Can Someone Help Please, Light Bulbs.
How it Works4 mins ago
Fundamental
Is there any field of science more fascinating and thought provoking than that of quantum physics? the fact that I can hold a billiard ball in my hand and if all the space between the atoms was removed it would be invisible I find truly awe inspiring. And with the results coming from Cern threatening to rewrite the book it is only going to get more interesting
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by oldnitro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I assume you are new to Quantum Mechanics? It gets a lot weirder than that.
The LHC is certainly not threatening to rewrite the book. It is just a place to test hypotheses. SuperSymetry and the Higgs Boson are looking a bit pale but the new book is up to theoretical physicists.
As I expected the media is having a field day on the "faster than light" Neutrinos but do please note that previous experiments have not found them exceeding the speed of light.
Indeed the researchers are actually asking for help to find the errors rather than proposing anything has exceed c.
Special Relativity has a huge body of evidence and is the basis for giant parts of our understanding of the Universe. The odds are at worst there is an error or at best a new understanding of the timing involved in the creation of the Neutrinos in the collision rather than an overturning of the Theory of Relativity.
The LHC is certainly not threatening to rewrite the book. It is just a place to test hypotheses. SuperSymetry and the Higgs Boson are looking a bit pale but the new book is up to theoretical physicists.
As I expected the media is having a field day on the "faster than light" Neutrinos but do please note that previous experiments have not found them exceeding the speed of light.
Indeed the researchers are actually asking for help to find the errors rather than proposing anything has exceed c.
Special Relativity has a huge body of evidence and is the basis for giant parts of our understanding of the Universe. The odds are at worst there is an error or at best a new understanding of the timing involved in the creation of the Neutrinos in the collision rather than an overturning of the Theory of Relativity.
It is still a great time - The LHC has been 30 years in coming and in that time the theoreticians have been having a field day with various ideas that couldn't be verified.
So often it's theoreticians like Einstein and Feynmann who get all the glory but the fact of the matter is that real science is done by experimentalists - without that data it's all just ideas that look like they might make sense.
When you start to get real experimental data that when real progress happens
So often it's theoreticians like Einstein and Feynmann who get all the glory but the fact of the matter is that real science is done by experimentalists - without that data it's all just ideas that look like they might make sense.
When you start to get real experimental data that when real progress happens
well the fact that all matter is almost entirely empty space is pretty basic physics not specifically quantum physics. However, yes, it's a fascinating subject, especially when you start looking at things like duality and experiments like the double slit and of course the thought experiments from Shrodinger for example. Not to mention the Heisenberg uncertaintly principle, mind boggling stuff indeed!
Why do these matter? Think of the challenge facing researchers who feel that life arose by chance. They have found some amino acids that also appear in living cells. In their laboratories, they have, by means of carefully designed and directed experiments, manufactured other more complex molecules. Ultimately, they hope to build all the parts needed to construct a “simple” cell. Their situation could be likened to that of a scientist who takes naturally occurring elements; transforms them into steel, plastic, silicone, and wire; and constructs a robot. He then programs the robot to be able to build copies of itself. By doing so, what will he prove?
At best, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive machine.
Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything, they would prove the very opposite,
At best, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive machine.
Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything, they would prove the very opposite,
Not so Elderman. Having shown how such things can come about; in the vastness of the universe and the long time it's been around, it becomes fairly likely that at some point somewhere the right combinations would occur. I don't see how you make a case that they have proved the opposite.
Hmmm .... we all know how something can appear from nothing. It's called magic. Happens all the time. Explaining that clearly to someone uneducated to the same standard as yourself is your service to your fellow man/woman.
Hmmm .... we all know how something can appear from nothing. It's called magic. Happens all the time. Explaining that clearly to someone uneducated to the same standard as yourself is your service to your fellow man/woman.
Scientists have arrived at a similar conclusion, the overall organization of the universe has suggested to many a modern astronomer an element of design,” wrote physicist Paul Davies. One of the most famous physicists and mathematicians of all time, Albert Einstein, wrote: “The fact that [the natural world] is comprehensible is a miracle.” In the eyes of many, that miracle includes life itself, from its fundamental building blocks to the amazing human brain.
The point is not merely that there are regularities in nature,” wrote Flew in 2007, “but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.”
Indeed, many highly respected scientists do not consider it unscientific to believe in an intelligent First Cause. On the other hand, to say that the universe, its laws, and life just happened is intellectually unsatisfying. Everyday experience tells us that design—especially highly sophisticated design—calls for a designer.
The point is not merely that there are regularities in nature,” wrote Flew in 2007, “but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.”
Indeed, many highly respected scientists do not consider it unscientific to believe in an intelligent First Cause. On the other hand, to say that the universe, its laws, and life just happened is intellectually unsatisfying. Everyday experience tells us that design—especially highly sophisticated design—calls for a designer.
Thanks for that elderman, I think that is what we are looking for, the designer. It surprises me that they would acknowledge that, I always considered scientists to believe in the cold hard facts of research, but never to actually believe there could be a Creator. Certain elements in our lives dictate, to me anyway, the symmetry of things that cannot be accidental. It's an interesting theory. Btw I have a relative who lives in Canada, a physicist called Albert (Ted) Litherland who has quite an impressive Cv in this field of science.
//On the other hand, to say that the universe, its laws, and life just happened is intellectually unsatisfying.//
But not nearly so intellectually dissatisfying as pretending to have an answer or making it up as you go along. 'God', far from being an answer to any question only poses more questions for which by virtue of nonexistence, there is no answer.
//Everyday experience tells us that design—especially highly sophisticated design—calls for a designer.//
Trying to untangle and resolve the complexity of what we see around us is only exasperated by presuming the existence of an inherently infinitely more complex entity. If experience has taught us anything about the existence of a purposeful intentional designer is that it has taken billions of years for anyone with the ability to even conceive of a designer to become manifest in our universe.
To believe that the universe is a product of design is tantamount to believing that the waving of tree branches is what makes the wind blow. This is not merely a rejection of but a reversal of the law of causality in an attempt to glorify ones own ignorance in a unfettered celebration of irrational absurdity.
The one and only thing we should have learned long ago in attributing anything to a god is that this has taught us nothing about ourselves and the world we live in and rendered the pursuit of such knowledge meaningless at best or, if we are to believe what we've been told, evil by virtue of our refusal to remain in ignorance.
If ever there was a devil in our midst, it is the belief in the existence of God that created it with religious belief the source of all their 'divine' power.
As for what this kind of discussion is doing in the science topic, what can I say? Where there is ignorance, god's minions are sure to follow.
But not nearly so intellectually dissatisfying as pretending to have an answer or making it up as you go along. 'God', far from being an answer to any question only poses more questions for which by virtue of nonexistence, there is no answer.
//Everyday experience tells us that design—especially highly sophisticated design—calls for a designer.//
Trying to untangle and resolve the complexity of what we see around us is only exasperated by presuming the existence of an inherently infinitely more complex entity. If experience has taught us anything about the existence of a purposeful intentional designer is that it has taken billions of years for anyone with the ability to even conceive of a designer to become manifest in our universe.
To believe that the universe is a product of design is tantamount to believing that the waving of tree branches is what makes the wind blow. This is not merely a rejection of but a reversal of the law of causality in an attempt to glorify ones own ignorance in a unfettered celebration of irrational absurdity.
The one and only thing we should have learned long ago in attributing anything to a god is that this has taught us nothing about ourselves and the world we live in and rendered the pursuit of such knowledge meaningless at best or, if we are to believe what we've been told, evil by virtue of our refusal to remain in ignorance.
If ever there was a devil in our midst, it is the belief in the existence of God that created it with religious belief the source of all their 'divine' power.
As for what this kind of discussion is doing in the science topic, what can I say? Where there is ignorance, god's minions are sure to follow.
askyourgran //Certain elements in our lives dictate, to me anyway, the symmetry of things that cannot be accidental//
They are not accidental. Symmetry such as in the relationships between organisms comes about though evolving together.
Everything about our Universe is a consequence of the simple laws that govern it. The complexity is derived from interactions between those simple relationships. There is no need for a designer.
They are not accidental. Symmetry such as in the relationships between organisms comes about though evolving together.
Everything about our Universe is a consequence of the simple laws that govern it. The complexity is derived from interactions between those simple relationships. There is no need for a designer.
"Scientists have arrived at a similar conclusion, the overall organization of the universe has suggested to many a modern astronomer an element of design,” wrote physicist Paul Davies. One of the most famous physicists and mathematicians of all time, Albert Einstein, wrote: “The fact that [the natural world] is comprehensible is a miracle.” In the eyes of many, that miracle includes life itself, from its fundamental building blocks to the amazing human brain.
The point is not merely that there are regularities in nature,” wrote Flew in 2007, “but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.”
Indeed, many highly respected scientists do not consider it unscientific to believe in an intelligent First Cause. On the other hand, to say that the universe, its laws, and life just happened is intellectually unsatisfying. Everyday experience tells us that design—especially highly sophisticated design—calls for a designer. "
Or you could just read the original text here
http://uk.answers.yah...20110919095950AAJ1F5M
and here
http://answers.yahoo....20110604143614AA4nXc2
The point is not merely that there are regularities in nature,” wrote Flew in 2007, “but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.”
Indeed, many highly respected scientists do not consider it unscientific to believe in an intelligent First Cause. On the other hand, to say that the universe, its laws, and life just happened is intellectually unsatisfying. Everyday experience tells us that design—especially highly sophisticated design—calls for a designer. "
Or you could just read the original text here
http://uk.answers.yah...20110919095950AAJ1F5M
and here
http://answers.yahoo....20110604143614AA4nXc2
Quantum physics is exciting stuff - and we are only just scratching the surface!
Antony Flew, of whom Elderman speaks, was a philosopher and an atheist who turned to religion. I can understand people pondering the notion of possible intelligent design, but why they credit the creation of the universe to the God of Abraham remains a complete mystery to me. It makes no sense whatsoever to attribute anything at all to something for which there is not one iota of evidence.
Antony Flew, of whom Elderman speaks, was a philosopher and an atheist who turned to religion. I can understand people pondering the notion of possible intelligent design, but why they credit the creation of the universe to the God of Abraham remains a complete mystery to me. It makes no sense whatsoever to attribute anything at all to something for which there is not one iota of evidence.
Something can appear from nothing went rather well. Apparently particles appear in the vacuum of space all the time.
It's tied up with not being able to know with complete accuracy certain pairs of values; the most well known pair being position and momentum. When you do the maths it turns out it's not being possible to show that particles won't appear from nothing, so occasionally they do. And given the vastness of the universe, that a lot of particles.
Of course at the start, time is not passing, since there is yet to be a universe for it to pass in. So the first time it happens that's time zero.
It's tied up with not being able to know with complete accuracy certain pairs of values; the most well known pair being position and momentum. When you do the maths it turns out it's not being possible to show that particles won't appear from nothing, so occasionally they do. And given the vastness of the universe, that a lot of particles.
Of course at the start, time is not passing, since there is yet to be a universe for it to pass in. So the first time it happens that's time zero.
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
News7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
The Price Of Bananas Has Gone Through...
News18 mins ago
News29 mins ago
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|