Put the bong down son - A few randon physics thoughts (probably completely wrong)

Angilion said:
The observations are facts. So yes, we have facts. Redshifting is a fact, for example.



Why assume there is anything beyond the universe?
Click to expand...

They are only facts if one assumes the physical model we've adopted is correct, it probably isnt. They are merely observations in the dimensions we are able to perceive / measure. Redshifting is an observable phenomena, explained by an underlying theory. But given we cant fully explain what light actually is, then its incomplete.

On the expansion point. Because it simply doesnt make sense otherwise. For something to expand there has to be room for it to expand into, whether in three dimensions or more. Again, we have some theories which explain the observations but which arent complete.

I have no doubt in my mind that all our universe theories are completely wrong.
 
danlightbulb said:
They are only facts if one assumes the physical model we've adopted is correct, it probably isnt. They are merely observations in the dimensions we are able to perceive / measure. Redshifting is an observable phenomena, explained by an underlying theory. But given we cant fully explain what light actually is, then its incomplete.
Click to expand...

A fact is a fact regardless of whether or not an explanation for it is correct. For example, people in the bronze age smelting copper from ore didn't know the correct explanation of how it worked, but they knew that it did work.

On the expansion point. Because it simply doesnt make sense otherwise. For something to expand there has to be room for it to expand into, whether in three dimensions or more. Again, we have some theories which explain the observations but which arent complete.
Click to expand...

That's only true if you assume there is something outside the universe. Why make that assumption?

I have no doubt in my mind that all our universe theories are completely wrong.
Click to expand...

On the one hand, you caution against explanations of facts. On the other hand, you make assumptions without any facts. I think you're being inconsistent.
 
Matter isnt contracting, space time is, at the expense of expansion elsewhere (between galaxies) because it's finite. But what really is happening is the processing speed of high matter areas is slower relative to low density areas because of the fixed speed of light (the CPU ghz of the universe if you will). We perceive it as distance and time distortions because our minds are set up for a 3D enviroment. Informationally it's 2D. 3D distance is simply the relational information. Look up holographic principle and emergent gravity.

Youre on the right track though IMO!
 
danlightbulb said:
Its true though. No facts all we have is theories with some supporting observations. You believe they are facts and youre no different to those who believe in God or whatever.
Click to expand...

Absurd, we have observed the universe expanding at an ever increasing rate. No one has observed god.

And we have good understanding of how the fundamental forces are transmitted. For over a century we have understood how the electromagnetic force is transmitted.

The explanation for the expansion of the universe is irrelevant, it's happening regardless of whatever theory there is behind it.

It's like refusing to believe the earth orbits the sun because we don't have a 100% complete understanding of gravity...

danlightbulb said:
On the expansion point. Because it simply doesnt make sense otherwise. For something to expand there has to be room for it to expand into, whether in three dimensions or more.
Click to expand...

Again you are completely wrong, metric-expansion does not require there be anything for the universe to expand into, it only shows your incorrect assumptions about the basic concepts.
 
Last edited:
h4rm0ny said:
The Universe does seem just right, though. Look at the strengths of the different fundamental forces. If we filled the universe with a bit more matter it would never have expanded the way it did. If the Strong or Weak atomic forces were just a tiny bit different to what they were, matter would fly apart, if the proportion of anti-matter were just a bit closer to parity with matter, we'd be blasted to bits by the explosive energy of particles annihilating themselves. There are a hundred ways in which the Universe is "just right". Whether that's through a million iterations as you say, something we can't yet understand or simply us misunderstanding Physics and ruling out a lot of possibilities as something that couldn't work when it could, we don't know. But there's definitely a Baby Bear thing going on with the Universe which is just extraordinary, imo. :)
Click to expand...

In this iteration...
 
aardvark said:
gravity is an odd force - is just doesn't make sense with what we know so far.
i feel the answer is tied to what gravity is but nobody really has a clue what it is and why/how it exists - i fear the true nature of the universe is beyond us.
Click to expand...

I think we're actually quite close to cracking it as we come to conceptualize emergence from information rather than pure materialism.



It applies to all sorts of stuff, the most interesting being the mind and AI. I'm reading this guy's book at the moment:

 
Roland Butter said:
Unless it's a typo, I'm still bamboozled as to what a bong is.
Click to expand...

