Leaderboard

As the Big Bang theory is an evolution of space-time, not a specific event, and it encompasses Inflationary theory. One of the reasons for Inflationary theories is the horizon problem. It arises because the only part of the universe we are in causal contact with, is the observable universe; so how did the parts outside the observable universe become homogeneous and isotropic ? At some time immediately after the initiation of the Big Bang, the universe had to have been in causal contact to allow light ( and information ) to cross the universe and establish an equilibrium . Inflation then provides many orders of magnitude expansion before settling down to its current rate, with the universe no longer in causal contact. Without the initial causal contact/equilibrium we would have a 'horizon problem', as we could not explain how the universe can be homogeneous and isotropic; inflation solves that problem.

Darn physicists, what have they ever done for us?

But the converse is not true. The photodetector is not a brain, and yet it's an observer. A brain is not required. Evidence? All you've done is make an assertion. The brain has nothing to do with why we can't perceive neutrinos Absolutely not. ChatGPT is not a science resource. It's souped up predictive text.

Well I skimmed your entire pdf. Not a single formula to validate any claims. Sorry to inform you that is not how physics works. So if your interest is developing something useful for a physicist you might consider studying physics and applying some formulas. Also the brain has its own processing rate just like a PC. You mentioned both even went so far as to detail processing speeds inherent in a CPU etc. Yet for the brain you hint that different observers measure time differently with regards to the speed limit and time dilation but as the brain also has a fixed processing speed that makes no sense. Anyways I come to scienceforums to help others learn physics. I see nothing of interest for me in this particular thread so have fun and good luck

It's really not religion that pisses me off, it's the people who not only believe but think they have the right to dictate how I live based on their fairy tales.

The Quantum Mechanical charge carriers in a semiconductor behave in non-deterministic ways, and we can model that with probability amplitude distributions. The transistors in the CPU and memory of the computer/phone you are posting with are essentially macroscopic and can be modelled with deterministic circuit theory. Both models, non-deterministic describing quantum particles, and deterministic describing circuit elements, give results accurate enough that the approx. 100 Billion transistors comprising CPU and memory of your device, run totally deterministic programs. Every single time ... no probability about it. Sometimes, even I find it amazing. So where is the contradiction ???

For myself, faith and religion, are not offensive ( as it may be to Moon ), because, although they lack any existential evidence, some people have a 'need' for them The delusion of faith, or religion, gives them peace of mind and relieves their fear of the unknown. I see no need to take a crutch away from an emotional cripple. So, while I have no need for it, I tolerate it. But when it starts getting 'in your face' with ridiculous garbage like 'revealed faith', most sensible people, and R Dawkins certainly is one, will push back. My respect for him has gone up even further. And by the way, didn't you guys ( Exchemist, Moon, Charon and JC ) read ... the OP only respects Physicists 😄😄 .

You have failed to provide any evidence for that. You are just asserting it. The main criticism I could agree on is that his books on religion are not based on expertise in areas of religion or philosophy. But then he is not necessarily a thought leader on that topic, either (as atheism is not really a organized system like religion). And again, this suggests you have not been paying attention regarding the level of open racism 15 or 20 or 30 years ago. The major difference are phases where things were more or less overt but I see politicians, rise of populism, concerted efforts by right-wing groups to push identity politics and other effects on the forefront. More importantly, the undercurrent never went away. As mentioned, what see is mostly just how overt things are. I have no idea what Dawkins has to do with any of it. We might as well discuss the impact of Hawking on the current state of donuts.

This is just silly. Flat Earthers who have conducted experiments have (repeatedly) shown that the Earth is, in fact, not flat. They just don't like the outcome, which is the main difference to scientific methodologies, where you are not just doing random experiments, but rather have to consolidate data with your model. The fact that you do not seem to understand this distinction makes any discussion rather moot. In case you have forgotten, you were talking about the last 15 years.

None of this is necessary to understand superposition so it's essentially not of any use. Let's look directly at superposition. The mathematics of QM uses probability equations as per statistical mathematics with its formulas. So those formulas include all possible outcomes. Now if you have some interaction between two particle states to entangle those particles. You have a range of possible outcomes that depend on the numerous conservation laws in particle physics. Ie conservation of charge, spin, flavor, color, momentum,lepton number, isospin etc. Taking those laws, the type of interaction and the detector setup one can determine a correlation function. Now until you measure the resulting entangled states you have the range of possible outcomes. The probability being the correlation function. However once you "observe which is a very confusing term used for measure" an entangled state the probability wavefunction collapses as you have now determined the state.

I think you’ll find a few threads on our site that discuss this very topic. One common response is that an observer need not be a conscious being. There’s no connection to the brain. I’m leery of claims like this - that the brain is doing calculations. I’ve never seen good evidence for it. The arguments either lack rigor or the definition of calculation is diluted past the point of being meaningless.

! Moderator Note That doesn’t mean it’s not advertising ! Moderator Note All material for discussion must be posted here. Not links or downloads, per rule 2.7

There was a time when I would have supported free speech unconditionally... then came the people who use free speech to make false claims and the gullibility of people to influence them in directions that are anti social at best... see the maga movement.

Relativity doesn't use probabilities in its equations. QM does that's the only difference but everyone believes that's some reality issue when it's nothing more than a different method of mathematical treatment. Nothing more, that includes superposition wavefunction collapse. A wavefunction is a mathematical object that may or may not even involve a physical measurement. Waveforms are a measurable range of values. Wavefunctions are strictly mathematical objects. One of the biggest sources of confusion is where to distinguish when a math statement describes a physical measurement or when it describes a mathematical set of some complex variable.

No, I totally agree with you when the discussion involves factual subjects, like vaccines or the shape of the Earth. But there are subjective opinion based discussions where the 'experts' don't agree with each other and sometimes make a mess of things. The soft sciences, psychiatry being one example, is where I would find issues with your approach. I remember examples, from a few years back, where people who suffered from emotional trauma, or delusions, were led, by their Psychiatrist, to 'remember' traumatic events from their childhood, such as emotional, physical, sexual or incestual, depending on the fashion of the week, that actually never happened. Who would you choose as 'experts' in a discussion about garbage such as 'revealed faith' ?

Perhaps it's a language issue, but you haven't explained what you find 'contradictory'. Any valid theory has to be self consistent, and the Big Bang theory, while it has gaps of understanding, is self-consistent. Since it was first proposed the gaps have been filled in by theory like particle Physics early universe nucleosynthesis and inflationary theory, and observation, like the temperature and smoothness of the CMB. Observation, however, is a 'two-sided sword', as it also reveals additional gaps, such as those revealed by James Webb telescopic observations. But the major gap, where we cannot make headway, is at extremely small separations, where early universe and Black Hole answers are hidden, because we cannot get anywhere near Planck scale observations, This realm is non-deterministic, and contrary to your hopes, the universe IS non-deterministic, while determinism is an emergent statistical property. Quantum mechanics/field theory will never be deterministic, and any future quantum gravity theory will, itself, be non-deterministic at small scales whilst approaching GR's geometrical interpretation at larger ones.

As one who knows all the major formulas and how they work in Cosmology, GR, QFT, QM and even string theory. After 35 years of examining every major theory. I can attest that for anyone that truly understand why and how thr theories work that are very functional for their intended purposes. Regardless of all the pop media articles and all the articles denying physics and any theory they don't like for mere philosophical reasons. 90 percent of the time it's the ones that don't understand the actual theories that create those articles claiming this or that theory doesn't work . Yes the mathematics of physics is complex. They are used to mathematically describe a huge range of observations. That's the primary reason why statistical mathematics is used by QM. Those mathematics do nothing to determine nor control realism. It's only purpose is to make predictions of cause and effect.

Those who wield the power and who shape the info in our feeds get to decide. It’s a modern take on history being written by the victors, where today victory is measured by likes, shares, views, and impressions. ”A lie gets half way around the world before the truth even gets its pants on.”

I think the quotes from Dawkins are missing the mark and certain folks are weaponizing that kind of arguments. There is an issue in universities, but it is not what OP describes and it is more related to a deeper change in society. First, there is a fundamental misunderstanding how discussions should be done and specifically how it should be conducted in universities. Universities are (were) a space for critical discussions, which should involve aspects of critical thinking and expertise. I.e. it was never supposed to be a platform where e.g. conspiracy theories of microchips in vaccines should be discussed at the same level as the benefits of immunization. The former would suck the entire oxygen from anything meaningful and there would be no learning or development of thoughts, which would be the purpose of universities. Rather, discussions should be vetted and led by folks with actual expertise. There is a difference if e.g. economists with different viewpoints and arguments relating to fiscal policies explain their thoughts vs. talking heads who argue that somehow any fiscal policy is a dictatorship (as a mild example). Where the university leadership is failing is basically that they are becoming more corporate and try to appease everyone, especially students (which they increasingly treat as customers rather than, well, students). What that means is that discussions have become more superficial, folks who are popular are getting more space than folks who actually know things (Peterson is one of the persons who managed to grift on that, for example). It is obvious why students are drawn to these superficial but emotional spectacles and why they pick and choose sides just as everyone nowadays in the population. They are still untrained when it comes to critical analysis (and I am afraid, the quality is dropping), they are more outspoken as they have been trained by social media algorithms that every thought has equal weight, no matter how ludicrous. As such, discussions on any topic are now more about picking sides rather than a critical analysis of the situation and, even more importantly, proposing solutions. University leadership tries (badly) to be corporate neutral on these issues in order not to get on the bad side of folks and thereby gives the power to the louder voices. This is especially disappointing as they do have in theory access to the best experts but they lack the courage to show actual leadership, which involves taking some modicum of risk. One could argue that then the faculty themselves should do something, but in the current environment they are overworked (as students are more and more demanding, which is encouraged by leadership) and only those with the loudest voices (often in social media) get all the attention. But those are not necessarily the subject experts. So yes, universities are failing in their purpose, but it is not because of free speech issues, but rather because Universities are transforming into a service industry in which critical thinking and analysis is not at the forefront anymore. All the discussions about cancel culture are therefore in my mind missing the mark entirely. Edit: perhaps even worse than missing the mark, it contributes to the erosion of intellectualism and is yet another tool in dismantling trust in expertise.

Surely that is not what science teaches, though? Science gives us predictive models of the physical world, none of which can be proven and consequently none of which can be said to be definitively right.

I bet you a dollar this will not be "considered the new frontier in physics". Oh I see this is just an advertisement for your book. No thanks.

i talk about cotton yes wool is too expensive . the link was en error . A copy paste probably. I have no interest but to hear your experience with thoses products . Here is info i found if it can help you help me Pit stink chemistry divides into two major class: volatile fatty acids (VFAs) and thioalcohols. VFAs are responsible for the acidic twang of BO. Thioalcohols are sulfur-containing compounds that come in various shades of reek; some can have a meaty-oniony aroma while others are fruitier and less offensive. To make VFAs and thioalcohols, bacteria use special enzymes that hack off the stinky parts of sweat molecules, which evaporate from the skin to create the nose-wrinkling funk that is BO.