Praying?!? Sorry pal, God's busy with other worlds for the next few centuries, can I take a message?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, July 10, 2009 17:49
VIEWED: 9477
PAGE 9 of 15

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE

KWICKO

Thursday, July 2, 2009 4:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I know. I included some of those because they are just some good quotes. I'm trying to get you to read the book, you know. :)

There's places where he talks more exactly about quantum effects and how because of it, any previous collapse was more like a smudged singularity, and the variance is why the microwave background isn't homogenous every where we look, and why there's expansion and collapse in the first place.

It's in a chapter where he shows some computer models of various universe possibilities, and their irregularities, but in my look through I didn't get to that chapter. I had to transcribe all those quotes, and I ran out of time last night. I suspect everyone would prefer it if I didn't continue, seeing as how our conversation has gotten a few complaints.

The quotes I do give, particularly the second quote and the last three (before the just for fun bit) talk about the revival of the expand-collapse theory, about a no boundary no beginning of time no singularity universe that seems to contradict his earlier work, and fluctuations within a blackhole singularity.

Oh no - PLEASE don't stop on my account! I'm finding it somewhat hard to follow, a bit, but it's fascinating nonetheless. And if we stopped every time things got hard, where would we be?

Oooh - there's probably got to be a better way to phrase that, considering the entendres and innuendo flying around here already!

But carry on. Some of us are fascinated.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 2, 2009 4:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
C, Could it actually be that you and I have something in common?

Until now I had been firm in my belief that we'd never agree on...anything.

I actually think Quantum Mechanics as it stands will be replaced by Multi-Dimension String theory as soon as we have mathematics good enough to do so, so perhaps we do disagree if that makes you feel better?

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 2, 2009 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The quotes I do give, particularly the second quote and the last three (before the just for fun bit) talk about the revival of the expand-collapse theory, about a no boundary no beginning of time no singularity universe that seems to contradict his earlier work, and fluctuations within a blackhole singularity.

That's because of imaginary time, and I don't see how that invalidates the existence of Singularities, more than makes them take on a different shape from a different standpoint.

Like a 3D ball interacting with a 2D universe ala flatworld. It looks one way to the flatworlders, a circle that changes shape size and reappears and disappears at will, but look at it in 3D and you realise it's just moving about in the extra Z direction that flatworlders have no knowledge of, and can't experience. But it still exists, it's just less weird in 3D than it is in 2D.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:42 PM

It's because of imaginary time that Stephen Hawking first started looking into a no boundary no beginning universe, but his hypothesis on how this could've happened with our universe involves expansion/collapse, which involves quantum effects and smudged singularities.

You're going to make me go look back at that other chapter, aren't you? *grumble*

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:52 PM

Oh, hey, it was actually in A Brief History of Time. No wonder I was having trouble finding the exact reference in Nutshell.

Quote:
In order to predict how the universe should have started off, one needs laws that hold at the beginning of time. If classical theory of general relativity was correct, the singularity theorems that Roger Penrose and I proved show that the beginning of time would have been a point of infinite density and infinite curvature of space-time. All the known laws of science would break down at such a point. One might suppose that there were new laws that held at singularities, but it would be very difficult even to formulate such laws at such badly behaved points, and we would have no guide from observations as to what those laws might be. However, what the singularity theorems really indicate is that the gravitational field becomes so strong that quantum gravitational effects become important: classical theory is no longer a good description of the universe. So one has to use quantum theory of gravity to discuss the very early stages of the universe. As we shall see, it is possible in the quantum theory for the ordinary laws of science to hold everywhere, including at the beginning of time: it is not necessary to postulate new laws for singularities, because there need not be any singularities in the quantum theory. ~A Brief History of Time, page 172.

HERO

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That's like saying the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean is PROOF that there's no god, because surely no loving and merciful god would allow such a thing to happen to his people.

There - I've proved it! Discussion over! [waves hands...]

All you've proved is a lack of imagination.

2004 Tsunami could mean no God, could mean God exists and does things for reasons we don't understand. Could mean God is real, but no loving or merciful. Could mean nothing and have no relevance to the issue since we all die at some point which could mean that its not when you die, why you die, or how you die...its what happens to you after you die that matters.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

HERO

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
That's because of imaginary time, and I don't see how that invalidates the existence of Singularities

Huh...all this talk of singularities and God...kinda makes me want to put it all together in a musical dance number:

One SINGULARITY sensation
Every little step HE takes.
One thrilling combination
Every move that HE makes.
One smile and suddenly nobody else will do;
You know you'll never be lonely with you know who.
One moment in HIS presence
And you can forget the rest.
For the GUY is second best
To none,
Son.
Ooooh! Sigh! Give HIM your attention.
Do...I...really have to mention?
HE's the ONE?

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It's because of imaginary time that Stephen Hawking first started looking into a no boundary no beginning universe, but his hypothesis on how this could've happened with our universe involves expansion/collapse, which involves quantum effects and smudged singularities.

Hmm, not exactly. Consider the ball example as the Earth, on the Earth we have lines of longitude and latitude, Longitude is regular time. A line of Longitude begins at the north pole, just as the universe's regular time begins at the singularity of the Big Bang. But if you look at the whole Earth, it doesn't begin at the north pole, the pole is just another point on the Earth's surface. That is, the Earth doesn't begin at the north pole, but lines of longitude do.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
You're going to make me go look back at that other chapter, aren't you? *grumble*

I know, life is so hard. I have this bottle of Red wine, and it's so hot I had to put it in the fridge, now I'm going to have to drink it. *sigh*

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Oh, hey, it was actually in A Brief History of Time. No wonder I was having trouble finding the exact reference in Nutshell.
...

Well, yeah, the big assumption is that "Quantum Gravity" will remove Singularities from black holes. Now since Black holes form from the collapse of massive objects under gravity, I'm not sure how it plans to do that while remaining compatible with experimental evidence that has confirmed the Einstein Metric, but there you go. At the least I actually believe modern QM will give way to String theory and a more Einsteinian approach of Space-Time geometry to the matter-centric view of QM, and that Quantum Gravity will come from that, which means all bets would be off.

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Huh...all this talk of singularities and God...kinda makes me want to put it all together in a musical dance number:

One SINGULARITY sensation
Every little step HE takes.
One thrilling combination
Every move that HE makes.
One smile and suddenly nobody else will do;
You know you'll never be lonely with you know who.
One moment in HIS presence
And you can forget the rest.
For the GUY is second best
To none,
Son.
Ooooh! Sigh! Give HIM your attention.
Do...I...really have to mention?
HE's the ONE?

Well, I'm erm, very flattered that you wrote a song about me and everything, but erm, I just don't think of you in that way, and I'm just not that sort of a boy, erm, but like, hang on in there, you'll meet someone.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:45 PM

Probably, although I think there's some problems with strings as a theory. For one, I haven't actually seen suggestions on how strings will be experimentally shown to exist. For another, I haven't heard anyone try to predict any new kinds of exotic quantum particles with string theory, nor how many types there are.

I can understand the use in strings trying to explain what makes up sub atomic particles and energy, but unless the existence of strings and predictions from string theory can be proven or disproven, I just don't know how useful it is.

However, I do agree with the ten to eleven dimension hypotheses that string and M theory suggest, because those have mathematically been proven.

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE