Sorcerer

Yes, but if we switched the names of the electrodes and the particles, nothing would really change. Maybe they should be called clockwise and anticlockwise? But then again, who decided the clock rotates that way lol.

Hi, I was recently in a discussion/arguement with a new age spiritualist, he was using quantumn physics examples to show free will and argue about spirits and weird stuff. Especially he was speaking of morality with references to positive and negative and the attributes of the electron and proton. I argued that positive and negative are simply words to describe the electron and the proton as opposites, the descriptions could actually be switched and thus the (Maxwells) equations could be inverted and obtain the same results. I was just wondering if I was correct, because I just bluffed I knew that. So anyway, if we refered to an electron as having a positive charge and a proton as having a negative charge. And we changed all the equations around respectively. Would there be any real difference?

Does the planck length stretch as space expands, or are more planck lengths created in between? I'm just confused over this, because if a planck length is an indivisible unit which is used as a constant, yet its size changes then, it's not much of a constant is it. But ...if more planck lengths appear within space as it expands, then space isn't really "stretching" is it, as I've always had the analogy given to me, it's actually creating more space between points in space. Or is it something else?

I can't quite see how they are different all 3 have the same effect, they all remove the ability to observe the object directly via light reflection/emission. The only one I don't think can exist (afaik according to relativity) is the horzion created by a particle moving away by accelerating to faster than the speed of light. While the hubble event horizon and the black hole event horizon are effectively the inverse of each other. One is the expansive stretching of space away faster than the speed of light, the other is the contractive stretching of space away faster than the speed of light. Are there equations describing these 3 event horizons? Are they different? Or does relativity only deal with the two types? In the balloon analogy, the points are moving away from each other, while the points aren't moving, they are moving away from each other. What is the difference to an observer who sees this due to the expansion of space, due to movement or due to gravity?? The effect on the ability to exchange information via the reflection/emission of photons is the same, all 3 create event horizons. I can see you're not the kind of person who would get upset at me for questioning you. I can see you are trying to help. My questions seem relevant to me though. _________________________________ Ok I got around to reading the article you suggested: Here I am talking about future event horzions. Not necessarily "our" future event horizon, but mutual future event horizons. Where everything, (no galaxies), only particles is receeding away from everything else at the speed of light (or greater). This article is only every refering to galaxies, what happens when all particles are seperated into their most fundamental parts because of the expansion of space. Where the expansion of space over comes the forces which hold nuclei together. Where two photons which would otherwise be moving towards each other are now moving away from each other faster than the speed of light due to the accelerating expansion of the universe (dark energy). 1) Expansion does not a have speed, so we don't say that the universe expands at this or that speed. 2) Objects in space do have speeds, and it is possible for these speeds to exceed that of light. This is a consequence of an expanding universe, is not unique to ination, and doesn't bother Prof. Einstein.

If there are only two objects. One is the observer and one is that being observed, is there space and time? Space-Time is one thing right, so one requires the other. If there are only two objects and nothing for the observer to observe the 2nd object moving relative to how can there be any time? If there is no time, how can there be any space? If there is no space how can there be two objects? _______________________________________ Does space time require 3 dimensions to exist first? Also sorry for the barrage of questions. I think each deserves a sepeate topic.

I was just wondering about event hoizons, since my limited understanding of relativity, is that acceleration away from and object and that due to gravity are essentially the same. So, an event horzion is an event hoizon, regardless of the source. IE, a hubble volume event horizon and a black hole event horizon are essentially the same. I was applying this to the eventual fate of the universe, with regards to dark energy. Where eventually all particles would be contained in their own hubble volume and share an event horizon with every other particle. From there I was looking at it as if it could be possible for all hubble volumes to evaporate via Hawking (Unruh?) radiation into each other, thus restoring the universe to a point where all the energy is able again to share information. Essentially, I'm using my limited understanding to try to find a way which the heat death paradox could be reconciled and the age of the universe (redefined as more than just this one we observe now) essentially be infinite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

How is there any distance if there isn't any two points? How is there any time if there isn't a third point to observe the changing distance between two points? "Even though the Milne model as a special case of a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe is a solution to General relativity, the assumption of zero energy content limits its use as a realistic description of the universe. Besides lacking the capability of describing matter Milne's universe is also incompatible with certain cosmological observations. In particular it makes no prediction of the cosmic microwave background radiation nor the abundance of light elements which are hallmark pieces of evidence that cosmologists agree support Big Bang cosmology over alternatives."

No space doesn't exist without matter, as far as I know according to Relativity, time and space is actually a quality of having THREE things seperated from each other where one can measure the relative distance between the other two. I was looking at it from an outside observers 'point of view'. So I was considering two things to be able to have space time. Well, can you please point me to the peer reviewed paper that says this. Because you seriously have me baffled.

So I would like to know, what would it mean for classical physics and heat death, in an exponentially increasing space, with regards to the quantum vacuum? Would the probability of virtual particles becoming "real" increase (since the volume of space increases), as the work being able to be provided by real particles decreases? Also as an aside. Are event horizons created by Hubble volumes, where information cannot be exchanged between points in space time due to them receeding away from each other faster than the speed of light, the same as those created by gravity in a black hole? If so, would that mean one Hubble volume could evaporate via Hawking radiation into another?

I actually like you strange, you argue with me on the same level that I argue with myself, except you point out the part I neglect. Yes now we're heading away from argument into semantics. In regards to einsteins equations, well they don't mesh with quantum physics, and quantum physics would say space isn't truely empty, but a probability field, teeming with virtual particles. Neither truely make sense in regards to the other. Both are not quite right. Like Newtons laws of gravity, they will soon be found to be incomplete models (if it wasn't apparent already), so, where does the truth lie? And if you can't measure it, does it exist? To me an observer is anything that interacts with another thing and thereby has an influence on it. For there to be time there requires an observer. When there is something (an observer), yet nothing to observe there is no time. Or relativistically, there needs to be two things moving relative to each other. Does heat death apply to a quantum vacuum?

Are the laws of physics universal and fundamental? How does time exist when theres is less than two things, a point moving through the 4th dimension in a line is the same in every direction. If entropy always increases, then there cannot be a line. Infact I don't know why they call it the 4th dimension, surely it is the first.

Time requires more than one thing to move relative to another. So yes as soon as there was more than one thing and they both exchanged information with each other there was time. As soon as there was 1 thing, there was only the possibility there was two things or nothing again. But then those two things became two seperate "one things", with no exchange of information between them. It went on ad infinitum. Untill at one moment, the accumulation of things was so vast that the probability of this occuring approached one, because this was a possibility. You cannot refute something exists. You cannot refute this existence is a possibility. It only has to be allowed that one thing can exist. No matter how small, to create the possibility of an infinite ammount of things. Since there is no time without two things exchanging information/moving relative to each other. There was no time when nothing existed, and no time when only one thing existed, there was only a time when more than one thing existed and this propagated into what we observe now. And as a far out consequence, what we observe now will create a multitude of "one thing" unable to exchange information with each other at the far end of its timeline. And if we apply the same argument to that, we have a far greater chance that we are just infact the product of a naturally selected universe, one which is able to survive.

Was the initial condition of the universe fundamental?

The energy comes from the division of that particle. The particle is at minimum entropy, it is at maximum order, it must increase in entropy, the only way for this to happen is for it to divide into many parts. Any energy at all is some energy, if we infinitely divide something, something still remains. What I was actually saying is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a consequence of the initial conditions of the universe, being a singularity and the necessary one directionality this enables, it can only remain the same or become more disordered. The second property to be taken into account is the expansion of the universe. The total energy of the system remains the same, nothing is destroyed or created, only transformed. Nothing was created. Everything always existed. I do understand the very easy rebuttals, like a quanta is a quanta for a reason, it is the smallest indivisible thing. Photons even high energy ones don't change into two lower energy ones do they. So how can 1 thing at minimum energy (heat death) change into multiple things? But then I'd ask the question, why did the singularity at the moment of the big bang seperate into many parts? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Let me put it to you this way. I will assume you agree that something exists. That is axiomatic. There are 3 possible outcomes when something exists. 1. It ceases to exist - this clearly didn't happen, so it is clearly likely given alot of "somethings" existing, chances are it won't happen to all of them. 2. It remains the same - in a universe containing only one thing there is an absence of time due to no interaction relative to anything else there is no moment when this occurs. 3. It changes - this is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, given the initial condition of only one thing existing, the only possible change is for it to turn into more than one thing. Anyway it's pretty easy: What if it just splits into two things and they become gradually less and less ordered and undergo heat death? In an expanding universe? Then there are eventually two things in their own universe, with no time, because they are too far apart (beyond event horizons) to exchange information. You just doubled my chances of being correct. Which part?

^ Did it impact Neanderthal and Denisovan evolution?

Thanks Mordred

That's why it's a question

Well, it's not, the earth was a part of the previous universe. The next universe is made of what is there for it to make it of. Entropy always increases. One thing turns into many things which become disordered and along the way create time in which something like us is able to observe and measure it and at it's end it's at maximum disorder, yet every piece is seperated into it's own observable universe. There is no information flowing into or out of the system, the system is at minimum entropy because it is in its most highly ordered state. Entropy always increases.

Does it make any sense to look at time from non-beginning to non-end in a fractal sense, if we model it mathematically?

