naming stuff

Science fun for all. Science fairs, homemade experiments, amateur microscopy, comics, puzzles, videos, or anything else you'd like to share.

naming stuff

Postby Fuqin on September 7th, 2016, 6:11 pm 

Perhaps this belongs in politics.

Well, I might be a bit slow on this but it was just a flash thought this morning, for what ever reason, when giving a nickname like "god particle," it occurred to me that this is not well thought out.... perhaps just media hype? I mean that no one gets excited about a "Higgs boson," but "God particle," kinda plays with peoples heads, right? Just a thought.
User avatar
Fuqin
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: 29 May 2005
Location: The land of OZ
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: naming stuff

Postby Serpent on September 7th, 2016, 6:46 pm 

As for the god particle, yes, it was a deliberate naming. Not for the media or other people's heads, but for its significance to physicists and cosmologists; for the whole philosophical need to undertake that enormous and controversial project.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: naming stuff

Postby Fuqin on September 7th, 2016, 8:50 pm 

Really!
Ok heres one that sprang to mind, although im here going to change
the tone to a more serious enqiery.
(singularity) .
Amoung other conversations ive had in recent times there was one in which a claim was made that the begining of the universe could have no outside force because a singularity is mono dimensional, and that at this point ,time has no influence, or perhaps better put doesn't exsist .
(Disclamer) this is not an attempt to introduce a God argument).
It occurred to me rightly or wrongly that ( singularity) is mealy an abstraction exstrapolated backwards through the asymmetry of time and motion , ( comological evolution).
Somthing to which we can only point.
I suggested 'speculated' that ,a singularity given the term is used here
As an abstraction and not somthing that could plausibly have exact and defined paramiters may have always contained asymetrical properties particularly that of time . To put it another way time simply becomes infinantly slower , as one posibility , there are other posibilitys im sure , but im simply not convinced of a zero event , or should I call it non event .
User avatar
Fuqin
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: 29 May 2005
Location: The land of OZ
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: naming stuff

Postby Serpent on September 7th, 2016, 9:13 pm 

oooo-kay
I don't know what you just said, but it sounded cool.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: naming stuff

Postby Fuqin on September 7th, 2016, 9:42 pm 

Lol I probably made it more complicated than it needs to be , I confused myself at times, in a nut shell.
The big bang < aparently a nick name that us somewhat misleading also, began as a singularity where the rules of space/time apparently dont apply, basically im saying if we don't actualy know how can we say with certainty that this is the case. Options IMHO may be that time gets infinitely slower and never reaches zero, space/time is cyclical , or similar but more akin to a spiral etc etc
User avatar
Fuqin
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: 29 May 2005
Location: The land of OZ
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: naming stuff

Postby Serpent on September 7th, 2016, 10:26 pm 

Nobody can say it with certainty, though some (ie Stephen Hawking) can it say with more aplomb than others, and some (ie Larry Fleinhardt of NUMB3RS) can say it with more hesitant charm. They still have to call it something, and Whatthefuk sounded lame, plus would make a lousy title for a sitcom.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: naming stuff

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 8th, 2016, 12:05 am 

Hi Fuqin,

When you see the term "Singularity" used in Cosmology.. Think/Replace the term with "Clueless".

It means it falls outside our mathematical scope of understanding. Science has a couple of Principles it has put on the proverbial Alter. Some of which are basically paradoxical. Science would rather live with the paradoxes than reconsider those conflicting principles. In this respect Science has become no better than a Religion.

It is easier to believe that all the Matter and Energy in the whole Universe existed at the first moment of Time in a tiny volume of Space than admit that Matter and Energy can be Created from nothing.

In my book, that is exactly what the Big Bang was.. the Creation of Matter and Energy and everything else. There is also opposition to the concept that Time had a first Tick. It would be so much easier if the Universe was Cyclic with a Big Crunch following each Big Bang. That way they can postpone the hard questions of Time having a Beginning and Matter/Energy being Created from Nothing. Everything is recycled.. next question please.

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be any mechanism to Crunch the Universe.. but believe me.. they are searching for it..lol. And even if they could manufacture a concept, it still wouldn't explain the First Occurrence, which had to have happened some number of cycles ago.

When one observes a dead end, the wise man gives up and tries another approach. The foundation of such has already been laid down.. by me and many more astute than myself. It's really rather amusing to watch them struggle so hard to keep a dead horse moving and propped up.

It took several hundred years for the Church to apologize for what it did to Galileo. I hope Science won't repeat the same mistake.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: naming stuff

Postby Serpent on September 8th, 2016, 12:21 am 

Altar. And they don't have one. They do keep considering and reconsidering alternative theories as those arise; they do keep looking out, farther and deeper, for more information. The universe is very big and we, including scientists, are very small and,even with the best sensory and experimental equipment they have so far been able to devise, seeing to the beginning and end of the universe is a tall order. I suppose they could just throw up their hands and say: Probably, it all got made by some old misogynist who liked to watch sheep bleed to death, but that would be a cop-out. Also, scientists don't tell other people how to conduct their love-lives or what to eat, so that's got to be an advantage over religionists.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: naming stuff

Postby Fuqin on September 8th, 2016, 5:31 am 

Not at all concerned about religion, just wanted to verify that (singularity) was another term for ,as dave put it 'clueless' essentially I was of the same mind about it myself since the person I was chating with seemed to insist it was a well defined paradigm
User avatar
Fuqin
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: 29 May 2005
Location: The land of OZ
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: naming stuff

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 8th, 2016, 9:04 am 

Hi Serpent,

You are right.. "Altar". Stupid spell checker should have known what I meant...lol.

I was going to use the term: Pedestal, but Altar has a more close definition to my point that the Dogmatism in Science sometimes approaches absurdity. (Note: not all Sciences of course)

Singularity: A point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.

Singularity: The technological singularity (also, simply, the singularity) is the hypothesis that the invention of artificial superintelligence will abruptly trigger runaway technological growth, resulting in unfathomable changes to human civilization.

These are the most common definitions but there are many more.

Also, anyone that may believe Matter can be Infinitely Dense may be interested in a bridge I have for sale ;^P

Regards all,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: naming stuff

Postby Serpent on September 8th, 2016, 9:12 am 

Clueless : a derisive term, usually applied to people smarter than we are: suchly: "If they do not know everything, they must know nothing." When I see this applied to the really big brains, it puts me in mind of Skakos (who is still beating on CERN someplace) and I have a sort of Pavlovian reflex reaction.
Sorry.

http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Not knowing, and admitting that one does not know, everything is not clueless. Giving a name to the mystery one is trying to solve is not clueless. It is a meticulous following and piecing together of such clues as the universe has offered, so far.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
Fuqin liked this post


Re: naming stuff

Postby Fuqin on September 8th, 2016, 10:34 am 

Yeah clueless seem derogatory I guess perhaps inconclusive would be better
User avatar
Fuqin
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: 29 May 2005
Location: The land of OZ
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: naming stuff

Postby Braininvat on September 8th, 2016, 11:28 am 

Serpent » September 7th, 2016, 3:46 pm wrote:As for the god particle, yes, it was a deliberate naming. Not for the media or other people's heads, but for its significance to physicists and cosmologists; for the whole philosophical need to undertake that enormous and controversial project.


God particle is not a term accepted by most physicists. But someone in the community used it, and the media jumped on it. A boson that confers mass on fermions is no more evidence of God, or godlike in its function, than any other particle in the Standard Model of Particle Physics (usually abbrev'd as SMoPP). And most of the mass is not from the Higgs field, anyway, but due to nuclear binding forces. All particle and force-carriers play a role, in terms of the delicate balance of physical constants, in allowing a universe that can forms stars, heavier elements, and life based on long carbon chains. "God particle" is completely misleading.

I agree with Dave on singularities. The infinite density solutions of the Einstein field equations are a sign of theory weakness, a breakdown of the math used to describe gravitational effects, and a major reason why unification theories (i.e. that unify quantum mechanics and general relativity) like Loop Quantum Gravity are being developed right now. If space itself is quantized (or "grainy" as some put it), then you don't get the infinity problem, you don't get a collapse of spacetime in a singularity, and you get instead a "bounce" as you get down to a Planck volume.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6693
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Fuqindandelion liked this post


Re: naming stuff

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 8th, 2016, 3:36 pm 

Hi all,

Serpent wrote:Not knowing, and admitting that one does not know, everything is not clueless. Giving a name to the mystery one is trying to solve is not clueless. It is a meticulous following and piecing together of such clues as the universe has offered, so far.

I agree, clueless is rather harsh. They have plenty of clues. It's their selection process that I find so annoying:

A Physicist come to a branch in their path of research:

The left path says: "Take me and you will have a near (and potentially) impossible ordeal to overcome, but you may keep your most cherished belief."

The right path says: "Take me and the problem will be easy to solve but you will have to give up your most cherished belief."

Which path do they take?

If the left path, they will have Grants, recognition and a crowd of adoring onlookers cheering them on.

If the right path, they will be labeled Mavericks, penniless, and kicked out of the community sand box.

Obviously, the left path slows down Science, which in retrospect, may not be a bad thing. If we chose the path that supports: "Energy can be created from Nothing".. then we might all be flying around in Jetson style hover craft instead of burning fossil fuels and slowly destroying the Planet. Or conversely, some idiot with an axe to grind will have destroyed the Planet immediately by making a weapon from an unlimited energy pool.

I don't have a lot of years left in this old body of mine, so I am naturally anxious to see Science progress rapidly (rabidly?) but I suppose a slow death is favorable over an immediate death.

So.. I'll just bite my tongue and watch progress with obvious impatience.

But when I endorse the concept that Energy can be created.. folks will line up around the block to smack me down. But when I point out that (in the final analysis) the Universe did exactly that.. then my only response is: "Figure out how the Universe did this!" and stop telling me it can't be done.

Get a clue ;^P

Best wishes all,
Dave :^)
Last edited by Dave_Oblad on September 8th, 2016, 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)
Fuqin liked this post


Re: naming stuff

Postby vivian maxine on September 8th, 2016, 3:49 pm 

Bet you aren't biting your tongue nearly as hard as I am mine. <G>
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: naming stuff

Postby Serpent on September 8th, 2016, 4:41 pm 

I wish I could create some energy. So far, no success.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: naming stuff

Postby Fuqin on September 8th, 2016, 6:45 pm 

Dave mabye the trick is how the hell to create nothing first! Now that would be somthing!
User avatar
Fuqin
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: 29 May 2005
Location: The land of OZ
Blog: View Blog (2)
Eclogite liked this post


Re: naming stuff

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 10th, 2016, 1:12 pm 

Hi Serpent,

I have a fair idea how the Universe Creates Matter and Energy. But we won't be able to replicate this feat until we Master the Quantum, which is still a few decades away.

In my book, the Universe is still actively in the process of the Big Bang. The biggest difference is that the initial early chaos seen as heat (microwave background) has settled and visibility has greatly improved. The emergent property of Matter has greatly reduced the expansion of Scale.. not the quantity of new Space-Time.

Fuqin: I doubt we can create the Nothing (a hole in Space-Time).
But if we could two things would happen:
1. It would almost instantly fill back in under the same principles of New Space-Time Expansion.
2. It would lock place in history at the Speed of Light, outside our ability to view or measure it.

To understand the latter, imagine driving in a car and shooting a dent into the road (hole) with a gun. When you look for the hole that the bullet created, it's too late. The Hole is far behind your current "Now" position.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: naming stuff

Postby Serpent on September 10th, 2016, 2:55 pm 

Dave_Oblad » September 10th, 2016, 12:12 pm wrote:Hi Serpent,

I have a fair idea how the Universe Creates Matter and Energy. But we won't be able to replicate this feat until we Master the Quantum, which is still a few decades away.


Ah! So, by the turn of the next century, we can expect a whole new universe to be created. Good: we can stop worrying about economic collapse, zika, WWII or environmental catastrophe. That's a relief. Only, what to do with 8 pages of argumentation over in Politics?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: naming stuff

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 10th, 2016, 6:21 pm 

Hi Serpent,

Naw.. same ol Universe but bigger...lol.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: naming stuff

Postby Fuqin on September 10th, 2016, 9:16 pm 

Hi dave I was being a bit tongue in cheek, but also trying to make a point , to get energy from nothing , dosnt that pre space/time condition that you propose have to be replicated? I understand the problem you metioned , well maybe I don't a space/atter vacuum I can almost concive, but the time bit is overwhelmingly inconcivable, (mabye call it a zero time event) ZTE .I get the feeling in your anallogy that the bullet would hit the road and vanish without ever penitrating at all ( it never happend)
User avatar
Fuqin
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: 29 May 2005
Location: The land of OZ
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: naming stuff

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 11th, 2016, 5:41 am 

Hi Fuqin,

Sorry.. I misunderstood the question, which I now believe you meant to say start over again from scratch. Return the Universe to the original Nothing. My best guess would be that we will be able (someday) to exploit the existing computational features of the cellular base fabric under-structure of this Reality, but the rules embedded in the cells internal makeup would be impossible to change, as there wouldn't be any method to access/alter the rules.

