Space, drugs, and free time.

[Tyguy]

The following are just things I think of when it's late and the power goes out. Feel free to disagree and give your own ideas. We're all theoretical physicists here.

1) There are multiple universes (multiverse) which are entirely distinct from one another but follow the same scientific principles and rules. They would contain everything we see in our universe but would have evolved differently. There would be stars, galaxies, planets, etc...This isn't to suggest that I believe there is an infinite amount of universes.

2) The big bang is part of a cycle where the universe expands and contracts forever. This is an example of a closed system, one which does not lead to entropy. In order for this to be plausible, the universe must cease expanding and violate Hubble's Law (which basically says a galaxy's distance from us is proportional to it's recessional speed.) So the farthest galaxies that we can see happen to be receding from us some percentage of the speed of light. Around 4 percent of the universal gravitational effect is observed, meaning dark energy (73%) and dark matter (23%) are responsible for the rest. Now, obviously all signs point towards entropy but I like to think there is some force which will cease the expansion and bring everything back to a singularity. Following this, the big bang would occur again and the process would repeat. This is suggested in the movie K-PAX, but I don't like to operate under the assumption that everything that has happened will happen again the exact same. That's just sad.

3) Assuming the age of the universe is 14 billion years, there has been an enormous amount of time for intelligent life to emerge. I make this assumption based on the conditions needed for human life to exist. Examples include heavier elements (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, etc) produced in large stars, planets revolving around stars similar to ours, and the so-called goldie lox zone for water to exist. Let's make another assumption that intelligent alien life would almost surely be more advanced than ours. My theory is that there is a an intergalactic community, one which only allows civilizations of specific morality and scientific advancement to join, similar to the south park episode where Baby Fark McGee-zax tests earth to see if it is ready to join. I also believe there is some form of life which is silicon based.

4) There is a star remnant between pulsars and black holes called quark stars. These emerge from stars massive enough to bypass neutron star production yet not enough to form a black hole. Quark stars contain "quark matter" which is matter under enough pressure where it breaks apart into it's constituent particles. I actually wrote a paper on this (got an A-, no big deal) and found it to be really ****ing cool.

5) There is a large amount of radiation that cannot be detected, anywhere from below the radio domain to above the gamma ray domain. I have no evidence for this but I suspect it's discovery will help to understand dark energy.

That's all I got for now.

Space is cool, bro.

 

[Warped]

My curiosity begins a bit closer, with Venus!

Japan's Venus Climate Orbiter "Akatsuki" will both the atmosphere and surface of Venus. Credit: Akihiro Ikeshita/JAXA

A new Japanese space probe is poised to launch toward Venus to help solve the enduring mysteries of the hellish, cloud-covered world, which has been often described as Earth's twin. But the ambitious spacecraft will have to wait for better weather on Earth.

The Venus Climate Orbiter Akatsuki, which means "Dawn" in Japanese, was slated to launch from Tanegashima Space Center in Japan today on a 2-year mission to study the weather and surface of Venus in unprecedented detail. But low clouds and foul weather prevented its planned liftoff at 5:44 p.m. EDT today, though it was early Tuesday morning local time at the launch site. A new launch target was not immediately available.

"Once we can explain the structure of Venus, we will be able to better understand Earth," said Akatsuki project scientist Takeshi Imamura in a statement released by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). "For example, we may discover the reasons that only Earth has been able to sustain oceans, and why only Earth is abundant in life."

Imamura has called Akatsuki "the world's first interplanetary probe that deserves to be called a meteorological satellite."

The probe carries five different cameras to study Venus' clouds as well as map the planet's weather and peer through its thick atmosphere to view the surface. It will join Europe's Venus Express already in orbit around the planet, and has scientists on that mission eager as well.

"Venus somehow transformed from a more Earth-like place to the alien place it is today, and what's fascinating about the world is figuring out how it diverges from the Earth and the history behind why that happened," said David Grinspoon, curator of astrobiology at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science and an interdisciplinary scientist on the Venus Express mission. "It could help us understand how things here might change."

Akatsuki will launch atop a Japanese H-2A rocket and won't be alone during blastoff. JAXA is launching several smaller satellite experiments with the mission, including an ambitious solar sail designed to tag along on the trip to Venus. [More on Japan's solar sail mission.]

Secret of Venus' super-rotation

One of Akatsuki's main goals is to understand what may be the biggest mystery of Venus — the "super-rotation" of its atmosphere, where violent winds drive storms and clouds around that planet at speeds of more than 220 mph (360 kph), some 60 times faster than the planet itself rotates.

"There's no consistent model of Venus's climate that can reproduce this super-rotation," Grinspoon explained. "We've been taking general circulation models from Earth and tweaking them for Venus, and they don't work. By understanding better how climate works on Venus, it will make us better understand how climate change on Earth works."

Akatsuki will monitor Venus in the infrared to learn more about the atmosphere and surface under the murky clouds, hopefully revealing what mechanism is driving this super-rotation.

But Imamura has said his team is fully prepared to be surprised by unexpected findings which may uncover more questions than answers.

"We may be pleasantly surprised by the emergence of a greater mystery than super-rotation," he said.

Impossible lightning

The Venus Express spacecraft the European Space Agency launched in 2005 intriguingly found evidence of lightning on the planet, even though none should exist.

"What creates lightning on Earth is water droplets and ice crystals in clouds, which leads to the separation of electric charges that lightning needs, and you don't have that kind of weather on Venus," Grinspoon said.

But Venus is covered with thick clouds of sulfuric acid.

"Maybe there's a kind of weather we haven't seen yet on Venus that causes this lightning, or maybe how we're wrong about the kinds of conditions needed to make lightning," he added.

Akatsuki should help capture vital clues about this lightning with a camera dedicated to photographing it.

Weird stripes on Venus

There are unusual stripes in the upper clouds of Venus dubbed "blue absorbers" because they strongly absorb light in the blue and ultraviolet wavelengths. These are soaking up a huge amount of energy — nearly half of the total solar energy the planet absorbs. As such, they seem to play a major role in keeping Venus as hellish as it is, with surface temperatures of more than 860 degrees F (460 degrees C).

"We don't know what they are," Grinspoon said. "They're probably some kind of sulfur compound, but we haven't been able to nail it down yet."

Akatsuki's ultraviolet imager will focus on inspecting these enigmas.

A bright mystery, and volcanoes?

In 2007, two-thirds of the Venus's southern hemisphere was suddenly covered in a bright haze that disappeared a few days later. It remains uncertain what started this amazing transformation.

"We think it's some kind of dynamic overturning of the atmosphere that injected sulfur dioxide above the clouds briefly, but we're not sure," Grinspoon said.

The clouds may be fueled from sulfur spewed up by volcanoes on Venus, as Grinspoon and his colleagues ran calculations that suggest the sulfur seen in the atmosphere should dissipate after 10 to 30 million years if not otherwise refueled. However, Venus's clouds are so thick that no one has actually seen any volcanoes yet.

"Venus guards her secrets rather tightly, and under forbidding conditions," he said. The scientists behind Akatsuki hope its cameras might be able to spot active volcanoes under her veil.

Double-teaming Venus

When Akatsuki reaches Venus in December, it will find Venus Express there as a partner in orbit, complementing it in a number of ways.

For instance, they will take different orbits over the planet — while Venus Express has an orbit that takes it over both poles, enabling it to see virtually the entire world, Akatsuki will fly an elliptical orbit around the equator, allowing it to concentrate on parts of the atmosphere for hours at a time. The orbit will bring Akatsuki as close as 186 miles (300 km) to Venus and as far away as 49,709 miles (80,000 km).

"Venus Express and Akatsuki are like sister satellites, and a very good cooperative relationship has been built as we have progressed in our missions," Imamura said.

Imamura said that while Venus Express primarily studies the chemical composition of Venus' atmosphere, Akatsuki will focus on the fluid motion of the planet's weather. Together, the two spacecraft should reveal a comprehensive picture of how the planet works.

"If there's one thing we've been learning about Venus, it's that it's a really dynamic planet that's very changeable, so we need as much long-term data as we can to build up an understanding of how things change over time," Grinspoon said. "Having Akatsuki there should help capture more vital clues to understanding Venus's mysteries."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/venus-mysteries-japanese-mission-100517.html

 

[Tyguy]

What interesting about Venus, besides everything you just said, is that it's atmosphere is so thick yet mars' atmosphere is thin. Had the two been reversed you could potentially have 2 more planets capable of supporting life.

