Where Did The Particles That Started The Big Bang Come From?

[Perry]

No. You are assuming space is discrete, meaning there is a smallest unit of distance. If this is true, then you can move to objects apart by one unit. You cannot move them closer together by half that unit if space is discrete.

Then what is the distance that you can move the objects apart to which there is no smaller distance? It is a distance therefor it is finite and you must be able to communicate this.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Yes. It's a good tool for what it does yet mathematics obviously has its limitations. Our current rule set of Physics and math tell us that we absolutely do not have a will. We are merely machines and each particle in our body follows the laws of momentum anor ed fvery action there is an equal and opposite reaction yet common sense and logic dictate that we have the will to choose. Just another example of maths limitations.

Strawman.

 

[torchbearer]

That is just a dumb statement. The breakage of computers has nothing to do with the underlining mathematics. Hardware can degrade with static shock, environment, user stupidity, and a ton of other factors. Not only that but people use software that is made by fallible humans who make code errors.

I'm a computer tech. A computuer running, regardless of software. If left running long enough, will one day stop functioning, the same as a light bulb.
The science behind the ideas doesn't account for the fact that things degrade.
Atoms decay.
Your science isn't perfect. Don't fall for the infallible arguments of your bias.

 

[Perry]

Strawman.

I have no idea what that means but I'm guessing it means your ability to debate has fallen short.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

I'm a computer tech. A computuer running, regardless of software. If left running long enough, will one day stop functioning, the same as a light bulb.
The science behind the ideas doesn't account for the fact that things degrade.
Atoms decay.
Your science isn't perfect. Don't fall for the infallible arguments of your bias.

That says nothing about the underlying mathematics of the machines. It fails for other reasons that I have already went over. A stray particle can flip a bit in memory and the machine can fuck up. That however says nothing about the validity of the underlying mathematical principles that make it work. You are comparing apples to oranges. I never said science was perfect. That is a strawman on your part.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel,
Never ending on beginning,
On an ever-spinning reel
Like a snowball down a mountain,
Or a carnival balloon
Like a carousel that's turning
Running rings around the moon
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping
Past the minutes on its face
And the world is like an apple
Spinning silently in space
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind!

Like a tunnel that you follow
To a tunnel of its own
Down a hollow to a cavern
Where the sun has never shone
Like a door that keeps revolving
In a half-forgotten dream
Like the ripples from a pebble
Someone tosses in a stream.
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping
Past the minutes on its face
And the world is like an apple
Spinning silently in space
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind!

Keys that jingle in your pocket
Words that jangle in your head
Why did summer go so quickly?
Was it something that I said?
Lovers walk along a shore
And leave their footprints in the sand
Was the sound of distant drumming
Just the fingers of your hand?
Pictures hanging in a hallway
or the fragment of a song,
half-remembered names and faces
but to whom do they belong?
When you knew that it was over
Were you suddenly aware
That the autumn leaves were turning
To the color of her hair?

Like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning
On an ever-spinning reel
As the images unwind
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind​

 

[torchbearer]

That says nothing about the underlying mathematics of the machines. It fails for other reasons that I have already went over. A stray particle can flip a bit in memory and the machine can fuck up. That however says nothing about the validity of the underlying mathematical principles that make it work. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Then develop a light bulb that will never burn out.
The science says its possible. Now do it.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Then develop a light bulb that will never burn out.
The science says its possible. Now do it.

Yeah maybe in a place absent of an enviorment that might be possible by some means. The science suggests nothing of the sort. Another strawman on your part.

 

[amy31416]

Ohhh man, you guys quibbling about units of distance, discrete or continuous ought to read up on quantum mechanics--it'll blow your mind.

If you're familiar with orbitals, or remember them from chemistry, you know that electrons "jump" from orbital to orbital depending on energy levels of the molecule. One very interesting example is fluorescence. . .

You have a substance which is hit with photons (the discrete particles of light), the photons add energy to the electron, which then jumps into higher level orbitals. Fluorescence, the observed phenomenon of an item glowing in the dark is electrons returning to the lower energy orbital and releasing the photon previously absorbed.

The interesting thing about the electron jump--and the wackiness that is quantum physics: The electron does not travel in a continuous fashion to the other orbital, the electron absorbs the photon and instantaneously appears in the other orbital. I remember learning this and thinking, wow, I could understand if it were 10^-576 seconds, but it's instantaneous.

I asked the professor about this, and you get into some crazy particle-wave duality issues as well, but in essence, everything acts on a quantum level, but our senses are not geared finely enough to ever experience this.

One of my nuttier theories is that I think that since we are born with senses that are attuned to the macro world, and our education is, of course, attuned to the same world--that we go about science education in the wrong order. While children are young and have the "sponge" for a brain and can absorb some of these realities of the world of particles is when they should be taught it. We shouldn't teach classical physics first because it makes it far more difficult to comprehend the quantum world.

Personally, I didn't learn anything significant about it until college. In my weird opinion, some of the basics should be taught in elementary school. I have this whole idea for a curriculum for children and, well, I feel sorry for any child I might someday have.

 

[torchbearer]

Yeah maybe in a place absent of an enviorment that might be possible by some means. The science suggests nothing of the sort. Another strawman on your part.

No, the science, on paper, shows by algorythm.
That the current will continue.

The fallacy is that atoms decay.

Science, in algorythm, shows the universe is perpetual.
Does that make it so?

You can scream strawman as much as you want. But your belief in "modern" science is over-rated.
The first step in revocery is to admit you have a problem.

I told you, i don't have the answers.
You pretend to have them.
You are the strawman.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

No, the science, on paper, shows by algorythm.
That the current will continue.

The fallacy is that atoms decay.

Science, in algorythm, shows the universe is perpetual.
Does that make it so?

You can scream strawman as much as you want. But your belief in "modern" science is over-rated.
The first step in revocery is to admit you have a problem.

I told you, i don't have the answers.
You pretend to have them.
You are the strawman.

What is an "algorythm"?

 

[torchbearer]

What is an "algorythm"?

a procedure or formula for solving a problem

 

[LibertyOfOne]

a procedure or formula for solving a problem

In that case I think you mean algorithm.

 

[Perry]

Ohhh man, you guys quibbling about units of distance, discrete or continuous ought to read up on quantum mechanics--it'll blow your mind.

If you're familiar with orbitals, or remember them from chemistry, you know that electrons "jump" from orbital to orbital depending on energy levels of the molecule. One very interesting example is fluorescence. . .

You have a substance which is hit with photons (the discrete particles of light), the photons add energy to the electron, which then jumps into higher level orbitals. Fluorescence, the observed phenomenon of an item glowing in the dark is electrons returning to the lower energy orbital and releasing the photon previously absorbed.

The interesting thing about the electron jump--and the wackiness that is quantum physics: The electron does not travel in a continuous fashion to the other orbital, the electron absorbs the photon and instantaneously appears in the other orbital. I remember learning this and thinking, wow, I could understand if it were 10^-576 seconds, but it's instantaneous.

I asked the professor about this, and you get into some crazy particle-wave duality issues as well, but in essence, everything acts on a quantum level, but our senses are not geared finely enough to ever experience this.

One of my nuttier theories is that I think that since we are born with senses that are attuned to the macro world, and our education is, of course, attuned to the same world--that we go about science education in the wrong order. While children are young and have the "sponge" for a brain and can absorb some of these realities of the world of particles is when they should be taught it. We shouldn't teach classical physics first because it makes it far more difficult to comprehend the quantum world.

Personally, I didn't learn anything significant about it until college. In my weird opinion, some of the basics should be taught in elementary school. I have this whole idea for a curriculum for children and, well, I feel sorry for any child I might someday have.

Good stuff. I love it all. I was lucky enough to have a dad that got me thinking about physics at a very young age. He would ask me a physics question and make me think about it for a few hours before I answered.
There is a golden rule that I personally believe that is especially important in all physics. That is that if you don't have the ability to explain a concept to someone else then you yourself cannot conceptualize it and do not understand what you are talking about. Nothing bothers me more than when a physicist says that you must comprehend math in order to conceptualize an idea and fails to communicate the idea in rational terms. This is where silly notions such as traveling back in time or alternate time lines occur.

 

[torchbearer]

In that case I think you mean algorithm.

You couldn't deduct that from the use in context?
Are you really that retarded?
Or, did you avoid the content by focusing on a mispelling?

I think we both know the answer to that one.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

You couldn't deduct that from the use in context?
Are you really that retard?
Or, did you avoid the content by focusing on a mispelling?

I think we both know the answer to that one.

Hey I'm not the one claiming to be a computer tech. I don't have to address it for the third time anyways.

It's like saying the underlying mathematical principles that are used to design a building are not accurate because a storm tore up the roof.

 

[torchbearer]

Hey I'm not the one claiming to be a computer tech. I don't have to address it for the third time anyways.

So computer techs are experts in english?
Do you want my A+ certificate number??

Here:

Computing Technology Industry Association
A+ Certification Program

Verification #: D36DTT2776
Brent Sanders


Look it up.

 

[Dr.3D]

Here we go again!

Congratulations, another thread that goes on and on into ∞.

 

[amy31416]

Good stuff. I love it all. I was lucky enough to have a dad that got me thinking about physics at a very young age. He would ask me a physics question and make me think about it for a few hours before I answered.
There is a golden rule that I personally believe that is especially important in all physics. That is that if you don't have the ability to explain a concept to someone else then you yourself cannot conceptualize it and do not understand what you are talking about. Nothing bothers me more than when a physicist says that you must comprehend math in order to conceptualize an idea and fails to communicate the idea in rational terms. This is where silly notions such as traveling back in time or alternate time lines occur.

Give dad one of those free hugs you're pimping--you're lucky to have had someone like him in your life.

Teaching physics, or anything for that matter, will test the limits of your knowledge(if you're doing it right,) that's for sure. My mentor in college what a physical chemist who was genuine enough to admit when he did not know and would explore the possibilites. He was a fantastic teacher.

I'm sure you're familiar with Richard Feynman's work, right? He was one of the greats, both in doing and teaching physics. I'm thinking of Feynman diagrams.

 

[torchbearer]

Ok, now I'm using firefox with spell check, so you can focus on the content since you are missing the ability to use abstract thinking.