This post might seem a little bit 'out there'; I considered posting in the philosophy sub-forum, but I thought that the input here would be the result of more disciplined thought processes. If you made a computer that could model the universe down to the finest detail, and you then set it to work simulating its (the Universe's) evolution from the big bang onwards, would the running speed of the program be limited to real time, or could you watch an accelerated version? I thank you for humouring me.
you would probably run into some problem like: the processes of the universe would take so much computing power that the only computer able to simulate it would be the universe itself.
Postulating that the computer can be built, and is also external to the universe (to avoid it running into problems trying to model itself modelling itself etc.) then the answer is still dependent on several factors, such as the speed and computational efficiency of the computer. However, assuming we start from a state of total information, and proceed iteratively, to model in real time you'd need to have a computational time step equal in length to the time needed to work out all of the interactions of each particle with every other particle. In practice you'd impose several limitations to this, such as strong interactions only between particles with separations less than 10fm etc., but you're still looking at an awful lot of calculations per timestep. The problem of course is that as the timestep increases, the accuracy decreases, so probably the best way to find out what the Universe will be like next second is just to watch and wait!
To model everything to the finest detail of all existance, I think the computer would have to compute everything at the speed of light just to calculate everything in real-time... I doubt a computer could be built like this. Seeing as how light is the speed-limit of the universe, then no.
Not possible. For every logic choice that went on it in the universe, ie, if an atom was attracted or repulsed by another, would require a logic gate inside the computer chip. That's not counting all the logic that went on at the quantum level and sub-quantum, etc, etc, if there is an end. It would have to be another universe, parallel to ours and essentially running at the same speed. When energy is increased to increase time, the sum of all interactivity is changed. And you also have the turing problem of calculating infinity in real time. Rest assured there is never going to be an accurate computer to simulate anything here on earth or in the universe. There is just not enough logic gates in a computer chip to map all the logic 'gates' or interactions that go on at even the sub-quantum level in real life.
The only way to simulate a universe is to know what was in the beginning...the beginning is the key or the seed to the universe. From that seed the great world unravels. Evolution of universe and everything within it (which is the same thing really) may be possible this way.
Yes, we would have to be God essentially to know all the way down to the smallest variable or logic decision.
Strange - All the objections have been about practical limitation. The fundamental objection is much more important. The furture is not predictable, due to the quantum uncertainity. Given state "A," the state of universe at time "a," the state "B" of universe at time "b" is unknown and unpredictable regardless of how small the time difference c = b-a is. Zillions and Zillions of distinct universe states "B" are possible with each having a definte probability of occuring even when c is only 1 femtosecond! Summary: The whole thread is nonsense.
I think the future can be predicted. Just because something is uncertain does not make it unpredictable. We just do not know HOW to predict it.
Billy T, the thread may well be nonsense, but not for the reason that you so impolitely stated. I am well aware that nature is fundamentally unpredictable at the finest scales. But this fact does not necessarily preclude such physical processes from being modelled. Your answer prompted me to look briefly at your homepage, about which I have a question. It's off-topic, but it doesn't warrant its own thread, so here it is: How could stellar evolution end at a 2.2 solar mass black hole, given that neutron degeneracy pressure is sufficient to support a collapsing core of up to around 3 solar masses?
Interesting topic. It is true that uncertainty in our knowledge of a system does not imply that the system is in principle unpredictable. Usually it only means we cannot practically predict what is going to happen. Nevertheless, if one accepts whole heartedly the notion that there exists this process called "measurement" in quantum theory, a process which is fundamentally probabilistic, then the results of experiments are indeed truly unpredictable. On the other hand, the measurement postulate seems like a lot to swallow. If we put measurement on hold for second, a quantum system evolves in a completely deterministic fashion. A random element only enters when we perform this vague process of "measurement" on the quantum system. However, one might reasonably ask what prevents another experimenter from regarding the entire first experimenter and her experiment as a single quantum system? Does this combined system evolve deterministically? In other words, is there a point (size? complexity?) where a system fundamentally stops being quantum mechanical? If the answer is yes, then we should try to find the criteria for breakdown. If the answer is no, then it should be possible to understand how the apparent unpredictability of measurement arises in a purely quantum setting. The similarity to the apparent (but only apparent!) breakdown of reversability in thermodynamics cannot be ignored. Obviously such questions are related to questions about the nature of consciousness (source of breakdown? c.f. Penrose). However, if we accept that there is nothing fundamentally special about human beings, then the answer probably lies elsewhere.
Yes, the future is predictable. Not entirely by humans but God. He is the ultimate mathematician. God is the whole and quantum particles are part of the fractal. The further the future, the harder to predict. The more minute or large the scale, the harder it is to predict. With more minuteness and more mass to predict, the variables are increased. But yes, time is somewhat predictable by us. Quantum particles are not random. Seemingly to us, yes. But the universe is based on laws, organization, and logic. And I am certain as there is time in the day that logic doesn't stop at the atomic/molecular/quark level. Illogic can never be derived from logic. The more we learn, the more laws we discover, and the less we see is random, that it all has a logical, predictable basis behind it all. There is no such thing as random. The scientists who say there is randomness are wrong, or naive of the function behind the particle. The same sum can never be derived from a random process. The universe is a sum. The number 5 can be a sum. If we divide 5 into fractions as we're pretty much doing when dwelling deeper into the minuteness of the universe, we can't just have random fractions and whole numbers and then all come out equalling 5. And those fractions can't have fractions just being random to come out equalling the birther fractions. And as we dwell deeper, the same law applies. There is a method to the madness. Logic can never be birthed from illogic. Illogic can never produce logic. As I said, the universe is a sum. We cannot split it into fractions which are random. They all must end with the same product, the universe as we see it and all must follow the law of logic.
To Absane: Let me demonstrate that the future is not predictable: Imagine a weak (approximately 10 detected decays per hour) radioactive source placed between to detectors, A and B. Beginning at 12 noon, I wait to see if A or B is the next to detect a decay. If it is A, then I send you a check for $1000 dollars. If it is B, then that check goes to hit man, after he has killed you. Point is: A single quantum event can change the history of the world (You are going to do something great for human kind, weren’t you?) and surely has several times already as some one lingered a little longer in the lab and was not killed in a car wreck etc. (or was).
One way is that some of the big bang's primary black holes may have grown (swallowed the intense radiation) instead of evaporated by Hawking radiation etc. See: www.arxiv.org/astro-ph/0504606 and www.arxiv.org/astro-ph/0504034 but I do not think that is what is being suggested there and would not necessarily be a source of paired (gravitationally bound) black holes as I want for the Dark Visitor. If you go to page 6 the left column of www.arxiv.org/astro-ph/0504034 you will find: "One of the interesting implications of these scenarios is the possible existence of a halo population of binary black holes [116]. With a full halo of such objects, there could be a huge number of binaries inside 50 kpc and some of these could be coalescing due to gravitational radiation losses at the present epoch[20]. If the associated gravitational waves were detected, it would provide a unique probe of the halo distribution." That is of course just what I wanted for my book; however, it is not the only source of "small black holes" IMHO. The math of BH formation is well beyond my abilities - in truth, if accurately done, beyond everyone’s, IMHO. I am nearly certain that the collapse of a large star is assume to be spherical, but I do not think that assumption is justified for following reason: Point 1: The fusion that forms iron in last stage of nuclear "burning" is exponentially dependent upon the temperature because only a very tiny fraction of the nuclei that will fuse have the kinetic energy necessary to over come the Coulumb forces and get into range of the strong forces. (They are in the extreme high energy "Maxwell-Boltzman tail" of the distribution.) Point 2:The fusion that forms iron in last stage of nuclear "burning" is only quadraticly dependent upon the density. Pont 3: The pressure as a function of radius from the center of the star is more complex (I think) than the product of temperature and density, but something like that. Point 4: Both temperature and density will have small scale statistical variations so it is not likely that the exact center of star's mass will have the highest fusion rate, prior to the start of collapse to black hole. Where the temperature is a little higher and the density a little lower, the combined effect of Points 1 & 2 will result in more rapid fusion and produce an increase in temperature more rapidly than a part of the same pressure shell that has lower temperature and higher density. THIS IS A THERMAL INSTABILITY. Thus, I think that it very likely that some point not the exact center of the mass distribution will be the point at which the black hole forms as the mass is converted to essential all iron. That point will surely not be far from the center (compared to the stellar radius) but the resulting implosion will not be the symmetric process always assumed. As the first generation stars were very big (50 to 350 solar masses) I guess that some part, not at the exact center, will form a small black hole of a few solar masses and sent the remainder flying away. Probably in 10s of thousands of years this expelled mass will return to some center of mass, perhaps not including the few masses of the initial black hole or if it does make a quasar like we can not believe. If the returning mass does not get eaten by the first black hole, then perhaps the now well mixed former shells in different stages of nuclear burning reform a new star and the process begins again. - I.e. perhaps one star can make several small black holes and expel them but not so well separated as to not still be "gravitationally bound." Also note that then, like now, most stars form in pairs as conservation of the initial gas cloud's angular momentum is easier that way. I do not claim any of this is necessarily true, I just doubt the current symmetric models are any better justified than the drunk man looking for the car keys he lost in a dark parking lot under the street light on the other side of the street because “that was where he could see.” - Physicists assume a symmetric collapse for the formation of black holes in the big first generation stars because “that is what they can calculate.”
Billy T, I recently read a paper in which some black holes are assumed to be non-symmetrical as you stated. They were to look for gravity waves produced by such assymmetrical black holes, so you are not alone in your proposal. I didn't copy a link to the paper, however, and I don't remember where I read it. Sorry.
I suspect you are recalling a paper related o the effort to detect gravity waves. Co rotating black holes, just before they merge, are the most powerful sources of gravity waves. Certaily considered as a black hole, these pairs are very non symmetric. I was focused on how black holes might form. In my book, chaper 5, I discuss a lot of different sources for the Dark visitor. One I consider has the advantage of explaining why magnetic monopoles are not observed. (Briefly the N poles and S poles attract each other much more strongly over long ranges than regular magnetic dipoles as their field falls off only as the square, not the cube. Magnetic monopoles are very very heavy - perhaps only a N+S pair will disappear as a black hole.)
That does not tell me anything. An event doesn't change anything because what is going to happen will happen anyway. Please refine your example.
You are refuting more than the current view of quantum mechanics with this deterministic "what will happen, will happen" view. - For example, you have no ability to make any choices - no "free will." It is all going to happen with no possibility for any choice by anyone. If you think you can chose to do something, instead of something else which is scheduled to “happen,” then you either are logically inconsistent or suffer under a delusion and/or illusion.
As far as I know, Quantum mechanics doesn't prove anything about the universe being indeterministic... all it says is that there are things going on that we do not understand. Yes, you are correct. I am not a free-will believer. Yes, I live my life like I do have free-will but that does not change my position. Being a couch potatao or working to win a Nobel prize in no way would make me a hypocrite. Whatever I do would have happened anyway. That is just the thing, it is not possible to "have done otherwise" given the exact same conditions. Even if I have the intentions of doing A at time t<sub>0</sub> but I do B, that is in no way a contradiction because B as going to happen anyway.