This is a bong. I don't know how it came to be associated with creativity rather than sitting around consuming cookies and bad comedies, though.

bong.png
 
kwerk said:
I think we're actually quite close to cracking it as we come to conceptualize emergence from information rather than pure materialism.



It applies to all sorts of stuff, the most interesting being the mind and AI. I'm reading this guy's book at the moment:
Click to expand...

things like this just annoy me - nothing new is really being said, everything mentioned is, frankly, pretty obvious or very vague/conceptual. Its hardly news that dark energy and dark matter have problems and no scientist worth a damn would claim current theories are correct.
The third video in particular keeps saying that emergent properties are not intuitive and yet i would say the opposite - there is no other way it could work, its almost patronisingly obvious.
 
aardvark said:
things like this just annoy me - nothing new is really being said, everything mentioned is, frankly, pretty obvious or very vague/conceptual. Its hardly news that dark energy and dark matter have problems and no scientist worth a damn would claim current theories are correct.
The third video in particular keeps saying that emergent properties are not intuitive and yet i would say the opposite - there is no other way it could work, its almost patronisingly obvious.
Click to expand...

Dark matter is something observable by gravitational lensing, no one really claims to know what it is comprised of, just that observational evidence shows that it exists.
 
Energize said:
Dark matter is something observable by gravitational lensing, no one really claims to know what it is comprised of, just that observational evidence shows that it exists.
Click to expand...

AFAIK we can see an effect that has been attributed to "dark matter" but so far every experiment designed to reveal more about it has come up empty - when they really should have shown some signs. There is one attempt to map it using starlight but that isn't actually revealing anything we don't already know.

It might even be the phenomena itself is a mistaken understanding of something else.
 
aardvark said:
no, the gravity is observable. The existence of dark matter is unproven.
Click to expand...

Gravity is an effect of mass, so therefore, there IS extra matter which we cannot see, hence the term. We now think that without the extra dark matter, Galaxies would not have formed or accreted, so it is pretty fundamental to the structure of the universe we observe.

We are currently looking to find dark matter, but as it does not interact with regular matter in a way which we are used to, it is hard, but the search is on all around the world with massive underground experiments, looking for that one in a billion billion interaction with normal matter which we expect to see.
 
neoboy said:
This thread just makes me wish I pursued astrophysics instead of a business degree.
Click to expand...

It is never too late, and I am currently caught in a similar dilemma, having to start with algebra and calculus and work my way through until good enough, but on the flip side, I have known people who did Astrophysics at Uni, passed with distinction, and ended up working as carers, nurses, and other professions totally at odds with their subject material.

If only having enough money to live on, without a fancy car, or a fancy house, and you have the love for discovery and science, great, but most people are too shallow to commit to doing something they truly love if it means financial and other sacrifices.
 
Also those spouting emergence theory are the ones that need to put down the bong. Its main proponent is a geezer called Klee Irwin, who is a reknowned crackpot and convicted fraudster.

So anything from his "Quantum Gravity Research" company is pretty much bunkum. He "sponsors" and lures graduate physicists in to make his stuff look credible, but he himself has absolutely zero basis in science. See here:-

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Klee_Irwin

This is the type of horse doo-doo you need to stay away from:-


When you are taking scientific principles from a geezer in surf shorts and a baseball hat who was involved in fraud.... you need to re-evaluate.
 
Last edited:
aardvark said:
things like this just annoy me - nothing new is really being said, everything mentioned is, frankly, pretty obvious or very vague/conceptual. Its hardly news that dark energy and dark matter have problems and no scientist worth a damn would claim current theories are correct.
The third video in particular keeps saying that emergent properties are not intuitive and yet i would say the opposite - there is no other way it could work, its almost patronisingly obvious.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's intuitive that gravity emerges out of entropy and 1s and 0s and isn't a "real thing". Or that the mind doesn't exist anywhere physical it's the meta construct floating on top of layers of complexity from the signalling between all the cells in your body. It's too esoteric for most people.

Dark matter doesn't exist and dark energy is just a mathematical place holder. Which is what Penrose was trying to explain in one of the vids posted.

There's plenty of details on the idea. You can watch Susskind's Stanford lectures on it on YT.



Edit: This one might be better

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom