The death of the Universe and Life

h4rm0ny said:
It does imply it is discrete.

To make sure I understand (because I'm interested). By saying it means any analysis based on time is false or inaccurate, your logic is that if it's internal to the universe, we cannot rule out outside factors?
Click to expand...
Analysis as in calculus. It is predicated on things being infinitely accurate i.e. continuous.
 
Mason- said:
Analysis as in calculus. It is predicated on things being infinitely accurate i.e. continuous.
Click to expand...

Ah, then you're asking if time is continuous or has a smallest possible unit. I don't know. Space has a smallest possible unit I think (planck constant) so that suggests time does. But we need someone here with a more recent knowledge of Physics.
 
h4rm0ny said:
Ah, then you're asking if time is continuous or has a smallest possible unit. I don't know.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly, discrete or continuous. I don't think anyone definitively knows. For time and space it is assumed that they are continuous, for mass it is assumed they are discrete. I think it's provable to say mass is discrete. I don't think electrons or quarks can be broken into more fundamental particles, but just to say we can't do it doesn't mean it's not possible. As for proving that time or space is continuous that's a bit more tricky. If space is continuous it implies there is a 'border' to the space in which our universe exists. And the question that arises after that is: what is on the other side of the border? Another discrete universe?

Another way to phrase the question is. Imagine some body in space, let's use your body. And imagine you can locate your centre of mavity exactly (although if the universe is continuous there is no 'exact position' because you can't measure something to an infinite accuracy). Are there infinitely many positions your body can occupy in space? Or finitely many? Are there infinitely many steps of time, or does the universe just tick along on an incredibly fast clock albeit with a minimum time between steps?

I like pondering the ramifications of both eventualities.
 
Orionaut said:
Quantum mechanics is a very well developed mathematical model of reality that works very well at predicting the outcomes of experiments.

But do not confuse that with actual reality.

Nobody knows what exactly is happening with the double slit experiment.

Really, Nobody, at all!
Click to expand...

Mathematically, they do. The problem (and this is inherit to QM as a whole) is that trying to explain or understand it in practical human terms is an exercise in futility, because it just doesn't act the way we would expect it to in our evolved macro understanding of reality.

Again, it does not mean we don't understand what is happening; it is trying to explain it without using complicated mathematics which is where things get shaky. QM is very difficult to understand due to this, but not impossible. It doesn't help when we use terms like 'observe' which mean very specific things in physics but the layman gets completely confused because it doesn't match up with his understanding of the regular word; kind of like how everyone doesn't understand what a scientific theory actually means.

The one thing I will agree we have absolutely no clue on is how to merge QM and Relativity. Well, there're ideas but nothing you could experimentally verify.
 
Last edited:
People talking about the double slit experiment as if we don't understand it showing they've never actually done their own research into the matter, hilarious. Same people dismissing Brian Cox as if he doesn't know what he's talking about, hilarious. This thread is full of morons.
 
Tephnos said:
Mathematically, they do. The problem (and this is inherit to QM as a whole) is that trying to explain or understand it in practical human terms is an exercise in futility, because it just doesn't act the way we would expect it to in our evolved macro understanding of reality.

Again, it does not mean we don't understand what is happening; it is trying to explain it without using complicated mathematics which is where things get shaky. QM is very difficult to understand due to this, but not impossible. It doesn't help when we use terms like 'observe' which mean very specific things in physics but the layman gets completely confused because it doesn't match up with his understanding of the regular word; kind of like how everyone doesn't understand what a scientific theory actually means.

The one thing I will agree we have absolutely no clue on is how to merge QM and Relativity. Well, there're ideas but nothing you could experimentally verify.
Click to expand...

See this is where engineers and scientists diverge.

Scientist: "How can I reconcile Relativity with Quantum Mechanics? There must be a solution."
Engineer: "If(project == 'rockets' ) { $system = RELATIVITY } elseif(project == 'microprocessors') { $system = QM } [...]"

You lot do the Whys. We'll do the How's. ;)
 
Also, did you guys hear about the man that once got cooled down to absolute zero?


He's 0K now.
 
I wonder how many times a universe has expanded from a big bang, then contracted to a single point, only to reset it self and start over.
 
mrk said:
Most probably an infinite number of times.
Click to expand...

Probably 0 or an infinite number of times. Either it's never happened and we're in the only such case, or it's been happening for all time existence something we don't have a word for.
 
Aiden92 said:
I wonder how many times a universe has expanded from a big bang, then contracted to a single point, only to reset it self and start over.
Click to expand...

Probably none. The big doozy about the 'big crunch' is that it would invalidate the second law of thermodynamics as entropy would need to be reversed at some point as the universe contracts into a lone singularity.

Hawking did discuss one viable alternative in which the crunch begins by reversing the flow of time, but this was only ever speculative and isn't mainstream.

The leading theory, as far as I recall, is the heat death of the universe.
 
Merlin5 said:
Good post. You say "humanity won't be human any more". You're saying it like you know it's fact in the same way Brian Cox is stating facts. I actually believe you're right because of the way history has recorded evolution over millions of years, and that's why I also believe in Cox's confidence in the death of the universe.
Click to expand...

Even without evolution, the idea of a complex, intelligent, tool-using lifeform remaining unchanged for many trillions of years is a bit silly. I suppose it's possible that humans could stop themselves evolving and deliberately refrain from making any changes to themselves, but for that to happen consistently for trillions of years is wildly implausible. There would need to be a very effective tyranny and a ban on natural conception and that would have to last for trillions of years.

Strictly speaking, my position is an untestable (at least in my lifetime) hypothesis and thus not science. But I'm fine with saying that the chance of it being wrong is infinitesimal and can be casually ignored outside of a scientific context. It helps that it's irrelevant to anyone who's not expecting to be alive for at least a few billion years.

But you have to ask yourself, where did the tiniest particles of anything come from that brought our universe into being in the first place, and why couldn't that happen again?
Click to expand...

I think the person you were replying to would count that as another universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom