Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

[Quantum Quack]

All this tells you is that the universe is created as a paradox. A paradox that our minds simply refuse to accept as a reality. Evidence of this paradox is easy to find too I might add and your post attempts to discuss yet another take on the same thing. In other words the paradox is not something that can ever be solved and it is only when you accept and cease chasing an impossible solution you may find that the answer to the problem is that "the existence of the "problem" itself, is the solution to the paradox".

"The paradox is the source (solution) and the universe's existence is the problem"
Note the deliberate reversal of the intuitive..

 

[quantum_wave]

All this tells you is that the universe is created as a paradox. A paradox that our minds simply refuse to accept as a reality. Evidence of this paradox is easy to find too I might add and your post attempts to discuss yet another take on the same thing. In other words the paradox is not something that can ever be solved and it is only when you accept and cease chasing an impossible solution you may find that the answer to the problem is that "the existence of the "problem" itself, is the solution to the paradox".

"The paradox is the source (solution) and the universe's existence is the problem"
Note the deliberate reversal of the intuitive..

Who wouldn't appreciate the opportunity to give up the "chase" in the name of futility, ? But not right now. I'd put that post in the category of a capitulation to the realistic fact that there is no way to get confirmation that a personal model of the universe corresponds to reality.

I'm fine with the way the universe is; it is as it should be and could be no other way. Never-the-less, it would be satisfying if my model did correspond to reality. This would then not only be the fine universe that it is, but we would know the mechanics behind its invariant natural laws, and we could philosophize about the "Eternal Intent" of it from a foundational knowledge of physical reality :cheers:!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Who wouldn't appreciate the opportunity to give up the "chase" in the name of futility, ? But not right now. I'd put that post in the category of a capitulation to the realistic fact that there is no way to get confirmation that a personal model of the universe corresponds to reality.

I'm fine with the way the universe is; it is as it should be and could be no other way. Never-the-less, it would be satisfying if my model did correspond to reality. This would then not only be the fine universe that it is, but we would know the mechanics behind its invariant natural laws, and we could philosophize about the "Eternal Intent" of it from a foundational knowledge of physical reality :cheers:!

hee hee perhaps you misunderstand me... you can not give up the chase... and that's the point of it.. the universe can not stop existing and whilst doing so will provide a perpetual riddle that can not be solved... until you realize that that is the outcome of the paradox of course.
The human mind must by virtue of the paradox seek to solve it, death, nihilo etc are the only solution. The entire universe is destined to attempt to avoid nihilo for all of it's existence, a perpetual movement machine, a dog chasing it's tail.. Just like we humans do when we try to resolve the ex-nihilo paradox.
So by all means ponder away as this is your nature to do so [ by virtue of this paradox. ]
...after all does not x+(-)x = 0
Do the x's exist if they sum to zero? Of course not!!

 

[quantum_wave]

hee hee perhaps you misunderstand me... you can not give up the chase... and that's the point of it.. the universe can not stop existing and whilst doing so will provide a perpetual riddle that can not be solved... until you realize that that is the outcome of the paradox of course.
The human mind must by virtue of the paradox seek to solve it, death, nihilo etc are the only solution. The entire universe is destined to attempt to avoid nihilo for all of it's existence, a perpetual movement machine, a dog chasing it's tail.. Just like we humans do when we try to resolve the ex-nihilo paradox.
So by all means ponder away as this is your nature to do so [ by virtue of this paradox. ]
...after all does not x+(-)x = 0
Do the x's exist if they sum to zero? Of course not!!

Yes it does. So by all means I will carry on.

 

[Quantum Quack]

as I wrote:

perhaps you misunderstand me... you CAN NOT give up the chase...

and neither can I...

 

[river]

and of course the Universe doesn't come down to mathematics

the Universe is always about the energy and matter , of which is the essence of mathematics

until we come to the point that those who try to reduce the Universe to mathematics understand this , the x's , y's and z's will always be inadequate

 

[quantum_wave]

as I wrote:

and neither can I...

I understand the sentiment. You and I have the same mind set in that regard. Once the "chase" is begun, there is no stop button.

 

[quantum_wave]

and of course the Universe doesn't come down to mathematics

the Universe is always about the energy and matter , of which is the essence of mathematics

until we come to the point that those who try to reduce the Universe to mathematics understand this , the x's , y's and z's will always be inadequate

There probably are some mathematicians who promote the idea that mathematics has an element of soundness to it that makes one want to believe that the beauty of it is predictive. Elegant math supports elegant theories, like Supersymmetry, GR, etc.

It is easy to agree with you that the universe is about the energy and matter, and one can observe, and hypothesize about the universe without knowing the math. You can't show me an observation that can be repeated and tested, that can't be quantified mathematically, but the theory can still be falsified no matter how elegantly it is mathematically supported. I suspect Supersymmetry is one such case, but I doubt that the SUSY community is ready to throw in the towel just yet, based on the higher than expect energy level at which the Higgs appears.

 

[river]

Originally Posted by river
and of course the Universe doesn't come down to mathematics

the Universe is always about the energy and matter , of which is the essence of mathematics

until we come to the point that those who try to reduce the Universe to mathematics understand this , the x's , y's and z's will always be inadequate

There probably are some mathematicians who promote the idea that mathematics has an element of soundness to it that makes one want to believe that the beauty of it is predictive. Elegant math supports elegant theories, like Supersymmetry, GR, etc.

It is easy to agree with you that the universe is about the energy and matter, and one can observe, and hypothesize about the universe without knowing the math. You can't show me an observation that can be repeated and tested, that can't be quantified mathematically, but the theory can still be falsified no matter how elegantly it is mathematically supported. I suspect Supersymmetry is one such case, but I doubt that the SUSY community is ready to throw in the towel just yet, based on the higher than expect energy level at which the Higgs appears.

Nice to have a rational and calm response , appreciated , so rare on this site , the last yr. or so

My point is that math is important to understanding the physical dynamics of energy and matter , the mathematics is based on the mindset of the mathematician and the information given , as is any computer

Reason is the gathering of information , and new information , which happens all the time , the mathematical following logic is then calculated

But all of this is based on what the Universe is doing , its physical dynamics , from the macro to the micro

Not because of mathematics

 

[quantum_wave]

Nice to have a rational and calm response , appreciated , so rare on this site , the last yr. or so

It is the same on all of the science forums. The self proclaimed smart guys who claim the right to ridicule and dasdain, and then there are those of us who are sincere, informed, and respectful of others, learning as we go, and ignoring the ridicule and disparagement, considering the source.

My point is that math is important to understanding the physical dynamics of energy and matter , the mathematics is based on the mindset of the mathematician and the information given , as is any computer

Reason is the gathering of information , and new information , which happens all the time , the mathematical following logic is then calculated

But all of this is based on what the Universe is doing , its physical dynamics , from the macro to the micro

Not because of mathematics

Yes; good points.

 

[river]

quantum_wave

thanks for your response , just when I thought science thought was doomed to dogma

a few of us actually try to understand the Universe and what's in it , with reason

river

 

[forrest noble]

I agree that getting the meanings of words the same between two different discussion participants would eliminate much of the misunderstanding.

To address one point, the question you just posed is a good start. You ask what the meaning of totally empty space outside the bounds of the physical universe would be. In your model it would be meaningless because of how you define what constitutes the finite universe. In my model, empty space (there isn't any, but if there was ) outside of a finite big bang arena would be the waveless aether medium of space, which equates to a vacuum in my model.

If there is anything in it it isn't empty space. I agree aether (a physical medium) saturates space. But beyond this field, in my model, nothing exists.

Because everything physical in my model is composed of wave energy with inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave components, the finite universe would expand into the vacuum until the energy density of the vacuum was equalized with the energy density of the finite expanding arena. (Which would be never, hence the universe would expand forever.)

OK

Wednesday evening is my regular "Quantum Coffee" session with a science enthusiast friend, and finishing my response to your last post is a topic on the agenda. I usually come out of those discussions better able to articulate my thoughts .

Sounds like fun. Although I have a whole book, I sometimes copy my postings when I think I have better-explained certain ideas. Later I may use these copies of posting quotes to improve the wording of the online version of my book.

 

[quantum_wave]

If there is anything in it it isn't empty space. I agree aether (a physical medium) saturates space. But beyond this field, in my model, nothing exists.

OK, the issue between us is your spatially finite universe vs. my spatially infinite universe; maybe also stated as a finite field of aether medium, vs. an infinite wave carrying aether medium.

Let's test our mutual understanding of "finite" and "infinite", specifically in regard to the extent of the three spatial dimensions. Logically, finite space is measurable because there is an end to space in every direction from any point within a finite universe, though we cannot measure it. Infinite space, logically, is immeasurable because it has no end-point in any direction from any point within the universe.

Since we are both trying to make our models the most logical in the face of the unknown reality of the spatial issue, it is safe to say that our logic is different.

The logic that leads me to the hypothesis of a spatially infinite universe is that I have a problem with the logic of a concept of "nothingness". I associate nothingness with a spatially finite universe since it comes into play when the question is asked, "What is beyond the boundary of finite space?" In your model, as I interpret it, the answer is nothing, which I think you allow to be called empty space.

My definition of "nothingness", in respect to this issue, corresponds to your nothing/empty space, and I don't think logic permits nothingness or empty space.

Given all of that, maybe we could boil the difference in our logic down to the fact that your model embraces a concept of nothingness in regard to beyond the boundary of the aether medium, and my model denies nothingness and so the aether medium is infinite in all directions.

 

[paddoboy]

quantum_wave

thanks for your response , just when I thought science thought was doomed to dogma

a few of us actually try to understand the Universe and what's in it , with reason

river

Yep, the accepted mainstream model of the Universe is at this time quite real, based on all the observational evidence and data gathered, and aligning with the scientific method and undergoing peer review, it is in most areas on pretty solid ground.

Most people river, are able to "think for themselves", and in time, all this thinking for one's self gradually sees a view developed that most thinkers have logically determined is best and aligns with the reality of the situation better then other less popular views....al based on aquired evidence of course.

The unexplained stupid side of it all, is that we have certain people, that will deliberately avoid the popular incumbent view, to in there own mind, reflect this ability to think for one's self, when it obviously is a quite illogical concept, since they are deluding themselves by ignoring the evidence of why the incumbent model/view, has obtained such status.
I call it by a couple of other names, such as "delusions of grandeur"and "tall poppy syndrome"
Or to put it another way, purposely ignoring the opinions and knowledge of giants of the present and past, is not very smart at all.

 

[quantum_wave]

...
Given all of that, maybe we could boil the difference in our logic down to the fact that your model embraces a concept of nothingness in regard to beyond the boundary of the aether medium, and my model denies nothingness and so the aether medium is infinite in all directions.

Maybe we can agree to disagree on if "nothingness" is a logical concept. For me, embracing "nothingness" is more difficult than embracing the infinities. In my model, infinte space is the medium through which wave energy is continullay passing through all points from all directons in varying densities, causing a continually changing energy density, while maintining a constant mix between matter and gravitational wave energy on a grand scale, in a universe that has always existed and defeats entropy a little at a time in finite Big Bang arenas across the landscape of the greater universe (Arena Action defeats entropy).

The standard cosmological model has no explanation for the big bang, is predicted to expand forever thus eventually removing its ablility to host life, and uses General Relativity to explain gravity instead of discussing how gravity's mechanism could be described in terms of wave energy density in the medium of space.

 

[danshawen]

For the first time in the history of science, we know for certain about a component of the Standard Model which interacts with energy density of the vacuum, and which also appears to be an infinite repository of electroweak charge which it lends to atomic structure in order for matter to have inertia and to exist. The degree to which we know this approaches absolute certainty, which is rare in science. The only science that even approaches this degree of certainty is the venerable e=mc^2.

The Standard Model knows little to nothing about time on our scale, other than things like the predicted decay rates of things like like Vanadium 50 (a half-life of 1.5×10^17 years), or even protons, much less cosmological time or the Big Bang. The SM was never crafted to be even remotely related to cosmology, yet somehow it is. Go figure, but do so carefully.

It's really great to finally to have a subject about which I know just as much as science or anyone else does -- nothing; nothing at all! Nothing is something that a finite mind like mine can easily wrap itself around, mainly because there is so much of it between my ears. And I've waited 50 years to crack this; a very long way, I'll be bound. Perhaps a record?

The Babylonians didn't at first appreciate how great an advance zero was either, but eventually we figured it out.

 

[quantum_wave]

For the first time in the history of science, we know for certain about a component of the Standard Model which interacts with energy density of the vacuum, and which also appears to be an infinite repository of electroweak charge which it lends to atomic structure in order for matter to have inertia and to exist. The degree to which we know this approaches absolute certainty, which is rare in science. The only science that even approaches this degree of certainty is the venerable e=mc^2.

The Standard Model knows little to nothing about time on our scale, other than things like the predicted decay rates of things like like Vanadium 50 (a half-life of 1.5×10^17 years), or even protons, much less cosmological time or the Big Bang. The SM was never crafted to be even remotely related to cosmology, yet somehow it is. Go figure, but do so carefully.

It's really great to finally to have a subject about which I know just as much as science or anyone else does -- nothing; nothing at all! Nothing is something that a finite mind like mine can easily wrap itself around, mainly because there is so much of it between my ears. And I've waited 50 years to crack this; a very long way, I'll be bound. Perhaps a record?

The Babylonians didn't at first appreciate how great an advance zero was either, but eventually we figured it out.

Zero is fine, but it doesn't follow that everything in the universe nets out to it. That is commonly associated with a cosmology that starts from nothing at some point, as opposed to one that invokes the "always existed" explanation. If I'm not mistaken, the Higgs boson appears at an energy level around 125 or 126 GeV. That is said to have caused some dismay in the SUSY community that was looking for it to be 120. You must have heard about that long before the movie Particle Fever came out, which is where I first heard about it. Are you part of the Supersymmetry community and what do you think about it coming in at 126 GeV?

 

[danshawen]

Zero is fine, but it doesn't follow that everything in the universe nets out to it. That is commonly associated with a cosmology that starts from nothing at some point, as opposed to one that invokes the "always existed" explanation. If I'm not mistaken, the Higgs boson appears at an energy level around 125 or 126 GeV. That is said to have caused some dismay in the SUSY community that was looking for it to be 120. You must have you heard about that long before the movie Particle Fever came out, which is where I first heard about it. Are you part of the Supersymmetry community and what do you think about it coming in at 126 GeV?

I'm definitely not a member of the supersymmetry community, but somewhere I have apparently caught "particle fever". Can't wait for the next installment (tests confirming Higgs coupling to certain particles). Evidently my colleagues and I have mutually agreed to suspend the HLG project until more is known. In the end, we couldn't agree on an appropriate / consistent model of emergent space even though we agree that it is an essential ingredient of any vacuum energy interaction theory of gravity. We don't like Julian Barbour's theory of emergent space (which seems backwards), but one of us liked part of Erik Verlinde's ideas. The great thing is, as I said, no one seems to know which direction this will go.

 

[forrest noble]

OK, the issue between us is your spatially finite universe vs. my spatially infinite universe; maybe also stated as a finite field of aether medium, vs. an infinite wave carrying aether medium.

Let's test our mutual understanding of "finite" and "infinite", specifically in regard to the extent of the three spatial dimensions. Logically, finite space is measurable because there is an end to space in every direction from any point within a finite universe, though we cannot measure it. Infinite space, logically, is immeasurable because it has no end-point in any direction from any point within the universe.

Since we are both trying to make our models the most logical in the face of the unknown reality of the spatial issue, it is safe to say that our logic is different.

The logic that leads me to the hypothesis of a spatially infinite universe is that I have a problem with the logic of a concept of "nothingness". I associate nothingness with a spatially finite universe since it comes into play when the question is asked, "What is beyond the boundary of finite space?" In your model, as I interpret it, the answer is nothing, which I think you allow to be called empty space.

My definition of "nothingness", in respect to this issue, corresponds to your nothing/empty space, and I don't think logic permits nothingness or empty space.

Given all of that, maybe we could boil the difference in our logic down to the fact that your model embraces a concept of nothingness in regard to beyond the boundary of the aether medium, and my model denies nothingness and so the aether medium is infinite in all directions.

I like your logic Yes, a major difference is our definition and understanding of space. In my model nothing is not empty space. Nothing means, in my model, that it is non-existent -- just a misconception of the bounds of reality which accordingly would not include nothing as part of reality.

This of course does not mean that there could be no such thing as infinite space and field. It just means that such a model, in my view, must relate to an infinite universe of some kind, multiverses -- having no possibility of a beginning. The question then becomes, is this the simplest possible model consistent with observation? There is no consensus answer to this question.

 

[quantum_wave]

I like your logic Yes, a major difference is our definition and understanding of space. In my model nothing is not empty space. Nothing means, in my model, that it is non-existent -- just a misconception of the bounds of reality which accordingly would not include nothing as part of reality.

I like the way you define "nothing", and associate it with the concept of the "bounds of reality". I understand what you are saying; nothing is outside of the universe meaning that beyond the universe is non-existant, and the sum of reality is within the universe, whether it is finite or infinite.

I use a term similar to the "bounds of reality" in my essay on philosophy which I call Eternal Intent. I derive the philosophy from my cosmology and it depends on the three infinities, space, time, and energy. Eternal Intent would not make sense if the universe was finite in space, time, or energy.

Philosophically, there is a boundary condition that is defined by known science; all known physical laws of nature are within that boundary. Beyond that boundary are the as yet unknown laws of nature. "Beyond the boundary" has significant meaning in my philosophy. I combine that with the concept that anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes the we don't yet understand, to establish a basis for a possible Eternal Intent, which I describe in the essay. The philosophy is an extension of the cosmological model. But that is topic for later, maybe.

This of course does not mean that there could be no such thing as infinite space and field. It just means that such a model, in my view, must relate to an infinite universe of some kind, multiverses -- having no possibility of a beginning.

Yes, I agree with that. I invoke the "always existed" explanation for the existence of the universe, meaning that there was no beginning. But the point people often don't pick up on about my model is that finite big bang arenas, governed by the process of Arena Action, defeat entropy, a little at a time, across the infinite arena landscape of the greater universe.

The question then becomes, is this the simplest possible model consistent with observation? There is no consensus answer to this question.

You make a good point. Now we should discuss why we each think ours us the simplest possible model that is consistent with observations .

A case in point, is defeating entropy possible in your model?