Time, The Perception of the Infinite Space of Nothing

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

The uncertainty principal relates to quantum perception of light when processes of h are broke down into biosystem understandable packets of physical data.

What, exactly is "quantum perception of light"?

How does the uncertainty principle relate to it?

What are "processes of h"?

How are they "broken down"?

What are "biosystem understandable packets of physical data"?

What is "bioelectronic perception science"?

7 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

I'm not sure how I offended you but thanks for the comments

Why do you think I am offended?

I am slightly disconcerted by your use of technical terms in apparently random ways but ...

[Nevin_III]

Quantum perception of light is how you have your 5 senses. The uncertainty principal relates to it because the most likely reason the chemical processes that relate to  act in seemingly random sequences is because our perception of it is within a biological system with millions of points of possible interference.  Processing h is as close as we can get to a 0 in science. Packets of bio data in a similar way to a bit only the data all comes from the periodic table. The next two questions are already answered within those three. You seem to think you have the high ground because you didn't grasp my poor explanation of potential time perception or the true 0 available in our known universe. I have a question for you, what field of science are you in or most intrested in?

Edited April 17, 2018 by Nevin_III

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Nevin_III said:

Quantum perception of light is how you have your 5 senses.

Well, sight perhaps. But quantum theory is not really needed to explain it. Unless you are going down to the level where all chemistry is based on quantum effects.

2 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

The uncertainty principal relates to it because the most likely reason the chemical processes that relate to  act in seemingly random sequences is because our perception of it is within a biological system with millions of points of possible interference.

What evidence do you have that chemical processes related to sight act in random ways? (If that is what you are saying. Something seems to have gone wrong half way through that sentence)

Why would these be different from other chemical reactions which are generally not very random.

4 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

Processing h is as close as we can get to a 0 in science.

What is "processing h"?

And how does it relate to "getting close to 0"?

How close we can get to zero depends on the context. For example, the lowest temperature reached is about 0.006 K (I think). The closest we can get to "time 0" in the Big Bang model is around 10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds. The upper bound on the mass of a photon is around 10^-27 eV (I think). 

How do all these relate to "processing h" (whatever that is)?

Quote

Packets of bio data in a similar way to a bit only the data all comes from the periodic table. 

What are "packets of bio data"?

How does it relate to the periodic table?

11 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

The next two questions are already answered within those three.

I'm afraid I am not getting much out of your answers. You don't seem to be explaining things in a way I can understand. I think you need to be a lot clearer - more detail, introduced in logical order) in your explanations.

Of course, it is entirely possible that I have just failed to understand. (This often happens.) Maybe others reading this will know what you mean.

12 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

You seem to think you have the high ground because you didn't grasp my poor explanation of potential time perception or the true 0 available in our known universe.

I think the fact that I haven't understood your explanations puts me at a severe disadvantage, rather than giving me the "high ground".

15 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

I have a question for you, what field of science are you in or most intrested in?

I am interested in many areas of science, but mainly physics and cosmology, I guess.

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

 How close we can get to zero depends on the context. For example, the lowest temperature reached is about 0.006 K (I think).

Less than a nanoKelvin, in a Bose-Einstein condensate.

Laser cooling can get you to a few microKelvin, which happens routinely in, say a rubidium fountain clock (to pick a random example)

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Less than a nanoKelvin, in a Bose-Einstein condensate.

Laser cooling can get you to a few microKelvin, which happens routinely in, say a rubidium fountain clock (to pick a random example)

Impressive.

[swansont]

30 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

Quantum perception of light is how you have your 5 senses. The uncertainty principal relates to it because the most likely reason the chemical processes that relate to  act in seemingly random sequences is because our perception of it is within a biological system with millions of points of possible interference.  

That seems unlikely.  The HUP means you can't measure conjugate variables to arbitrary precision at the same time, e.g. position and momentum. The rest just sounds like word salad. 

[Nevin_III]

Im not trying to sound like a genius, I'm just a big thinker that had an idea and had some success trying to explain it. The formula I was relating to is a formula used in intelligent systems, something I found in a book about abstract fractional calculus. I can't properly reference it. Just throw this thread in the trash please. 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

The formula I was relating to is a formula used in intelligent systems, something I found in a book about abstract fractional calculus.

Why not tell us what this formula was, then.

Why not try and explain your thoughts more clearly, step by step. And try to avoid terminology you have made up (like "processing h" or "bioelectronic perception"). Stick to standard terminology. If you have to introduce new terms, then define them (using standard terminology).

I assume "processing h" means something to you, but I have no idea what it means and you seem reluctant to explain what you mean. This is a little frustrating.

[Lasse]

On 2018. 04. 13. at 2:36 PM, Strange said:

It would expand anyway. Dark energy accelerates the rate of expansion.

If you go from 3D to 2D you have one fewer dimensions, not a 4th dimension. (Remember 2 is less than 3.)

The fourth dimension is time.

 

We don't know if space is finite of infinite.

Space has always been completely full of matter and energy.

 

Can there be a correlation between how big space is, and how much energy and matter is there in the system? 

Could space have weight? 

[Strange]

You shouldn't hijack other people's threads with your questions. You should start your own.

5 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Can there be a correlation between how big space is, and how much energy and matter is there in the system? 

It depends what you mean. If you mean, at the current time with the current density, then yes: the bigger space is then the more matter and energy it contains. If, instead, you are referring to space expanding over time, then the amount of matter and energy is roughly constant (dark energy may be proportional to the volume of space but it is tiny, anyway).

8 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Could space have weight?

No. How can distance have weight? How much do you think 1 metre weighs?

[Lasse]

I got a bit confused maybe but currently I see time as a linear information about how big is space (end everything in it)

I would say that space(time) is evolving with a certain rate since the first moment of existence. 

My recognition is that as big spacetime is as many energy and matter is present in it.  Where from the balance otherwise?

Sorry did not ment to. Try to understand space as I see the op too.

Can not the discussion flow for the weaker ones as well?

I am interested in the question.

 

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Lasse said:

My recognition is that as big spacetime is as many energy and matter is present in it. 

Are you suggesting that as the universe expands, more matter is created?

We know this is not the case, because the universe used to be very dense (and very hot) and now it isn't. Because it expanded.

(And you still shouldn't hijack other people's threads.)

[Lasse]

Sorry did not ment to. Try to understand space as I see the op too.

Can not the discussion flow for the weaker ones as well?

I am interested in the question.

I just drop the question I do not want to hijack if this counts like that. The opening question seemed to be about. 

 

 

[Nevin_III]

When was space very hot and very dense? What is the science behind that explanation?

The science is called sociology. The act of deeming acceptance to the higher iq individuals of the major nations to accept faith or religious views as general logic.

[Strange]

20 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

When was space very hot and very dense? What is the science behind that explanation?

Well, where do we start... 

Have you heard of the big bang theory? Should we start with Einstein or Lemaitre's solution to his equations? Or can we skip straight to the CMB?

[StringJunky]

21 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

When was space very hot and very dense? What is the science behind that explanation?

The science is called sociology. The act of deeming acceptance to the higher iq individuals of the major nations to accept faith or religious views as general logic.

It's nothing to do with IQ and blind acceptance, it's to do with peer review and being able to repeat results.

[Strange]

And it is certainly nothing to do with faith or religious views.

[Nevin_III]

Lambda 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Nevin_III

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

I just need one factual peice of evidence and i'll change my view of the sociological creation of the big bang. Lambda 

Well, assuming you are not one of those crackpots in denial about science, you can find several lines evidence here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

[Nevin_III]

Can the early effects of cmb be replicated? If so do you know any references to it? Because I think we might have different views of the same things.

I don't really question the knowledge of the people who believe in the big bang or believe in some conspiracy of its introduction lol. im just trying to learn more about the subject through its argument.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Nevin_III

[beecee]

On 4/16/2018 at 3:44 PM, Nevin_III said:

I challenge the human concept of time, all things change in time. Or the change of energy causes a change of perceivable energy to be perceived through our perception of time. An example of the concept, a meteor collides with a distant moon that is under our perception destroying it. Did the meteor destroy the moon? In human perception yes, but in reality the first time energy caused the perceivable energy and the ensuing force that came to be, caused it. From the cause of that time the moon had already been destroyed. From the first energy that caused all other energys that caused this motion. Just because a human can perceive the in human time perception energy humans perceive as the meteor contacting the moon does not make the change a result of the time of the meteor or the moon.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     To Strange, As to if space is infinite i failed to get the concept out correctly. In the universe of your perception in terms of nothing and infinite both must be true. If your perceived space ended beyond it would be in your perception nothing, if nothing was present beyond, then no matter distance in relation to anything that nothing would be infinite. Also energy as perceived could not always exist, to state something as always is to state it in our time. To speak in litteral has to be, a time of energy other than perceivable energy must exist. Because the impossibility of existence beyond infinity and nothing cant be denied in our perception of time. There is no always in human time perception time, for time itself is relevant to change. Nothing was always there, infinity and nothing were always there.             

And the Oscar for the best word salad of the day, goes to Nevin. 

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

And the Oscar for the best word salad of the day, goes to Nevin. 

It can make sense when one is intoxicated sometimes.

[beecee]

49 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

Can the early effects of cmb be replicated? If so do you know any references to it? Because I think we might have different views of the same things.

The universe/spacetime up to around 380,000 years post BB was filled with the fourth state of matter, plasma at around 3000K

 

Quote

I don't really question the knowledge of the people who believe in the big bang or believe in some conspiracy of its introduction lol. im just trying to learn more about the subject through its argument.

 People, scientists accept that the evidence points to a moment when spacetime, [as we know it] evolved from a hot dense state.

. 

[Nevin_III]

I have just one more question. What is time and why did it exist before the first motion or change, before there was a hot dence state?

[beecee]

21 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

I have just one more question. What is time and why did it exist before the first motion or change, before there was a hot dence state?

Time and space, [spacetime] as we know them, did not exist before the BB. Or probably more correctly, at this time our theories simply do not tell us anything prior to t+10-43 seconds. We don't know.