No, I think you have the wrong place for the topic, this should be in psychology. However there is a distinct disconnect between this theory and evolutionary biology. In that this was worked from the top down, not the bottom up. I think what you'll find is that there is no way of coming to the conclusion of an "evolved" mind. Every organism is equally adapted and equally evolved. I'll also put it to you that this is a hyper egotistical stance, given by a maniacal person, who actually has no idea of what a utopian society entails. A person with a distinct disconnect of empathy between self and others. I would say Maslow was a psychopath.

With the advent of genetic evidence to suggest that Humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans have interbred and led to the world population as it is in its modern form. How likely would you consider it that there have always been many closely related species, simply geographically seperated and reunited via migration over time. Would this be a good way to look at human evolution (and all evolution)? The aquatic ape hypothesis can be easily discounted if we accept a monoculture for speciation, but if we consider two seperate populations, one living in semi aquatic lifestyle, perhaps coastal migration, meeting up with a population adapted to savannah type living, wouldn't it be very hard to distinguish where which adaption originated. How can we be sure that evolution is a singular branching from a common ancestor in light of this evidence. Horizontal transfer of DNA is not exclusive to hybridisation. There are many possible vectors. I know science loves Occam's Razor, but models of simplicity and reality diverge when there requires further explanation, or when the evidence points to it being untrue. Our holobiome, could be a source for our DNA transfer, bacterio phages, plasmids, transposons. All this DNA in such close proximity could leap across to alter our germline cells. Why is it we like to think of life as a straight branch on a tree when it is almost certainly a web?

I'm gonna go with 1.

@Nicholas why would you conclude this to be true, since relativity and quantum theory haven't been combined, one or both are wrong. I'll give you that anyway though. But the event horizon I'm talking about isn't one created by gravity, it's one created by the expansion of space, the hubble volume. I should have been more clear. @ Strange, 1. To extrapolate backwards towards the beggining of the universe, you will get to a hot dense state, what prevents you from extrapolating to a singularity? If we stuck to what we "know" we'd be talking only about now. Our knowledge of what we can observe only begins after the big bang. Why will you make the leap to the small universe only up to a point (no pun intended)? 2. I should've said observable universe. Or perhaps event horizon or hubble volume. 3. Isn't "small" relative. If you have something and there is nothing else, isn't it actually infinately big? 4. I passed High School Calculus with an A+ and promptly forgot it all. I'll leave that up to the physicists. Here is this idea clarified: 1. Entropy always increases. 2. The universe began as a singularity. 3. Entropy is at a minimum where energy is in its most highly ordered form. 4. Energy is in its most highly ordered form in a singularity. 5. The universe we observe is currently expanding at an increasing rate. 6. This expansion eventually leads to a big rip. 7. After the big rip the universe is also in a state of heat death (maximum entropy). 8. This creates a vast number of systems seperated via their hubble volumes, each within their own event horizons and at minimum entropy. This is where there is a paradox, from the observing particle, within its own event horizon, it is in its most highly ordered form. Entropy is at a minimum. Even though from a point of view of the universe as a whole, entropy is at a maximum. Just as any observer can only ascertain anything of their universe from what they observe, to the lone particle, it is at minimum entropy. This is where the argument is circular. Paradoxical. But how is it incorrect? Challenge specifically directed at you Swansont since you thought it speculation. 1.http://en.wikipedia...._thermodynamics 2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang 3.http://en.wikipedia...._minimum_energy 4.http://en.wikipedia....ularity#Entropy (avoid it then) 5.http://en.wikipedia....iki/Dark_energy 6.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip 7.http://en.wikipedia....of_the_universe 8.http://en.wikipedia....i/Hubble_volume

1. Entropy always increases. 2. The universe began as a singularity. 3. Entropy is at a minimum where energy is in its most highly ordered form. 4. Energy is in its most highly ordered form in a singularity. 5. The universe we observe is currently expanding at an increasing rate. 6. This expansion eventually leads to a big rip. 7. After the big rip the universe is also in a state of heat death (maximum entropy). 8. This creates a vast number of systems seperated via their hubble volumes, each within their own event horizons and at minimum entropy. This is where there is a paradox, from the observing particle, within its own event horizon, it is in its most highly ordered form. Entropy is at a minimum. Even though from a point of view of the universe as a whole, entropy is at a maximum. Just as any observer can only ascertain anything of their universe from what they observe, to the lone particle, it is at minimum entropy. This is where the argument is circular. Paradoxical. But how is it incorrect? Challenge specifically directed at you Swansont since you thought it speculation. 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics 2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang 3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_minimum_energy 4.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity#Entropy (avoid it then) 5.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy 6.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip 7.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe 8.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_volume

lol thanks, I speak real english, I sometimes forget some people find the antiquainted version preferable. Yeah sure and how would they fit into this model (not that it really is one). I acknowledged the quantum vacuum and showed how it was of little relevance since time had ceased to exist. How would quantum entanglement effect the various quanta in their own universes, would they still somehow be attached to each other even beyond an event horizon?