Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: A Blessed Easter to all of you !

By: Decomposed in 6TH POPE | Recommend this post (0)
Mon, 10 Apr 23 9:19 AM | 48 view(s)
Boardmark this board | 6th Edition Pope Board 		Msg. 41713 of 60008
(This msg. is a reply to 41711 by Fiz)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

fizzy:

Re: “Neither of your other hypotheses have a SHRED of physical evidence to back them up...”There's a ton of evidence. It's just that the "dots" can't be pieced together in a way that everyone accepts. It's rather like walking outside one day and seeing your car smashed in. There's physical evidence that something hit it but that doesn't tell us how... or why... or who.

"Many worlds" and "Copenhagen" both encapsulate all of quantum reality, but neither tries to fully account for "why" such behavior happens or even allow for experiments that might distinguish one theory from the other. In that sense, the two theories are incomplete and unsatisfying. So, does the Penrose theory paint as broad a picture while explaining some things that the other two do not?

There IS room for a better theory. For instance, quantum electrodynamics (QED) provides a model for strong nuclear interaction. The theory's results are perfect and give physicists everything they could wish. The trouble is, the math depends on a constant, known electron mass, but electron mass is absolutely unknowable due to the clouds of virtual particles that surround them, particles which constantly swim in and out of existence. Attempts to account for that in the math lead to the division of infinity by infinity, making the results meaningless. So physicists just ignore the reality and plug in the electron mass they wish electrons had - which works splendidly even though un-fudged math says the theory is wrong.

Does Penrose's theory account for baffling defects - like that one - in the other two, while continuing to support ALL the quantum weirdnesses that have been identified? (They're in the categories of: • Uncertainty, • Complementarity, • Probability, and • The disturbance of the system being observed by the observer.) If so, I'd definitely like to learn more.

BTW, I'll own up to the fact that my 'knowledge' is from a forty year old (but still very good) book. My impression though is that advances in quantum theory slowed substantially with the cold war and never recovered. In other words, I hope most of the flaws that existed in 1984 have now been eliminated, but I kind of doubt it.







Avatar

Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: A Blessed Easter to all of you !
By: Fiz in 6TH POPE
Mon, 10 Apr 23 2:48 AM 		Msg. 41711 of 60008

I think there is a huge gulf between direct experience and just taking another person's explanation as gospel. I like to think that the age of "religion" is behind us but the age of "spirituality" (based on direct experience and not just another charismatic Jim Jones figure) may be ahead.

Just my two cents in a deep well.

One other point: trying to explain everything away with physics always ends at a point of "just give me one free miracle". There are other hypotheses, De, beyond the two you mentioned. Roger Penrose has posited one in which the universe at the end cycles back (becomes indistinguishable from bing bang conditions in physics terms) into another universe.

And if THAT's what is happening, it curiously resembles what Indian mystics described as the cosmic "origin" thousands of years ago, based upon their direct experience in Samadhi. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cosmology)

But Penrose claims there is actually experimental evidence for his hypothesis in the non-uniformity of the cosmic background radiation (Hawking Points). This evidence contradicts the Multiverse hypothsis, and also says that the Big Bang isn't the beginning.

Neither of your other hypotheses have a SHRED of physical evidence to back them up (edit: other than cosmic expansion)...just replacing a purposeful universe with a great shrug of the shoulders, IMO. I'd say, at this point, Penrose is arguably THE greatest living physicist. More to the point, he is the only living physicist I am aware of who clearly has evidenced the sort of supernaturally deep, disruptive genius we saw in Einstein, Dirac, and Feynman (those three were like space aliens;-).

Beyond Penrose, all the notably living others are really smart -- but IMO not insanely genius/great (http://academicinfluence.com/rankings/people/most-influential-physicists-today#thorne). Penrose is very old now, but his hypothesis and other major contributions came to him many decades ago when he was tolerably young; only the evidence is more recent.

“It’s almost as if science said, “Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation.”’17 The one free miracle was the sudden appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe, with all the laws that govern it.”

― Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry


« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next