Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[ratiocinator]

More Newtonian ancient view of science.

Misrepresentation is dishonest and doesn't answer the question. I'd love to know what you thought was 'Newtonian' in my post. Do you think asking for experimental or observational confirmation is Newtonian in some way?

Newton was wrong. We didn't know that until the relevant theories were tested against observation and experiment.

I take it from your empty bluster that you can't cite experimental or observational confirmation for the hypothesis you quoted? Do you actually understand the difference between hypothesis and theory?

 

[Polymath257]

More Newtonian ancient view of science.

Not really. He is asking for observational confirmation of the ideas you presented as accepted science. That isn't a Newtonian view. That is the scientific view.

 

[Polymath257]

Quantum Mechanics describes the smallest scale world with no continuous time/space or gravity. Particles come and go in this boundless matrix that underlies our space/time univeerse.

No, it actually doesn't. The current best theories are on a continuous spacetime manifold. There is no 'matrix' (I would challenge you to find one scientific paper that uses that word in this context).

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, you don't seem to understand what theoretical physics is.

I do not believe anyone on this forum agrees with your view of theoretical physics much less your distorted view of science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not believe anyone on this forum agrees with your view of theoretical physics much less your distorted view of science.

Well, just answer @Polymath257

 

[Polymath257]

shunyadragon said:

Chronon - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org
A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a hypothesis that proposes that time is not continuous. In simple language, a chronon is the smallest, discrete, non-decomposable unit of time in a temporal data model.

So, this is a *proposed* hypothesis. Where is any actual observational evidence given for it?

It is clearly a hypothesis that has been supported by by observations of time in Quantum Mechanics.

No, that is neither what was written, nor is it actually the case. This is a *hypothesis*, but it is quite far from being accepted science. In fact, I am reasonably conversant with quantum theory and this is the first time I have heard of this hypothesis (although the term chronon is one I have come across before as, again, a hypothesis).

You failed to present any alternatives that Quantum time is not supported by the evidence.

Not how things work. You need to present the evidence that supports it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not really. He is asking for observational confirmation of the ideas you presented as accepted science. That isn't a Newtonian view. That is the scientific view.

Actually there are hundreds of research publications and projects like the hydron collider that support the hypothesis. The proposals for the predictive properties of Quantum Mechanics hypothesis began over 100 years ago and the predictions have been confirmed in many aspects. This is what is not being considered in the Newtonian demands of evidence.

Yes there are still many unanswered questions and problems with the hypothesis and theories related to the subject, bur the nonsense accusations involve the claim there is no evidence to support the hypothesis concerning the nature of the smallest scale Quantum world being without continuous time/space, and the gravity of large scale world of our universe,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, this is a *proposed* hypothesis. Where is any actual observational evidence given for it?

No, that is neither what was written, nor is it actually the case. This is a *hypothesis*, but it is quite far from being accepted science. In fact, I am reasonably conversant with quantum theory and this is the first time I have heard of this hypothesis (although the term chronon is one I have come across before as, again, a hypothesis).

Not how things work. You need to present the evidence that supports it.

Well, you both use different norms for what science is. That is the sociology of science. You are both humans as per nature and nurture and you have different norms for what science is. I have a 3rd version of those norms. That is the evidence that science is dependent on what norms are accepted. So you do natural science and math. And I will do sociology and if needed human science on us both.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, this is a *proposed* hypothesis. Where is any actual observational evidence given for it?

No, that is neither what was written, nor is it actually the case. This is a *hypothesis*, but it is quite far from being accepted science. In fact, I am reasonably conversant with quantum theory and this is the first time I have heard of this hypothesis (although the term chronon is one I have come across before as, again, a hypothesis).

Not how things work. You need to present the evidence that supports it.

Based on the response here you are in the same Newtonian leaky boat of demanding 'evidence in the ancient school of science ignoring over 100 years of research and discoveries involving Quantum Mechanics, including the Industrial and commercial applications of the properties of the smallest scale Quantum Mechanics.

Do you believe there is NO evidence ro support the hypothesis concerning the smallest scale nature of Quantum Mechanics as having no continuous time/space and gravity like in our large scale time/space universe?

 

[Polymath257]

Actually there are hundreds of research publications and projects like the hydron collider that support the hypothesis. The proposals for the predictive properties of Quantum Mechanics hypothesis began over 100 years ago and the predictions have been confirmed in many aspects. This is what is not being considered in the Newtonian demands of evidence.

Yes, quantum mechanics is well established. It is one of the best supported theories in all of science.

But that is not the issue at hand. YOUR description of what QM says is not accurate. No standard textbook in QM uses the term 'chronon'. NONE of them use the term 'quantum matrix'.

QM, as currently understood, passes the *scientific* demands for evidence (not the Newtonian ones). And it is those demands that are being raised for your version of chronons and a quantum matrix.

Yes there are still many unanswered questions and problems with the hypothesis and theories related to the subject, bur the nonsense accusations involve the claim there is no evidence to support the hypothesis concerning the nature of the smallest scale Quantum world being without continuous time/space, and the gravity of large scale world of our universe,

Well, the current best theory, the standard model, has a continuous spacetime as the background geometry. The possibility of quantized space and time is one that arises in quantum gravity, but no theory of quantum gravity is currently testable and so none are deemed 'current science'.

 

[Polymath257]

Based on the response here you are in the same Newtonian leaky boat of demanding 'evidence in the ancient school of science ignoring over 100 years of research and discoveries involving Quantum Mechanics, including the Industrial and commercial applications of the properties of the smallest scale Quantum Mechanics.

No, I am quite happy with Quantum Mechanics. And I agree that it is, by far, the best supported theory in physics we have ever had.

What I disagree with is YOUR description of what QM says. The fact of the matter is that what you present as QM is a fringe theory at best.

Yes, there is plenty of evidence for QM, as you say. It supports everything from solid state theory (for computers) to understanding how the sun works.

BUT, the terms chronon and quantum matrix are NOT standard QM. The chronon idea is being investigated (in essence, it replaces a differential equation by a difference equation), but it is quite far from being supported by the evidence currently. I found 10 papers on arxiv.org that mention chronons. All were pure theory, none were observational.

And the fact that there are only 10 papers in the last 26 years alone says that it is quite far from being 'accepted science'.

 

[ratiocinator]

Actually there are hundreds of research publications and projects like the hydron collider that support the hypothesis.

If there were, it wouldn't be a hypothesis any more, it would be accepted theory. I think perhaps you need to review what these terms mean:

Hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scientific theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The proposals for the predictive properties of Quantum Mechanics hypothesis began over 100 years ago and the predictions have been confirmed in many aspects.

Quantum mechanics isn't a hypothesis, it's a (very well tested) theory. You don't seem to understand that I never questioned quantum mechanics (or quantum field theory) -- I spent a lot of time studying it, doing the sums, passing exams, an' all -- but quantised space-time is not part of the current theory. As @Polymath257 said it appears in hypothetical ideas about quantum gravity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If there were, it wouldn't be a hypothesis any more, it would be accepted theory. I think perhaps you need to review what these terms mean:

Hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scientific theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quantum mechanics isn't a hypothesis, it's a (very well tested) theory. You don't seem to understand that I never questioned quantum mechanics (or quantum field theory) -- I spent a lot of time studying it, doing the sums, passing exams, an' all -- but quantised space-time is not part of the current theory. As @Polymath257 said it appears in hypothetical ideas about quantum gravity.

Well, you went and did it you used Wiki. So just ignore this, but if you don't and read the whole part of current approaches

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

then you say within your lane of science and learn when you are not doing natural science. I can spot that in some cases.

 

[wellwisher]

I understand and see it as wordplay, the truth is that no time before the BB time began means there was no spacetime, and time begins with the BB. It is deceitful to say this is not true. No spacetime means no existence.

Space-time connects space with time, so space and time need to act as one; three legged race. Separated space and time is different. Instead of a three legged race, it is more like two separated people with four legs each running their own race.

The former or space-time connects movement in time to changes in space. The latter or separated space and time is not the same thing, since it allows the passing of time independent of space and vice versa. This is what happens in the imagination. I can pass time planning my dream vacation at the beach while sitting miles and months away. We cannot do this in the three legged race of space-time. Space-time limits you and slows you down.

Say you were going to build a bridge. Before you can start building a tangible bridge in space-time; tangible ground break, there is a lot of planning to do. Planning to build the bridge is not hard reality, since it is mostly images in your mind and computer, and there will be new contingencies and the plans may change. You may also plan far away from where the bridge will be built. There may even be two or more alternate proposals. It is not until you break ground; BB, separated space and time, become firm as space-time. This is where things slow down; there legged race of construction.

The BB defines when space-time appears; tangible universe. But before that space and time are not connected; planning the bridge that will merge into space-time. Separated space and time connects consciousness to physics.

Our imagination can come up with endless scenarios; fiction and nonfiction, with only a few scenarios possible in space-time; nonfiction. Before anything within the imagination can become reality, we need to figure out how to separate one from the other; fiction from nonfiction. Many people have tried to come up with perpetual motion machines, but space-time precludes these; no space-time bridge to nonfiction.

Since separated space and time has way more more options; both fiction and nonfiction, than connected space-time; only nonfiction, separated space and time defines higher complexity and higher entropy; more options. This higher state of entropy in separated space and time is the potential behind the 2nd law within space-time. Both stay connected.

If we went from separated space and time; extreme entropy, to joined space-time, since this will lower entropy into the simple state of a singularity, there will be a huge release of free energy. Lowering entropy releases energy. In terms of a reality example, Eureka moments ; bring us to a simple focus and gives us drive; exothermic, that can change reality; space-time.

If you think about the second law which states that the entropy of the universe has to increase and since increasing entropy will absorb energy, then the second law implies our space-time universe is bleeding free energy. This energy is conserved but no longer useful to the universe. If the universe could make us of that bled out energy, entropy could not increase. So where does this energy go? It appears to be heading back to where space and time are separated.

If we look at the quantum universe, it has many properties that can be modeled as space and time not fully connected. The uncertainty principle is where position and momentum are not exactly connected; space and time are separated since position is space and momentum involves time; looser bindings in the three legged race.

 

[YoursTrue]

Correct. I never said you could. But hanging is quite different from moving. And the Earth moves. It does not hang.

The old, geocentric view was that the Earth is fixed at the center of the universe. In that model, the Earth 'hangs' on nothing. But we know that model is wrong.

It doesn't matter. For the time, it was an accurate enough notion. Go back to your science, which changes as things are discovered. Yes, the earth hangs on == nothing. Or maybe gravity. Who cares? You can't see gravity anyway. Bye again.

 

[YoursTrue]

And have you actually read the Feynman lectures? I highly doubt it. They are a brilliant introduction to physics.

You probably know he had them recorded. Have a nice day, and bye again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I think it does offer great insight. You are misunderstanding the use of the word hang. And no, you cannot see with or without telescopes any strings or poles that the earth hangs on. Anyway, have a great night.

You appear to be reinterpreting the Bible based upon what we know today,. The authors of the Old Testament had no idea of what the Earth was really like. An honest and in context interpretation of the Old Testament shows that it is not only a geocentric book. It is a Flat Earth Geocentric book. It only describes the Earth as Flat, with a hard lid "firmament" that had openings for rain. Not only do the "pillars of the Earth" and other such verses tell us that the Earth is stationary. But it also tells us that in deeds. When God "stopped the Sun" so that Joshua could kill a bunch of people. But the "circle of the Earth" is clearly a stationary geocentric Earth example. The Earth is never described accurately. The clearest simplest interpretation never matches reality.

 

[YoursTrue]

I consider Star Wars a parody on science fiction. This is not serious science fiction.

Who cares? What you are doing is more like serious science fiction? By the way, I worked for editors of "serious" science fiction writers. They had a good time playing with imagined ideas. Bye for now, have a good one. That was before I believed in God, the God who caused the Bible to be preserved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You probably know he had them recorded. Have a nice day, and bye again.

You are conflating lectures by Feynman on Physics with the Feynman Lectures. A series of books that go into this far deeper than a mere lecture could. Have you ever read an epic novel and then seen a movie version of it? I can guarantee you that you would find that a LOT of it was missing.

The Feynman Lectures on Physics

www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu

You can read them these for free. The first volume consists of 52 chapters. Each of which would be an hour long lecture. The next is only 4r2 and the third shorter yet. But when I look at the topics of the third they no longer look like simple one hour lectures.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not sci fi when the proof is right here with us.

Its not a thought, but a statement.

Now there's proof??? You the movie and sci-fi books are proof???? lol, probably you think so. Bye for now. I am so glad I heard from you guys, thank you so much. Yes, I still like Richard Feynman, his ideas, while leaning on what "science" told him, was honest enough in his attitude and many of his statements.