Is Einstein Untouchable?

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 16, 2005

@DanIKo: I came upon a very interesting paper online by a Boston Univ physicist Ed Fredkin. A few points he made are: 1) The universe is digital. A giant computer. The laws of physics are mere 'Information Processing'. [finally someone has related the universe with my field. HAHAHA]. 2) Our universe may be a part [or one of the many] of a giant computer run by and from outside this universe. 3) The purpose of this universe may be to process Information and get an answer, just as we use our computers to receive a result. [this was also my inkling]. 4) Although he did not say this exactly, he hinted the reason we get Infinity and singularity in our theories is because our Mathematics is Analog, not Digital. For example, calculus. [this is exactly true] 5) In the paper you find words like 'digital mechanics', 'finite nature', etc. Anyone interested in this type of topic can read the paper at this link: http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/new_cosmogony.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

bonzelite · Oct 17, 2005

i started reading the digital philosophy stuff. so far it's pretty interesting. and fresh. i'll keep reading it so i can actually talk about it.

daniko · Oct 17, 2005

Hi emperor_of_localgroup I hope using LARGE letters does not mean you make fun of me <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> In your perception of Time you presume it has "discrete" nature as stated in the article you pointed later. I'm not quite convinced about that discreteness. All the example given in the part "Finite Nature" are about the "composite" nature of the matter not the "discrete" nature. We can't say yet what's on the bottom of the material universe (discrete or continuous). I'll try to explain more my way of seeing the Information: ---- If we seek basic definition of the Information in the Matterial Universe: - /> "It's a trace in the matter left by the reason-effect sequences that happened before the moment of Information consumption (perception)" This is a Matter-Born definition for the Information. On the other hand it's too incomplete, because it cannot explain why Information has the ability to organize matter in complex, self-replicating, self-modifying, self-conscious structures. It is like to say thet Earth is the center of the Universe and to try to explain the path of the planets. I think that we find Information through Matter so our knowledge is Matter-Born but it must not be Matter-Bound. This is a picture that really brings the feeling of a Great Computer, but it is not like our silicon "fixed" computers. It's more like that Matter is the "computational soup" where you pour some "Information" which wraps itself with matter and starts to self-replicate. Information has ability to complicate the basic physical rules of the "computational soup" (Matter).

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 18, 2005

/sigh Hi all. Hi stevewh33. So, I go away for a few weeks/months, come back to the board, see an interesting thread title, click on it and find the biggest jumble of gobbly-**** pseudojunk posted by people who don't have the first clue as to the definition of "matter" (whatever that is), mass, energy, particles or that little rubber thing on the end of pencils that you can magically remove previously written script with. Other threads that center around physics/cosmology/theory seem to yield similar results. Sure, SDC isn't an acredited-only community, but for some reason, I seem to remember more substantive discussions of such topics in the past. Has my memory failed me? Am I deluding myself? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

robnissen · Oct 18, 2005

I wish you were wrong, but I fear you are right. The discussions in the past were much more substantive than today. For some reason, the "woo-woo" crowd has decided to take over this forum. Exploding planets, civilization on Mars; spaceships traveling at multiples of c; and the numerous conspiracies by NASA et al. to keep the public from knowing the "truth" are ruining this board. This title of this thread is a prime example: "Is Einstein Untouchable?" The answer to that is clearly no, as neither Newton, nor any who came before is "untouchable." But as any good scientists knows, the way to prove Einstein wrong, is to run a repeatable experiment that falsifies one of Einstein's conclusions, and then publish the data in a peer-reviewed publication. But that is not what the 'woo-woo" crowd wants to do. Instead, their idea of a scientific argument is to say, "Einstein says you can't go faster than light, I say you can, and if you disagree with me its only because you think Einstein is untouchable." Sigh. I wish these types would go back to their corn fields and wait for the UFOs to land.

daniko · Oct 19, 2005

@RobNissen & @a_lost_packet_: I think this is "off topic". You may open a topic under title: "I'm too inteligent to be me". There you could complain for all the stupidity of the world <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Yes there are some who like to just make statements without any brain efforts, but not all. I always admire the way @Saiph reacts to such statements - patiently explaining.

chew_on_this · Oct 19, 2005

Apparently steves arrogance is contagious.

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 19, 2005

First of all, no, using large letters does not mean making fun, it is simply an attempt to separate your comments from my responses. I have to disagree with you. More and more it appears the structure of the universe is discrete. If everything is continuous, then there is no building blocks, but we see all mattters have building blocks, even energy is discrete. Following that lines, it will not be something outrageous to say 'space' and 'time' are also discrete. My personal guess is, 'space' is not continuous, and there is a latency in each 'cell' (cant find a better word) of the space. This latency may be the cause of speed limt, or other limitations in nature. It's a trace in the matter left by the reason-effect sequences that happened before the moment of Information consumption (perception) This is the same idea I expressed previously but in another form. "The moment of info perception" is what I called 'present' and is not well defined. it cannot explain why Information has the ability to organize matter in complex, self-replicating, self-modifying, self-conscious structures. My thought here is somewhat different. In my opinion at this moment, it is the organized matter that creates info, not the other way around. but it is not like our silicon "fixed" computers. It's more like that Matter is the "computational soup" where you pour some "Information" It will be not very unusual to think that 'info' is the software (program) that runs the universe (great computer). But what I have been thinking lately is it is the properties of matter that governs the universe. Your 'info' may be the same as my 'properties of matter'. Similarity, when it comes to info processing, between a CPU, a human, and the universe are very interesting. The difference is we humans control our processing sequence and actions, whereas, a CPU can't, it relies on external input(softwar <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

j_rankin · Oct 19, 2005

I've always interpreted the connection between mass and velocity as follows: - Think of the well-known example of relativity with the elastic fabric of space, where objects warp space like a well. Well i figured that the faster an object was travelling, the quicker it would bend and stretch that fabric, causing a faster attraction from surrounding objects and therefore greater mass. Am i right?

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 19, 2005

I can see a few people here at SDC are upset. Their outbursts may have the similar tone as the outbursts of medieval churches issued when anyone challenged their accepted views. [I admit, its not totally the same]. Accepting a theory without asking questions, just because it came from a better intellect (or medieval church head) is, in my opinion unhealthy for human spirits. If SDC is supposed to follow only the textbooks, then I guess many of us must remain quiet and accept whatever are fed into us [reminds me the movie Logan's Run] If anyone here in SDC is a student, I strongly suggest you strictly follow the textbooks (grades matter). Once you graduate, let your imagination run loose. Remember the phrase, "great discoveries are made by bending the rules not by following the rules". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

drwayne · Oct 19, 2005

"Accepting a theory without asking questions" I know I have never advocated such. However, some circumspection is also in order before one lets loose with the fruits of ones imagination. It is first important to realize, really realize that the people who have come before you (including those that write textbooks) were not stupid, and they were hardly all slavish followers of convention. So, starting your thought process, as one link I saw this morning did, by assuming "Science has turned a blind eye" to something is probably starting down the wrong road from the start. And be particularly - cautious - about asserting or even thinking mentally that you are the first person to ever really think about this correctly. Odds are, you are not, on both counts. Now, you may in fact have an original insight into something. Cool. You should endeavor to use the scientific method to examine your insights in an organized and logical way. There is a method in taking things from idea, to hypoothesis to theory that is really quite effective. It is not to be confused with the methods of some who rely on throwing words around that they may or may not even understand and trying to argue your idea into acceptance. As a tangential note, you should NOT, no matter how imaginiative you think yourself to be, feel comfortable using terms you do not understand. An example in a recent conversation was someone who asserted that (in essense) speed and velocity were both vectors, the only differerence was that velocity has direction. Now, if you really know math and physics, you know that this statement is - badly wrong. Yet the person in question was not even embarassed to find out they were using the term incorrectly. In science, terms like speed and velocity have definitions and meanings. They do NOT mean whatever someone's "creative" thought process happens to think they do. Finally, realize that to replace a theory wit <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

robnissen · Oct 19, 2005

I could not have said this any better. The only thing I would add is that there is nothing wrong with speculation. One of the current threads here is speculating about teleporting. It is an entertaining read, and who knows maybe some day some of the speculations will be proven correct. That's where I part company with Stevehw, who, for example, believes that speculating about the existence of simple life, past or present on Mars, Europa, etc., is somehow wrong, and unscientific. But speculation is very different from attacking and claiming that "they" (whoever 'they" are) are deliberately hiding the truth, or saying that "Einstein was wrong, I am right." That is just tiresome.

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 20, 2005

drwayne, very interesting indeed. Here is a secret, I dont know how many other SDC members do this. When I talk to non-scientific people, whether in person or online, I whole heartedly defend quantum mechanics, relativity, all scientific theories in general, even (though less enthusiastically) blackholes and big bang, following the textbooks word by word.But when I'm among scientific people, such as in SDC, I have to raise questions on theories which require more satisfactory explanations. It is interesting to note, throughout human history, probably in every century or half century, people thought and claimed to be the most intelligent and Know The Truth Exactly. Even in 1800s, if I remember it correctly, some scienctists claimed they know exactly how the unvierse works. If it is true that all todays theories are correct, big bang is bigbang, blackholes are blackholes, quasars are quasars, origin or the universe does not matter, can you imagine how bored the scientists will be in the year 5000 ( or even 3000+)? I dont know about others, I'm a futurist. My thoughts and remarks are not confined by the findings of only todays theories - they are extrapolated. Yes, one scientific theory must follow previously verified scientific theories. This surely eliminates mistakes, but this also directs all scientists in One Direction whether that direction will lead us to the ultimate truth or not. Alternative directions or even new topics are not pursued or encouraged, and many scientist will be reluctant to pursue alternative direction/new topics because of lack of previous research. And anyone with little bit of knowledge in science can separate the high school kids post, who do not know the difference between speed and velocity or other scientific facts, from other SDC users, and respond appropriately. We must encourage these high school kids to post to be interested and stay interested in science. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

drwayne · Oct 20, 2005

These days, I don't think you will find too many scientists who will claim we know exactly how a toaster works. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> "Yes, one scientific theory must follow previously verified scientific theories." Not at all. An hypothesis can go in a completely different direction. There is no requirement that it be a refinement of something that exists. The only requirement ... Maybe there is a better word than that - is that one understand the nature of prediction and result, both for their hypothesis, and for existing theory. This forms the basis for the payoff function that evaluates the hypothesis. There is nothing in the discipline of the scientific method that requires one to follow convention in constructing ones hypothesis. The method just provides a logical path for evalauting the correctness of the hypothesis (note I did not say prove). Wayne p.s. In my experience, most top research scientists were iconoclasts, loving to mess with the established system. They can be a *very* cut-throat bunch - with for little respect for one another. That is why I derive humor from those who suggest such a herd mentality for scientists. That ain't the folks I know.

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

daniko · Oct 21, 2005

@emperor_of_localgroup: "In my opinion at this moment, it is the organized matter that creates info, not the other way around." I see - that is the point where we differ. I tryed to elaborate on the idea of Information influencing Matter. I think that this influence is on quantum level. According to my limited knowledge of quantum physics the models that represent all quantum processes are probabilistic. From every quantum state there are several different outcomes with different probabilities to really happen. One of them is most probable and others are substantially less probable. If many-many experiments are conducted with this quantum state all of the outcomes will happen. Here I'll make direct analogy with that how the concentration of matter distorts (twists) timespace continuum (gravitational distortion): ->My assumption is that bigger concentrations of Info in single volume of matter distorts the probability levels of the outcomes from the tested quantum state. That makes some of less probable outcomes to happen more often while reducing the frequency of other outcomes. Thatway not breaking any general physical laws, the Information affects the future outcome of reason-effect sequences. An indirect confirmation of this idea for me is the stability of Life. It is possible to calculate how insignificant is the probability as a result of the Big Bang to be created a DNA molecule. But after first forms of life are spowned - instead of dissipation we see accelerating complication of chemical construction that Life produces. As more complicated is a chemical construction as less probable it is to spown. But as we see Life never stops complicating <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> .

nojocujo · Oct 21, 2005

Does the equation E=MC^2 only relate to the energy conversion at the PROTON/NEUTRON level? Would there be an additional energy conversion relative to the disassembly of the proton, neutron or any particle with mass to the quark level and subsets below? Could a supernova, GRB and XRF's be the result of a relativistic collapse of a star and the resulting gluonic assembly? fusion reaction? Does the energy conversion at this level violate E=MC^2? Was the big bang the result of a gluonic fission reaction or the subset holding quarks together? Was this reaction responsible for inflation?

Saiph · Oct 21, 2005

it doesn't care what form the mass is in. If the conversion between particle types does not conserve mass, the energy is supplied by that equation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nojocujo · Oct 22, 2005

Quarks didn't exist at the time. Just kinda find it hard to believe that he figgered that too! The relationships and the energy levels differ for a proton/neutron reaction fission /fusion and to disassemble a proton or neutron or reassemble quarks in a different state. I think that is why he was trying to come up with a theory of everything. Or read the mind of god! He didn't liike what he had come up with but at the time but it was the best thing going with the data available. He is turning over inhis grave over dark energy I think!

Saiph · Oct 22, 2005

Well, he doesn't really need to figure what specific particles are there. The way the equation is derived doesn't involve them at all, and so that information is "irrelevant" to the outcome. Sorta like how the color of an object doesn't affect how it interacts with gravity. Information that isn't required to produce an outcome, is irrelevant. E=mc^2 doesn't care about composition, merely the total mass and energy of the system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Oct 22, 2005

E=mc^2 doesn't care about composition, merely the total mass and energy of the system. That is a perplexing problem indeed, but it works pretty good as a localized event, so why fix it, if it is not broke. However, if you want travel to the nearest star then you best fix it before you go. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Oh, and while your at it, you best fix (F = ma) too. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

nojocujo · Oct 22, 2005

Does the energy released as a result of the splitting of proton/neutrons in nuclear fission equal E=MC^2. If there are reactions that are subsets i.e. quark disassembly/reassembly requiring higher energies is the equation still the same E=MC^2?

Saiph · Oct 23, 2005

Yes for the first one, and likely for the second one. When protons turn into neutrons (or vice versa) mass is not conserved, there is a difference between the mass of a neutron and that of proton. When the mass is not conserved, the resulting energy makes up the difference. Hence energy is not conserved, mass is not conserved, but both mass and energy are conserved (i.e. the total of both will, at all times, be the same). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

drwayne · Oct 23, 2005

Note that there is a neutrino or an anti-neutrino (depending on the direction of the operation) generated in the process. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

jatslo · Oct 23, 2005

Quark's are hypothetical, and I have reason to believe that helium resides in the core of most everything, which is a consequence of one unify theorem. Including and not limited to life as we know it. A quark is another name for something that we do not quite understand as of yet.

drwayne · Oct 23, 2005

Warning - QCD is not something you can be casually aware of and really understand. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

Is Einstein Untouchable?

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

daniko

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

robnissen

Guest

daniko

Guest

chew_on_this

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

j_rankin

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

drwayne

Guest

robnissen

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

drwayne

Guest

daniko

Guest

nojocujo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nojocujo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

nojocujo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

drwayne

Guest

jatslo

Guest

drwayne

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page