Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
This really messes with my head. Makes me believe in magic, really, or that this is all some sort of poorly-designed thought experiment that we're all in.
This article may or may not be confusing, but I won't know until I read it. And once I read it and find it to be confusing, it will remain confusing no matter how many times I read it again. Or not confusing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 19:04:22
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Ehhh - just take comfort in knowing that none of this matters and will never affect you. There are some real logical paradoxes going on in quantum mechanics right now. I am not a genius but I think we have some very fundamental things wrong right now. We still don't know what causes gravity...but we are looking for a theory of everything. Seems premature.
That data we are getting from study is just so absurd that it might as well be static. These guys will literally tell you that empty space is actually full of gigantic antimatter explosions but at the same time it is not...
Plus they just can't get over the fact that space is flat - meaning the universe can not be infinite. Their heads are in the clouds man.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 21:53:06
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Xenomancers wrote: Plus they just can't get over the fact that space is flat - meaning the universe can not be infinite. Their heads are in the clouds man.
If you look close enough to can easily see the curvature of the Universe; silly Flat Space theorists.
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
Xenomancers wrote: Ehhh - just take comfort in knowing that none of this matters and will never affect you. There are some real logical paradoxes going on in quantum mechanics right now. I am not a genius but I think we have some very fundamental things wrong right now. We still don't know what causes gravity...but we are looking for a theory of everything. Seems premature.
That data we are getting from study is just so absurd that it might as well be static. These guys will literally tell you that empty space is actually full of gigantic antimatter explosions but at the same time it is not...
Plus they just can't get over the fact that space is flat - meaning the universe can not be infinite. Their heads are in the clouds man.
It does matter. It does affect you (since you, and everything else you can see is made up of atoms, which behave according to quantum mechanics). These are the fundamental forces of the universe. Understanding them is much more important and useful than knowing that the universe is flat and finite, which is mostly useless trivia (and technically, the universe itself is infinite, it is the observable volume that is finite).
Just because it seems absurd does not mean that it is not tot true or not important.
Also, we do have a hypothesis about what causes gravity. Thanks to quantum physics actually. If you want to really understand gravity you will need to look at it on a quantum level.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 22:51:09
Is there a site I can read more about stuff like this but in a much easier to understand way? I've studied a little bit of physics at college, but dropped it and would like to learn a bit more. Spin for example, doesn't seem to really explain what it actually is, just that it can be up or down.
Though I am of course not an expert on the matter, I lean towards the opinion that certian widely believed parts of physics are simply wrong, including quantum physics. This is because some scientists have seemingly forgoten the most basic philosophical principles in physics. You see, science is founded on the unproveable principle of non contradiction, meaning that if something is contradictory with something else, one of the two statements must be false. Often when talking with people when the subject of physics comes up people say that "science has proven x" even though x would break the principle of non contradiction, and if it did then that would mean that science itself is false, and if that were the case then the original statement also couldn't have been proven by science.
Well, yes. Ask a quantum physicist or a cosmologist and they'll agree; relativity and quantum mechanics are both "wrong", in that they contradict one another. The fact that they're wrong is what keeps them in a job.
However, they both do exceedingly well ad predicting things within their "area", so any theory that is "right" will need to agree with quantum mechanics on the very small scale and with relativity on the large. Like how Newtonian mechanics is wrong at high velocities, but is a very good approximation to relativity at lower speeds.
Xenomancers wrote: Ehhh - just take comfort in knowing that none of this matters and will never affect you. There are some real logical paradoxes going on in quantum mechanics right now. I am not a genius but I think we have some very fundamental things wrong right now. We still don't know what causes gravity...but we are looking for a theory of everything. Seems premature.
That data we are getting from study is just so absurd that it might as well be static. These guys will literally tell you that empty space is actually full of gigantic antimatter explosions but at the same time it is not...
Plus they just can't get over the fact that space is flat - meaning the universe can not be infinite. Their heads are in the clouds man.
I thought large amounts of mass creates gravity, that's why large objects like stars, planets, etc are able to pull things towards them. I think even small objects still have gravitational pull it's just it's so small that's mostly unnoticeable.
FIrst of all, this article (the proper source one, not the linked one) is not an experimental result, it is merely a thought experiment, in which authors themselves point out, that the "setup" they propose is unrealistic. From all my experience with thought experiments within philosophy, they are usually similar in their value to contemplating division by zero 'paradoxes' in high school level math course.
In this very case, two probable causes for such "mind bending result" exist: one pointed out in the paper, that quantum level of description has upper scale level of aplicability, and that is in line with what majority of quantum physicist actually agree with, as superposition and entanglement have not yet been observed in macroscopic systems, and thus nothing new or mind bending at all The second one is poor design of this thought experiment itself, based on assumptions, that isolating individual observers and connecting them all to the same quantum state is even doable in the first place.
The paper thus seem to be a typical "we need to publish anything to not lose the grant" exercise in futility.
But it is very low on my list of the most invalid thought experiments, the highest scoring to date are "Mary's room", "Chinese room" and most of all the reasoning behind validity of p-zombies as an argument in discussion about qualia and so called "hard problem" of consciousness. While all of those are unrelated to quantum physics they nicely show how prevalent such flawed tools of reasoning are in phiilosophy. And do remember how long it took humanity to deal with Achilles and his tortoise...
NinthMusketeer wrote: I am not sure if he is being sarcastic about space being flat.
No I mean it is flat the literal geometric sense as in - not curved. The geometry of the universe is Euclidean - based on all the data collected. Yet - ever "major" theory involving the "shape" of the universe is non Euclidean.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Xenomancers wrote: I am not a genius but I think we have some very fundamental things wrong right now. We still don't know what causes gravity...but we are looking for a theory of everything. Seems premature.
This is where I'm at, in the sense that we almost certainly have some stuff very, very wrong.
One of the coolest classes I had in college was a "History of Science" class, where the professor went through universally accepted theories that were absolutely, 100% wrong (but made complete sense to people / were an explanation for a phenomenon... just not the right one!).
I think things like dark matter should fall into this category. It explains something, but is it the right explanation?
It will be very interesting to look back years from now and see if our theories look quaint, just like those from the past do
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/20 13:43:59
Xenomancers wrote: Ehhh - just take comfort in knowing that none of this matters and will never affect you. There are some real logical paradoxes going on in quantum mechanics right now. I am not a genius but I think we have some very fundamental things wrong right now. We still don't know what causes gravity...but we are looking for a theory of everything. Seems premature.
That data we are getting from study is just so absurd that it might as well be static. These guys will literally tell you that empty space is actually full of gigantic antimatter explosions but at the same time it is not...
Plus they just can't get over the fact that space is flat - meaning the universe can not be infinite. Their heads are in the clouds man.
I thought large amounts of mass creates gravity, that's why large objects like stars, planets, etc are able to pull things towards them. I think even small objects still have gravitational pull it's just it's so small that's mostly unnoticeable.
We know that things that have mass create gravity. We don't know why. We don't know if it's a particle we haven't discovered. We don't know it's relation to other forces. Plus at the quantum level - gravity basically doesn't exist. We know very little about it.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Power Elephant wrote: Though I am of course not an expert on the matter, I lean towards the opinion that certian widely believed parts of physics are simply wrong, including quantum physics. This is because some scientists have seemingly forgoten the most basic philosophical principles in physics. You see, science is founded on the unproveable principle of non contradiction, meaning that if something is contradictory with something else, one of the two statements must be false. Often when talking with people when the subject of physics comes up people say that "science has proven x" even though x would break the principle of non contradiction, and if it did then that would mean that science itself is false, and if that were the case then the original statement also couldn't have been proven by science.
Contradictions, or rather seeming contradictions, are not necessarily false though. That is a fallacy. Just because something appears contradictory doesn't mean that it actually is. The assumption that widely believed parts of physics are "simply wrong" is quite frankly an insult to the scientific community. All widely believed parts of physics have been thoroughly tested and verified through the scientific method, so what you are essentially saying is "the scientific method is wrong". Which would invalidate all science.
Xenomancers wrote: I am not a genius but I think we have some very fundamental things wrong right now. We still don't know what causes gravity...but we are looking for a theory of everything. Seems premature.
This is where I'm at, in the sense that we almost certainly have some stuff very, very wrong.
One of the coolest classes I had in college was a "History of Science" class, where the professor went through universally accepted theories that were absolutely, 100% wrong (but made complete sense to people / were an explanation for a phenomenon... just not the right one!).
I think things like dark matter should fall into this category. It explains something, but is it the right explanation?
It will be very interesting to look back years from now and see if our theories look quaint, just like those from the past do
I'm sure we will make some pretty amazing discoveries in the next 50 years that will have a dramatic affect on how we view the universe and I doubt it looks anything like the current popular theories suggest. Just looking at the history of astro physics, itis a given.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
I don't click on links in topics but from the title maybe the universe hates you (or more to the point you hate yourself). Perception of the universe and its molecules can affect being, maybe hippyish, but I believe perception of life affects life, perception of being affects being. You are what you are, you can be what can imagine.
14k Generic Space Marine Chapters
20k Deathwatch
10k Sisters of Battle
3k Inquisition
4k Grey Knights
5k Imperial Guard
4k Harlequins
8k Tau
Xenomancers wrote: Plus they just can't get over the fact that space is flat - meaning the universe can not be infinite. Their heads are in the clouds man.
If you look close enough to can easily see the curvature of the Universe; silly Flat Space theorists.
Xenomancers wrote: Ehhh - just take comfort in knowing that none of this matters and will never affect you. There are some real logical paradoxes going on in quantum mechanics right now. I am not a genius but I think we have some very fundamental things wrong right now. We still don't know what causes gravity...but we are looking for a theory of everything. Seems premature.
That data we are getting from study is just so absurd that it might as well be static. These guys will literally tell you that empty space is actually full of gigantic antimatter explosions but at the same time it is not...
Plus they just can't get over the fact that space is flat - meaning the universe can not be infinite. Their heads are in the clouds man.
It does matter. It does affect you (since you, and everything else you can see is made up of atoms, which behave according to quantum mechanics). These are the fundamental forces of the universe. Understanding them is much more important and useful than knowing that the universe is flat and finite, which is mostly useless trivia (and technically, the universe itself is infinite, it is the observable volume that is finite).
Just because it seems absurd does not mean that it is not tot true or not important.
Also, we do have a hypothesis about what causes gravity. Thanks to quantum physics actually. If you want to really understand gravity you will need to look at it on a quantum level.
"and technically, the universe itself is infinite"
How do we suppose that though?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/20 14:16:24
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
"and technically, the universe itself is infinite"
How do we suppose that though?
I think he just means it in the symantics sense, that all of space and time and their contents makes the universe and anything discovered beyond those bounds that still meet that rule would expand the definition of the term, and what we previously believed to be the entire universe would get a new name.
Language is fickle though, the opposite could also happen.
There are actually different theories for finite and infinite universe models.
Yeah, the universe is infinite by definition. "Universe" literally means "everything", the definition of the universe is that it contains everything, therefore it is literally impossible that something could exist yet not be part of the universe. There is no such thing as "beyond the universe". It is not like there is a border or edge to the universe, which is a common misconception of people who hear about theories about finite/infinite universe, which refers whether the universe has a limited or unlimited volume, not whether it has an edge or not that you could hypothetically go beyond.
It bears mentioning though that these theories are not very solid. A flat, infinite universe is what is currently the most widely accepted theory since it corresponds with what has been observed so far, but the evidence is so scarce that even a single discovery could change that.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, the universe is infinite by definition. "Universe" literally means "everything", the definition of the universe is that it contains everything, therefore it is literally impossible that something could exist yet not be part of the universe. There is no such thing as "beyond the universe". It is not like there is a border or edge to the universe, which is a common misconception of people who hear about theories about finite/infinite universe, which refers whether the universe has a limited or unlimited volume, not whether it has an edge or not that you could hypothetically go beyond.
It bears mentioning though that these theories are not very solid. A flat, infinite universe is what is currently the most widely accepted theory since it corresponds with what has been observed so far, but the evidence is so scarce that even a single discovery could change that.
"A flat, infinite universe is what is currently the most widely accepted theory since it corresponds with what has been observed so far, but the evidence is so scarce that even a single discovery could change that."
True - we could discover that space is curved in the future but given how large the observable universe is (92 Billion light years across). If we can't detect curvature in a sample that is so large it boggles comprehension - we probably never will. If we did though that would change a lot.
"There is no such thing as "beyond the universe"."
The universe seems to do some strange things if it actually is "everything there is". For instance - it is expanding - in the past it's condense and exploded. Logically I think there must be some kind of void or medium in which the universe exists.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder