutest detail from a preceeding moment was generally accepted by scientists... The model of the universe was a clock. But with the theory of Relativity, Quantum and Chaos theory it was realised that there was no proof of such a deterministic universe. The clock model was abandoned and Im not aware of any "model" replacing it. But i think a feeling that all of Reality OUGHT to be predictable remains... habits die hard. And the old questions still have momentum even if their basic concepts perhaps are outmoded.
    Last edited by sigurdV; March 13th, 2013 at 07:31 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,320
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Strange goes from saying "we assume they don't exist." to "That is just the way science works."
    This is wishful thinking of his: Science does not care about what he assumes.
    Science does not assume that what Strange dont have evidence of does not exist.
    Be warned: If you assume anything in here the norm is to assume that you are wrong
    unless you copy their assumptions.
    Science does not assume, nor posit, things for which there is no evidence.
    If there is nothing to suggest that X exists then the "safe" bet is that X does not exist.

    But i think a feeling that all of Reality OUGHT to be predictable remains... habits die hard.
    Re-read post #34. That diagram is there for a purpose.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Strange goes from saying "we assume they don't exist." to "That is just the way science works."
    This is wishful thinking of his: Science does not care about what he assumes.
    Science does not assume that what Strange dont have evidence of does not exist.
    Be warned: If you assume anything in here the norm is to assume that you are wrong
    unless you copy their assumptions.
    Science does not assume, nor posit, things for which there is no evidence.
    If there is nothing to suggest that X exists then the "safe" bet is that X does not exist.

    But i think a feeling that all of Reality OUGHT to be predictable remains... habits die hard.
    Re-read post #34. That diagram is there for a purpose.
    Lets get one thing clear: Can Science assume ANYTHING or is it some human that CAN assume?
    We both say "Science does not assume" Are we then both right?
    IS Strange claiming that his assumption is Scientific but a contrary assumption is not? (Or not?)
    What is this about? What is your objection? Is everybody crazy... Bah! Im gonna sleep! Cya tomorra!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    Following rules precludes neither probability nor randomness.
    Could this be likened to the "rules of the game" which must be followed by two competing sides in a game. However, this does not decide which side will win. The outcome itself is subject to such an incredibly large number of contributing factors, that the sum of all the contributing potential forces create the eventual expression in reality. Usually very predictable, but not always, even following the rules.

    Just following rules is in itself not deterministic of outcome. The rules may not be uniform everywhere, under every situation. A perfect example is the introduction of heat into any action or equation. According to the rules, elements begin to act differently when heated. Energy introduces instability and change, by the rules. There are also physical boundaries which cannot be exceeded, speed limits which cannot be crossed. A host of Permissive and Restrictive properties always present within the event as "potentials".

    Example, does anyone know that the red in red stained glass (the classic kind) is actually gold reduced to nano levels, then heated to a certain degree and mixed directly into the glass? Red stained glass is gold glass. Silver is used to make blue and green and yellow stained glass.
    NOVA | Making Stuff: Series Overview (see; 10:58)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Could this be likened to the "rules of the game" which must be followed by two competing sides in a game.
    That wasn't my point.
    Look at the picture!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    sorry I have never seen it before, what is it? A type universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    sorry I have never seen it before, what is it? A type universe?
    Lorenz attractor.
    It's a "graph" of 3 simple differential equations, but despite the fact that the thing is drawn using known values it displays chaotic behaviour.
    It is impossible to say where the "next step" will lie on that graph.
    Chaos theory.
    This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    Thanks, now that I look closer, it seems very interesting. Reminds me of those paradoxical drawings of infinite stairways....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    some universes may exist for an instant and then disappear
    please redefine what you mean, thanks!
    do u mean matter exists then dissappear, or time starts then dissappear?

    disappearing of time.........?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    Why not, I believe that in string theory a muon universe may come into existence for a moment, creating a short time line, then decay back into the quantum soup. The time line disappears with the particles, never to be repeated exactly the same way ever again. An chronological evolutionary dead end.

    IMO, most manifestations in reality have a very short life, before they are absorbed, modified, incorporated or fused. Only constants seem to work reliably over long periods of time over large distances.

    But it is expected that this entropic universe eventually will enter a non energetic state and die as a universe, ending our universal time as a non-energetic or non-causal universal entity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    Does things that happens without a cause mean that it might not have happened at that time?
    IMO, it is at the moment something happens under any condition, that a timeline is established at that moment. This time line may be relative to other time lines, but to the thing itself, time was created the moment the thing was created. It would have no relationship to any other system except in a relative way relatively.

    Perhaps there may seem to be apparent different frames of reference, but when traced to the source (causality) itself, time began when the causality produced a result in reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Does things that happens without a cause mean that it might not have happened at that time?

    it sounds confusing, let me put it straighter:
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It certainly seems that at the quantum level, things can happen purely randomly, with no apparent cause. For example, there is a particle called a muon (like a heavy version of the electron) which decays after an average time of ~2 Ás. So you van have an isolated muon, a fundamental particle with no constituent parts (as far as we know) and after some time it will spontaneously decay. Nothing causes it to decay at that instant. What causes it to wait that long? Nothing as far as we know.
    because, if your answer is no, doesn't it mean that determinism agrees with the many worlds theory? (although its still unpredictable, due to HUP)
    Returning to the original question;
    Your question is a bit hard to interpret, you seem to ask for a temporal localization of the event to be a requirement of causality. This isn't the case.
    First of, reality, as we measure it, does not agree with Determinism. Because we know that any description of the world must be as close to reality as possible, no good theory these days relies on determinism. (I realize that for instance 't Hooft is still working on this, but I still do not agree with him)

    Spontaneous decay of a single particle is indeed a reason for blaming a lack of causality. But experiments have shown that the lack of observables between detection of decay and observables are quite dictating about the decay. It could very well be that decay is caused by the possibility of said decay to interact with the environment. However testing such would be rather difficult. I have personally reasons to believe that the only reason we humans think causality is violated at all, is because most people are limited into imagining the time-dimension to have a point of origin, to which we move away from in the positive direction. These are 2 claims, which we have too many degrees of freedom for, and are mere assumptions, and are not at all physically required.
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    I admit my enthusiastic but superficial knowledge in these subjects and my posits are intuitive and speculative.

    I do have a question. If time is independent of causality, how can we establish a chronology of events? Do we pick an arbitrary starting time along the time dimension somewhere and work from there?
    We do this in real life by assigning time periods for certain activities, within an 8 hr. workday. Does this happen in the cosmos?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I admit my enthusiastic but superficial knowledge in these subjects and my posits are intuitive and speculative.

    I do have a question. If time is independent of causality, how can we establish a chronology of events? Do we pick an arbitrary starting time along the time dimension somewhere and work from there?
    We do this in real life by assigning time periods for certain activities, within an 8 hr. workday. Does this happen in the cosmos?
    It is not sure whether time is independent of causality or not but most possibly independent.

    Think about space and time?

    If you compare them you can find both have huge similarities.

    What is time ? Is it exists physically ? No could prove.
    It seems more a source of measurement.
    If an object move, is there any effect of time behind its movement?

    What is space? Is it exists physically ? Possibly in real sense it does not have physically presence.
    It also seems more like a source of measurement.

    It may be behavior of matter/energy to remain in motion(continuously change ) and may not be effect of spacetime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    I have a question too, if time is independant on casualty, can we "reverse" this casualty effect to "know" the past, and "reversing" it to infinity, we will "know" the origin of the universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Why not, I believe that in string theory a muon universe may come into existence for a moment, creating a short time line, then decay back into the quantum soup. The time line disappears with the particles, never to be repeated exactly the same way ever again. An chronological evolutionary dead end.

    IMO, most manifestations in reality have a very short life, before they are absorbed, modified, incorporated or fused. Only constants seem to work reliably over long periods of time over large distances.

    But it is expected that this entropic universe eventually will enter a non energetic state and die as a universe, ending our universal time as a non-energetic or non-causal universal entity.
    In another words, are you saying that time can be created and destroyed?
    And why/why not does it apply to our universe?

    According to qns i asked here: How could the big bang create itself?

    The answers i got is: Matter+energy can create itself, but only together with gravity, and time exists before matter was created, and it goes back to infinity. but what u r saying here is time can be created and destroyed, is it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Why not, I believe that in string theory a muon universe may come into existence for a moment, creating a short time line, then decay back into the quantum soup. The time line disappears with the particles, never to be repeated exactly the same way ever again. An chronological evolutionary dead end.

    IMO, most manifestations in reality have a very short life, before they are absorbed, modified, incorporated or fused. Only constants seem to work reliably over long periods of time over large distances.

    But it is expected that this entropic universe eventually will enter a non energetic state and die as a universe, ending our universal time as a non-energetic or non-causal universal entity.
    In another words, are you saying that time can be created and destroyed?
    And why/why not does it apply to our universe?
    Perhaps, that is the wrong question.
    IMO, time is a fundamental potential, a latent function which becomes "activated" during the unfolding of reality. Without reality time is a non functional measurement. Similar to the concept of gravity being a potential, a latent excellence of mass. Without a mass (reality), no gravity. Without space (reality), no time.

    A better way might be to say time "is" for anything that exists and time "is not" for anything that does not exist. There is no time claimed for something which does not exist.
    The function of time is to allow reality to unfold chronologically in space. Without reality in space, time is not a requirement and lays dormant until something uses (demands, creates) it in the action of becoming reality.

    According to qns i asked here: How could the big bang create itself?

    The answers i got is: Matter+energy can create itself, but only together with gravity, and time exists before matter was created, and it goes back to infinity. but what u r saying here is time can be created and destroyed, is it?
    Perhaps the BB is the perfect proof of prior absence of time. It is the only time in the (beginning of) "history" of the universe that everything happened in one place at the same time. IOW, a single mega-quantum event where all the rules of space and time were broken (inflationary epoch), until gravity and time began to exert their, until now, latent restrictions on the created space-time where events (quantum) must follow a chronology of cause and effect in the explication of physical reality.

    Time can be created but cannot be destroyed. Time is a record in history (not a record of the future), and once created it is "used" and becomes history, which cannot be destroyed. Until used in the present and in the future, time itself does not exist for any particular reason, it is a result accompanying every causal event.

    Before the BB, there was no causal event and time simply was not necessary for a chronological function.

    My own favored position on the BB is "a single instant of infinite potential compressed into an infinitely small singularity, which demanded expression in reality".
    IOW, a single instant of all universal energetic potential exploding (inflating) from a single point (quantum vacuum), A mega- quantum event which was the Beginning of energy and matter in "space", requiring time for chronological expression in space-time.

    I qualify this with acknowledging that I am not a physicist, but to me if there was a Beginning, something like I described must have happened, else we are stuck with infinite time, infinite space, and the question remains unanswered forever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    I think following is true

    1.Time or spacetime has physically existence
    or

    Time or spacetime does not exist physically

    2. If Time exists physically, it must have properties , it may make effect on matter/energy and it may be responsible for "Change"

    3. If Time does not exist physically, It may not make any effect on mass/energy and it is more like a medium of measurement.
    "Change" on mass/energies may be due to their personal behavior and "Time" is a source to measure that changes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    I'll go with 3.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    IMO, time is a fundamental potential, a latent function which becomes "activated" during the unfolding of reality. Without reality time is a non functional measurement. Similar to the concept of gravity being a potential, a latent excellence of mass. Without a mass (reality), no gravity. Without space (reality), no time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Why not, I believe that in string theory a muon universe may come into existence for a moment, creating a short time line, then decay back into the quantum soup.

    The time line disappears.

    An chronological evolutionary dead end.

    But it is expected that this entropic universe eventually will enter a non energetic state and die as a universe, ending our universal time as a non-energetic or non-causal universal entity.
    Without space (reality), no time.
    Really?
    Well, space(and time) did, exist, even before the big bang, and after reading in this forum for quite long, somewhere i remembered someone saying it goes back to infinity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You could have space and time with no gravity. There is at least one solution of Einstein's field equations describing an empty universe.
    So, does it mean what you believe is wrong?

    Or does the string theory open up the concept and study on the creation of time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Originally Posted by Write4U
    IMO, time is a fundamental potential, a latent function which becomes "activated" during the unfolding of reality. Without reality time is a non functional measurement. Similar to the concept of gravity being a potential, a latent excellence of mass. Without a mass (reality), no gravity. Without space (reality), no time.

    Relation between matter and gravity are cause and effect

    Matter is cause & gravity is effect

    Is space cause and time effect

    Here matter exist physically and produce gravitational effect

    But most possibly space does not exist physically and how it produce effect if it does not exist physically

    If space exist before big bang?
    If yes time must exist before big bang
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    I am merely stating my intuitive understanding of how things might work, but I remain open to all reliable evidence or logical argument that can propose another possible beginning. We already discussed the multi-universe

    There are several candidates, which is a good thing as each proposed solution also tests previous theories and ask questions about the other theories.
    One of the fundamental tests today is if a theory is non-perturbing or in conflict with either GR and QM. If not, it is promising, if it conflicts with one or the other, it will generally not be acceptable, without certain qualifications.

    I really like string theory. I can relate to wavelike functions of both physical and non-physical potentials, which when reinforced may express themselves as energetic vibrations And that, IMO is the single requirement to start a quantum reaction where all the compressed potential is released as energy and the simplest elemental particles. Once inflation slowed down to SOL, and gravity began to play a part in the creation of super-novae, where the other elements were formed, and the evolution of the universe had started and time had begun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    What will happen if string theory and milne model comes in conflict?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    I agree , Most possibly they exist before Big Bang
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Is matter exist before Big Bang?

    Yes

    String theory is good theory yet incomplete, unreliable and do not give many answers
    But in future this theory may be an established theory like GR
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    The Milne Model has been discounted by most as I read the article.

    But I'll go with "strings" (meta-physical vibrations) which may become expressed in reality when reinforced with additional string vibrations, perhaps forming harmonics, which is a physical phenomenon.

    Personally I tend to reject anything that lays claim as an infinite state in itself. That term means absolutely nothing. It is no greater than a zero state and that may be used as a true baseline for measurement. Infinity poses an eternal paradox.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    The Milne Model has been discounted by most as I read the article.
    Depends what you mean. It is a valid model (it is an exact solution to the Einstein field equations). But it is obviously not a model of our universe (as our universe is not empty).

    Personally I tend to reject anything that lays claim as an infinite state in itself. That term means absolutely nothing. It is no greater than a zero state and that may be used as a true baseline for measurement. Infinity poses an eternal paradox.
    I don't know why you think it is meaningless or paradoxical (aren't those contradictory, anyway?). Infinity, in mathematics at least, has a very well defined meaning.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by write4u View Post
    sorry i have never seen it before, what is it? A type universe?
    lorenz attractor.
    It's a "graph" of 3 simple differential equations, but despite the fact that the thing is drawn using known values it displays chaotic behaviour.
    It is impossible to say where the "next step" will lie on that graph.
    chaos theory.
    This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] in other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.
    Im sorry to intrude but...

    Deterministic and Predictive systems need not be the same then.
    But what is it that makes the difference?

    Looked at, in a picture of some reality, time is shown as a continous line.
    But IS it really?

    What if there is a next point,"x", to any point, x , of time?

    Then the predictability of the line of points,
    derived by induction from x, ("x", ""x"" , """x"""...)
    could perhaps differ from the predictability of "x" from x.

    What I think we need to show for that
    is that there is some difference within "x",
    between the prediction of "x" within x,
    and the "x" the x will have as its next point in line. ...

    ((In other words: the inside difference between x and "x",
    that gives time its direction.))

    Making a one to one mapping impossible...
    ((Even if no other change is found in "x"!))
    Then the induction series forming a line
    cannot in its entirety be "calculated" from any x.

    Is this perhaps what Chaos Theory shows?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by write4u View Post
    sorry i have never seen it before, what is it? A type universe?
    lorenz attractor.
    It's a "graph" of 3 simple differential equations, but despite the fact that the thing is drawn using known values it displays chaotic behaviour.
    It is impossible to say where the "next step" will lie on that graph.
    chaos theory.
    This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] in other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.
    Im sorry to intrude but...

    Deterministic and Predictive systems need not be the same then.
    But what is it that makes the difference?

    Looked at, in a picture of some reality, time is shown as a continous line.
    But IS it really?

    What if there is a next point,"x", to any point, x , of time?

    Then the predictability of the line of points,
    derived by induction from x, ("x", ""x"" , """x"""...)
    could perhaps differ from the predictability of "x" from x.

    What I think we need to show for that
    is that there is some difference within "x",
    between the prediction of "x" within x,
    and the "x" the x will have as its next point in line. ...

    ((In other words: the inside difference between x and "x",
    that gives time its direction.))

    Making a one to one mapping impossible...
    ((Even if no other change is found in "x"!))
    Then the induction series forming a line
    cannot in its entirety be "calculated" from any x.

    Is this perhaps what Chaos Theory shows?

    Chaos Theory is not an anti determined Theory
    It never shows chances exist in real term

    It just tells with very very small negligible changes in initial system can make a huge effect and
    prediction by an observer may not accurate.

    Where it shows there chances for different type of behavior for an object under a condition?.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    Strange,
    I don't know why you think it is meaningless or paradoxical (aren't those contradictory, anyway?). Infinity, in mathematics at least, has a very well defined meaning.
    I am not sure why I expressed that intuition, but I meant that, drawing an infinite universe with or without matter and energy, does not solve anything. We will still be stuck with the question of Origin and Causality.
    Infinity is a measurement and while it may be used mathematically, but IMO it is not a causal force, is it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    in chaos theory.Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable."

    what does it mean?
    is it:
    1) Its deterministic, but even if we have all the details(although its impossible), we still can't predict what will happen.
    2) Its deterministic, but we cant predict what will happen, because its impossible for us to get all the details.

    which of the two is the wiki implying?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,618
    2.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,320
    Actually 1.
    We have ALL of the details for some systems (they can be composed of as few as three [relatively] simple equations) yet it is impossible to say what will happen next.
    The sentence prior to the one quoted clarifies it:
    This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,618
    Clarify. If you have all the details, then you should be able to predict. It doesn't matter how sensitive it is to initial conditions-if you have the details, you can account for it. It's lacking the details that ruins the prediction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,320
    Not at all.
    This is why chaos theory has caught the imagination, and also proved so useful.
    It shows, irrevocably, that even if we do know ALL of the initial conditions AND we know precisely the governing equations, future behaviour is not predictable.
    It also turns out that many "standard" systems are, in fact, chaotic, but science has generally simplified the models and ignored that unpredictability because
    A) close enough is good enough , and
    B) we don't know how to handle the chaotic part.

    This is a great introduction.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    in chaos theory.Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable."

    what does it mean?
    is it:
    1) Its deterministic, but even if we have all the details(although its impossible), we still can't predict what will happen.
    2) Its deterministic, but we cant predict what will happen, because its impossible for us to get all the details.

    which of the two is the wiki implying?
    I am with (2) but not agree completley It depends on some degree
    In some cases Practically ,we are able to predict rightly but in most cases not
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Clarify. If you have all the details, then you should be able to predict. It doesn't matter how sensitive it is to initial conditions-if you have the details, you can account for it. It's lacking the details that ruins the prediction.
    Predictable if we also have informaion of observing effects
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    even if we do know ALL of the initial conditions AND we know precisely the governing equations, future behaviour is not predictable.
    Why not predictable?

    Could you give a link to somewhere i could read that i dont have to purchase/use money?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,320
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Why not predictable?
    Because that's how it is.

    Could you give a link to somewhere i could read that i dont have to purchase/use money?
    Um, how about the links on the Wiki page?
    Or this?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    read this carefully
    GAS CHAMBER
    "at random, the gas reverses direction again; these changes continue at unpredictable times, at unpredictable speeds. "

    its just that this experiment, they dont take ALL the initial conditions, and governing laws. it just looks random.. chaos theory = butterfly effect?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,320
    I did read it.
    Where does it state your claim?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    875
    My statement: " they dont take ALL the initial conditions, and governing laws."
    perhaps they take all the governing laws...

    but its impossible for them to take ALL THE INITIAL CONDITIONS, especially quanflux, radioactive decay, movement of cars 1mile away that alters the gravitational field, infra-red/other radiation from the outside that cant 100% be removed, well, tons of other initial conditions that they DID NOT take down!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,320
    Ho hum...
    Please go back and read what I wrote, what that link states and compare it to what you wrote.
    Also read the Wiki link and check up on "noise".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Chaos Theory is not an anti determined Theory
    It never shows chances exist in real term
    Dywyddyr will answer you I think.
    I will only be a problem: (He he.)
    What is the proof that, say: x , exists?
    Do you want me to tell you what must be true if x exists?
    Or do you prefer telling me?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Chaos Theory is not an anti determined Theory
    It never shows chances exist in real term
    Dywyddyr will answer you I think.
    I will only be a problem: (He he.)
    What is the proof that, say: x , exists?
    Do you want me to tell you what must be true if x exists?
    Or do you prefer telling me?
    No theory from quantum to chaos claim there is no determination in real sense
    Read Chaos theory clearly and write line where it claims

    What x?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,320
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    No theory from quantum to chaos claim there is no determination in real sense
    This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.

    Again.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    ;403486]
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    No theory from quantum to chaos claim there is no determination in real sense
    This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.

    Again.[/QUOTE]

    Either we should not able to predict any output not even when a bus would reach its destination even if we have all knowledge
    Or we should be able to predict all output if all information, "observing effects " are completely known theoretically although in most cases complete information and effects of our observation on output are not known.

    Either nothing should be predictable or all should be predictable
    A law can not show dual behavior
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,320
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K
    Either we should not able to predict any output not even when a bus would reach its destination even if we have all knowledge
    Or we should be able to predict all output if all information, "observing effects " are completely known theoretically although in most cases complete information and effects of our observation on output are not known.

    Either nothing should be predictable or all should be predictable
    A law can not show dual behavior
    Right. And a photon should be either wave or a particle.
    Tell me, why do you think reality should conform to your preferences?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Photon exhibit both wave and particle properties

    Law of wave-particle duality is not just of photon but for all particles

    You can not make something predictable
    And other unpredictable
    If some are predictable
    And other are not predictable , then there are reasons, these reasons are lack of or impossibility of real information and observing effect
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,320
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Photon exhibit both wave and particle properties
    But it would be much neater if they were just one or the other.

    You can not make something predictable
    And other unpredictable
    If some are predictable
    And other are not predictable , then there are reasons, these reasons are lack of or impossibility of real information and observing effect
    Wrong again.
    I'll ask once more: why do you think reality should conform to your preferences?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Reality should not confirm my preference what it must follow its properties 's preference
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 27th, 2012, 08:23 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 30th, 2010, 06:45 AM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: July 17th, 2009, 09:02 PM
  4. What Happened to the the XM8?
    By BioHazard in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 7th, 2009, 09:25 PM
  5. Funny things that happened to you today
    By ten_ben in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 18th, 2007, 12:16 AM
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
  •