Perhaps an expanding balloon model would help a visualization of the mechanics of the Universe. Most geeks like me (and many of you) have seen the expanding balloon model that represents the Expanding Universe. They paste Galaxies on the 2D balloon surface and inflate the balloon, showing how everything moves apart from everything else by expansion. A better model would be not adding air to the inside but rather painting new layers of rubber on the outside. Thus the whole sphere is a solid ball of rubber that is grown via adding new surface layers.

Matter is like a stain in the rubber that stains its patterns into each new layer of rubber being added. So the patterns of Matter propagate into each new layer. The surface layer would be called NOW by 2D creatures living on that expanding surface. History is archived in the stain Matter patterns deep below the surface, some perhaps back to a very early Time.. a small balloon back in Time.

So to make a hole (void) one must somehow isolate an area of the ball hoping new layers will trap such a bubble of Nothingness. But that bubble Void will get buried in history real fast (Speed of Light). Also, the same rules that creates new layers of rubber on any Exposed surface would apply inside that Bubble of Nothing and fill it in.. real fast. Again, if you could make a bubble like void in the rubber, it would get buried almost instantly from the addition of new layers, which is where the NOW exists.

I hope that makes an easier visual to get ones mind around.

In the case of the Bullet/Car analogy. Imagine there is a paving machine laying down new pavement. We, in the car, are one Plank Interval behind the Paving Machine going as fast as the Paving Machine. We in the car exist on the leading edge of Now (Time). A bullet hole in the pavement falls behind us as we move into the future on that new road being made, so we would never see the bullet hole, even if it could persist without auto filling in.

This is also why the Speed of Light is a Maximum Speed. Nothing that exists on the leading surface edge of NOW can go faster than the new pavement being laid down ahead of us. We are surface dwellers, even if the stain of our history is forever embedded in past layers. This stain that propagates to each new layer of Space-Time (Rubber) is basically NEW stain being created from the stains history. And this is why I endorse the concept that the Big Bang is still active, that new Matter/Energy/Stain is constantly being made on the new surface as the surface Grows/Expands. This is the 4D mechanics supporting the continuous creation of new Matter/Energy/Stain as Time Progresses/Expands.

So.. to create new Matter/Energy for exploitation, we need to figure out a way to make New Stain that doesn't have a history of Existence. This might be possible when we learn how to Program the Quantum, a few decades from now.

Everyone keep in mind this is just Science Fun based on Logical Speculation. Such speculation would be worthless unless it matches all the observables, which this does. Also, this is extremely simplified for the purpose of communicating some concepts that Science is still just coming to grips with in areas such as LQG and String Theory.. neither of which can I claim any proficiency with. I am just a computer programmer type with some deductive skills. Time will tell on how close my deductions are.. as compared to our Reality as we will eventually come to fully understand it someday.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: naming stuff

Postby vivian maxine on September 11th, 2016, 6:48 am 

Dave, have you ever read Edgar Allen Poe's "Eureka"? The comment often made by those who have is something like "And he got it right". But that isn't what makes me ask. It is the style of your imagination -- and Poe's. You two would have liked each other.

From another angle: Do we really want to start over? Are you sure we won't just make the same mistakes again? Or worse?

Good morning. :-)
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: naming stuff

Postby Dave_Oblad on September 11th, 2016, 4:15 pm 

Hi Viv,

I sure don't want to start over. But the Logic of Creation would seem to deny that possibility. Therefore.. I must deny the possibility of a Bouncing Universe.. even if my example used the term Rubber for new Space-Time ;^P

The emergent property of Matter from the original concentration of Energy (chaos) 14+ Billion years ago is no longer possible, from the Universe's point of View. The expansion process outweighs any energy concentration for new emergent Matter from Energy. Even Black Holes will eventually dissipate their stored energy. The last star will eventually burn out leaving the Universe a very cold dark place.

But that's not the end of Existence.

The Quantum will always be here and it is still, and will always be, a very hyper active existence. All advanced races should be able to transfer their existence into the Quantum to escape the cold. The Quantum, being computational by nature, will support VR and that's where Intelligence will eventually be living... many billions of years from now (a reasonable guess).

Actually, there is a very high probability that many advanced civilizations around the Universe have already made the transition.. due to the many advantages of living/existing in a Quantum VR, such as immortality and having God-Like power over shaping the VR to suit personal tastes.

Anyway.. Seti isn't going to find them...lol.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)



Return to Science Fun

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest