tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post3247927843683229376..comments2018-05-26T16:22:14.043-04:00Comments on Physics Buzz: Hawking & Mlodinow: No 'theory of everything'Buzz Skylinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04255849304022062681noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-15881528471039496612018-02-06T05:56:56.351-05:002018-02-06T05:56:56.351-05:00In the beginning, God created.... If we all accept...In the beginning, God created.... If we all accept this fact, the debate will end.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00016010701535156434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-4372352515217178202015-10-28T22:20:14.299-04:002015-10-28T22:20:14.299-04:00"If two models agree with observation, neithe..."If two models agree with observation, neither model can be considered more real than the other. A person can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration."Jack Romanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17075161718551278238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-75232076977635427982015-10-28T22:19:35.023-04:002015-10-28T22:19:35.023-04:00Actually.. I think Hawkins answered that question ...Actually.. I think Hawkins answered that question precisely. "If two models agree with observation, neither model can be considered more real than the other. A person can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration."Jack Romanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17075161718551278238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-38742826278639920632015-09-10T16:01:15.913-04:002015-09-10T16:01:15.913-04:00Well said. But...
If physicists need to believe in...Well said. But...<br />If physicists need to believe in the "reality" and to not care about philosophical concepts, maybe it's for a good reason; That makes them enthousiastic enough to keep working on their theories.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-48262268972532343142015-08-31T10:53:33.873-04:002015-08-31T10:53:33.873-04:00Richard, the design of the universe is meant to be...Richard, the design of the universe is meant to be understood by us. That is not to say it can be fully understood; but we understand enough to begin to master it ourselves while appreciating the transcendent nature of the Creator of all this, including us who are able to contemplate it. The four forces of the universe are most likely just that - four distinct forces governing key aspects of the universe with no mandate that they be unified, no more than the condition of the earth requires that it be millions of years old simply because radio isotopes have a forward decay rate in the millions of years. Some questions do have a 'no' answer! The models for determining the age of the earth are rough and even deficient in their assumptions, as are the attempts to unify the forces of nature into a Babel-like conglomeration.markgoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08333977749744575626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-29797951443958668322015-08-31T10:38:42.216-04:002015-08-31T10:38:42.216-04:00Let me "Phil" you in a bit.....
The ord...Let me "Phil" you in a bit.....<br /><br />The order, integration and beauty of the universe, along with our inner longings <br />and our ability to appreciate it were designed into us. Pattern and information <br />denote an intelligence. The universe was designed, as was our inner desire to <br />have understanding and connection beyond ourselves. <br /><br />Assuming there is no God is a brazen act of stupidity since the evidence points to a designer.<br /><br />Hawking's claim that objective reality doers not exist, only relative observation points that <br />work for each individual, is sick and untrue. There is no theory of everything because the <br />foundations of physical reality are the four forces: gravity, strong/weak nuclear forces, <br />electromagnetism, the four pillars spoken of in the Book of Enoch (pre-flood Gospel for you neophytes of reality).<br /><br /><br />Euler's identity is a concise formula for the reality of our universe, which God gives as a clue to the link between faith and reason:<br /><br />e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 where <br /><br />all mathematical operations are present,<br />growth is mediated by faith (imaginary number) and pi, the ordering of point and boundary, attraction and motion.<br /><br />God is represented by the 1, unity perfection, completeness.<br />our universe is the -1, made from nothing (that is, made from the very substance of Who God is) <br />and we have our being only in relation to the 1. The 1 did not need us to be 1; it was and always <br />will be perfect and complete. The 1 chose to make the -1 as a reflection of itself, out of love <br />and to expand the experience of love, simply for the sake of love. The 1 and the -1 can create <br />a new unity of being only if the -1 remains in balance, which this universe has fallen from through man's transgression of out will (sin). God is unremittingly pure and perfectly loving, wanting none of us to be lost when the universe is remade after transgression and death have been vanquished.markgoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08333977749744575626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-36488252514901586172015-05-10T14:11:24.820-04:002015-05-10T14:11:24.820-04:00For what it is worth, I have apparently solved the...For what it is worth, I have apparently solved the so-called "theory of everything".<br /><br />It is very simple but the math-related to it is fantastic and possible use of this I am looking for sponsors/ commercial application. <br />I can say that physics is "theory of every thing" = logic = objectivity.<br />All those different ways etc. re: not counting (of conserving time and space) yet what are they not counting? (paths) <br /> <br />Maths = "theory of no thing" (all that different way of counting, yet what are they counting?)(matter-energy)<br /><br />amateur scientist, New Zealand Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-30586471489714507882014-05-16T16:39:10.326-04:002014-05-16T16:39:10.326-04:00My understanding is that you kinda still ARGUABLY ...My understanding is that you kinda still ARGUABLY need the graviton to explain the mechanics behind the 'warping of spacetime'. How does the massive object cause spacetime to warp? To warp it it needs to be made of something right? But what? Can you warp nothing? Can something exist yet be composed of nothing? Or do we have to accept spacetime as some kind of 'magical substance, like the 'ether' (accepting that all the proposed fundamental particles are effectively 'magical' at this point in time)? Without the proposed graviton its kinda axiomatic and that is where some people may intuitively have problems with it, reject it as 'non scientific and thus requiring a different model to understand it. In some senses, this is where we as humans struggle - if a model predicts future observations reliably but seems absurd to many people, will it ever be accepted as the model? Will they stop seeking alternative ones that they hope make more sense? What if two models predict things equally nicely - which do we choose? Arguably we don't need one of them but which one? Either? What if one model seemed bizarrely different in nature to many other models we had come to accept for other physical phenomenon (strong, weak, electromagnetism) yet there was one that was pleasurably similar and evocatively symmetrical - which would we choose? Its a dilemma I grant you and one we haven't yet all agreed on I think. And maybe we never will - especially if that bloody meteorite hits.Richard Smarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14716386216210405161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-37539430441966732302014-05-16T16:17:42.114-04:002014-05-16T16:17:42.114-04:00When they say "we may never..." it is ef...When they say "we may never..." it is effectively saying "we might, we might not", which is also saying "we don't know if we will". Its rarely interesting when someone gets up and says "we don't know". I guess in this case its only 'kinda interesting' that he's (Hawking at least) said "I don't know if we will" purely because he is backtracking on a previous claim he made where he said "we will know ( ie discover this theory of everything)". All he's doing is claiming he now believes he was wrong and he's correcting that. An honourable admission no doubt but it hardly fills you with confidence in the event you might be considering reading his earlier works.Richard Smarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14716386216210405161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-7824244475592671272014-05-16T16:07:12.730-04:002014-05-16T16:07:12.730-04:00You were obviously having some fun there. I have t...You were obviously having some fun there. I have to admit you made some interesting points initially but you kinda lost me a little. I don't believe in 0 or infinity, in the sense that neither actually 'exist' in reality (kinda to the point I think Hawking and Mlodinov were talking to I think so I guess I will necessarily disagree with you given that your theory seems to rely on them existing. I like to think of time as 'just another spatial dimension' but somehow under-developed or with the something squiffy about it I just can't put my finger on. It might have something to do with the fact that our understanding of anything (our 'models of reality') is inherently reliant on electromagnetism and of course electromagnetism has a relationship with the time dimension that differs from its relationship with the spatial dimensions. Regrettably we're talking about concepts that will not help us pass any 'soon to be useful' exams nor propose any 'soon to be useful' theories which is kinda why we probably have to end it here!Richard Smarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14716386216210405161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-3211875185486779702014-05-02T10:48:38.651-04:002014-05-02T10:48:38.651-04:00Please check the math? Sure, it'll be a plea...Please check the math? Sure, it'll be a pleasure:<br /><br />a) 100/infinity isn't zero. it's infinitesimal.<br />b) infinity/0 is undefined (as is anything divided by zero).<br /><br />Since neither of these are true, everything you say falls to the ground.<br /><br />If the universe has an infinite span (which is by no means certain, by the way) - then your 100 year lifespan is an infinitesimal fraction of it. If someone lived for a zero amount of time - then we cannot express that as a fraction of the span of an infinite universe (or even a finite one for that matter).<br /><br />Sorry - bad math. Please tell whoever told you this so that this broken idea isn't propagated further.<br />Steve Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18284918588766160601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-17249755479688010512014-05-02T10:40:10.473-04:002014-05-02T10:40:10.473-04:00As I posted above, mathematics is the means to tur...As I posted above, mathematics is the means to turn 'axioms' into 'theorems'. 2+2=4 is a statement about the arithmetic of numbers. It's a theorem...albeit a rather simple one. Like any theorem, it's only true if the axioms upon which it's been based are true. These "axioms" are statements that you boldly assert. Mathematics says "if your axioms are a true statement of the system in which you're working - then the following theorems are true".<br /><br />In the case of basic arithmetic, we do rely on some axioms - they are called "Peano axioms" - and you can find an article about them on Wikipedia. There are nine of these axioms. If all nine axioms are a true statement of our universe - then 2+2=4 is not only true - but we can construct a bullet-proof proof that it's true.<br /><br />So - if 2+2=5 then one or more of those 9 peano axioms is also false. These axioms are pretty hard to deny. "Zero is a number", "x=x", "if x=y then y=x", "if x=y and y=z then x=z"....and so forth. If you can deny that one of those axioms is true in some system in which you're working - then indeed 2+2 doesn't equal 4.<br /><br />Want an example? When I buy my wife a birthday present, a ring worth $100 is a better gift than a check for $100. In this gifting system, x doesn't necessarily equal x. It's no surprise then that giving her two gifts each worth $200 is not as good as giving her one gift worth $400. In this "wife birthday gifting" system, the ordinary arithmetic facts are inapplicable.<br /><br />That's not because math is 'broken' - or because 2+2 really doesn't equal 4 - it's not even because mathematics doesn't work in the realms of my wife's birthday preferences. It's because we tried to use a theorem (2+2=4) that's predicated on the truth of the peano axioms in a "system" where the peano axioms clearly aren't true because two gifts, each worth $100 are not worth the same thing. If x doesn't equal x then who knows what 2+2 equals?!<br /><br />However, these nine peano axioms are so obviously true for most things in our universe that we tend to forget to say "2+2=4 *if* there exists the number zero and *if* x=x and *if* x=y implies that y=x and....yadda yadda yadda". But in situations where that isn't the case, you have to come up with new axioms and set about proving new theorems. In the 'birthday gifting' universe, there are new mathematical statements to be made - but if you can come up with a solid set of axioms, you can use mathematics even in the weird world of gift-giving where 2+2 seems to equal somewhere between 2.5 and 3!<br />Steve Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18284918588766160601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-51604135604765011612014-05-02T10:19:39.802-04:002014-05-02T10:19:39.802-04:00That's a common misunderstanding. Godel's...That's a common misunderstanding. Godel's theorem puts limits on what math can prove - it doesn't say that math is incorrect. In a nutshell, it says that there are statements you can make in mathematics that can neither be proved nor disproved. That doesn't mean that you can't know whether 2+3=5 or whether pythagoras' theorem is true or not. It means that there are some things that mathematics can't either prove or disprove. There are still MANY things that math can prove - conclusively.<br /><br />Maths works because all of the statements it makes are logically derived from a set of assumptions called "axioms". 2+3=5 depends on a handful of axioms such as "there exists a number called zero" and "every number has a unique successor"...2+3=5 is only a true statement about our universe if those axioms are true for our universe. However, the statement "If those axioms are true then 2+3=5 is also true" is a universal truth.<br /><br />Pythagoras' theorem is a great example of that. It depends on Euclidean geometry - which in turn depends on a few basic axioms, that there are straight lines, that parallel lines don't ever meet and so forth. One of those axioms basically says that the place where you're using these theorems has to be flat. If you draw a huge right triangle on the surface of the earth then the square on the hypotenuse most certainly DOES NOT equal the sum of the squares on the other two sides.<br /><br />That's not because dear old Pythagoras was wrong - it's because you tried to apply his theorem in a situation where the axioms on which it's based are not true. Euclidean geometry simply doesn't apply on the surface of a sphere.<br /><br />So what you need to understand is that Mathematics is "true" so long as you follow the axioms you set out for the statements you are making.<br /><br />Godel merely puts limits on what mathematics may hypothetically prove...it doesn't mean that math can't prove anything at all - and it certainly doesn't mean that you can' prove math mathematically - in fact one of the breakthroughs that Godel made in formulating his theorem was a way to use math to speak about mathematics itself.<br />Steve Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18284918588766160601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-53945262023403416552014-05-02T09:55:13.631-04:002014-05-02T09:55:13.631-04:00Science works by "making stuff up" and t...Science works by "making stuff up" and then testing it against reality to see if it works. At one point, the Higgs Boson was "made up" - a hypothesis to explain the concept of mass...then we made the Large Hadron Collider to test whether that hypothesis is correct - and guess what? We found actual Higgs Bosons.<br /><br />Sometimes the stuff we make up turns out to be real - other times it doesn't. The cycle of hypothesis ("making stuff up") and experiment ("seeing if it's real") continues with the things that do turn out to be real becoming part of our understanding of the laws governing the universe - and the things that don't pan out leading us to the interesting question of what *is* real if it isn't that.<br /><br />Incidentally, there are plenty of efforts to formulate physics without time...that's another "making stuff up" activity that may or may not produce results in the future (er...well, not "future" if time isn't real of course!)<br /><br />Clearing of cobwebs is what science is all about - finding that some old stuff isn't right is always an exciting and interesting thing - and that's what scientists seek.<br /><br />The idea that you can't have a theory of everything without observing everything is kinda silly. I can have a theory that ducks lay eggs without seeing every single duck...I see a bunch of ducks that lay eggs - I make a theory. I find a male duck that doesn't lay eggs and I refine that theory. If someday we find a duck that bears live chicks...then we'll have a new theory. At each point, the theory we have fits the facts that we know.<br /><br />The problem with physics and the theory of everything is that we don't even have a theory that explains everything we CAN see. If we had such a theory that could explain everything we can see - then that would be a massive leap forward. That's not to say that we wouldn't have to modify it in the future in light of further observations.<br /><br />Newton's laws of motion were a correct description of the phenomena that people could see in the 1700's and 1800's. Einstein "made stuff up" to postulate that there were phenomena happening at high velocities - nobody was sure he was correct until a bunch of guys hauled telescopes to the far reaches of the Earth to measure the deflection of a star during an eclipse. When that showed that Einstein's "made up stuff" was better than what we thought we knew - we tossed out Newton and crowned Einstein as the new "best-description-we-have". I don't doubt that we'll eventually prove Einstein to be incorrect - but that won't happen until we find new stuff that we haven't seen before. But that 'stuff' isn't just lying around waiting to be observed...we need folks like Hawkins to "make stuff up" - then have people with big telescopes point them at black holes - or measure the speed that galaxies are rotating to find that "dark matter" or "evaporating black hole" or whatever it is.<br /><br />It's not a flaw in the system - it's how progress is made - and this "Scientific method" approach has served us amazingly well.<br /><br />Steve Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18284918588766160601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-32180715427010227062014-04-11T16:32:26.672-04:002014-04-11T16:32:26.672-04:00I'm a scientist, and the same thing bothers me...I'm a scientist, and the same thing bothers me. If according to the block universe, Minowski space-time, Einstein's relativity, what-have-you, then you, anonymous poster, are right. Because if discoveries in science, paradigm shifts, the inventing of new technologies, and other forms of advancement in our knowledge occur in specific times along the time dimension, then NOTHING is going on. Absolutely nothing is happening. And perhaps that is the reality of reality: That no matter what you think about reality, the truth is that NOTHING is occurring, NOTHING is changing, EVERYTHING is an illusion yet at the same time Truth. So, there is this illusory paradox that makes everything problematic.<br /><br />This is why I think we need to figure out the scientific basis of consciousness rather than saying that an increase in dopamine equals happiness. That works from an outside observer objective, but it doesn't work well to explain reality.<br /><br />Yes, anonymous poster, there is a serious problem: I believe the physicists have recognized this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-761013877228196602013-07-19T17:08:03.349-04:002013-07-19T17:08:03.349-04:00So basically we're back to the old "nothi...So basically we're back to the old "nothing left to discover" bit. How foolish to think the theory of everything will never be found - the future is a long time and the people who fill it will be a lot smarter than Steven Hawking. Drew R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-39584596265715413802013-04-29T22:03:06.280-04:002013-04-29T22:03:06.280-04:00Some simple questions - not trying to jerk anyone&...Some simple questions - not trying to jerk anyone's chain: what is a wave? What is it made of? Where is it's beginning? Does it have and end?Richard Sneedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14994555809502892810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-57241521152540024172013-04-29T21:35:43.064-04:002013-04-29T21:35:43.064-04:00... and so on... a little English, maybe, somewh...... and so on... a little English, maybe, somewhere down the road?Richard Sneedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14994555809502892810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-91386817885769283302013-04-29T21:24:36.040-04:002013-04-29T21:24:36.040-04:00Methinks thou hast failed in thy task, for thou mu...Methinks thou hast failed in thy task, for thou must distinguish between the kettle and the pot.Richard Sneedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14994555809502892810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-50857502551482928292013-04-29T21:19:56.054-04:002013-04-29T21:19:56.054-04:00That would have excluded Einstein, among others. ...That would have excluded Einstein, among others. It's so good to know that there are still people in the world like you. (Republican? Tea Party?)Richard Sneedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14994555809502892810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-9590885208195909292013-04-29T15:21:47.524-04:002013-04-29T15:21:47.524-04:00ok sofar this is a pretty weird post.
but he shoul...ok sofar this is a pretty weird post.<br />but he should ask himself in a quantum multiverse can we all be our own gods (well can we all by definition change our reality or not?)<br /><br />Of course we can't - assuming you mean voluntarily - "change our reality". It is being changed with each observation. Which puts man at the center of science - or makes him completely insignificant - depending on your point of view. (Sorry, I just had to slip that one in.)<br /><br />However, I think what Hawking and Mlodinow are trying to say is that there is true reality, it is continuing to change, and that humans will never observe it because we don't have enough time.<br /><br />(Sorry for the philosophy, Anonymous.)Richard Sneedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14994555809502892810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-36251878845223873262013-04-26T14:18:10.808-04:002013-04-26T14:18:10.808-04:00I have been working on a theory of everything for ...I have been working on a theory of everything for a while now. It unites everthing together perfectly,the very big as well as the very small.I find no flaws in it and I have applied to multiple tests.<br />However, no one in the scientific community including scientific organisations and universities want to hear my theory.<br />Ironic isn,t it. The truth can be handed to them on a silver platter and they will throw it away in the closest garbage can because it does not come from one of their piers.<br />Put your pride away and listen to the average science buff once in a while. They may surprise you with pretty good ideas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-29159924977132314702013-02-21T00:54:02.300-05:002013-02-21T00:54:02.300-05:00^ LOL...
Can somebody say, "NUTJOB."^ LOL... <br />Can somebody say, "NUTJOB."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-58604955823011244032013-02-14T21:01:54.434-05:002013-02-14T21:01:54.434-05:00y'all mofos need Russell (Bertrand Russell, es...y'all mofos need Russell (Bertrand Russell, especially the 2+2 isn't 4 geniuses that apparently have no idea what the field of analysis is). <--- That's a joke, relax. Also, Paul, your infinity isn't a number and those aren't equations. You can't divide by zero or infinity in any analytic sense, they can only be viewed in terms of limits most often. Joshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-64160241295501665022013-02-10T06:43:59.604-05:002013-02-10T06:43:59.604-05:00You have got to be one of the dumbest people i'...You have got to be one of the dumbest people i've ever seen on the internet... and i've been here for a while...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com