questionposter

Eventually, the right conditions are going to form somewhere, and eventually out of all the times the right conditions form, life will form.

I think the more energy a photon has, the more localized it is, and since there's no limit to how much energy a photon can have, there is no limit to how localized it can be. From there on, the question is whether you can control it, because even with that video, photons can be so localized that their 3 dimensional probability function only spans over 1 nano meter, so you can have some pretty precise results. The laser that guy is using looks very low energy, and low energy photons are much less localized so it is easier for them to span out over large distances. You wouldn't see the same thing with gamma-rays.

Those little nets with indentations you see are just over-simplified mathematical models. In reality it's a little bit more complex, why is why you have things like string theory. We don't know exactly why it's possible, some people are trying to prove there is a Higg's boson which is supposedly the particle that causes mass, and it seems like proving that might conflict with the model of a gravitational well, but gravity will be gravity no matter what system is describing it, as long as all the end results are equal for all models describing it.

In degenerate matter, I din't know, that's kind of what I'm asking about, but in liquid helium, the ground states, only with degenerate matter, it's a similar thing except with high energy, so could degenerate matter have overlapping wave-functions to also cause macroscopic entanglement like liquid helium?

Ok, so I see how the exact rate isn't constant, but isn't there a specific pattern or equation that models "how" that rate changes? At first, it was fast, now it's leveling off, that seems kind like some square root function. I thought you had meant though that the acceleration isn't uniform, because if that was true scientists couldn't have come up with a model for the expansion of the entire universe. Also, what else would be causing the distance between galaxies to increase at the rate they currently are?

Ok, so I see how the exact rate isn't constant, but isn't there a specific pattern or equation that models "how" that constant changes? At first, it was fast, now it's leveling off, that seems kind like some square root function. Also, what else would be causing the distance between galaxies to increase at the rate they currently are?

Because energy and mass are equivalent. In fact, I think photons distort the fabric of space even easier than matter. Both matter and energy responds to distortion in the fabric of space.

Scientists don't really know for sure why humans think sounds sound the specific way they do, we can only do maybe some basic brain scans to determine that people's brains associate different sounds with different things. In the case of a chalk board, it is likely just a subconscious reaction to something that may possibly damage ear drums with long exposure or possibly is a sound that triggers a mechanism of response of strong dislike that was genetically formed many hundreds of years ago as some kind of warning against things like predators.

That is what scientists agree with, yes. However, there is no known way to know for certain what there was at the creation or even a few seconds after, they have to extrapolate that the universe becomes that much hotter and denser up to that point based on the equations they use to model the current relationship between energies and distances over time. We don't know that a quark gluon plasma was there, but if that pattern of increasing density and temperature continued all the way up to that early in the universe, we calculate the temperature would be hotter, and at that hot of a temperature quark-gluon plasma can form. We haven't actually observed that.

What I'm not getting is my posts read. I didn't say we confirmed any particular theory using that evidence, I said the universe appears to be hotter and denser as we go back in time. What's so hard to understood and about that? We have evidence that this is true, we don't have direct evidence there was a singularity, just that millions of years ago the universe was hotter and denser, and that tends to lead to the assumption of a singularity.

I suppose there are some further limitations, but couldn't the reason my question is unanswerable be because things would diversify so much?

Couldn't their proximity make it so that the atoms instantaneously form an entangled system the moment we aren't measuring it? When we measure atoms all we get are these little points that we observe for only a brief period of time, and any amount of time between that measurement and the next measurement, they atoms could be entangled? And wait, if you can't say those atoms have different spacial coordinates due to occupying the same quantum state, why is that not entanglement? What other word would BBS use?

I don't think your getting it. It doesn't matter what you want to think, our calculations show that as you go backwards in time, the universe appears to be hotter and denser. I don't know if there was an infinitely dense point involved or if the universe is infinitely large, but I can tell you our calculations show a hotter, denser universe earlier in time. It's not even just the calculations, it's also objects billions of light years away. Maybe there was a big bang, maybe there wasn't, I don't know for sure, all we know is the universe as far as we can see appears hotter and denser further back in time, and that we have found a mysterious background radiation that is otherwise explainable.

What other term is there for atoms occupying the same quantum state while occupying different spacial coordinates?

Then why is the red-shift normally constant? https://www.cfa.harv.../huchra/hubble/ Something's expanding at least, and since matter follows the path of the distortion of space, if space expands, matter will try to follow that distortion, and since we see matter following the same relative path throughout the universe, that distortion must also be relatively the same throughout the universe. Hubble's constant also seems pretty...constant. I suppose the acceleration for the expansion of space and not the actual rate itself is constant if you were just being that picky. There also just isn't really another explanation for why we see this dramatic acceleration either, the only thing we can think of is that something is causing space to expand.

No, it's, pretty certain. As they look at the trajectories of galaxies and use equations to map out where they were at earlier times, the universe appears denser and hotter, and there's no reason to doubt that.

DUDE, stop going around to random topics and saying that. After all this time you STILL do that...

So if we went back to when life was first created and said there was no environmental pressure anywhere, what would we see after all this time?

Doesn't it portray the constant speed at which celestial objects are moving away from us? If we know the speed that galaxies have been travel for that billion years to get to us, then we can project where they are now at this very second.

Well with bose-einstein condensates in general, the atoms are suppose to be entangled so that their wave functions overlap and you can see few quantum mechanical effects in the macroscopic realm.

If there's a giant meteor, here's what you should do: Not nuke it. There is no air in space, so there is nothing to carry a powerful directed shockwave, a nuclear weapon would simply be a burst of high energy radiation and enough of them at once may partially strip away the ozone or more. Instead, develop a very powerful fragmentation bomb, a bomb that will generate shrapnel powerful tear through the meteor and break it into tinier pieces. It will likely take more than one, and there will very likely still be some big chunks left-over, but the many smaller pieces will burn up in the atmosphere and not cause so much damage upon impact. However, it doesn't stop here. All the shrapnel from the bombs and more of the many meteor pieces will cause friction upon entering the atmosphere. Statistics going back to the early stages of Earth show that when the Earth was being constantly bombarded by hundreds of meteors, it's temperature rose a fair amount due to those meteors. So, to prepare for the millions of pieces creating tremendous amounts of friction in the atmosphere, cool the Earth down. There aren't many ways to do this that I can think of, but perhaps by trying to suck up as much green-house gas as possible and storing it as a liquid underground or in special facilities, less heat will be trapped in Earth, which is actually something scientists were considering a while ago when looking at the projections for what the temperature of the Earth will be later in this century. Also, this is another reason to go green

But you have to "assume" they are true. Is there any way you can actually prove those assumptions that something proves something?

Given that the hubble constant is, well, constant, we can calculate where they are now at this very second by knowing where they were millions of years ago, which for us is the present, based on how fast those objects are moving and the time it took the light to reach us.

I suppose if the capacity to normally pass down genes wasn't successful, it wouldn't be passed down, but then again because of the lack of environmental pressure there could have been a life form that absorbs the genes of others and reproduces, or perhaps found another way to reproduce which is currently unknown to us. Without much environmental pressure, it seems like really any possible combination of DNA could form and survive for some amount of time.

How do you prove that something proves something in number theory? Or how do you prove that something is proven?