It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
from the first thread and response I have read from you till this last one, I dont know if I had made great progress with comprehending how what you have been saying relates to the reality we inhabit.
Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by tachyonmind
I am not totally sure, myself. haha perhaps this:
The aim of science is to make difficult things understandable in a simpler way. -Paul dirac
but I find it difficult to understand why chaos is math, but quantum isn't. mathematics and physics are often the same thing. I am not the first person to do so. sure, there is always a more precise language. but I do not want to overwhelm the topic. it can be a tricky balance. I think I am improving.
It can be difficult to tell from data whether a physical or other observed process is random or chaotic, because in practice no time series consists of pure 'signal.' There will always be some form of corrupting noise, even if it is present as round-off or truncation error. Thus any real time series, even if mostly deterministic, will contain some randomness.
All methods for distinguishing deterministic and stochastic processes rely on the fact that a deterministic system always evolves in the same way from a given starting point. Thus, given a time series to test for determinism, one can:
1. pick a test state
2. search the time series for a similar or 'nearby' state; and
3. compare their respective time evolutions.
Define the error as the difference between the time evolution of the 'test' state and the time evolution of the nearby state. A deterministic system will have an error that either remains small (stable, regular solution) or increases exponentially with time (chaos). A stochastic system will have a randomly distributed error.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by tgidkp
Just thought id bring this up here as its something I thought of. The universe has a specific quantity of stuff/energy right? So I was wondering what kind of changes in the outcome of the universe could be predicted, if the quantity of energy was incrementally lessened. Would the same number of fields develop, what dark energy be the same, would subatomic particles form, would charge exist, etc.? Because I was thinking how difficult it may be for an intelligence of ignorance of this universe, to be given the rawest and most minimum data of the universe, the starting conditions, quantity of potential energy, subatomic particles, fields, nature of space, laws of physics, if it could be predicted that a stable universe of billions of spinning globes with billions of beings on them would arise.
If you and I were ghosts, and we had an infinite vacuum or finite vacuum of our choosing. And we had a huge grab bag of different potential particles/fields we could put into it, what would we have to do/how would we have to establish the materials and initial conditions in order to result in a universe like the one we exist in?
Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Kashai
in order to smooth over these confusions and bad feelings, i offer yet another solution.
this is my fourth attempt at fixing the problems of one thread by opening another. i honestly dont know if that is a good or a bad thing. oh well.
i have a few questions:
- what is the difference between meaning and information?
- is science's description of reality regarding *strictly* information valid? how?
- can you think of an example in which science embraces "meaning", as defined here?
- does the example given offer any insights about what a "physics of life" might entail?
- is a "physics of life" necessary?
Originally posted by tachyonmind
considering the amount of energy packed in the nucleus of a single uranium atom, or the energy that has been continuously radiating from the sun for billions of years, or the fact that there are 10^80 particles in the observable universe, it seems that the total energy in the universe must be an inconceivably vast quantity.. but it's not, it's probably zero..
light, matter and antimatter are what physicists call "positive energy".. and yes, there's a lot of it, though there is no known finite or specific amount of energy in the universe.. most physicists think, however, that there is an equal amount of "negative energy" stored in the gravitational attraction that exists between all the positive-energy particles. the positive exactly balances the negative, so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all..
If you and I were ghosts, and we had an infinite vacuum or finite vacuum of our choosing. And we had a huge grab bag of different potential particles/fields we could put into it, what would we have to do/how would we have to establish the materials and initial conditions in order to result in a universe like the one we exist in?
how would a ghost build a universe? is this what you are asking? my personal finding is that our three dimensional membrane of a universe most likely was born through the collision/mating of two parent universes floating around in the 12 or 13 dimensional soup/hyperspace/quantum field described by string and m theories.. the big bang effectively being the collapse/orgasm of hyperspace into a stable three dimensional membrane we call home..
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Originally posted by tachyonmind
considering the amount of energy packed in the nucleus of a single uranium atom, or the energy that has been continuously radiating from the sun for billions of years, or the fact that there are 10^80 particles in the observable universe, it seems that the total energy in the universe must be an inconceivably vast quantity.. but it's not, it's probably zero..
light, matter and antimatter are what physicists call "positive energy".. and yes, there's a lot of it, though there is no known finite or specific amount of energy in the universe.. most physicists think, however, that there is an equal amount of "negative energy" stored in the gravitational attraction that exists between all the positive-energy particles. the positive exactly balances the negative, so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all..
Thats the biggest cop out. So there is no energy, energy doesnt exist, glad that is settled. I understand what you are saying but I dont think its accurate. We agree a quantity of energy (positive energy exists now? so lets say that quantity equals 9999, or 99999 if you like, or 9999999...but yes for argument sake, right now it is 9999 value, positive quantity of energy/matter relative to if 0 quantity of energy/matter existed)so is this then an argument that a quantity of 0 energy/matter existed... and then 9999 existed, and then 0 will exist after time, times, and this is how you concluded that "it's probably zero"?
If you and I were ghosts, and we had an infinite vacuum or finite vacuum of our choosing. And we had a huge grab bag of different potential particles/fields we could put into it, what would we have to do/how would we have to establish the materials and initial conditions in order to result in a universe like the one we exist in?
how would a ghost build a universe? is this what you are asking? my personal finding is that our three dimensional membrane of a universe most likely was born through the collision/mating of two parent universes floating around in the 12 or 13 dimensional soup/hyperspace/quantum field described by string and m theories.. the big bang effectively being the collapse/orgasm of hyperspace into a stable three dimensional membrane we call home..
I hope you were just being silly and poking fun by asking how a ghost could build a universe, if you really didnt get my gist, allow me to hold your hand while I tell you that I was alluding to a hypothetical situation in which we as insignificant values to the outcome of the energetic universal system we wished to create (besides our intellectual and hypothetical maneuvering of material into the starting position for the thought experiment)would be able to conduct a physical thought experiment in which we tampered with the quantitative values in the universe, for I was wondering what the potential qualitative results may be, and what that says about the inherent qualitative aspects of the 'building blocks and fields' of this universe.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Originally posted by tachyonmind
considering the amount of energy packed in the nucleus of a single uranium atom, or the energy that has been continuously radiating from the sun for billions of years, or the fact that there are 10^80 particles in the observable universe, it seems that the total energy in the universe must be an inconceivably vast quantity.. but it's not, it's probably zero..
light, matter and antimatter are what physicists call "positive energy".. and yes, there's a lot of it, though there is no known finite or specific amount of energy in the universe.. most physicists think, however, that there is an equal amount of "negative energy" stored in the gravitational attraction that exists between all the positive-energy particles. the positive exactly balances the negative, so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all..
Thats the biggest cop out. So there is no energy, energy doesnt exist, glad that is settled. I understand what you are saying but I dont think its accurate. We agree a quantity of energy (positive energy exists now? so lets say that quantity equals 9999, or 99999 if you like, or 9999999...but yes for argument sake, right now it is 9999 value, positive quantity of energy/matter relative to if 0 quantity of energy/matter existed)so is this then an argument that a quantity of 0 energy/matter existed... and then 9999 existed, and then 0 will exist after time, times, and this is how you concluded that "it's probably zero"?
If you and I were ghosts, and we had an infinite vacuum or finite vacuum of our choosing. And we had a huge grab bag of different potential particles/fields we could put into it, what would we have to do/how would we have to establish the materials and initial conditions in order to result in a universe like the one we exist in?
how would a ghost build a universe? is this what you are asking? my personal finding is that our three dimensional membrane of a universe most likely was born through the collision/mating of two parent universes floating around in the 12 or 13 dimensional soup/hyperspace/quantum field described by string and m theories.. the big bang effectively being the collapse/orgasm of hyperspace into a stable three dimensional membrane we call home..
I hope you were just being silly and poking fun by asking how a ghost could build a universe, if you really didnt get my gist, allow me to hold your hand while I tell you that I was alluding to a hypothetical situation in which we as insignificant values to the outcome of the energetic universal system we wished to create (besides our intellectual and hypothetical maneuvering of material into the starting position for the thought experiment)would be able to conduct a physical thought experiment in which we tampered with the quantitative values in the universe, for I was wondering what the potential qualitative results may be, and what that says about the inherent qualitative aspects of the 'building blocks and fields' of this universe.
Originally posted by tachyonmind
energy doesn't exist until its affects are measured, it cannot be destroyed or created..
i was kinda poking fun a little, but my point still remains that you haven't defined the "quantifiable values" we would manipulate.. are you asking, for instance, what would happen if we created a universe were the force of gravity was halved? we'd end up with no matter.. if you change the laws of physics then everything becomes unstable and collapses..edit on 21-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by tachyonmind
why over think/analyse when what we have currently to study already is so accurate?
edit on 21-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Originally posted by tachyonmind
energy doesn't exist until its affects are measured, it cannot be destroyed or created..
Energy doesnt exist until its affects are measured...really...
It cannot be destroyed or created, implies that a value greater then 0 exists. There exists something, that something can be described in as many ways as needed to describe it, and as many ways that may correlate to exactly what and how and why and where that something is. And what the something is at its more fundamental level, that somethingness which allows all somethingness to ever exist, is not 0, and cannot be created or destroyed. This implies that there is a specific non 0 quantity of 'energy/stuff/something' that truly exists. Yours and/or sciences idea of negetive energy and the universe equaling 0 energy may be totally speculative and mathematically beneficial but realistically nonsensical and meaningless.
Why does science think the universes energy = 0, I udnerstand all you have explained and have heard this before, but all I have to say is, using the deffinition of energy to mean, somethingness which exists, or the ability to do work. Does the universe as a system have the ability to do work? Does it have energy/is it energy? Cant potentially 'negative energy' do work? Making even 'negative' energy' energy?
i was kinda poking fun a little, but my point still remains that you haven't defined the "quantifiable values" we would manipulate.. are you asking, for instance, what would happen if we created a universe were the force of gravity was halved? we'd end up with no matter.. if you change the laws of physics then everything becomes unstable and collapses..edit on 21-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)
Yes a mixture of that is what im asking. Take the believed minimum ingredients for the existence of this universe right before it began, a singular quantity of energy?
And adjust its quantity, how is it thought that would affect the outcome, and why so certain 'it would collapse', why is it impossible that other harmonic and orderly outcomes would not result?
Gravity isnt a thing, it is a result of initial conditions of energy, and the initial force of expansion (why it happened/what caused it to happen with the exact force it did).
In the beginning of the universe it is thought all that existed was a quark gluon plasma, or at least thats what ive gathered is the leading scientific theory. I admit out of my ignorance, I still have yet to comprehend how field theory works, instead of quark-gluon plasma the big bang poped out a perfectly connected perfectly infinitely overlapping establishment of multiple fields? So yea, my question would then cater to adjusting the earliest values of the potentials of those fields.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Originally posted by tachyonmind
why over think/analyse when what we have currently to study already is so accurate?
edit on 21-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)
Unless you are a genius or the greatest thinker and smartest man alive, why would you question someones passion and obsession with thought and contemplation. Just because you have failed to make leeway or garner insight does not mean it is not possible or worthwhile.
Ill comment on that video when I watch it
So is energy non existent in and of itself, it is merely a result of the existence of matter (chicken in the egg situation going on here)? Or you do think that exact areas/amounts of energy exists whether we measure it or not? Like If I create a photon and then create a photon at a higher energy, the photon of higher energy is quantitatively more energetic then the prior?
Originally posted by tachyonmind
i'm not following you here.. are you saying the current model is wrong? perhaps the phrasing i should have used is, "energy is only measurable by its affects".. does this help? you can't quantify energy, only how different energies make matter behave..
science doesn't think that the universe's energy equals zero, only that any interaction it can measure has to produce an equal and symmetrical reaction.. kinetic energy for instance, is the measure of the energy possessed by a body of mass by virtue of its movement, potential energy is the energy possessed by a body by virtue of its position or state..
energy is just a term for describing the interactions of forces, it is not in itself a "somethingness that exists", it is the forces that govern somethings which exist..
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Originally posted by tachyonmind
i'm not following you here.. are you saying the current model is wrong? perhaps the phrasing i should have used is, "energy is only measurable by its affects".. does this help? you can't quantify energy, only how different energies make matter behave..
So is energy non existent in and of itself, it is merely a result of the existence of matter (chicken in the egg situation going on here)? Or you do think that exact areas/amounts of energy exists whether we measure it or not? Like If I create a photon and then create a photon at a higher energy, the photon of higher energy is quantitatively more energetic then the prior?
science doesn't think that the universe's energy equals zero, only that any interaction it can measure has to produce an equal and symmetrical reaction.. kinetic energy for instance, is the measure of the energy possessed by a body of mass by virtue of its movement, potential energy is the energy possessed by a body by virtue of its position or state..
energy is just a term for describing the interactions of forces, it is not in itself a "somethingness that exists", it is the forces that govern somethings which exist..
Ok sorry, I think I was using energy and matter interchangeably, which I understand may be incorrect, so it would be false to say an electron is a quantity of energy? An atom contains potential and kinetic energy, but the system of atom is matter? And so would it be an appropriate question to ask, why and how energy exists, why doesnt only matter exist?
I understand it is not a somethingness that exists, like the gravity field of earth for instance, or the waves in the ocean. Is this semantics? Yes the time dependent action of a body of water experiencing continual disturbance of equilibrium resulting in waves is not a 'thing', because a wave is not a 'piece of matter', and a gravity field is not a thing, for it is also dynamic, and 'not a solid thing'. Though that does not mean the gravity field of earth takes up infinite amount of space right now, or has an infinite area, or the energy value of waves is not a give or take wave function value. Energetic phenomenon can be quantized and compared.
Originally posted by Bleeeeep
Its structured information at its most infinitesimal state - God calls it Word - but most call it energy...
If we can't call hadron dust energy or Word, then I don't want to play anymore.