 

[Ravioli]

Text of Doom

But yeah, space is crazy bro

 

[Rizzo]

I do think that psychedelic drugs totally let's you glimse into like, another dimension man.
Should try it out bro.

 

[Qonfused]

Dude, totally.

 

[VirusType2]

Scientists in Japan recently discovered through an experiment that meteorites striking Earth at full speed (massive heat and compression) in the presence of water and nitrogen creates amino acids - the building blocks of life.

I saw it on the Discovery channel, but here are some articles on the subject: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...+earth&btnG=Google+Search&fp=9fa3b97ffb3e7d61

The researchers report in Nature Geoscience today that they replicated the impact of a chondrite, a common type of meteorite, striking the ocean at about 1.25 miles (two kilometers) per second. The team did this by subjecting chemical constituents of chondrites (iron, nickel and carbon), as well as water and nitrogen, believed to be plentiful in the early atmosphere, to shock compression. The resulting pressures and temperatures, which likely exceeded 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (2,760 degrees Celsius), yielded a variety of organic (carbon-based) compounds, such as fatty acids and amines. And when ammonia, which a previous study showed impacts could produce, was added to the starting mix, the experiment also yielded glycine (a simple amino acid).

"there are many additional molecules we found but didn't analyze yet."

"we can say those ocean impact events [were] very effective processes for the production of various biomolecules on the early Earth."


We know by looking at the moon that Earth was under heavy bombardment from meteorites long ago, although that evidence has been recycled here on Earth through plate tectonics.

 

[Tyguy]

^ this reminds me of the Miller-Urey experiment

although it doesn't amount to anything tangible, it's quite remarkable what you get from such a simple experiment.

 

[VirusType2]

Yeah, I was just going to edit my post to include something about the Miller-Urey experiment.

The study by Sekine, Furukawa and their colleagues is a kind of oceanic, kinetic-impact analogue to the Miller–Urey experiment, a legendary 1953 demonstration by the late chemist, Stanley Miller of the University of Chicago, who, along with colleague Harold Urey, showed that an electric discharge applied to suspected components of the early atmosphere yielded a bounty of amino acids. In October, marine chemist Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., and his colleagues published a reanalysis of some of Miller's samples from a different experimental setup. Bada and his collaborators found even more organic material than Miller himself had announced—22 amino acids and five amines.

Sekine cautions that the meteorite-impact theory is not ready to supplant the vaunted Miller–Urey experiment. He says that the new study's results merely "open up a door to discuss the possibility" of meteorite impacts as an originator for life on Earth. "We do need to test the possibility for the formation of more complicated amino acids," he says.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rock-and-roil-meteorites

 

[15357]

3) Assuming the age of the universe is 14 billion years, there has been an enormous amount of time for intelligent life to emerge. I make this assumption based on the conditions needed for human life to exist. Examples include heavier elements (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, etc) produced in large stars, planets revolving around stars similar to ours, and the so-called goldie lox zone for water to exist. Let's make another assumption that intelligent alien life would almost surely be more advanced than ours. My theory is that there is a an intergalactic community, one which only allows civilizations of specific morality and scientific advancement to join, similar to the south park episode where Baby Fark McGee-zax tests earth to see if it is ready to join. I also believe there is some form of life which is silicon based.

I disagree with your second assumption. For every civilization more advanced than ours, there are prolly more less advanced, and even more around the same. Actually, I kind of like the "doomsday theory" of why we haven't met any aliens yet:

This is the argument that technological civilizations may usually or invariably destroy themselves before or shortly after developing radio or space flight technology. Possible means of annihilation include nuclear war, biological warfare or accidental contamination, nanotechnological catastrophe, ill-advised physics experiments,[34] a badly programmed super-intelligence, or a Malthusian catastrophe after the deterioration of a planet's ecosphere. This general theme is explored both in fiction and in mainstream scientific theorizing.[35] Indeed, there are probabilistic arguments which suggest that human extinction may occur sooner rather than later. In 1966 Sagan and Shklovskii suggested that technological civilizations will either tend to destroy themselves within a century of developing interstellar communicative capability or master their self-destructive tendencies and survive for billion-year timescales.[36] Self-annihilation may also be viewed in terms of thermodynamics: insofar as life is an ordered system that can sustain itself against the tendency to disorder, the "external transmission" or interstellar communicative phase may be the point at which the system becomes unstable and self-destructs.[37]

...

This argument does not require the civilization to entirely self-destruct, only to become once again non-technological. In other ways it could persist and even thrive according to evolutionary standards, which postulate producing offspring as the sole goal of life — not "progress", be it in terms of technology or even intelligence.

We'd better get going and nuke a few civilizations from orbit.


Also, yes, space is awesome, including all the little things about supermassive black holes and stuff.

 

[xombine]

I do think that psychedelic drugs totally let's you glimse into like, another dimension man.
Should try it out bro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine

 

[Tyguy]

I disagree with your second assumption. For every civilization more advanced than ours, there are prolly more less advanced, and even more around the same. Actually, I kind of like the "doomsday theory" of why we haven't met any aliens yet

If you take the drake equation into account as well as the time it took us to go from cavemen to present you have a very small time period, at least on a cosmic scale. Let's use 100 thousand years. Now considering the universe is 14 billion years old it would be very unlikely alien life would be in a similar stage of evolution. Single cellular organisms can remain in their present state for billions of years but I'm only referring to intelligent life.

Sure, it's possible some are around our technological capabilities but highly unlikely in my opinion.

 

[No Limit]

2) The big bang is part of a cycle where the universe expands and contracts forever. This is an example of a closed system, one which does not lead to entropy. In order for this to be plausible, the universe must cease expanding and violate Hubble's Law (which basically says a galaxy's distance from us is proportional to it's recessional speed.) So the farthest galaxies that we can see happen to be receding from us some percentage of the speed of light. Around 4 percent of the universal gravitational effect is observed, meaning dark energy (73%) and dark matter (23%) are responsible for the rest. Now, obviously all signs point towards entropy but I like to think there is some force which will cease the expansion and bring everything back to a singularity. Following this, the big bang would occur again and the process would repeat. This is suggested in the movie K-PAX, but I don't like to operate under the assumption that everything that has happened will happen again the exact same. That's just sad.

I don't know that you would automatically get everything to be exactly the same. The big bang was chaotic from what we know. If just a few molecules right after the big bang move to a different area it will totally change the way the universe today would look.

Now I was thinking about the universe and time in great detail a while back and came up with an awesome little theory. And now I can't remember it (drugs are bad), I'll see if it will come to me.

On edit: Time is the one thing that really fascinates me. In space we know time is relative. The faster you travel the different time will be for you, absolutely insane concept. But time we see in our heads is also relative. Put your hand on a hot stove and keep it there, time will suddenly go much much slower. Find 2 beautiful ladies to sit on your lap and time flies by. It also seems like the older you get the faster time appears to move. I think there has to be some relation with this to how time behaves in our universe. How can time be going slow in my head while time for you is flying eventhough we could be standing right next to each other, makes no sense.

 

[McGooTheWise]

This is my kinda thread. Bookmarked.

 

[kupocake]

I opened this thread expecting Bowie.

 

[Robbo]

I had a thought.... just then and am looking for someone with a degree more relevant than geology to see if I'm just an idiot.

Could you make a ToE by modeling large scale structures the same way as small scale one but being somehow affected by time (large things happen slower). For example you can shoot an object through a galaxy without it hitting anything.......

Actually that doesn't make any sense, but it would be cool if the only thing holding us back from a correct understanding of the universe was an understanding of time.

 

[15357]

If you take the drake equation into account as well as the time it took us to go from cavemen to present you have a very small time period, at least on a cosmic scale. Let's use 100 thousand years. Now considering the universe is 14 billion years old it would be very unlikely alien life would be in a similar stage of evolution. Single cellular organisms can remain in their present state for billions of years but I'm only referring to intelligent life.

Sure, it's possible some are around our technological capabilities but highly unlikely in my opinion.

Yes, but why would any other planet take much less than Earth itself to meet the conditions for life? And for intelligent, sentient life to develop?

Of course, we are on a cosmic timescale, which would mean that.... yes, if Earth is the average, other civilizations would be off by... give or take a couple of million years.

And there you have it. You've just crushed my dreams of imperialist humanity.

 

[Tyguy]

I don't know that you would automatically get everything to be exactly the same. The big bang was chaotic from what we know. If just a few molecules right after the big bang move to a different area it will totally change the way the universe today would look.

I’m not implying that everything will turn out the same. There is always the element of chance, whether it’s colliding dust granules or protostellar clouds breaking apart. Interestingly enough, and relevant to the class I just took, it’s been “calculated” that it could have taken anywhere between a few millennia to a million years for atoms to form and not be immediately torn apart. The chaos right after the big bang was pure radiation and apparently after enough time passed (and the temperature dropped) baryons (protons, neutrons, etc) formed. It’s unreal how much we can learn from particle accelerators.

Time is the one thing that really fascinates me. In space we know time is relative. The faster you travel the different time will be for you, absolutely insane concept. But time we see in our heads is also relative. Put your hand on a hot stove and keep it there, time will suddenly go much much slower. Find 2 beautiful ladies to sit on your lap and time flies by. It also seems like the older you get the faster time appears to move. I think there has to be some relation with this to how time behaves in our universe. How can time be going slow in my head while time for you is flying even though we could be standing right next to each other, makes no sense.

That’s always been something that interested me. I assume that time seems to go by faster when you’re enjoying yourself merely because you aren’t conceptualizing it as much, sort of like “a watched pot never boils”. But there are days where it seems like time stops for a couple hours so ya, it’s weird.

Could you make a ToE by modeling large scale structures the same way as small scale one but being somehow affected by time (large things happen slower). For example you can shoot an object through a galaxy without it hitting anything.......

That would be nice, but it just doesn't work. We have two separate theories for microscopic and macroscopic.

For example you can shoot an object through a galaxy without it hitting anything.......

I'm not sure what you mean but it's kinda cool that colliding galaxies typically will never make physical contact given the amount of space between the stars.

Of course, we are on a cosmic timescale, which would mean that.... yes, if Earth is the average, other civilizations would be off by... give or take a couple of million years.

That's the only assumption I'm making.

 

[KiplingsCat]

The universe is infinite (or at least, pretty damn big). Lrrr must be out there somewhere (in fact, it's a mathematical certainty).

 

[Tyguy]

The universe is infinite (or at least, pretty damn big). Lrrr must be out there somewhere (in fact, it's a mathematical certainty).

We know it's not infinite. All the matter in the universe isn't simply expanding into an infinite empty space, rather, the space itself is being created proportional to the expansion.

Do me a favor, explain the Kipling's Cat paradox. It just seems like a "tree fell in the woods" type scenario...

 

[Eejit]

This thread made my brain weep.

 

[No Limit]

That’s always been something that interested me. I assume that time seems to go by faster when you’re enjoying yourself merely because you aren’t conceptualizing it as much, sort of like “a watched pot never boils”. But there are days where it seems like time stops for a couple hours so ya, it’s weird.

But that means that our brain can actually control how we see time. Which is an insane concept, how can you see time running slow while the person next to you sees time as flying by. This happens when you sleep a lot. Ever have those nights when you close your eyes and it feels like minutes later you open your eyes and it's already morning? Other nights you'll keep waking up and it seems like the night lasted forever. You were asleep for what seemed like forever yet you look at the clock and only an hour has passed.

I know this might be more of a biological question (something I don't know anything about) but I love to to think that time in space is somehow related to how we perceive time.

I’m not implying that everything will turn out the same. There is always the element of chance, whether it’s colliding dust granules or protostellar clouds breaking apart. Interestingly enough, and relevant to the class I just took, it’s been “calculated” that it could have taken anywhere between a few millennia to a million years for atoms to form and not be immediately torn apart. The chaos right after the big bang was pure radiation and apparently after enough time passed (and the temperature dropped) baryons (protons, neutrons, etc) formed. It’s unreal how much we can learn from particle accelerators.

After thinking about it the funny thing is that if the universe truly contracts and expands forever then eventually everything has to happen exactly the same, no? It might take trillions upon trillions of cycles but eventually math says that this very moment right now will happen again, and again, and again. It has to.

Same goes if the theory that there are infinate number of universes is true. That means somewhere out there what I'm doing right now has to be happening and not just once.

What are you going to school for?

 

[The_Freeman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oYS9-Ee9U

Watch from about 1:05 onwards and it shows the sheer size of the universe. There must be life above a cellular level somewhere.

 

[McGooTheWise]

That was purely amazing to watch. Oh Stephen Hawking... You smart shit.

 

[Tyguy]

But that means that our brain can actually control how we see time. Which is an insane concept, how can you see time running slow while the person next to you sees time as flying by. This happens when you sleep a lot. Ever have those nights when you close your eyes and it feels like minutes later you open your eyes and it's already morning? Other nights you'll keep waking up and it seems like the night lasted forever. You were asleep for what seemed like forever yet you look at the clock and only an hour has passed.

I think the perception of time is influenced by our experiences. As we were young our minds were constantly being inundated with information that would seem mundane and of no significant value today. For example, as a child you encounter more "new" information on a daily basis and as you age you begin to filter out the more frivolous things. I think you're right when you say it's biological. The brain tends to discard information of no significant value to your life. This in turn affects our perception of time.

After thinking about it the funny thing is that if the universe truly contracts and expands forever then eventually everything has to happen exactly the same, no? It might take trillions upon trillions of cycles but eventually math says that this very moment right now will happen again, and again, and again. It has to.

Technically speaking I suppose so, although inferring that everything happens the exact same is proposing that every single particle in the universe also obeys this principle. I couldn't even fathom the number of cycles required to reach this point, but like you said, if the universe contracts and expands forever this HAS to eventually happen.

What are you going to school for?

I'm an odd duckling. I started out in criminal justice, then decided to study engineering, and now I'm studying biology. I can't make up my mind!

What are your thoughts on chaos theory? On a large scale there's obvious proof that small changes can have a colossal impact on the world but I feel as though even the smallest permutations can achieve the same effect.

Spoiler for the tl;dr'ers

Spoiler

I take this a step further though. My theory is that every event that has ever taken place HAD to take place and could not have happened any other way. Now obviously from a physics standpoint this makes sense regarding, for the sake of argument, the position of a comet in space. We know when a certain comet will be close to the earth based on mathematics and observation. Let's say this comet colided with another celestial body and was moved off course. I don't see this as random because this other celestial body was influenced by "something" which also follows the same rules which kept the comet on it's predictable trajectory.

Now use that same logic and apply it to human thought. My decision to create this thread was the result of countless circumstances. You could argue that I was bored and happen to be reading a scientific journal which lead me to want to create the thread. However, in order for me to make that decision a number of chemical processes had to take place in my brain. These chemical processes are the result of every experience I have ever had in my life combined with the impact my environment has on me. On a molecular level, the activity in my brain is no different than the aforementioned comet example. If you wanted to call this fate, I suppose I couldn't argue with that. If two people meet each other and get married, I attribute their lives together as a culmination of everything. Fate tends to suggest a deity so for all intensive purposes, I'd rather not call it that.

I don't really think I did this much justice after re-reading but I think the overall point was addressed.

 

[No Limit]

Speaking of particle accelerators:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news...ron-finds-another-bias-against-antimatter.ars

Anyway, I gotta head out. I'll pick up on this discussion tomorrow.

 

[Tyguy]

that article is both really cool and sad...the thought of andromeda consisting entirely of antimatter (POSSIBLE!) seems to be even more remote. On the plus side the universe won't take a collective shit on itself when the two galaxies merge.

 

[Solaris]

Tyguy, you say you think the universe is predetermined. However, quantum theory makes this idea redundant.

 

[Tyguy]

Tyguy, you say you think the universe is predetermined. However, quantum theory makes this idea redundant.

What I'm suggesting is likened to pool balls on a billiard table. It's mathematically possible to know the exact position of every single ball before the break as long as all the variables are accounted for including but not limited to the force of the pool stick striking the cue ball, the angle, point of impact, etc...

Quantum theory is no different in that the assumption is made wherein particle physics obeys a set of principles and laws. It's obvious our understanding of quantum mechanics is minuscule but to suggest that there cannot or might not exist a theory, or rather a law, to which it follows is no more unfounded than suggesting otherwise. It's practical to make the assumption that laws are being followed, even in the absence of evidence.

It's just a thought experiment but I've yet to find any holes in it.

 

[15357]

Do me a favor, explain the Kipling's Cat paradox. It just seems like a "tree fell in the woods" type scenario...

Wait, I thought Kipling was a poet of some kind.

 

[Tyguy]

Wait, I thought Kipling was a poet of some kind.

I was referring to Schrodinger's cat and had a mental fart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

It took me a second but I understand the paradox they present. Coincidentally it relates to this thread. Read the wiki, it's interesting, especially if you like hurting innocent cats

 

[KiplingsCat]

I was referring to Schrodinger's cat and had a mental fart

Oh that's what you were talking about! I was confus. I like the Schroedinger's cat paradox, from both a philosophical and a scientific standpoint. Basically what I take from it is that if we can't know something for certain, we must consider all possibilities to be true. If we don't know whether the cat is dead or alive, the cat is both dead and alive in two separate quantum states. In the same way, we can't know if an electron is spin up or spin down (I think? I should know, I sat an exam in this two weeks ago) so the electron is said to have two quantum states.

Edit: Also, I know the nature of the Universe is a touchy subject for some people I'm just used to considering it to be infinite for convenience; it makes some exam questions easier to do.

 

[Dan]

Tyguy, you say you think the universe is predetermined. However, quantum theory makes this idea redundant.

I don't think that redundant means what you think it means.

 

[Dan]

Anyways, it may be physically provable that the universe is predetermined, but it is also a logical necessity. You can prove it with thought experiments.

What is the alternative to a predetermined universe? Some random distribution, yes? A probability field. We are either following a straight rail line, or we are one the tip of one branch of an infinite probability tree. Well Consider the later case for a minute. Assume that true randomness does exist.

Also consider the nature of existence. Why does the universe exist at all? What does it mean for something to exist? You find that the two concepts are really the same concept.

The unifying root is your experience of the universe, which can be considered a governing factor. So what happened to all of those random cases where the Earth was never formed? Where the universe never existed? They don't exist because we don't experience them. Similarly, every branch on that tree which you don't experience is culled. The result is the straight line path leading directly to you at this very instant.

 

[Raziaar]

Wait... so what you're saying is that everything is predetermined because we don't experience the possibilities that never come to fruition, and thus as a result our life is a linear progression?

That seems silly.

I mean yes, if you look at it in such a bizarre way it's a linear path... but the direction that path will take isn't guaranteed, unless you look at it in hindsight.

 

[Dan]

Well in that case, the universe existing at all is silly. Why should the universe exist when it is much simpler for nothing to exist at all? The default state aught to be null. The measure of existence is the observation of the universe. The unobserved universe does not exist. It's really simple.

 

[Raziaar]

Well in that case, the universe existing at all is silly. Why should the universe exist when it is much simpler for nothing to exist at all? The default state aught to be null. The measure of existence is the observation of the universe.

Your measure of null is merely a result of your existence though.

 

[Dan]

Null is the state of nothing being defined. It is the universe you get when you don't have anything. Rather than thinking of it as 0, think of it as the absence of any number. No information. It is not a defined relative state.

 

[Raziaar]

But, you say with almost a certainty that that it is more logical for there to be a null universe than a universe with stuff. I mean how could you even have a universe with nothing, especially when in our perception of nothing really is something... we just don't understand it.

I just don't understand.

 

[Dan]

I know. Null does not require perception. It is an objective concept. If you arbitrarily make a universe and say it exists. It begs the question, why is it this way and not some other way?

Let's take an objective view not at our own universe, but at some universe we make up. Imagine a very simple universe with only 8 binary parameters describing it. No physical laws, no dimensions. You say it's 11001101. Why that as opposed to something else? Without a purpose or a definition, there is no sarguable reaon to have 11001101 as opposed to 0000000. Now suppose there is an object that you define to be 11001101. That entity only exists in the first universe. If we look at the second universe, that entity does not exist. Now if we take a look at it the other way around. Flip the universe and the entity, and only the 1st universe exists. Get it? You have to think about it objectively to wrap your head around a subjective experience.

So back to the null universe. It's the universe you get when you don't describe a universe. It's the code you are writing when your page is blank. It is the default. Without an affirmative choice or reason or some cause, nothing is spontaneous. It is the universe consisting of no bits of information. Not really a universe at all. It exists uniformly everywhere because it has no measure of existence.