Are the laws of physics based on magic?

[dumbest man on earth]

What was the change?

So...attempting to answer a question with a question...

How to Not Answer a Question - from - http://www.ehow.com/how_7366090_not-answer-question.html
............. Instructions : .............
1.) - Answer the question with another question. Keep your question friendly and avoid sounding harsh or accusatory. If someone asks when your baby is due, answer with, "Are you thinking of getting pregnant?" By asking a question in reply, you switch the focus back on the other person.
2.) - Change the subject. Use this method when you can't just walk away from the conversation, such as during a job interview. If you can't think of a good way to change the subject, interject with something of importance. For instance, if someone asks you how old you are, say, "Oh! I almost forgot! Did you get that memo I sent you?" In an interview, remind the interviewer of your resume by answering with, "Did you see my education experience?" The abrupt change of subject should make the person forget the original question.
3.) - Treat the question as if it were a joke and just laugh it off. This is an especially good method if the question is inappropriate. If a coworker asks if you had a late night at the bar, smile and laugh. If you need to give a spoken reply, say, "Nice one," "That's funny" or "Wouldn't you like to know?"
4.) - Act as if you don't understand the question. If someone asks if you had a good time on your date, with inappropriate connotations, give an innocent and honest answer instead, such as, "I did. We saw this great action movie. You should see it." Most people will be taken so off guard that you didn't answer the way they wanted that they won't press the issue
5.) - Walk away when you have no other option. Excuse yourself by saying that you have work to do or you need to make an important phone call. Use this as a last resort as some people will be offended by your abrupt exit. At work, if someone walks past as the question is asked, excuse yourself, saying that you need to speak to the other person about something important.


BTW - missed your Post #170 earlier - sorry.
To the answer...the overnight "cocktails" that Nurse Wratchett gives me here in ICU, seem to inhibit my physical abilities before my mental ones - all hail, the wonders of pharmaceutically induced health care.

 

[Mazulu]

So...attempting to answer a question with a question...

How to Not Answer a Question - from - http://www.ehow.com/how_7366090_not-answer-question.html
............. Instructions : .............
1.) - Answer the question with another question. Keep your question friendly and avoid sounding harsh or accusatory. If someone asks when your baby is due, answer with, "Are you thinking of getting pregnant?" By asking a question in reply, you switch the focus back on the other person.
2.) - Change the subject. Use this method when you can't just walk away from the conversation, such as during a job interview. If you can't think of a good way to change the subject, interject with something of importance. For instance, if someone asks you how old you are, say, "Oh! I almost forgot! Did you get that memo I sent you?" In an interview, remind the interviewer of your resume by answering with, "Did you see my education experience?" The abrupt change of subject should make the person forget the original question.
3.) - Treat the question as if it were a joke and just laugh it off. This is an especially good method if the question is inappropriate. If a coworker asks if you had a late night at the bar, smile and laugh. If you need to give a spoken reply, say, "Nice one," "That's funny" or "Wouldn't you like to know?"
4.) - Act as if you don't understand the question. If someone asks if you had a good time on your date, with inappropriate connotations, give an innocent and honest answer instead, such as, "I did. We saw this great action movie. You should see it." Most people will be taken so off guard that you didn't answer the way they wanted that they won't press the issue
5.) - Walk away when you have no other option. Excuse yourself by saying that you have work to do or you need to make an important phone call. Use this as a last resort as some people will be offended by your abrupt exit. At work, if someone walks past as the question is asked, excuse yourself, saying that you need to speak to the other person about something important.


BTW - missed your Post #170 earlier - sorry.
To the answer...the overnight "cocktails" that Nurse Wratchett gives me here in ICU, seem to inhibit my physical abilities before my mental ones - all hail, the wonders of pharmaceutically induced health care.

dmoe,
I spelled out my motives and objectives very clearly. I don't need to manipulate you. I only want you to render an opinion about what I say. Yes, it does evolve as I think of better ideas. I can't help that, it is what it is. But my motives are the same. I'm trying to show that "nothing before the big bang" or "no cause" of the bb doesn't make as much sense as what I can come up with. Physicists are missing something subtle about the laws of physics and the physics constants; they are overlooking the need for some kind of infrastructure.

So no, I am not trying to manipulate you or dodge your question. That would be too exhausting.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

But I do believe there are angelic beings of light and I do believe there are spiritual powers at work in people's lives. I believe we have souls. I believe in occult phenomenon, because of my experiences . . . . I believe that some people can project astrally and visit spiritual realms. I believe there are higher planes of consciousness and lower planes of darkness. I believe that consciousness survives the death of the biological body (in spite of the appearance that the brain is responsible for consciousness). I believe that the spiritual realms are pre-existent to the physical realm, and have pre-existed forever.

This is a free country (I assume you're an American) so you're free to believe anything you want. But your beliefs are, to put it mildly, extraordinary.

The Rule of Laplace, one of the cornerstones of the scientific method, chides us that "extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect." You don't even bring any ordinary evidence to this discussion, much less extraordinary. All you present is a vague citation of "experiences" which you do not describe at all. So you'll have to make peace with the fact that those of us who are scientifically inclined are going to pay exactly zero attention to your extraordinary assertions. Sorry 'bout that.

But the spiritual realms are about consciousness that experiences, not about measurements, not about space-time geometry, not about physics.

That might be true if there indeed is a spiritual realm. Since there is no evidence for its existence (again, not even ordinary evidence, much less the extraordinary evidence that Laplace demands), we are under no obligation to take it seriously.

Reality is quite interesting. You should study it. It's fascinating, challenging and reassuring. There's no need for woo-woo if you're looking for intellectual challenges and emotional comfort.

This makes more sense to me than a lack of existence of anything prior to the big bang. The problem with that idea is that how can anything come from nothing?

You must have missed my earlier posts while you were busy reading your books on spirituality. I already explained that. The Second Law of Thermodyamics allows for temporary, local reversals of entropy: the emergence of organization where there was none. Since the universe contains an exact balance of stuff and anti-stuff of all kinds, it is basically still nothing, but now it's nothing with a high level of organization.

How can the laws of physics and the physics constants exist without a cause?

This is the question that haunts everyone. The physicists don't have the answer yet so I doubt very much that anyone who is posting in this discussion is going to answer your question.

Be patient.

How can space-time geometry exist without some invisible spirit substance that obeys laws of physics?

That's all part of the same question. Science as we know it has been practiced for about half a millennium, but it was only a couple of generations ago that scientists began to discover highly counterintuitive phenomena, such as relativity and uncertainty. And the only reason this happened is that the engineers were busily inventing technology that allowed them to see farther and in more detail than their ancestors could. We owe just as much gratitude to engineers for modern science as we do to the scientists themselves.

Be patient. All of the secrets of the universe are not going to be revealed in one or two centuries.

How can energy and gravity exist without the presence of unseen infrastructure?

Seems like the infrastructure must have come first then, eh? It's what we call the space-time continuum. Cosmologists are frantically trying to analyze the first yoctosecond (one septillionth of a second) after the Big Bang--and if they had a prefix for 10^-27 they'd use it. Why not just call it one googolth, 10^-100? Or one googolplexth, 10^-(10^100)? Other than the fact that it's rather difficult to pronounce. Anyway, that teeny-weenie span of time is when all of this really important stuff came into existence. We don't know how yet.

That is the problem with cosmologist dogma. If there truly was an absence of unseen infrastructure, then the laws of physics would collapse into chaos, and the universe would vanish as if it never existed. It could not exist without infrastructure, even if we cannot see it.

No, the problem is in your understanding of cosmology, not the current state of knowledge in the field. And you'll never understand reality if you keep spending so much time toying around with the fiction of spirituality.

Cosmologists don't believe that any infrastructure is necessary. I say that they are wrong.

That's not what they say at all. The space-time continuum and the laws of nature are that infrastructure. You really need to read up on this stuff. What little there is to read, anyway.

 

[Mazulu]

Fraggle Rocker,
I have enormous respect for you and I think you have qualities that the other moderators should try to emulate.

You must have missed my earlier posts while you were busy reading your books on spirituality. I already explained that. The Second Law of Thermodyamics allows for temporary, local reversals of entropy: the emergence of organization where there was none. Since the universe contains an exact balance of stuff and anti-stuff of all kinds, it is basically still nothing, but now it's nothing with a high level of organization.

I was tepid about the idea. It reminded me of how "in theory" all of the air molecules in a room could, by chance, collect in a small corner of the room, but it's very unlikely. In reality, it never happens, it's impossible.

This is the question that haunts everyone. The physicists don't have the answer yet so I doubt very much that anyone who is posting in this discussion is going to answer your question. Be patient. That's all part of the same question. That's not what they say at all. The space-time continuum and the laws of nature are that infrastructure.

I was not aware that the scientific community had actually thought of asking the question: where do the laws of physics, physics constants come from? How are they implemented? Yes I will be patient. But I do think that some of the answers are unsatisfactory. To say that the space-time continuum and the laws of nature are the infrastructure is like saying that matter is made of atoms. It is true, but there is a deeper truth.

Sorry, I gotta go to work.:bagpuss:

 

[dumbest man on earth]

dmoe,
I spelled out my motives and objectives very clearly. I don't need to manipulate you. I only want you to render an opinion about what I say.

So no, I am not trying to manipulate you or dodge your question. That would be too exhausting.

Mazulu, me rendering opinion on what you say - see Posts #8/#12/#17/#75/#77/#80/#95/#107/#118/#121/#136/#138/#147/#159 - up to my could you entertain Post.

As far as "...not trying to manipulate you or dodge your question(s)". You must be exhausted.
questions - see Posts 3/#80 - 1/#95 - i/#107 - 1/ #118 - 1/#136 - 1/#138 - 1/#147 - 1/#159

Mazulu, if you do not find it to exhausting, you may care to reread the posts to get my opinions on what you have Posted.

Also, if you care to you can reread the Posts where I asked questions of you for clarification - and possibly Post back with the Post #'s where any of the questions were actually answered, and not manipulated or dodged - that would not be asking to much.

On my server, i keep records of the Posts and keep notes on my personal thoughts and ideas on them, including logs of my questions and whether or not, and how they were answered.
For instance ; I asked 1 question in Post #136 - my notes indicate that the question was not actually answered - it was responded to you Posting more of your...thoughts...and your "So, in-your-face! Ha!", remark.

Even though I may be, dmoe, I do know how to access my home server from ICU.

 

[paddoboy]

I was not aware that the scientific community had actually thought of asking the question: where do the laws of physics, physics constants come from? How are they implemented? Yes I will be patient. But I do think that some of the answers are unsatisfactory. To say that the space-time continuum and the laws of nature are the infrastructure is like saying that matter is made of atoms. It is true, but there is a deeper truth.

Sorry, I gotta go to work.:bagpuss:

The constants and laws of physics are what they are.....
We assume they were implemented at the instant of the BB. If they weren't what they are, most probably the Universe would be different to what we see today, and we probably would not be here to ask those questions.
The answers that we do have so far, are determined by what we have observed, and they are probably limited. Remember we have only been in the space age for less then a century yet, and the probes such as COBE, WMAP and others have given us greater insights into the Universe and we are moderating and advancing these findings all the time.
We thought the Earth was flat at one time....
We thought the Earth was the center of the solar system/galaxy/Universe also......
We thought the Milky Way was the Universe......

We have come a long way, but obviously still have a way to go yet.

As bases are permanently established on the Moon, Mars and even further afield, our knowledge will expand along with our explorations.
In reality Science/cosmology has pushed the need for a creator back at least to the BB....They will probably push it back even further, to this deeper truth that you talk about given time, but perhaps this deeper truth is not what you would like to hear....just saying.

 

[wellwisher]

Do ghosts make use of dark matter and dark energy? We have never seen dark matter up close, but infer its existence with indirect evidence. Ghosts also have never been seen close up in the lab, but are inferred with indirect evidence.

In the case of dark matter/energy, we assume a certain mass/ energy balance in the universe, based on constants, and the dark energy and dark matter is needed to account for extra mass/energy needed to explain exceptions to the old rules. Ghosts are based on the assumption of life after death. This theory add energy to the human body, which is conserved after death. To maintain this assumed energy balance, ghosts, like dark energy are a way to account for the extra energy. Are ghosts composed of dark energy and dark matter since both are inferred but have not been seen in the lab?

 

[(Q)]

Do ghosts make use of dark matter and dark energy? We have never seen dark matter up close, but infer its existence with indirect evidence.

That would be gravity, which is as indirect an evidence as that of the earths surface accelerating up to meet us.

Ghosts also have never been seen close up in the lab, but are inferred with indirect evidence.

And, what would be the indirect evidence for ghosts that would be as equivalent evidence to gravity and dark matter?

 

[Magical Realist]

And, what would be the indirect evidence for ghosts that would be as equivalent evidence to gravity and dark matter?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0eRhJd_n2w

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

when we resort to explanations that use 'magic' we have abandoned reasoning. physics is the search for the reasoning that underlies what might appear 'magical'. a lack of ready explanation simply requires further resort to more intense reasoning, not abandonment of reasoning.

 

[Mazulu]

when we resort to explanations that use 'magic' we have abandoned reasoning. physics is the search for the reasoning that underlies what might appear 'magical'. a lack of ready explanation simply requires further resort to more intense reasoning, not abandonment of reasoning.

What if reason won't help? In order to reason, you have to have good sturdy premises to reason about. When I ask, what natural phenomenon causes the physics constants, nobody knows. When cosmologists tell me that "nothing" came before the big bang, my "malarky" meter goes off.

Clearly, reason doesn't work here. So let's try some intuition. If "nothing" came before the big bang, then what do cosmologists mean by "nothing"? I guess they mean meaureable things like energy and momentum. Perhaps what they really mean is that there was no energy and no momentum, no particles and no space-time continuum before the big bang. I agree with that assessment.

What about the physics constants and the laws of physics? We don't know how they are implemented, we just accept it at face value. I guess that is good enough for science. I can't ask scientists to measure what isn't there to be measured. Although it still doesn't look right.

But now we come back to my real motivations. I like paranormal phenomena because I've experienced it. I've experienced and looked right at this black cloaked figure in my room. It had a velvet mask. It was the thing that my mother and her friend were contacting via a seance. It was very very real. It was terrifying and exhilarating at the same time, and then the paralysis started. I really don't want to hear all the nonsense excuses of why REAL experiences are hallucinations because they don't fit within the laws of physics. Because at the end of the day, the laws of physics are not logical.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

@Mazulu

"So no, I am not trying to manipulate you or dodge your question(s)."

"Clearly, reason doesn't work here. So let's try some intuition. If "nothing" came before the big bang, then what do cosmologists mean by "nothing"? I GUESS they mean meaureable things like energy and momentum. PERHAPS what they really mean is that there was no energy and no momentum, no particles and no space-time continuum before the big bang. I AGREE with that assessment."

"But now we come back to my real motivations."

"So no, I am not trying to manipulate you or dodge your question(s)."

 

[Mazulu]

The big bang that explodes out of nothing is a flagrant violation of logic. It is so illogical, that cosmologists have to get us to agree to abandon "causality". According to the cosmological dogma, nothing existed before the big bang, not even the quantum vacuum. So how does a universe spring into existence as a quantum fluctuation without even a quantum vacuum? If the laws of physics and the physics constants began to exist at the first googleth of a second, then what were the processes that brought them "online"? And if science and mathematics are built on logic, then how is it logical that the universe and it's laws of physics popped into existence from absolutely total nothingness? Clearly there is a missing piece. A really big missing piece.

I think we have a piece so big that it justifies some woo, some really juicy woo. What do you all think?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Fraggle Rocker, I have enormous respect for you and I think you have qualities that the other moderators should try to emulate.

We're all colleagues. You can't get into the club if the rest of us don't like your attitude.

I was tepid about the idea. It reminded me of how "in theory" all of the air molecules in a room could, by chance, collect in a small corner of the room, but it's very unlikely. In reality, it never happens, it's impossible.

Just because something has never happened, doesn't make it impossible. Every possible arrangement of the air molecules is just as likely/unlikely as this one. It's just that the others don't surprise us, so we don't stop and wonder why molecule # 6984023L is over in the corner of the room instead of right here by my foot.

In infinite time, eventually everything will happen. However, we don't have infinite time. Our planet will become too hot to sustain life when the sun becomes a red giant in about 5.5 billion years. Beyond that, the universe will keep expanding until it's too cold for anything interesting to happen. Unless the minority opinion turns out to be true, in which case it will start collapsing in on itself, ultimately resulting in a Big Crunch and the universe, the laws of nature and the space-time continuum will cease to exist.

I was not aware that the scientific community had actually thought of asking the question: where do the laws of physics, physics constants come from? How are they implemented?

That's one of the central questions of cosmology. It's clear that if the laws of nature were not just exactly what they are, the universe could never have coalesced and it would not exist. Many of the Universal Constants coordinate with each other, so if they were off by a tiny fraction, nature wouldn't work. Nonetheless there's no reason to dismiss the idea that a totally different set of laws and constants might not be possible, which would also result in a stable universe although surely one that we would not understand and would probably not even be able to exist in.

What if 1+1=2.05, for example?

But I do think that some of the answers are unsatisfactory. To say that the space-time continuum and the laws of nature are the infrastructure is like saying that matter is made of atoms. It is true, but there is a deeper truth.

No one is happy with these answers. That's why they're striving to come up with better ones!

 

[(Q)]

The big bang that explodes out of nothing is a flagrant violation of logic. It is so illogical, that cosmologists have to get us to agree to abandon "causality". According to the cosmological dogma, nothing existed before the big bang, not even the quantum vacuum. So how does a universe spring into existence as a quantum fluctuation without even a quantum vacuum? If the laws of physics and the physics constants began to exist at the first googleth of a second, then what were the processes that brought them "online"? And if science and mathematics are built on logic, then how is it logical that the universe and it's laws of physics popped into existence from absolutely total nothingness? Clearly there is a missing piece. A really big missing piece.

I think we have a piece so big that it justifies some woo, some really juicy woo. What do you all think?

Not sure if Krauss has been brought up yet, but he has some interesting answers on the subject of "A Universe From Nothing"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwzbU0bGOdc

 

[Billy T]

As science progresses, more of the magic vanishes. I don't know how many independent constants now exist, but not many (a dozen or so, i'd guess). For example the speed of light can be computed, as Maxwell did, from the electric permittivity (ε) and magnetic permeability (μ) of the material, vacuum included as one of the "materials." For the derivation see: http://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/dielectrics/dielectric_refractive_index.php

It is interesting to note that if these constants were significantly different (in some cases by less than 1%) we could not exist. Perhaps there are other universes where they do differ, but not much change there is intelligent life in them. Inverting this fact, the "anthromorphic principle," since we are here, the constants must be basically as they are. That is not "magic" just the way it is since we are here.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

a universe with no beginning of time would be infinite, but with only a finite portion visible to an observer, with the demarcation being the change during the expansion in which the energy 'coalesces' and the electrons couple with the protons; we see this here on Earth as the cosmic microwave background, which any observer would see anywhere in the infinite universe.

 

[Billy T]

... It reminded me of how "in theory" all of the air molecules in a room could, by chance, collect in a small corner of the room, but it's very unlikely. In reality, it never happens, it's impossible. ...

No, not impossible in principle.

If you could precisely know the location and velocity of all the molecules in a box 1 second after a "puff" of air was released into a completely empty box at one corner, and create in an identical box with all the molecules in it having same location but exactly reversed velocity from those that existed in the box where the corner "puff" was released, you would be surprised to see all the molecules reform that puff in a corner 1 second later.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

dmoe,
Thank you for being kind and listening to what I have to say. I will answer your questions as honestly as I can.

Yes, I do pick my fights, fights I can win. I am also happy to explain my point of view as clearly and honestly as I can. I win the fight if I can show that natural phenomena is not sufficient to explain all that we observe. For example, big bangs out of nothingness cannot be explained by any demonstrable mechanism of nature and is purely a guess, just as "God created it" is a guess. Can anyone tell me a demonstrable natural mechanism that enforces the physics constants? You will realize, there isn't one. If any such mechanism exists, it is not natural, it is supernatural (beyond nature).

Mazulu, reading your Postings I am reminded of the one time "star" of the the sit-com "Two and a Half Men", who while "filled with Tiger's Blood", often repeated one thing over and over!

So...tell me...nay...all of us...are you "filled with Tiger's Blood"?...and...in this supposed "self-picked fight"...are you indeed, in point of fact..."WINNING!!"?

 

[gmilam]

The big bang that explodes out of nothing is a flagrant violation of logic. It is so illogical, that cosmologists have to get us to agree to abandon "causality". According to the cosmological dogma, nothing existed before the big bang, not even the quantum vacuum. So how does a universe spring into existence as a quantum fluctuation without even a quantum vacuum? If the laws of physics and the physics constants began to exist at the first googleth of a second, then what were the processes that brought them "online"? And if science and mathematics are built on logic, then how is it logical that the universe and it's laws of physics popped into existence from absolutely total nothingness? Clearly there is a missing piece. A really big missing piece.

I think we have a piece so big that it justifies some woo, some really juicy woo. What do you all think?

I think bringing in "woo" is just as much of a violation of logic. Seriously, the argument appears to be that the universe is too complex to have "just happened", so let's invoke an even more complex "cause" that "just happened" to exist. But that just moves the ultimate cause back one layer. Where did that come from? And then where did that come from? As they say, "it's turtles all the way down". The woo answer is even more unsatisfactory than the non-answer cosmology gives us. At least cosmologists admit that with current knowledge anything prior to the big bang is pure speculation. We can speculate an infinite number of things, and the odds are that whatever we speculate is wrong.