Where are the laws of the universe exactly?

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

how are you sure  that they are only two things when we know nothing. about it today. ?

Because you said: (1) "dark matter" and (2) "dark energy".

How is that not two (2) things?

[Rajiv Naik]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes. It has been know for more than 50 years.

I think it was hypothesis till cern claims.

nobody is really sure its the ultimate particle .

may be they will find some more massive one-

experiment is not yet over.

a bold statement it would be to say that ,"we know".

 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Because you said: (1) "dark matter" and (2) "dark energy".

How is that not two (2) things?

this not a court argument I suppose,

in law we call it hypertechnical argument.

we both know what we meant.

 

[Strange]

Just now, Rajiv Naik said:

nobody is really sure its the ultimate particle

Why would you think it is "the ultimate particle"? 

What does "ultimate particle" mean?

1 minute ago, Rajiv Naik said:

may be they will find some more massive one-

They already have.

You are arguing from a position of extreme ignorance.

1 minute ago, Rajiv Naik said:

a bold statement it would be to say that ,"we know".

And idiotic statement would be to say "we don't know anything"

[Rajiv Naik]

2 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

I think it was hypothesis till cern claims.

nobody is really sure its the ultimate particle .

may be they will find some more massive one-

experiment is not yet over.

a bold statement it would be to say that ,"we know".

 

this not a court argument I suppose,

in law we call it hypertechnical argument.

we both know what we meant.

 

how  we can. say that they are only two things or few things without knowing what it is.?

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why would you think it is "the ultimate particle"? 

What does "ultimate particle" mean?

They already have.

You are arguing from a position of extreme ignorance.

And idiotic statement would be to say "we don't know anything"

who said  that.

I suppose  I said very little-

5 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

how  we can. say that they are only two things or few things without knowing what it is.?

who said  that

I suppose  I said very little-

by saying ultimate particle I meant most massive particle - misunderstanding ?

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes. It has been know for more than 50 years.

I think it was hypothesis till cern claims.

nobody is really sure its the ultimate particle .

may be they will find some more massive one-

experiment is not yet over.

a bold statement it would be to say that ,"we know".

recently cern has discovered new bumps of massive masses thin higgs particle

it will take ore more year to complete investigation.

, I suppose its know or one can check

 

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

by saying ultimate particle I meant most massive particle - misunderstanding ?

The Higgs boson is not the most massive particle known.

[zapatos]

21 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

 

this not a court argument I suppose,

in law we call it hypertechnical argument.

we both know what we meant.

 

You are acting like having limited knowing about something that makes up of 96% of the universe means we don't know 96% of what there is no know. That is like saying a computer scientist doesn't know 70% of what there is to know about his computer because he doesn't understand the 70% of it that is the plastic case.

[Strange]

36 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

a bold statement it would be to say that ,"we know".

No one says we know anything for sure. No one says we know everything.

By chance, this article just came out: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-are-the-smallest-particles-of-all-truly-fundamental-bb56aa55be3f

Quote

everything we know in science is only provisional. There is nothing that we know so well or so solidly that it is immutable. All of our scientific knowledge is merely the best approximation of reality that we’ve been able to construct at present. 

The particles we know of look fundamental today, but that’s no guarantee that nature will continue to indicate the existence of fundamental particles the deeper we learn to look.

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Rajiv Naik said:

dark malter and dark energy combined is whooping 96 % of  our universe

 

How can I take your comments seriously when you fail to display even primary school understanding about percentages.

You cannot add two different things and obtain a valid % of anything like that combination.

Edited December 1, 2018 by studiot

[Rajiv Naik]

 

 

6 hours ago, studiot said:

 

How can I take your comments seriously when you fail to display even primary school understanding about percentages.

You cannot add two different things and obtain a valid % of anything like that combination.

 

ha ha. what was that?

 

s://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

What Is Dark Energy?

More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68%of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe 

 

[beecee]

13 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

 

more is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68%of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe 

To have worked out and observed that baryonic matter is only 5% of everything, is awesome in itself....considering how science was so hog tied in the past, and in some societies still is. We know much, and have the basic knowledge of gravity to get it to work for us to accurately with one craft, rendezvous with four planets. Yes, still much to learn, but that is improving all the time, even as we speak. 

[studiot]

One of the important lessons in Critical Thinking is to learn to recognise nonsense when you see it and also to recognise when that nonsense arises because something is poorly defined.

1) The phrase "% of the Universe" is one such phrase. A proper definition would be along the lines of "% of all the XXX in the Universe". But you can't lump "all the XXX with "all the YYY" to calculate a %. That is nonsense.

2) Most authorities hold that by far the largest part of the Universe is unoccupied space. Are you excluding that?

 

Shame on Nasa for such populist nonsense.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Shame on Nasa for such populist nonsense.

I think this is a slightly bizarre bit of pedantry. It is pretty clear what it means.  

[Rajiv Naik]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

One of the important lessons in Critical Thinking is to learn to recognise nonsense when you see it and also to recognise when that nonsense arises because something is poorly defined.

1) The phrase "% of the Universe" is one such phrase. A proper definition would be along the lines of "% of all the XXX in the Universe". But you can't lump "all the XXX with "all the YYY" to calculate a %. That is nonsense.

2) Most authorities hold that by far the largest part of the Universe is unoccupied space. Are you excluding that?

 

Shame on Nasa for such populist nonsense.

I dont understand what you are saying.

may be you are better than Nasa.

but for me  your comments are as strange as vaccume

by what I have understood most of the space is vaccume. 

The problems in understanding the true nature of the "vacuum" of space were discussed by a theoretical physicist CERN. From the point of view of cosmology, the vacuum appears to have an energy density, which is sometimes called "dark energy" or the "cosmological constant", responsible for the observed accelerated expansion of the universe. From a particle physics viewpoint, the vacuum is permeated by a "Higgs Field" - named after physicist Peter Higgs.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Rajiv Naik said:

by what I have understood most of the space is vaccume. 

So do you agree that the Universe includes the space between that atoms, between the planets, between the stars, between the galaxies as well as the atoms, planets stars and galaxies themselves?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I think this is a slightly bizarre bit of pedantry. It is pretty clear what it means.  

Bizarre or otherwise it is loose terminology that is preventing proper discussion here about the important comments to be made on dark energy and dark mass.

Since we don't know what these are we don't know if there is only one type of dark matter and dark energy or there are many and if so if the contributions are evenly spread or not.

 

This is not an idle discussion;

Consider lumped parameters (which is mathematically what dark energy and dark matter are)

The mathematical process of 'lumping' depends upon the nature of the interface between  the parts and leads to theorems such as Norton's Theorem and Thevenin's Theorem.

But these do not alwys hold good.

 

Let us consider further a bloody great circuit comprising millions of transistors with thousands of inputs and outputs.

Now let us draw a cut line (interface) across the power supply rails and note there is 'something' on the other side of that cut stabilising the power, equivalent to 10 Farads though we do not know how this is achieved, only that it is and actually many times bigger and heavier than the entire rest of the circuit.

Would you say that this lumped capacitance is 98% of the circuit?

[Strange]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Bizarre or otherwise it is loose terminology that is preventing proper discussion here about the important comments to be made on dark energy and dark mass.

So just make a more precise statement if you feel it is necessary. Why drag the thread off topic.

Rajiv has some much more basic concepts to understand before the sort of details you are talking about.

3 hours ago, Rajiv Naik said:

From a particle physics viewpoint, the vacuum is permeated by a "Higgs Field" - named after physicist Peter Higgs.

It is filled by many fields.

[Rajiv Naik]

7 hours ago, studiot said:

So do you agree that the Universe includes the space between that atoms, between the planets, between the stars, between the galaxies as well as the atoms, planets stars and galaxies themselves?

Bizarre or otherwise it is loose terminology that is preventing proper discussion here about the important comments to be made on dark energy and dark mass.

Since we don't know what these are we don't know if there is only one type of dark matter and dark energy or there are many and if so if the contributions are evenly spread or not.

 

This is not an idle discussion;

Consider lumped parameters (which is mathematically what dark energy and dark matter are)

The mathematical process of 'lumping' depends upon the nature of the interface between  the parts and leads to theorems such as Norton's Theorem and Thevenin's Theorem.

But these do not alwys hold good.

 

Let us consider further a bloody great circuit comprising millions of transistors with thousands of inputs and outputs.

Now let us draw a cut line (interface) across the power supply rails and note there is 'something' on the other side of that cut stabilising the power, equivalent to 10 Farads though we do not know how this is achieved, only that it is and actually many times bigger and heavier than the entire rest of the circuit.

Would you say that this lumped capacitance is 98% of the circuit?

you mean vaccume energy  plays role in space time   and is part of entire scheme ?

do you mean vaccume energy   intereacts with standard particle fields ?

is it not that higgs field facilitate standard model particle   fields to intereact. ?

same quations can be asked about dark matter.

how one knows that differential Calculus is sufficient to study  vast not understood  force like vaccume radiations?

you mean vaccame responsible for inflation of universe is different entity from vaccume in atoms, between planets and galaxiesin space etc.?

how vaccume energy  can be compared to building of potential in even superconducting capacitor?

 

 

 

 

[quiet]

On miércoles, 02 de agosto de 2017 at 7:43 AM, PrimalMinister said:

Where are the laws of the universe exactly?

Perhaps the thinking style of Greek philosophers of antiquity approaches your idea. Something more or less like the following.

At the level of human perception (sight, touch, etc.) each thing and each event comes from a set of causes. If we descend a little to an underlying level of the senses, some causes appear in different things and events. That is, different things and events have some common causes. Then the number of causes we need to take into account is reduced, because some causes appear in more than one thing and in more than one phenomenon.

If we continue to descend to levels less and less similar to the level of the senses, the number of causes we need to take into account is increasingly reduced.

Now let's extrapolate that observation, as the ancient Greeks extrapolated. If the chain of levels less and less similar to the senses is not infinite, then some day we will need to take into account a single cause, responsible for all things and all events. That unique cause is the law of the universe, or the set of laws of the universe, in case of not finding that everything is reduced to a single law. The law of the universe, in the terms of ancient Greek thought, exists at the most elementary level you can conceive.

From that level, by the work of the law of the universe, all things are born and all events are produced. On that level the law of the universe rules continuously, not intermittently. There is no instant without compliance with the law. On that level the law is perennial, immutable and manifests itself throughout the universe. More or less that way those Greek philosophers thought.

[Strange]

On 8/2/2017 at 11:43 AM, PrimalMinister said:

The laws of the universe seem to manifest in space when they are required and then seemingly disappear back into the same space when done. Where are the laws of the universe exactly?

Here is one answer:

Quote

there might be no fundamental law governing those phenomena — indeed, he [Wheeler] argued, that was the only scenario in which we could hope to find a self-contained physical explanation, because otherwise we’re left with an infinite regression in which any fundamental equation governing behavior needs to be accounted for by some even more fundamental principle. “In contrast to the view that the universe is a machine governed by some magic equation, … the world is a self-synthesizing system,” Wheeler argued. He called this emergence of the lawlike behavior of physics “law without law.”

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-born-rule-has-been-derived-from-simple-physical-principles-20190213/

[FreeWill]

On 8/2/2017 at 1:37 PM, Eise said:

The laws of nature are in books and in our heads. They are descriptions of how nature happens to behave when we are looking. So laws of nature are not required at all in nature itself. We need them, to understand and manipulate nature.

The Laws of Nature applied through space-time in Everything in the Universe. 

True, Humanity has an understanding about them and a best description about the Laws of Nature in books and in our head, but this understanding is not equal the governing laws of the fundamental functions in the realm we try to understand.

It is like you would say that personality is what we understand about a human individual's attributes but those attributes are not required in a Human individual at all. 

Edited May 3, 2019 by FreeWill

[michel123456]

On 8/2/2017 at 1:43 PM, PrimalMinister said:

The laws of the universe seem to manifest in space when they are required and then seemingly disappear back into the same space when done. Where are the laws of the universe exactly?

In Wikipedia.

[Eise]

On 5/3/2019 at 4:39 PM, FreeWill said:

The Laws of Nature applied through space-time in Everything in the Universe. 

I Am Always Very Suspicious When I See That People Write Certain Words With Capitals.

It is very often a sign that these people think some concepts are sacrilegious, like Universe, Laws of Nature, Religion, Science, ... Whatever. Why are you doing it?

On 5/3/2019 at 4:39 PM, FreeWill said:

True, Humanity has an understanding about them and a best description about the Laws of Nature in books and in our head, but this understanding is not equal the governing laws of the fundamental functions in the realm we try to understand.

There are no 'governing laws'. There are regularities in nature, and the descriptions of these regularities are what we call 'laws of nature'. If laws of nature would govern what happens in the universe, the question arise how they do it. Some meta-laws of nature? That possibly need meta-meta-laws to understand how the meta-laws govern the laws of nature? No, the laws of nature are our understanding of nature. Full stop.

On 5/3/2019 at 4:39 PM, FreeWill said:

It is like you would say that personality is what we understand about a human individual's attributes but those attributes are not required in a Human individual at all. 

You are entering Dangerous Terrain... 

 

[FreeWill]

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Eise said:

I Am Always Very Suspicious When I See That People Write Certain Words With Capitals.

It is very often a sign that these people think some concepts are sacrilegious, like Universe, Laws of Nature, Religion, Science, ... Whatever. Why are you doing it?

I am always very suspicious when I see that people write Every word with capitals. 

It is very often a sign that these people are irritated. 

I am doing this to emphasize the words in the sentence I think is important to get the meaning. I do this because I see tendencies that members can overlook some otherwise relevant content. For this reason, I try to write as short as it is possible, so members do not face walls of words from me. I started to use underlying and highlighting combined with the capital letters when I feel it is needed.  

 

 

1

37 minutes ago, Eise said:

here are no 'governing laws'. There are regularities in nature, and the descriptions of these regularities are what we call 'laws of nature'. If laws of nature would govern what happens in the universe, the question arise how they do it. 

Those regularities are signs of  Universal functions. They are the applied laws of nature. 

How they do it? As information-based functions distributed and applied through spacetime. 

44 minutes ago, Eise said:

You are entering Dangerous Terrain... 

The danger is part of life. What does not kill you, makes you stronger. 

p.s: I like your capital letters. I see easier the point you stress. 

[Eise]

Quote

It is very often a sign that these people are irritated.

Yep. Use italics or bold if you want, and see if this has the effect you want...

Quote

Those regularities are signs of  Universal functions. They are the applied laws of nature.

Universal functions? What are they supposed to be?

Quote

How they do it? As information-based functions distributed and applied through spacetime. 

Does that even mean something? If so, explain in more detail.