Will there be any more "profound" revolutions in science?

[Strange]

Modern physics makes the assumption (I'm talking about quantum mechanics and quantum field theory) that something can come from nothing.

 

I am not aware of any theory that assumes something can come from nothing. Can you be more specific?

 

 

 

This is where I think it is wrong because the evidence shows that something cannot come from nothing.

 

What evidence shows this? Even if every observation we have made so far doesn't involve something from nothing, that doesn't mean it is impossible, just that we haven't yet observed it.

[tar]

Strange,

 

One thought there though. We have "witnessed" something coming from nothing, as we have evidence, or a model that says our universe emerged from a point, during the Big Bang, which we are evidently still witnessing. However, you might be right, we did not see the speck point emerge from nothing, we do not know what the point was made out of, or whether the point itself came from nothing...but all in all, I would say that either there was nothing before the Big Bang, and the universe therefore sprang forth from nothing, or that the speck came from nothing, or came from something that came from nothing. Either that, or existence is eternal, and the Big Bang is just an event or an entity within a larger something.

 

Regards, TAR

But an eternal existence would imply that there is no such thing as nothing.

Edited June 3, 2017 by tar

[Strange]

Strange,

 

One thought there though. We have "witnessed" something coming from nothing, as we have evidence, or a model that says our universe emerged from a point, during the Big Bang, which we are evidently still witnessing.

 

 

No. The big bang model describes the universe expanding and cooling from an early hot, dense state. It says nothing about "creation from nothing", nor any sort of creation, because our models can't (currently) go back that early.

[Mordred]

BB model being LCDM. However under quantum cosmology there is a universe from nothing model one that arises via the Wheeler Dewitt equation and the HUP.

 

Here is an arxiv coverage.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207&ved=0ahUKEwjJ9sHz06PUAhUK5WMKHUMfDVgQFggjMAI&usg=AFQjCNFktncVqDNaSYL7UGEvKza6EJFvUw&sig2=sZ9jc3WP3_sBHzsik7D57A

Edited June 4, 2017 by Mordred

[tar]

Strange,

 

My point was that there currently is something.

 

Either that came from nothing or something always was.

 

Even a metapsuedofalse vacuum is something.

 

Regards, TAR

[Silvestru]

Strange,

 

My point was that there currently is something.

 

Either that came from nothing or something always was.

 

Even a metapsuedofalse vacuum is something.

 

Regards, TAR

Can you give an example of something from nothing?

 

We have "witnessed" something coming from nothing, as we have evidence, or a model that says our universe emerged from a point, during the Big Bang

 

Even you say that the Universe emerged from a point. A very dense state that expanded.

[tar]

Silvestru,

 

I can just give the example of the universe, as somthing.

 

Whether that came from something like a point of something, or just came into existence from nothing, is something I have no knowledge of.

jus

But if the universe popped into existence, at a time when other than the universe, there was nothing, then the universe is an example of something that came from nothing.

 

If we are imagining that the universe evolved from a hot dense state, then the question is was the hot dense state a description of a state of matter and energy, space and time that could have a different description if you knew what the arrangement was prior to or outside the hot dense state.

 

So let's cede each other a point from which the universe emerged. Now what about the point. Was the point something. What can we say about the point. What characteristics and internal entities were present. Just a singularity? So existence either sprang from 0, or it sprang from 1...looks however, with all the symmetries and pairs around that it most likely sprang from 2. But my point to Strange, was that if you are looking for an example of something that came from nothing, just look around. There is nothing that is here, that was here when the universe was a singularity.

 

Regards, TAR

or when the universe was in the hot dense state...except maybe the elemental particles that made up the hot dense state which are still here, just in different arrangements and separations, but basically, the entities that are here did not exist, until they did

[Strange]

Strange,

 

My point was that there currently is something.

 

Either that came from nothing or something always was.

 

Even a metapsuedofalse vacuum is something.

 

 

Can't argue with that. We currently have no theories that can provide an answer to which of those might be the case.

[Mordred]

What you described Tar is the basis of this model. To be clear though it is just one possibility

 

BB model being LCDM. However under quantum cosmology there is a universe from nothing model one that arises via the Wheeler Dewitt equation and the HUP.

 

Here is an arxiv coverage.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207&ved=0ahUKEwjJ9sHz06PUAhUK5WMKHUMfDVgQFggjMAI&usg=AFQjCNFktncVqDNaSYL7UGEvKza6EJFvUw&sig2=sZ9jc3WP3_sBHzsik7D57A

[Primordial Sea]

There is lots of room for revolution. If we are able to explore space there is a lot to learn. Humans mostly have stuck around Earth's vicinity and our knowledge has been limited by that.

[Baron d'Holbach]

I am surprise this question has to be even raise up. Of course there going to be revolutions in the near future. I could list one thousands revolutions that most likely going to arise and probably will.

[nec209]

On 2017-05-27 at 6:18 PM, KipIngram said:

I read that when Einstein first proposed in 1905 that light was quantized (i.e., that quanta were actually real, as opposed to the heuristic that Planck had considered them to be), the scientific community was "highly skeptical." Yet of course it turned out to be so and quantum theory "changed science." Relativity was a major change of outlook as well.

 

Do we think the remaining things we don't fully understand will require such radical "retooling," or is it likely that those two were the big ones and the rest will involved less thoroughgoing alterations? I read that obtaining a quantum theory of gravity is one of the major remaining difficulties - are there any other things that are that problematic, or is that the only major issue that remains?

I hope so, because there many things physics and astronomy cannot explain like........

• why do natural magnets ALWAYS have a north and south pole
• What will happen when you go into a black hole
• Where did earth water come from
• what caused the big bang
• what is the shape of the universe and how big is the universe
• what is causing space expansion
• discovery of dark matter and dark energy
• discovery of graviton particle
• Better understanding of gravity
• quantum theory why it can be two places at once ( explaining why that the case and better understanding why )
• quantum theory why measuring it or looking at it effects it ( explaining why that the case and better understanding why )
• How do stars explode and why
• where do cosmic rays come from
• Where does the moon came from? Did some body it earth to cause the moon
• Quantum mechanics tells us that without an observing consciousness the material reality as we know it may not even exist.
• sun is powered by fusion. That means the inside should be hotter than the outside, but the reverse is true.
• space time is expanding why
• Why doesn't light follow the rules of Phyics
• what was before the big bang.
• Strong nuclear force This force holds the nucleus of atoms together
• where do space pulsar come from
• better understanding of vertical particles
• are there more than one universe
• Are there many dimensions
• Is strict theory true
• what will happen to the universe

Edited July 24, 2017 by nec209

[beecee]

16 minutes ago, nec209 said:

I hope so, because there many things physics and astronomy cannot explain like........

• why do natural magnets ALWAYS have a north and south pole
• What will happen when you go into a black hole
• Where did earth water come from
• what caused the big bang
• what is the shape of the universe and how big is the universe
• what is causing space expansion
• discovery of dark matter and dark energy
• discovery of graviton particle
• Better understanding of gravity
• quantum theory why it can be two places at once ( explaining why that the case and better understanding why )
• quantum theory why measuring it or looking at it effects it ( explaining why that the case and better understanding why )
• How do stars explode and why
• where do cosmic rays come from
• Where does the moon came from? Did some body it earth to cause the moon
• Quantum mechanics tells us that without an observing consciousness the material reality as we know it may not even exist.
• sun is powered by fusion. That means the inside should be hotter than the outside, but the reverse is true.
• space time is expanding why
• Why doesn't light follow the rules of Phyics
• what was before the big bang.
• Strong nuclear force This force holds the nucleus of atoms together
• where do space pulsar come from
• better understanding of vertical particles
• are there more than one universe
• Are there many dimensions
• Is strict theory true
• what will happen to the universe

Some of those questions have been scientifically answered and explained......

In the meantime here is a short 7.5 minute video

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Yes, science will probably bring mankind's last universal invention; artificial general intelligence:

 

Examples of human cognitive exceeding models:

'Deep Learning AI Better Than Your Doctor at Finding Cancer':

https://singularityhub.com/2015/11/1...inding-cancer/

"AI beats doctors at visual diagnosis, observes many times more lung cancer signals":

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...cancer-signals


Also, here are a sequence of other cognitive fields/tasks, where sophisticated ARTIFICIAL neural models EXCEED human-kind:

1) Language translation (eg: Skype 50+ languages)
2) Legal-conflict-resolution (eg: 'Watson')
3) Self-driving (eg: 'OTTO-Self Driving' )
5) Disease diagnosis (eg: 'Watson')
6) Medicinal drug prescription (eg: 'Watson')
7) Visual Product Sorting (eg: 'Amazon Corrigon' )
8) Help Desk Assistance ('eg: Digital Genius)
9) Mechanical Cucumber Sorting (eg: 'Makoto's Cucumber Sorter')
10) Financial Analysis (eg: 'SigFig')
11) E-Discovery Law (eg: ' Social Science Research Network.')
12) Anesthesiology (eg: 'SedaSys')
13) Music composition (eg: 'Emily')
14) Go (eg: 'Alpha Go')
n) etc, etc

Will artificial intelligence take your job?:

 

Humans need not apply:

 

The wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn:

 

The rise of automation, why today's flavour of automation is different:

 

Edited August 19, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Area54]

Perhaps we have only a few revolutions left in the fundamental fields of physics and cosmology, but I suspect that in those fields addressing emergent properties there are many revolutions to come. Two examples that spring to mind:

• Our understanding of the formation and evolution of planetary systems is primitive
• A soft science such as sociology is still at the observational - stamp collecting - stage