owl: TradeKing Trader Network

incubus

Member since: Dec 08

Details:

Trades	Not Shared
Trade Notes	0
Blog Posts	0

closet geek
Age: 90's
Confusion

incubus

Posted July 12, 2009 (03:02PM)

Owl said:
I think you're saying that a region of space only exists if there is matter there. Aristotle, Descartes, and some other great philosophers thought that, but I disagree. As far as we know from modern physics/chemistry, most of space is empty, even the places that appear "filled" (e.g., the table in front of you is mostly empty space--the atoms are tiny in comparison with the spaces between them). As long as there can be empty space, I don't see why there wouldn't be, say, empty cubical regions of space.

Btw, the same sort of argument applies to lots of other shapes. Essentially every shape has an irrational ratio somewhere, if you accept standard geometry and arithmetic.

95% of the known mass of the universe is dark matter/dark energy, which nobody understands beyond it's affect on the rotation of galaxies which prompted the discovery of its existence in the first place....this alone undermines any physical observations relative to matter itself until it's understood.

That aside, Inferring the presence of empty cubicals of space surrounding an atom is irrelevant because even something as small as an atom will emit EMR in tiny quantities.

The presence of EMR then nullifies the possibility of a true vacuum surrounding that atom with the fact the EMR itself possesses gravitational properties, based on the idea that space can only exist in the presence of gravity.

Owl

Member since: Sep 08

Performance:

5 Day	-0.91%
15 Day	-4.53%
1 Month	-8.04%
3 Month	-9.70%
6 Month	-14.79%
1 Year	91.61%
As of:	11/21/09
How is this calculated?

Details:

Trades	345
Trade Notes	5
Blog Posts	0

Professor of Philosophy
Age: 30's
Colorado

Owl

Posted July 13, 2009 (11:50AM)

Hi Inc,

incubus said:
95% of the known mass of the universe is dark matter/dark energy, which nobody understands beyond it's affect on the rotation of galaxies which prompted the discovery of its existence in the first place....this alone undermines any physical observations relative to matter itself until it's understood.

As far as I understand that statement, it implies that all observations are invalid. Isn't every observation relative to matter? You read these words by observing matter (the computer screen), etc. If so, then the observations on which are based the belief in dark matter are also invalid.

Dark matter is just matter in outer space that does not emit light visible to our telescopes. Its existence is inferred from gravitational effects, so either there is a lot of non-luminous stuff we don't know about, or our theory of gravity is wrong. It's a mystery, but it doesn't undermine all observations.

incubus said:
The presence of EMR then nullifies the possibility of a true vacuum surrounding that atom with the fact the EMR itself possesses gravitational properties, based on the idea that space can only exist in the presence of gravity.

Space is not dependent on gravity (though gravity is dependent on space). Stop saying that! A flat, empty spacetime is a (obviously) consistent model of the equations of general relativity, and that is commonly accepted as a standard of what is implied by a scientific theory. (A theory implies X if X holds in all the consistent models of the theory.)

However, you may have a more valid point. Maybe you think that the electric/magnetic field is a kind of stuff, spread throughout space (though of course it is not *matter*). If so, there is actually no empty space. Note, however, that this just supports my argument for the infinite divisibility of space. That argument just required the existence of a square region of space. Stoic questioned that because he says there are no perfectly square material objects. But if you accept the electric field as an object that permeates space, then you don't need any material objects anyway. There will be square regions of the electric field (and of the space it occupies), whether any matter is there or not.

incubus

Member since: Dec 08

Details:

Trades	Not Shared
Trade Notes	0
Blog Posts	0

closet geek
Age: 90's
Confusion

incubus

Posted July 13, 2009 (10:00PM)

Owl said: Hi Inc,
incubus said:
95% of the known mass of the universe is dark matter/dark energy, which nobody understands beyond it's affect on the rotation of galaxies which prompted the discovery of its existence in the first place....this alone undermines any physical observations relative to matter itself until it's understood.
As far as I understand that statement, it implies that all observations are invalid. Isn't every observation relative to matter? You read these words by observing matter (the computer screen), etc. If so, then the observations on which are based the belief in dark matter are also invalid.

Dark matter is just matter in outer space that does not emit light visible to our telescopes. Its existence is inferred from gravitational effects, so either there is a lot of non-luminous stuff we don't know about, or our theory of gravity is wrong. It's a mystery, but it doesn't undermine all observations.
incubus said:
The presence of EMR then nullifies the possibility of a true vacuum surrounding that atom with the fact the EMR itself possesses gravitational properties, based on the idea that space can only exist in the presence of gravity.
Space is not dependent on gravity (though gravity is dependent on space). Stop saying that! A flat, empty spacetime is a (obviously) consistent model of the equations of general relativity, and that is commonly accepted as a standard of what is implied by a scientific theory. (A theory implies X if X holds in all the consistent models of the theory.)

However, you may have a more valid point. Maybe you think that the electric/magnetic field is a kind of stuff, spread throughout space (though of course it is not *matter*). If so, there is actually no empty space. Note, however, that this just supports my argument for the infinite divisibility of space. That argument just required the existence of a square region of space. Stoic questioned that because he says there are no perfectly square material objects. But if you accept the electric field as an object that permeates space, then you don't need any material objects anyway. There will be square regions of the electric field (and of the space it occupies), whether any matter is there or not.

Owl, my point in mentioning dark matter isn't so much the lack of tangeable proof of theory, but tangeable proof of the variables that those theories are based on....an example was my mention that physiicists have concluded the outer universe has sped up in expansion due to redshift observations, yet no one seems to have entertained the possibility that the inner universe has in fact begun to collapse.

As for the reality of the topic, we're only at the dawn of any semblance to real fact, akin to Christopher Columbus attempting to explain the world was not flat.

The only trouble with this topic is it'll take a slight bit more than a cross-Atlantic journey to prove or disprove.

I only thought to look this thread up because there's a coincidental show on the Science channel on the topic "What is time" just now wrapping up.

There are conflicting schools of thought to a wide degree on the topic, and those conflicts are between professionals in the field of physics.

From my perspective, it's a matter of "deduction my dear Watson", when a portion of matter is seperated from a larger body of matter it's energy "metabolism" appears to slow down...we percieve that metabolism as the passage of time..

A stop watch near our galaxies black hole will be spinning like a top, a stopwatch in the void between us an the Andromeda galaxy will barely move relative to its counterpart.

Given this logic, remove the stopwatch from the presence of matter altogether (a physical impossibility, given the mass of the watch itself, but you get the drift) and it's a probable conclusion that time stops altogether.

Given that time and space are interwoven, the absence of gravity would mean the absence of time which would mean the absence of space.

Also -

"Space is not dependent on gravity (though gravity is dependent on space). Stop saying that! A flat, empty spacetime is a (obviously) consistent model of the equations of general relativity, and that is commonly accepted as a standard of what is implied by a scientific theory. (A theory implies X if X holds in all the consistent models of the theory.)"

Einstein spent the twilight of his career attempting to mesh quantum theory with relativity to no avail.

If you were to ask Einstein about the 11th dimension, he'd have had you comitted, yet that was the bonding factor between the two conflicting schools of quantum theory, known as the "M" theory.

closer

Member since: Oct 08

Details:

Trades	104
Trade Notes	29
Blog Posts	0

Age: 40's

closer

Posted July 14, 2009 (12:11AM)

Boys no matter what your best theory's can do, there is only one consistent model.
(Change) it is the only consistent model.
Best Closer

stoicathos

Member since: Jun 07

Performance:

5 Day	1.50%
15 Day	1.67%
1 Month	-1.63%
3 Month	-49.81%
6 Month	-93.98%
1 Year	-98.20%
As of:	11/21/09
How is this calculated?

Details:

Trades	131
Trade Notes	15
Blog Posts	1

stoicathos

Posted July 14, 2009 (02:21AM)

Owl said:
No, nothing existed before it existed. Verbs in English can be taken as either tensed or tenseless (timeless). When a verb is in the past or future tense, you can tell. But the tenseless use of a verb is spelled and pronounced the same as the present tense, so they're easily confused. The tenseless usage is one in which *no time is specified*. (For example: in "Two plus two equals four," I don't specify any time.) The present tense usage means the statement is indexed to the time at which the sentence is spoken/written. (E.g., in "It is raining", I mean it is raining *at the present time*.)

So again, if you are saying that past events don't exist (present tense), then that's trivial--then you're just saying the past isn't present. If you're saying past events don't exist (tenseless), that appears absurd--you're saying they not only don't exist *now*, but they don't exist at all, without regard to any time.

Your example of "two plus two equals four" is timeless. It's true for all times, unlike "dinosaurs and iphones exist". These tenseless verbs are often used as conclusions based on theories that are theoretically true for all times. If two plus two only equaled four in the past, then it would make no sense to say "two plus two equals four". Similarly, I can't make any sense out of "X exists, but not now".

Owl said:
- 1st example: Is the *monster* causing the child's behavior, or is the child's *mental state* (beliefs, fears) causing it? The monster doesn't exist, but the child's beliefs and fears exist.
- 2nd example: In normal cases where something is created, it is caused by something else that already exists. E.g., the iPhone is created by people and a factory that exist first. Even when God supposedly created the world, that wasn't the non-existent causing the existent. God (supposedly) existed first, and he caused the world to exist. So what you must be thinking of is a case where something pops into existence out of nothing, and there was nothing whatsoever there to cause it. But I don't think that is possible.

To amplify my point now, suppose you see an indentation on my couch. You ask what's causing it. I say that my imaginary friend is causing it, with his non-presence on the couch. I think you should reject this explanation. My actual friends can cause indentations by sitting on the couch. Friends who don't exist and thus are not there cannot do so.

In what way are the child's "beliefs and fears" any more real than the "monster"? They're all mental fabrications.

You're right that the iPhone is created by people and a factory and materials that exist first, but if you take a large group of people and put them in a factory that has all the necessary machinery and materials to produce iPhones, are you going to get iPhones? Probably not, because an iPhone or any human developed product is not a natural or organic result of physical circumstances. The iPhone was first conceived in representational language (non-real, or not existing in physical reality) prior to the physical existence of any iPhone. That conception was what drove the production of the phone, not the physically existent production means.

Your imaginary couch potato friend is one example of how a non-real entity does not affect reality, but it doesn't disprove all the ways that the non-real does affect reality.

Owl said:
stoicathos said: (II) A * Infinity = Infinity : if A > 0
A * Infinity = 0 : If A = 0
A * Infinity = -Infinity : If A < 0

"A" here represents "non-zero" regions. Notice that whenever "A" truly is non-zero, the result is infinite which cannot fit into a finite region. It doesn't matter how tiny you make "A", an infinite number of the tiny regions will still result in an infinite region.
Sorry, I didn't make my idea clear. Consider an infinite series of spatial regions. The sizes of these regions, in liters, are as follows:
1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, . . .
So the series contains smaller and smaller regions. Notice that each of them has nonzero size ("0" will not appear anywhere in this series). But also notice that the sum of them is finite: 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + . . . = 1. So a finite region contains infinitely many nonzero parts.

The problem in your argument above is that you're treating A as constant. But the regions in my example are all of different sizes.
stoicathos said: (III) That is a clever argument, now all you have to do is prove the existence of a true square in space. I would posit that there are no true squares in reality since the square would have to be composed of a physical substance to exist in reality and be measurable as a square. That would then make smallest minimum distance d a function of the atom size of the substance. Atoms have no corners to allow for the perfect square to exist in reality.
I think you're saying that a region of space only exists if there is matter there. Aristotle, Descartes, and some other great philosophers thought that, but I disagree. As far as we know from modern physics/chemistry, most of space is empty, even the places that appear "filled" (e.g., the table in front of you is mostly empty space--the atoms are tiny in comparison with the spaces between them). As long as there can be empty space, I don't see why there wouldn't be, say, empty cubical regions of space.

Btw, the same sort of argument applies to lots of other shapes. Essentially every shape has an irrational ratio somewhere, if you accept standard geometry and arithmetic.

I assumed "A" to be a constant, because when you're dealing with units of measure or the constitutive regions of a whole (as in atoms) in reality, they are relatively constant. If you can find a particle that is always half as large as the neighboring particle, then your finite region of infinitely nonzero parts may have some basis in reality.

I'm not a believer in the ether. In theory, there are of course cubical regions of space. However in reality, there is no substance small enough, or as small as a volumeless point, to delineate a perfect cube. Maybe irrational numbers are not an indication of infinity at all, but a breakdown in the mathematical model of reality. Once you go out enough decimal places on any of the irrational numbers, you'll eventually get to a point where the difference in measure is smaller than a proton - do the numbers after that point mean anything at all in reality? I think you would agree that they don't have meaning under any circumstances, and yet after 30, 50, 1000 decimal places the numbers continue on meaninglessly with no connection to reality.

I think you're conflating our mathematical models of physical reality and reality itself.

Owl

Member since: Sep 08

Performance:

5 Day	-0.91%
15 Day	-4.53%
1 Month	-8.04%
3 Month	-9.70%
6 Month	-14.79%
1 Year	91.61%
As of:	11/21/09
How is this calculated?

Details:

Trades	345
Trade Notes	5
Blog Posts	0

Professor of Philosophy
Age: 30's
Colorado

Owl

Posted July 14, 2009 (01:34PM)

Incubus, you have it backwards: gravity slows things down. A clock near a black hole will move slower than a clock on Earth. At the center of the black hole, the clock (if it could survive) would stop. If there could be a clock in completely empty space, it would move slightly faster than clocks on Earth. So time continues to pass in empty space.

Btw, I know it's common to say "time slows down", but this is a misstatement. One should actually say "temporal processes slow down" (processes that take time). Time cannot slow down because time does not have a speed. Time cannot have a speed, because speed means rate of change of something (e.g., position) with respect to time; the rate of change of time with respect to time doesn't make sense, so the concept of the speed of time is nonsensical.

datadave

Member since: Feb 09

Details:

Trades	4
Trade Notes	0
Blog Posts	0

livin' and pounding nails occasionally in VT and Central NY.
Age: 50's
near Burlington, Vermont

datadave

Posted July 14, 2009 (02:18PM)

love it when Inc and Owl get into it.

Now, if I turn the wrong way off Dead Man's Curve, as I am falling off the cliff, I'd say 'time' is slowing down as heightened perceptions take it all in, but gravity would speed up my descent. Time would be then in fact 'fleeting' .

Owl

Member since: Sep 08

Performance:

5 Day	-0.91%
15 Day	-4.53%
1 Month	-8.04%
3 Month	-9.70%
6 Month	-14.79%
1 Year	91.61%
As of:	11/21/09
How is this calculated?

Details:

Trades	345
Trade Notes	5
Blog Posts	0

Professor of Philosophy
Age: 30's
Colorado

Owl

Posted July 14, 2009 (02:25PM)

stoicathos said:
Your example of "two plus two equals four" is timeless. It's true for all times, unlike "dinosaurs and iphones exist". These tenseless verbs are often used as conclusions based on theories that are theoretically true for all times. If two plus two only equaled four in the past, then it would make no sense to say "two plus two equals four". Similarly, I can't make any sense out of "X exists, but not now".

I think you don't understand what I am saying about "tenseless" verbs. "Timeless" or "tenseless" means that no temporal coordinate applies. It does not mean that every temporal coordinate applies. If I say, "Two plus two equals four," and someone says, "When?", I don't say, "At every time"; I say, "Your question doesn't make any sense." I don't know what "2+2=4 at 4:00 Tuesday" means. "Equalling" is not an action that one performs at some time (not even at all times).

Do you really not know what "x exists but not now" means? Suppose someone says, "Solar flares occur, but there isn't one occurring this very instant." Can you make any sense of that?

The main point of this part of the discussion was this: Your thesis is in danger of triviality, which means it basically says nothing. If by "exists" you just mean "exists *now*", then your statement "only the present exists" is trivial. It means that only the present is present. That doesn't tell us anything, because it's tautological. Do you intend your statement to be tautological?

stoicathos said:
In what way are the child's "beliefs and fears" any more real than the "monster"? They're all mental fabrications.

I think you're confusing an idea or belief about X with X. Example: I don't think God exists, but I certainly know that *beliefs about* God exist. I mean, I don't think all the theists are insincere--I know they have the beliefs they say they have. The fact that they believe it, of course, doesn't mean it's true. The fact that beliefs about God exist does not mean that God exists.

So the monster is fictional, a "mental fabrication", unreal, non-existent, etc. The child's *belief* is not fictional, a fabrication, unreal, or non-existent--that would mean that the child doesn't really have the belief but someone is just pretending that the child has the belief. No, the child in your example is supposed to actually have this belief, so the belief exists.

The same point applies to your iPhone example. You are confusing a mental state with an object that it's about.

stoicathos said:
Your imaginary couch potato friend is one example of how a non-real entity does not affect reality, but it doesn't disprove all the ways that the non-real does affect reality.

The example was not supposed to be an inductive argument for the conclusion that the nonexistent doesn't affect reality. It was supposed to be an *illustration* to help clarify a self-evident principle by making it more concrete for you. Effects are not produced by 'things' that aren't there. There aren't any such "things" to begin with. Since the non-existent doesn't exist, there is no thing to talk about or attribute effects to. If you understand why my 'imaginary friend' isn't creating an indentation on the couch, then you should be able to see that in exactly the same way, no non-existent object is creating indentations, or exerting forces, or moving anything around, etc.

stoicathos said:
I assumed "A" to be a constant, because when you're dealing with units of measure or the constitutive regions of a whole (as in atoms) in reality, they are relatively constant. If you can find a particle that is always half as large as the neighboring particle, then your finite region of infinitely nonzero parts may have some basis in reality.
I'm not a believer in the ether. In theory, there are of course cubical regions of space. However in reality, there is no substance small enough, or as small as a volumeless point, to delineate a perfect cube.

Well, these were supposed to be regions of space, not particles. So I guess we're back to your thesis that unoccupied space doesn't exist. But then you face the problem that according to modern physics, almost all of space is unoccupied. Btw, in modern physics, elementary particles are represented as points (arbitrarily small positions are possible).

stoicathos said:
Maybe irrational numbers are not an indication of infinity at all, but a breakdown in the mathematical model of reality. Once you go out enough decimal places on any of the irrational numbers, you'll eventually get to a point where the difference in measure is smaller than a proton - do the numbers after that point mean anything at all in reality? I think you would agree that they don't have meaning under any circumstances, and yet after 30, 50, 1000 decimal places the numbers continue on meaninglessly with no connection to reality.

No, why would you think I would agree to that? I'm the guy who keeps saying that space is infinitely divisible, etc.

So far, I do not see any problem with the standard mathematical and physical understanding of reality, so I don't see any evidence for your hypothesis of a breakdown in the mathematical model of reality. Can you explain why you think that? Is it just because the standard mathematical representation implies the existence of actual infinities? If that's it, could you explain why you believe there could not be an actual infinity?

incubus

Member since: Dec 08

Details:

Trades	Not Shared
Trade Notes	0
Blog Posts	0

closet geek
Age: 90's
Confusion

incubus

Posted July 14, 2009 (03:41PM)

Owl said: Incubus, you have it backwards: gravity slows things down. A clock near a black hole will move slower than a clock on Earth. At the center of the black hole, the clock (if it could survive) would stop. If there could be a clock in completely empty space, it would move slightly faster than clocks on Earth. So time continues to pass in empty space.

Btw, I know it's common to say "time slows down", but this is a misstatement. One should actually say "temporal processes slow down" (processes that take time). Time cannot slow down because time does not have a speed. Time cannot have a speed, because speed means rate of change of something (e.g., position) with respect to time; the rate of change of time with respect to time doesn't make sense, so the concept of the speed of time is nonsensical.

Curses, my diabolical plot to reinvent the world of physics has been foiled.

I even recall a Ray Bradbury (I think he was the author) story about two astronauts that shared a psychic rapport..one began to fall into a black hole and the other got to listen to his screams for the rest of his life.

Lets try another topic...ancient Mesopotamia, the Hittites...Sumerians....

Just kidding.

stoicathos

Member since: Jun 07

Performance:

5 Day	1.50%
15 Day	1.67%
1 Month	-1.63%
3 Month	-49.81%
6 Month	-93.98%
1 Year	-98.20%
As of:	11/21/09
How is this calculated?

Details:

Trades	131
Trade Notes	15
Blog Posts	1

stoicathos

Posted July 14, 2009 (08:05PM)

Owl,

I think we're going sideways here because we're each holding different premise of what constitutes physical reality or physical existence.

All of my arguments have been based on the premise that: All physical entities are physically measureable, or at least the possibility exists that they can be measured.

Do you reject this premise? And if so why?

Owl

Member since: Sep 08

Performance:

5 Day	-0.91%
15 Day	-4.53%
1 Month	-8.04%
3 Month	-9.70%
6 Month	-14.79%
1 Year	91.61%
As of:	11/21/09
How is this calculated?

Details:

Trades	345
Trade Notes	5
Blog Posts	0

Professor of Philosophy
Age: 30's
Colorado

Owl

Posted July 15, 2009 (02:12AM)

stoicathos said: Owl,

I think we're going sideways here because we're each holding different premise of what constitutes physical reality or physical existence.

All of my arguments have been based on the premise that: All physical entities are physically measureable, or at least the possibility exists that they can be measured.

Do you reject this premise? And if so why?

Well, I think there could be unmeasurable things. Why? Roughly speaking, the world doesn't revolve around us. Things don't have to be convenient for us, either practically (the world doesn't have to be arranged so that we can get what we want) or epistemically (the world doesn't have to be arranged so that we can know what we want). It seems to me that one should rather ask for a reason why every part of the world must be accessible to measurement by us.

WeirdUncleJesse

Member since: Oct 08

Performance:

5 Day	2.47%
15 Day	13.46%
1 Month	0.63%
3 Month	5.51%
6 Month	40.27%
1 Year	38.34%
As of:	11/21/09
How is this calculated?

Details:

Trades	111
Trade Notes	94
Blog Posts	0

Electronic Technician/Master of the Universe
Age: 50's
Often inebriated

WeirdUncleJesse

Posted July 17, 2009 (05:45AM)

   OMG I have more to read through more than my poor inebriated brain can handle. I can see I have left this thread for far too long. Owl, you are one sharp coookie and (I assume) have access to others who are equally sharp and have the apppropriate educational background to appreciate what I (in my inebriated state) am about to say. Please understand I mean no disrespect.

   It seems to me that according to what you have said, specifically that energy has discreet states and space is continuous, that the equation E=MC^2 contains an incongruity.

E = energy, which, by the current theory exists in discreet states.

M = mass, which, by current theory, is a constant.

C = a constant related to the speed of light. This is where my proiblem lies. Speed = space (distance) * (velocity = (space traveled/measurement of space) Space, as you have stated, exists as a continuem.

   One side of this equation is considered to be measured in discreet components while the other is considered to measure in continuous components. Perhaps M is not so constant as is assumed. Or perhaps (as mentioned in recent editions of Scientic American) C is less than constant?

   This points to an incongruity. I humbly suggest that this incongruity be examined by folks more intellegent and learned than am I. I'm just some drunk bastard that's done far too many drugs. Maybe I have to reevaluate once I'm sober. But I do see an incongruity here. IMO this possibly could bear some further scrutiny.

WeirdUncleJesse

Member since: Oct 08

Performance:

5 Day	2.47%
15 Day	13.46%
1 Month	0.63%
3 Month	5.51%
6 Month	40.27%
1 Year	38.34%
As of:	11/21/09
How is this calculated?

Details:

Trades	111
Trade Notes	94
Blog Posts	0

Electronic Technician/Master of the Universe
Age: 50's
Often inebriated

WeirdUncleJesse

Posted July 17, 2009 (06:09AM)

Ouch, my brain hurts. I hope you see my conumdrum. A Continuous value cannot equal a discreet value. Well it can, but only at discreet points. Ouch. My brain hurts. I gotta figure this one out once I sober up. Or else there's something wrong with how I understand current theory. Or <gasp> current theory is incomplete.

~~Weird Uncle Jesse~~

Owl

Member since: Sep 08

Performance:

5 Day	-0.91%
15 Day	-4.53%
1 Month	-8.04%
3 Month	-9.70%
6 Month	-14.79%
1 Year	91.61%
As of:	11/21/09
How is this calculated?

Details:

Trades	345
Trade Notes	5
Blog Posts	0

Professor of Philosophy
Age: 30's
Colorado

Owl

Posted July 17, 2009 (12:15PM)

WeirdUncleJesse said: Ouch, my brain hurts. I hope you see my conumdrum. A Continuous value cannot equal a discreet value. Well it can, but only at discreet points. Ouch. My brain hurts. I gotta figure this one out once I sober up. Or else there's something wrong with how I understand current theory. Or <gasp> current theory is incomplete.

Or both. Our current theory is surely incomplete. We know this in a couple of ways:
1. At every earlier time in history, our theory at the time has been incomplete. It would be amazing if today was the first time in history when this wasn't true.
2. Our current theory is inconsistent. Quantum mechanics is known to contradict relativity, and yet both are accepted.

However, it's also true that you have some misunderstandings.

WeirdUncleJesse said: It seems to me that according to what you have said, specifically that energy has discreet states and space is continuous, that the equation E=MC^2 contains an incongruity.

E = energy, which, by the current theory exists in discreet states.
M = mass, which, by current theory, is a constant.
C = a constant related to the speed of light. This is where my proiblem lies. Speed = space (distance) * (velocity = (space traveled/measurement of space) Space, as you have stated, exists as a continuem.

One side of this equation is considered to be measured in discreet components while the other is considered to measure in continuous components. Perhaps M is not so constant as is assumed. Or perhaps (as mentioned in recent editions of Scientic American) C is less than constant?

First, I'm not sure where the "Speed = space * velocity" came from. Speed and velocity are essentially the same (more precisely, velocity is a vector, and speed is the magnitude of that vector).

Second, mass is not a constant in relativity, since objects gain mass as they travel faster.

Let me try to rephrase your main point, in a couple of ways:

- We have e=mc^2. c is a speed, m is constant. Speeds vary continuously, so therefore, e must vary continuously.
This argument fails, because c is not just "speed", but a single specific speed, the speed of light. It doesn't vary, it doesn't have a continuum of possible values; it has exactly one value.

- Here is a better argument: Assume that both distances and times take on a continuum of values. Then a continuum of velocities are possible. If so, then a continuum of values of kinetic energy are possible, because kinetic energy = (m*v^2)/2. If so, then presumably energy is not discrete.
I'm not sure about this one, but I think the problem is that the idea of the discreteness of energy only applies in certain contexts: I have only ever heard it discussed in reference to the energy levels of an electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom, and the energy of oscillating electric charges in a heated solid -- not kinetic energy in general. So I don't think it applies to kinetic energy in general (e.g., of a particle moving freely in a straight line).

OldFart

Member since: Jun 08

Details:

Trades	Not Shared
Trade Notes	0
Blog Posts	0

OldFart

Posted July 17, 2009 (12:33PM)

As Owl noted above the two major theories in physics - relativity and quantum physics are not compatible with each other. OK, but which one is the right one? Here is an article about an UCSD physicist using the box of mirrors Appolo11 left on the moon to test relativity. The precision in his experiment is 1 cm (a little less than 1/2"). So far the relativity holds ....

Link - http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2009/07/17/science/882theory071609.txt

incubus

Member since: Dec 08

Details:

Trades	Not Shared
Trade Notes	0
Blog Posts	0

closet geek
Age: 90's
Confusion

incubus

Posted July 17, 2009 (02:22PM)

OF, relativity explains the physical laws of the universe we know.

Quantum physics attempts to explain whats beyond that, what subatomic particles consist of, what created the big bang.

I hope I'm alive when the bridge between the two is discovered.

WeirdUncleJesse

Member since: Oct 08

Performance:

5 Day	2.47%
15 Day	13.46%
1 Month	0.63%
3 Month	5.51%
6 Month	40.27%
1 Year	38.34%
As of:	11/21/09
How is this calculated?

Details:

Trades	111
Trade Notes	94
Blog Posts	0

Electronic Technician/Master of the Universe
Age: 50's
Often inebriated

WeirdUncleJesse

Posted July 18, 2009 (02:01AM)

   Owl - Now that I've sobered up I have solved my own conumdrum. Speed is distance traveled/time elapsed, thus a continuous value, assuming time and space to be continuous values (like real numbers). This would appear to the drunken mind to be an inconsistant inclusion into an equation where the result is a discreet value (like an integer).

   This leaves m. As I understand current theory, there is a hypothetical particle that imparts the property of Mass into matter (neutrinoes are an example of particles without this property). As this particle would be discreet, multiplying it with a real value will also yeild a discreet value, thus there is no discrepency. Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps this mathmatical quirk is what led to the theory of discreet mass.

~~Weird Uncle Jesse~~

   PS In the Apr 2003 issue of Discover there is an article which calls into question the constance of c. In it, Dr. Joao Magueijo proposes this as a reason that the known Universe is larger than is possible using the current proposed age of the Big Bang. He proposes that, at very high enery states, the speed of light can actually increase as an alternative to the inflation theory. It's an interesting read.

Owl

Member since: Sep 08

Performance:

5 Day	-0.91%
15 Day	-4.53%
1 Month	-8.04%
3 Month	-9.70%
6 Month	-14.79%
1 Year	91.61%
As of:	11/21/09
How is this calculated?

Details:

Trades	345
Trade Notes	5
Blog Posts	0

Professor of Philosophy
Age: 30's
Colorado

Owl

Posted July 18, 2009 (05:11PM)

OF,
Thanks for that interesting link. "Which is the right one?" may be too simple a question. My guess is that neither is really right -- some third theory will be developed that supersedes both and explains why both give approximately correct results. My basis for this hypothesis is an induction from the history of scientific revolutions. There have been a number of revolutions in various scientific fields (including especially physics), and what usually happens is that a new theory appears that resolves some anomaly that existed in the earlier theory, and the new theory explains simultaneously (a) why the old theory appeared approximately correct, but (b) why the old theory is wrong at the fundamental level. The incompatibility of relativity and quantum mechanics is today's big "anomaly".

Weird Uncle,
- Neutrinos are now believed to have small but nonzero mass: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/1497
- I have not heard of the idea that there is a particular particle that imparts mass; I have only heard of mass discussed as a property of almost all particles. I also have not heard of mass being quantized. However, there are only finitely many particle types, and they all have fixed rest masses. But since mass increases with velocity, and other changes in energy state, I think mass can still take on continuum many different values.
- Multiplying a real-valued (continuous) variable by a discrete variable does not give you a discrete result. That is, suppose

x = c*d

where x is any variable, c is some continuous variable, and d is some discrete variable. x will not then be discrete. It will have continuum many values. (To see this, let R be any real number. To show that it is possible for x to = R, just note that since c takes on real-number values, you can set c=R/d. The result is then that x = (R/d)*d = R. Therefore, x can take on any real value, so it's not discrete.)

OldFart

Member since: Jun 08

Details:

Trades	Not Shared
Trade Notes	0
Blog Posts	0

OldFart

Posted July 18, 2009 (07:33PM)

Owl - right it I was trying to simplify the issue a little. The idea of combining the theories of physics has been around for a while, just the idea though. There is something the physicists call GUT - Grand Unification Theory which tries to combine electomagnetic and nuclear (weak and strong) forces. GUT extension is the theory of everything which brings gravity and relativity together with GUT.

And then maybe we will know how to price options :-)

afrin

Member since: Mar 07

Details:

Trades	28
Trade Notes	0
Blog Posts	1

Age: 20's
Lockport, IL UNITED STATES

afrin

Posted July 18, 2009 (08:19PM)

WHO WHO... http://www.asbestoswatch.net/2009/07/15/graces-post-asbestos-bankruptcy-play/

Whoops. You need to be signed in to do that.