Alan McDougall

Is there order in chaos? Physicists can't with total exactitude solve the set of equations that describes the behavior of fluids, from water to air to all other liquids and gases. In fact,it isn't known whether a general solution of the so-called Navier-Stokes equations exists, or, if there is a solution, whether it describes fluids everywhere, or contains inherently unknowable points called singularities. As a consequence, the nature of chaos is not well understood. Thus I pose the question do physicists and mathematicians wonder, if the weather or other chaotic systems merely very difficult to predict, or inherently unpredictable? Does turbulence/chaos transcend mathematical description, or will it all make comlete sense one day if tackled with the right math and supercomputers? http://www.efunda.co...vier_stokes.cfm Navier-Stokes equation: The motion of a non-turbulent, Newtonian fluid is governed by the

How and why does measuring a particle make its wavefunction collapse, producing the concrete reality that we perceive to exist? The issue, known as the measurement problem, may seem mysterious, but understanding of what reality is, or if it exists at all, hinges upon the answer. Thus can physics anwer this question yet?

Hi http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2907-science-religion-god-physics.html Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science. Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there's good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever. Carroll argues that God's sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in modern times, as physics and cosmology have expanded in their ability to explain the origin and evolution of the universe. "As we learn more about the universe, there's less and less need to look outside it for help," he told Life's Little Mysteries. He thinks the sphere of supernatural influence will eventually shrink to nil. But could science really eventually explain everything? Do you agree or want to add to the debate?

Repectfully to whom is this post addressed, who is Godwin and who is using Guilt by Association here???

Agreed!

Rubbish, he used religion to futher his own evil agenda and replaced bibles in churches with his silly Mein Kampf.

That is easy to say whn you are still young, when you have really faced the awful reality of your own mortality and death like I have you will very promply change your mind. Death is humanities ultimate evil!

http://www.icr.org/article/374/206/ The Ethical Foundation of Technology The rise of North America to dominance in technology is related to the Judeo-Christian foundation with which it started. The founding fathers of the United States of America were theists who believed in a Creator who gave moral rules by which to live. The work ethic they practiced also contributed to the rapid progress of the country. In this ethic, all honest work was regarded as dignified, not just the "white collar" jobs. This also has Christian roots. Jesus, the founder of Christianity, Himself chose the profession of a carpenter prior to His ministry. Along with this work ethic, there was also the right climate for initiating research. The free-enterprise system allowed individuals and private groups to carry on research and to develop technology. How can we hold in check the wrong use of technology? Here again, Christianity/bible offers its powerful contribution. Jesus summed up the right law to live by in human relationships thus: "Love your neighbor as yourself." a powerful principle, indeed. It allows no justification for using technology to bring harm to others. On the positive side, this law encourages us to develop that which serves humanity. The ethical standards of the Biblical also include the practice of honesty and integrity. The need for these in the handling of technology is being increasingly recognized.

Why, about philosohy which has caused even more evil than religion, while some religions have done considerable work for the good of mankind?

Who will rule this world of very old people with possibly old out dated memories, or would there be a time when death becomes mandatory, or maybe a restriction on children or even a ban, god forbid!

How can we exclude fundamental constants , they are how the universe works? Tell me how a theorist could derive anything by exculding FC from his research?

From your link above, You can’t travel back to before the time machine was built. Right now, at the particular place you are sitting, at the time when you are sitting there, one of two things is true: either there is a closed timelike curve passing through that point in spacetime, or there is not. And that situation will never change — no matter what clever engineers may do in the future, if they create closed timelike curves they cannot pass through events in spacetime through which closed timelike curves did not pass (corollary of Rule 6). Or in plain English: if you build a time machine where there wasn’t one before, it may be possible for future travelers to come back to that time, but nothing can help you go back to times before the machine was built. What if a person born say 200 years after the creation of the time machine goes back a 150 years and kills his grandfather, this leads to the Grandfather Paradox" or maybe the universe would prevent the GP by simply making it impossible to interact in any physical way with events that have already happened from the time travellers time frame?

Why not?

This is rather long but covers most of the topic, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=that-mysterious-flow The Philosophy of Time Center for Science and Society Symposium, Fall 2003 "A Matter of Time" February 5, 2003 Cheryl Chen Department of Philosophy Notes made available at talk Supposing pictures about the nature of time: 1) The Conventional View "In daily life we divide time into three parts: past, present, and future. The grammatical structure of language revolves around this fundamental distinction. Reality is associated with the present moment. The past we think of having slipped out of existence, whereas the future is even more shadowy, its details still unformed. In this simple picture, the "now" of our conscious awareness glides steadily onward, transforming events that were once in the unformed future into the concrete but fleeting reality of the present, and thence relegating them to the fixed past." --Paul Davies, "That Mysterious Flow" 2) The "Block Universe" View "Physicists prefer to think of time as laid out in its entirety - a timescape, analogous to a landscape - with all past and future events located there together ... Completely absent from this description of nature is anything that singles out a privileged special moment as the present or any process that would systematically turn future events into the present, then past, events. In short, the time of the physicist does not pass or flow." --Paul Davies, "That Mysterious Flow" The debate between the conventional view and the block universe view is actually the combination of two debates in the philosophy of time: 1) Presentism vs. Eternalism Presentism: only things in the present exist. Eternalism: things in the past (e.g., dinosaurs) and future (e.g., human outposts on Mars) exist too. 2) The A-Theory vs. the B-Theory A-properties: happening now, happened a week ago, happened in the past, will happen two years from now, happening in the future B-properties: being two years after the 2000 Presidential Election, happening on July 4, 1776The A-Theory: A-properties are genuine features of the world. Time passes. The present moment has a special status. The B-Theory: A-properties are reducible to B-properties. Time doesn"t pass or flow. No moment in time has any special status. Why many philosophers and physicists believe in the block universe view: Philosophical considerations 1) McTaggart's argument The A-properties are incompatible with one another, but according to the A-Theory, every position in time must possess all of the different A-properties. Since that leads to contradiction, the A-Theory must be false!2) How fast does time flow? If it makes sense to say that time passes, then it must also make sense to ask how fast time passes. Since that question doesn"t make sense, time doesn"t pass. Considerations from physics: Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity According to the Special Theory of Relativity, there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. But if there"s no absolute simultaneity, then there is no objective fact about whether a particular event is in the present. Worries about the block universe view: 1) "Thank Goodness That"s Over" (Arthur Prior) When your headache finally stops after bothering you all morning, you say, "Thank goodness, that"s over!" But if the block universe view is correct, there is no such property as being over or no longer happening now. So what exactly are you thankful for? 2) The painful operation You wake up and find yourself in a hospital bed. You know that you are in one of two situations: i) You are about to undergo a very painful operation ii) You have just had the painful operation, but were given a drug to make you forget the entire experience. Which of these two situations would you prefer to be in? Commonsense says you should prefer (ii), but on the block universe view it shouldn"t matter which situation you"re in. 3) Fearing death If the block universe view is correct, it is irrational to fear death. We apparently fear death because we believe that we will no longer exist after we die. But according to the block universe view, it"s not true to say that we exist now, but won"t exist any longer after death. Death is just one of our temporal borders, and should be no more worrisome than birth! 4) A general problem about explaining our actions Our beliefs that presuppose the passage of time - beliefs expressed by terms that refer to A-properties - play an essential role in explaining most of our actions. Without such beliefs we would lack the resources to explain just about anything we do. A mundane example: leaving my office to attend the time symposium This action makes no sense at all if I merely believed that I was due to give a talk at 7pm - my behavior only makes sense if I also believed that 7pm was coming up soon. If scientists and philosophers succeed in convincing us to abandon our A-theory beliefs, just about everything we do or desire will be completely incomprehensible. So it"s hard to see how we could abandon those beliefs---even if scientists and philosophers give us reasons to do so!

Some say that what we call reality only started after the first Planck Unit , to speak about anything happening before that is meaningless.

Absolutely not! I only made the comment about God because god supposedly has no cause and this forum being scientific would need a scientific explanation for something vilolating Causality. I wonder about the scientist you say that believed god violates causality I will do a little research but not bring it up in this thread. My thinking is maybe in the strange illogical quantum world causality might be seen to violtalated somehow , by practical experiments.? In the unmeasured unobserved quantum world it might happen but would we ever know?

I am aware that by the teleportation technique, one is only sending the information by using bi-locality of quantum particles using quantum mechanics, not the actual object, which must be destroyed completely in the process to be able access the necessary information for, instantaneouss transmission and reassembly somehow by some sort of a quantum computer at the receiving station. I would not stand in such a device, because we get into what is really self, or are we just information, would the other reassembled entity really be me, even if absolutely reassembled in total exatitude remain the very same being? My biology is pathetic , but I am much more informed in this area of science, epecially astronomy!

Very interesting question that leads to the possibilties of an infinite multiverse containing within it an infinity of universes, existing enternally, but always changing in great cycles of creation and destruction.

Yes Maybe it is the journey that is important, not the destination.

In quantum mechanics things can be in multiple locations, but in classical physics they are in one position only. Is there a reason for this after all we are made up of quantum pariticles, they can exist in more than one location , why cant larger things like humans also exist in more than one location at a time.? Bi-location has supposed to have happened in the mystic world and there is also the Many Worlds Theory and the far off possiblity of teleportation of large things in the far off future. (Teleportation has already been done with photons!) Also the case of the Doppelganger where a person is supposed to have seen his exact double has been regularily reported over countless years by intelligent people.

How can gravity exist without mass?

Hi Tar, Of course, there is a same exact now or moment on Mars and on earth, why not. As for the whole universe would it not depends on the observer, If God exists then surly he could view the whole universe in onemoment or now. Take a ball game as an example, the spectators see only each other and the players as moments in time , but are unaware of what is going on outside. A helicopter flying high above can observe the very same moments but from a much greater view of point, taking in the whole of Manhattan Island Below is an article I wrote on the "Now" subject We never really reach a moment in time, just when we think we have the next moment is already passed. There is always a blur at both ends no matter how close one observes them. I once wrote a short paper on the subject, however, I used an arrow and how it flies toward its target always a blur, I rationalized this by saying the movement of the arrow was like infinitely tiny frames on a movie reel, jumping between moments rather than a smooth flow like a river. If we stand still relative to the universe, time still moves, but once a person starts to move relative to the universe, time slows, this effect of course can only be seen in a meaningful way at colossal speeds approaching the of the speed of light. Some physicists say, however, that there is no real"Arrow of Time" or that time flows smoothly like a river, and that time is in reality infinity of separate infinitely tiny moments, extending back to the eternal past and into the eternal future, in both directions from the moment we exist in the present. To understand the theory of infinity of moments making up the reality of the universe, think of a loaf of bread as the universe and each grain of wheat in the loaf (universe) as a moment or "Now" somewhere in the universe?. The Left side of the loaf the moment of creation the right time flowing into the Infinite future. LOAF OR UNIVERSE Big Bang=Past<.................................<NOW>.............................................................>Future Someone on the other side of the universe, directly opposite, could exist in very the same "NOW" or moment as you are. By slicing the loaf/universe directly in front of you are linking with every other "NOW" across the same time frame/moment you then existed in across the whole universe. Thus a universal "NOW"exists across the in the universe at that moment! However the very next moment the "NOW's" no longer agree and you must make another slice to see what is happening at the other end of the universe, because the "NOW' moments jump to different "NOWS" because of the effect of gravity, mass, speed and relativity. However, if you were to slant your hypothetical knife to the left across the universe, which is towards the "past" from your vantage moment "NOW" in time" you would hypothetically be able to view what, is going on in the moment in the past for an object. You would be looking at the "past" of the far off object. Your "NOW' and its "NOW" would differ in time and space. You both would continue to exist in the ever-jumping subjective "NOWs" but each using the same method could look into the other "pasts" by slanting your knife more and more to the left.. The same will happen if you took the hypothetical knife,sliced the loaf or universe to the right, toward the future, then you will beable to observe what is going on in the future of the objects futures accross the whole universe. Thus, every moment OR NOW in the universe, that has ever existed from the very beginning, of its existence until its end, to the present, into the infinite future still exists in our universe and the law's of physics do not forbid this. Regards Alan

A Planck unit of time is about 5.4 x 10^-44 of a second , why cant this unit of time not be divided further and why cant the stuff of reality be divided infinitely smaller or larger?

Maybe most scientist, not all dismiss the concept of God is because God is supposed to have no cause, thus he is an uncaused cause that violates causality.

I never said there was a universal now!