Physic's greatest question

[Little Bang]

If we could ever figure out how to turn photons back into mass we might be able to join the two theories.

[CraigD]

Supose somebody hwo has practicaly no physics or mathematics knowledge, trainning, and more importantly, inclination ( by this I mean a mind that is much more atracted and endowed (more or less) to literature and philosophy than to exact sciences like mathematics or physics) for modern physics, but he is, nevertheless, fascinetad by this complex field of knowledge.

First of all, where should he start and how? Can somebody get the big picture without mastering the many and fundamental mathematical equations (he has no mind for mathematics, thats for sure) and physics basic propositions?

Not an easy question!

 

My first impulse was to recommend some popular science books that I’ve found useful in forming my understanding of the universe – books by such folk as Richard Feynman, Douglas Hofstader, Kip Thorne, Michio Kaku, and Roger Penrose – but, although these writers take pains to make their writing accessible to people of many backgrounds, I don’t think they’d be effective for someone who isn’t fundamentally attracted to the formalism of Math and Science.

 

The only writer I can recommend who I think really might be effective would be Lawrence Krauss, specifically his short 1994 book “Fear of Physics”.

 

I can’t say that effective popular science works like cogito appears to be requesting don’t exists, only that I can’t recall reading any. There are hundreds, at least, of websites endeavoring to some degree to do this, but none that stand out in my memory.

 

It might be that the guide cogito is seeking needs to be written – something under 5,000 words, capturing the essence of orthodox modern Math and Physics without actually requiring the reader to do Math and Physics. The prospect of writing such a paper is attractive and exciting, but not to be undertaken lightly, and not something I’ll have time for in the next 100 days.

[infamous]

If we could ever figure out how to turn photons back into mass we might be able to join the two theories.

Good point Little Bang, however; That sounds to me like time reversal and from my point of view, is counter to the direction Entropy is taking the evolution of our universe.

[Qfwfq]

What would we see?

This is just one of many examples of a contrivance that makes it possible to determine, or partially determine, which slit the electron went through. The effect is simply that you will see less difference between the interference maxima and minima. The most extreme contrivance is, of course, shutting one of the two slits and leaving it shut.

[Pyrotex]

This is just one of many examples of a contrivance that makes it possible to determine, or partially determine, which slit the electron went through. The effect is simply that you will see less difference between the interference maxima and minima. The most extreme contrivance is, of course, shutting one of the two slits and leaving it shut.

Well, that is, of course, the obvious and least surprising answer, is it not? And do we not have a vast history of physics experiments that do indeed provide the obvious and least surprising answers? Yes! So, can we deduce from this that any specific experiment will provide the obvious and least surprising answer?

:tongue:

That's why we "do" physics.

The first person to perform the double-slit with discrete electron emission certainly didn't get the obvious and least surprising answer.

[Pyrotex]

...First of all, where should he start and how? Can somebody get the big picture without mastering the many and fundamental mathematical equations...? ...

They may no longer be easy to find, but Isaac Asimov wrote over a hundred books on nearly every field of science. They are all very entertaining, easy to understand, and give a good initial education without resorting to any math harder than common arithmetic. He even produced "A Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology" [ABEST] which gives a [cross-indexed] bio sketch of every important scientist, mathematician, technologist and the nature of their contribution--from about 2000 BCE up to about 1970. I have that one and dearly love it. I think I have two other of his science books in my library, including "The Birth and Death of Stars".

 

Go see how many Asimovs you can find in your local libraries!!!

[Pyrotex]

If I were asked to detail the greatest question Physic's has to answer it would have to be: 1. What caused the Big Bang?...

Well, it all started back when God was just this little "child" deity, and got a Blammo Chemistry Set for Hanukah. Without bothering to read the instruction book, he immediately starting opening bottles and mixing chemicals and...

[arkain101]

wouldnt we have to think so completely opposite of our current thinking in order to even get a tiny sliver of understanding of the proposed god and alter realm?

 

One would need to think in anti-time ways in infinite matters. One would need to possibly also remove all senses and way of thought and replace that with basic emotion as your consciousness..

something like this anyhow.

[Pyrotex]

wouldnt we have to think so completely opposite of our current thinking in order to even get a tiny sliver of understanding of the proposed god and alter realm?...and replace that with basic emotion as your consciousness...

Ahhh, yes. What you are describing is giving up reason and returning to superstition and emotion-driven reactions. This is where we started 100,000 years ago.

 

There is no "magic-reason" beyond reason. There is no way to gain understanding by relying on our primitive "lizard brain", the origin of our emotions. There is no refuge in mindless ravings and gibberish.

 

There is only one path to "understanding" and that is the long, the straight and the narrow path upwards to the temples of knowledge. It requires hard work, sweat and self-discipline. It requires a willingness to learn some math and master the basic principles of reasoning and analysis. And it requires a willingness to put away "magic", "play-pretend" and the other fairy tale explanations of our childhood.

 

And when you do this, you may find, as so many before you have found, that there is no clear, scientific, rational, analytical, sensible, explanation for a superbeing more complex than the entire Cosmos, who exists infinitely "outside" the Cosmos, who "created" the Cosmos, out of nothing.

[arkain101]

yar, but to even begin logically imagining a god.. (whether it is real or not).. it would take some very expanded thinking to try and match the characteristics

[Pyrotex]

yar, but to even begin logically imagining a god.. (whether it is real or not).. it would take some very expanded thinking to try and match the characteristics

Of course. That is obvious.

 

And many people of great intellect and extreme analytical abilities have tackled this problem. To no avail. Such properties as "omnipotence" and "omniscience" generate paradoxes of logic that cannot be overcome. You can redefine those terms, even place certain restrictions on them, and you have a different set of paradoxes and self-contradictions. We can say the words, and we can think we understand the words, but those words generate logical structures that are profoundly flawed.

 

Some take refuge in just NOT pursuing the logic past a certain point. They fool themselves into thinking that if they simply don't encounter the paradoxes (by not looking for them) then the paradoxes "go away". They don't.

 

What are some of these paradoxes? If a god "knows everything" what does that include? The past? The future? The position of every atom in the universe? How do you store infinite knowledge? It would take a memory system larger than our universe, even if you could store a "bit" in every quantum particle of space-time itself. Infinite information density requires infinite mass and infinite temperatures. (cybernetics) Knowing the future demands predetermination and means the god is absolutely helpless to change it. Therefore it cannot be omnipotent. Preachers gloss over these barriers, relying on imagination and plausible "play-pretend", but that is just more retreat from reason.

 

I repeat, there is NO "magic reason" beyond reason; there is NO "god logic" beyond logic. To appreciate this, you must first experience reason and logic and be able to use them effectively to understand the reality we live in. Comic book super-heros may be entertaining and Santa Claus may be comforting, but they cannot help you comprehend the world.

[arkain101]

Theoretically This universe could have a limit in size, not that it matters here in relation to this.

However, the point of origin of the fundamental point of each individual fundamental form is nowhere and everywhere. The place of the universe that one could attempt to call the zero point or the point of origin for mass/energy is agreeably nowhere, and everywhere. This space-time field as we call it now is anywhere you want it to be at any time. It appears absolutly undetectable, it is the canvas, and all that is, both consciousness, matter, enery, life, mind, emotion, color, gravity, forces, are all the ways and only ways it reveils itself in the obvious manner. If it can not be anywhere, and logically doesnt seem to even be there, yet is, then it is like one would apply as infinity. Although Infinity is a concept of boundless amount or boundless lack of amount. We can unite zero, or nothing, with infinity to get a better grip on its strangeness. The space-time field is as much nothing as it is infinite. It can be as much all knowing as it is as much knowing nothing. It has no choice but to be there whether it is there or not.. nowhere, no place, everywhere and all places. I digress for now.

[Qfwfq]

The first person to perform the double-slit with discrete electron emission certainly didn't get the obvious and least surprising answer.

Actually, I would say that they did get the obvious and least surprising answer.

:)

[Pyrotex]

Actually, I would say that they did get the obvious and least surprising answer.

:rolleyes:

Yes.

YOU would say that, Q. But only you. ;) :hihi:

[Qfwfq]

What's wrong with me? :eek: :D ;)

 

Who was the first person to "perform the double-slit with discrete electron emission"?

[cogito]

<What are some of these paradoxes? If a god "knows everything" what does that include? The past? The future? The position of every atom in the universe? How do you store infinite knowledge? It would take a memory system larger than our universe, even if you could store a "bit" in every quantum particle of space-time itself. Infinite information density requires infinite mass and infinite temperatures. (cybernetics) Knowing the future demands predetermination and means the god is absolutely helpless to change it. Therefore it cannot be omnipotent. Preachers gloss over these barriers, relying on imagination and plausible "play-pretend", but that is just more retreat from reason.>

 

 

Well, to accept a God means by no means explaining Him. As Kierkegaard said, there is an infinite gap that that requiers a jump for its passing, and only faith can be the propulsor of an infinite jump. Faith is not necesarily oposed to reason, but it simply is something quite different, like an alterante universe wich is governed by other laws than the ones we know to govern ours.

So, I belive it's meaningless to say that thinking a God creates paradoxes.

The only paradoxe acceptable here is: thinking the unthinkable! Thinking God is a paradoxe only in the same way as thinking the unthinkable.

The logical and physical problems that seem to be coextensive to the thinking of God are only...misunderstangs, that is, the trial to understand that that cannot be understood by means of reason.

[Pyrotex]

What's wrong with me? :cup: :( :confused:

Who was the first person to "perform the double-slit with discrete electron emission"?

I won't answer that first question, Q, for two reasons: (1) I have a lot of respect for you, and (2) there is a 4 Megabyte limit to how big our posts can be. :hihi:

 

I Googled the second question, but could find nothing in the time I had.

IMXO (In My Exalted Opinion) the expected result was the simple scalar sum of two single slit experiments (SSX) with a small displacement. That would be the easiest to understand and most predictable result. Whatever you got for a SSX, just think of doing another one with a 0.1 mm displacement, and use the same electron detector. At the same time.

 

This is obviously NOT what happened. :eek2: :eek2: