YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
For some, obviously not you, the possibilities are impossible, untrue, and bunk. Relate it as you will to your circumstances. Have a good one.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's not talk about the Big Bang
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Definitely. Like alleged possibilities for the existence of God.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Upon comparison and diligent study, I disagree with you. While I haven't seen God, based on evidence of life and as we know it, I believe there is a God.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Didn't you say there's proof?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Not necessarily true. Life on the earth obviously came after the universe came about. But life before that is in the One that created the universe. Otherwise it couldn't have been formed.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I said or at least tried to relate that its evidence based educated guesses based on proof such as our own existence in the universe.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Life has likely been erupting and ceasing long before the big bang elsewhere for eternity which clearly dosent require any God for it to happen.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
That is an unproven hypothesis.
Still not addressing the issue here. Duck Bob and Weasel Cite one source that proposes that continuous space/time and gravity as in the universe exists at the quantum smallest scale.Since I explicitly said Newton was wrong, you appear to be degenerating into incoherence. Ho hum.
This is not in the current theories, only speculative hypotheses.
Read any textbook on QM (or QFT).
When you study QM, one of the first examples of solving the Schrödinger equation you are likely to be given is the 'particle in an infinite potential well' problem, initially in one dimension. It illustrates the principles of solving more realistic and complex problems. It uses continuous space and time. That is what is used in all problems in QM. That is what the Schrödinger equation deals with. That is what QM is based on. Take a look at the mathematics:
ETA: And here is the treatment of a hydrogen atom, note the use of the usual continuous, spherical polar, coordinates (r, θ, φ) for space:
Particle in a box - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Hydrogen atom - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It's also a bit cheeky to ask for a citation considering your total failure to provide one to back up your claims as anything but hypothetical (which nobody disputes).
There is, of course, plenty of research that is trying to unify curved space-time and gravity with quantum theory, and some of the proposals do indeed quantise space-time, but none of it is currently tested theory. It is all hypothetical.
Word salad no meaning . . .
Cite one source that proposes that continuous space/time and gravity as in the universe exists at the quantum smallest scale.
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
The big bang doesn't say something came from nothing, so I don't know where you got that? There could be infinite universes and big bangs.
Is Islam true because you can't fathom something coming from nothing? Is Hinduism true because of that? None of the cosmological arguments make man-made mythologies true.
Yet other planets have similar structures, atmospheres, storms, volcanos, we see the same evolution of solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, evolution of star formation, to nova or supernova, everything that happened on Earth is natural process, things evolving by natural law.
We also see organic compounds on meteors so we know they are abundant in the universe.
So that would make sense that self replicating chemicals would happen on other planets.
But you haven't presented any arguments why it would be "insane"?
Life evolving would not be "insane" as I pointed out but saying the formation of life would be awful is a bit strange. Do you hate life?
Do you ever back up points with evidence or even an argument or is this just all wishful thinking?
joelr
Well-Known Member
You are pursuing it by responding.
But again, you are incorrect. The studies on self replicating compounds is coming along, it isn't imagination. Every few years there is something new. A few years ago it was self replicating nucleobases ( part of the search to find early RNA), now it's molecules with nucleobases and amino acids. The emergence of life is only a matter of time. It's just natural laws working.
Spontaneous Emergence of Self-Replicating Molecules Containing Nucleobases and Amino Acids
The recent hypothesis of “RNA-peptide coevolution” suggests that the current close relationship between amino acids and nucleobases may well have extended to the origin of life. We now show how the interplay between these compound classes can give rise to new self-replicating molecules using a dynamic combinatorial approach.Spontaneous formation of autocatalytic sets with self-replicating inorganic metal oxide clusters
Here we present an inorganic autocatalytic, based on molybdenum blue, that is formed spontaneously when a simple inorganic salt of sodium molybdate is reduced under acidic conditions. This study demonstrates how autocatalytic sets, based on simple inorganic salts, can lead to the spontaneous emergence of self-replicating systems and solves the mystery of how gigantic molecular nanostructures of molybdenum blue can form in the first place.
For the first time, large self-replicating molecules win evolution
For the first time, large self-replicating molecules win evolution
How can molecules evolve to become more complex, to the point that smaller ones might eventually become large, complex, biological organisms?.
sciworthy.com
joelr
Well-Known Member
That tautology goes nowhere. What is important is are your beliefs backed by evidence and a sound epistemology or are they based on claims and anecdotal evidence. This is how you find out things that are true. If you don't care about truth then you can ignore a logical system to discover truth. You can just believe what you want to be true.
I posted several papers on the last post, nucleobase, amino acids and the molecules, all self-replicating. This is a direct path to demonstrating a basic RNA that was created by self replication. The finds get more advanced every year or two.
So you statement about "nothing beyond imagination" is wrong and you likely don't investigate, so you don't know.
A sound methodology involves testing your beliefs, try to prove them wrong by understanding where the science knowledge is on self replication.
On other planets we see the same gasses, elements and all the same forces from gravity, stars at a similar distance, same organic compounds, same atmospheres as early Earth. Earth is no different than other planets in this location around a star. Asteroids with water impact those planets as well. Other solar systems can be exactly like ours when the star is similar. There are billions just in this 1 galaxy. Billions of galaxies.
plants didn't evolve into humans. If you even care about what is actually true and look into evolution to understand the basics to see if it's reliable or just to actually test these horrible apologetics you pick up on fundamentalist sites, you could try this again. Of course my argument is wrong when you are arguing against a version that is wrong and made up?maybe you think the virtual possibility could be from again plants to humans?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I really don't know what you think the empty rants are doing for your cause. I answered your questions directly.
I did - you ignored them.
I doubt anybody is going to write something like "continuous space-time is used at all scales in quantum mechanics" because it's something that everybody who studies it knows and there is no reason for a layperson to think otherwise. Your problem is that you're confusing hypotheses with established science. This is easy to do if your sources are pop-science and/or science journalism, as they are often guilty of not making the distinction clear.
On the other hand, if quantised space-time were mainstream established science, I would expect it to be explained in introductions to the subjects, and you have failed to cite a single source that does say that. So, although I've been indulging you in providing sources where you can learn something, it is actually your claim and therefore your burden of proof.
I do urge you to look at the mathematics I referenced. That really is the way QM works and how one uses it, continuous space and time included. A lot of what you say has merit and I don't want you to continue in your misunderstanding. I really am trying to help.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Some science is modified. New science can sometimes be wrong, established principles will only be refined. Evoution is probably in that camp.
Relativity didn't overturn Newtonian gravity, it enhanced it. New discoveries about evolution will close the gaps.
Why are you worried about things posited, conjectured and made up? You believe in a book that is entirely made up from older made up books.
The original Israelites worshipped Yahweh and a goddess (likely Ashera) and were from Canaan.
Genesis is a re-working of Mesopotamian myth.
Late OT is using Persian theology.
The NT is all Persian and Greek Hellenism, a Jewish version.
There is evidence for all of this.
Even if evolution was all a hoax, this doesn't provide one shred of evidence for Lord Krishna being real does it. But he created humans? So if evolution isn't real won't billions of Hindu be correct?
Or will it still just be a story, probably based on older stories now gone from our access. Yes, probably that. Same with Greek influenced mystery religions with dying/rising savior demigods who rise in 3 days and get followers into an afterlife. Those are still myths as well.
So your fight with evolution isn't helping a fictional character be real.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Word salad? It looks crystal clear to me.
Space and time have always been assumed to be continuous, from the dawn of modern science, as evidenced by the mechanics of Newton, Einstein and the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, none of whom incorporates in their theories any notion of either space or time having some fundamental granularity. So it's for you to show the contrary, since it is you that is making the revolutionary claim.
The idea of Planck length and time being indivisible units remains completely speculative, connected with attempts at thinking about how quantum gravity might work. As such, it lies outside current established theories of physics. More here: What Planck Length Is and It's Common Misconceptions | Physics Forums
I quote what seems to me the most relevant section:
"There is a misconception that the universe is fundamentally divided into Planck-sized pixels, that nothing can be smaller than the Planck length, that things move through space by progressing one Planck length every Planck time. Judging by the ultimate source, a cursory search of reddit questions, the misconception is fairly common. There is nothing in established physics that says this is the case, nothing in general relativity or quantum mechanics pointing to it. I have an idea as to where the misconception might arise, that I can’t really back up but I will state anyway. I think that when people learn that the energy states of electrons in an atom are quantized, and that Planck’s constant is involved, a leap is made towards the pixel fallacy. I remember in my early teens reading about the Planck time in National Geographic, and hearing about Planck’s constant in highschool physics or chemistry, and thinking they were the same."
It looks as if you may have fallen into the trap of what the writer calls the "pixel fallacy".
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
It's not hanging. It's moving in a geodesic because of gravity but things don't hang in space. They are at rest or in motion. You hang something in your closet because gravity is pulling it down. When in space there are no forces acting on it to "hang".
There is also no firmament or cosmic water above heaven. Or doors that open to allow the cosmic water to fall to Earth for rain or floods. The firmament divided the cosmic waters from Earth and all the stars and planets are under it. None of that exists. Except in Genesis.
Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia
Attachments
Like I said, every single textbook in QM. I gave references. Every single text uses a continuous spacetime background.
And, if you really want to go to the 'smallest quantum scale', there is no *accepted* model. It is ALL speculative.
And no, it is NOT word salad. I suspect you don't know what the term means.
Look, you are saying that two people who have actually studied the subject in depth are wrong. Have you actually *ever* solved a differential equation? Have you *ever& computed the energies for a quantum system?
If not, then please take the word of a couple of people that have, including at least one that took PhD qualifying exams in the subject.
Name one source that says that ANY model at the smallest scale is accepted science.
You made a claim of continuous time at the smallest scale back it up. It is a main issue concerning the nature of the Quantum smallest scale.
Cite one source that proposes that continuous space/time and gravity as in the universe exists at the quantum smallest scale.
It is pretty much accepted by current science that Quantum smallest scale does not have continuous time/space and gravity, and it is made up of Quantum particles. The research at the Hadron collider pretty much confirms this. Time/space and gravity are considered emergent properties in the larger scale of our universe.
Last edited: