Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[ratiocinator]

Math is a tool box of ALL sciences and in and of itself it proves nothing but the math theorem or proof independently of science. I believe the references I providedare qualified in the math they use to justiry the research and experiments to support emerging time and science.

What you provided was ongoing research, not currently accepted science.

The mathematics of standard QM is deals exclusively in continuous time. This is not an opinion, you are arguing with three people who have actually studied the subject and done the mathematics. Every time you, or anybody else, references an article on current, accepted QM, it shows the mathematics that we all know and are familiar with. That you couldn't even tackle the simplest problem in calculus explains why you can't see that they all deal, undoubtedly with continuous time.

The concepts of emergent time and space are today Standard QM as referenced numerous tines with confirming research and experiments.

Not according to anything you've provided. Everything that talks about non-continuous time is speculative and ongoing research. Every reference you made to standard QM contradicts it. For example:

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Every bit of mathematics on the page that involves time or position treats them as continuous.

 

[ratiocinator]

The following article describes the decoherence in terms of the difference between the classical and the Quantum world including the issue of time.

Why do you keep on posting about decoherence? It has nothing to do with time not being continuous.

 

[ratiocinator]

I disagree, some, but of course not all, hypothesis of abiogenesis are supported by research and experiments,

But they remain hypotheses. I'm beginning to suspect that you don't really understand what a hypothesis is. That would explain a lot about your misunderstanding of QM. A hypothesis is basically unconfirmed. It may have some indicative evidence but it is not currently accepted theory.

Hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Polymath257]

Is the abiogenesis hypothesis accepted science?

No. It has not been demonstrated, although there are parts of it that are accepted and verified.

For example, it is accepted that amino acids can be produced from the environment of the early earth. It is accepted that polymerization can be produced in those circumstances as well.

But full abiogenesis is a research topic and not yet accepted science.

But at this point it is what fits the facts the best.

 

[Polymath257]

I want to clarify a point you make above is that your proposal that, though not in fact, that the transition or difference between Quantum Particle behavior and time to classical physics time is smooth and continuous (contrary to common belief, not everything in quantum theory is quantized).. Regardless Continuous time has NOT been demonstrated to exist at the Quantum particle level. Being smooth and continuous transition is not an issue, because there is indeed a transition. Being quantized does not translate to having continuous time.

And how did any of that massive quote support your position that time on the quantum level is different than time at the classical level?

 

[Polymath257]

Why do you keep on posting about decoherence? It has nothing to do with time not being continuous.

And yes, decoherence *is* accepted science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. It has notbeendemonstrated, although there are parts of it that are accepted and verified.

For example, it is accepted that amino acids can be produced from the environment of the early earth. It is accepted that polymerization can be produced in those circumstances as well.

But full abiogenesis is a research topic and not yet accepted science.

But at this point it is what fits the facts the best.

Some people have a problem with the concept that an idea may not be complete yet, as abiogenesis is, and yet still have evidence for it. Right now it is by far the most likely source of life here. Could there be other answers? There could always be other answers. But it is the one best supported by the evidence that we do have.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do you keep on posting about decoherence? It has nothing to do with time not being continuous.

It sure does. It defines the difference between the Classical Physics and Quantum Mechanics at the Quantum particle scale, which you continue to ignore with your 50+ year old view of continuous time. From the source.

It ensures consistency between quantum and classical predictions for systems observed to behave classically. It provides a quantitative, dynamical account of the boundary between quantum and classical physics. In any concrete experimental situation, decoherence theory specifies the physical requirements, both qualitatively and quantitatively, for pushing the quantum–classical boundary toward the quantum realm. Decoherence is a genuinely quantum-mechanical effect, to be carefully distinguished from classical dissipation and stochastic fluctuations.

 

[shunyadragon]

And yes, decoherence *is* accepted science.

It ensures consistency between quantum and classical predictions for systems observed to behave classically. It provides a quantitative, dynamical account of the boundary between quantum and classical physics. In any concrete experimental situation, decoherence theory specifies the physical requirements, both qualitatively and quantitatively, for pushing the quantum–classical boundary toward the quantum realm. Decoherence is a genuinely quantum-mechanical effect, to be carefully distinguished from classical dissipation and stochastic fluctuations.

 

[ratiocinator]

It sure does.

Nope. Absolutely nothing you've quoted about it says anything about time not being continuous, including the part you've pointlessly re-quoted with bold and underline.

 

[gnostic]

Is the abiogenesis hypothesis accepted science?

This thread is more about competing cosmologies, hence about the Universe and not about life on Earth.

If you want to talk about Abiogenesis, I’d suggest that you start a new topic.

 

[We Never Know]

This thread is more about competing cosmologies, hence about the Universe and not about life on Earth.

If you want to talk about Abiogenesis, I’d suggest that you start a new topic.

Part of the discussion was about hypotheses being accepted science.
My question was about hypotheses.
Don't like it, skip on by it.

 

[Polymath257]

It ensures consistency between quantum and classical predictions for systems observed to behave classically. It provides a quantitative, dynamical account of the boundary between quantum and classical physics. In any concrete experimental situation, decoherence theory specifies the physical requirements, both qualitatively and quantitatively, for pushing the quantum–classical boundary toward the quantum realm. Decoherence is a genuinely quantum-mechanical effect, to be carefully distinguished from classical dissipation and stochastic fluctuations.

Which says *nothing* about time for quantum mechanics and classical time being different.

As I said, decoherence *is* accepted science. It is NOT related to 'emergent time' or 'emergent space', which are aspects of *some* hypotheses about quantum gravity.

 

[gnostic]

Part of the discussion was about hypotheses being accepted science.
My question was about hypotheses.

And I did read your post about hypothesis, and I did reply with my explanation about what hypothesis is, in post #3832.

Did you not read it?

 

[Polymath257]

Part of the discussion was about hypotheses being accepted science.
My question was about hypotheses.
Don't like it, skip on by it.

And, again, hypotheses are NOT 'accepted science'. In general, *theories* are (not always because of some ambiguity in the usage).

Abiogenesis has several different lines of investigation. For example, the physics and chemistry of small ponds is very different than for hydrothermal vents. The specifics of how life developed from non-life is still very much unknown.

Now, it is very much in the scientific endeavor to be researching these matters. And doing so *is* science and the accepted way to do science. But, as long as we don't have a verified and tested set of ideas, it won't be labeled 'accepted science'.

Maybe your confusion is that it is completely acceptable to be investigating ideas that are not yet 'accepted'. In fact, that is an essential part of the scientific method: take *hypotheses* and test them. See how far they work and when/if they fail.

So, it is acceptable to be studying abiogenesis even though abiogenesis isn't yet accepted science.

In the same way, it is perfectly acceptable to be studying quantum gravity and emergent space/time even though those are not yet accepted science.

 

[We Never Know]

And I did read your post about hypothesis, and I did reply with my explanation about what hypothesis is, in post #3832.

Did you not read it?

Here's the deal.. if hypotheses aren't accepted science.... Then my example of abiogenesis, which is a hypothesis, makes it not accepted science.

In biology, abiogenesis (from a- 'not' + Greek bios 'life' + genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[We Never Know]

And, again, hypotheses are NOT 'accepted science'. In general, *theories* are (not always because of some ambiguity in the usage).

Abiogenesis has several different lines of investigation. For example, the physics and chemistry of small ponds is very different than for hydrothermal vents. The specifics of how life developed from non-life is still very much unknown.

Now, it is very much in the scientific endeavor to be researching these matters. And doing so *is* science and the accepted way to do science. But, as long as we don't have a verified and tested set of ideas, it won't be labeled 'accepted science'.

Maybe your confusion is that it is completely acceptable to be investigating ideas that are not yet 'accepted'. In fact, that is an essential part of the scientific method: take *hypotheses* and test them. See how far they work and when/if they fail.

So, it is acceptable to be studying abiogenesis even though abiogenesis isn't yet accepted science.

In the same way, it is perfectly acceptable to be studying quantum gravity and emergent space/time even though those are not yet accepted science.

"So, it is acceptable to be studying abiogenesis even though abiogenesis isn't yet accepted science."

I agree with that. I was simply pointing out how it is defended when it isn't accepted science.

Now youns can go back to your normal programming

 

[Polymath257]

"So, it is acceptable to be studying abiogenesis even though abiogenesis isn't yet accepted science."

I agree with that. I was simply pointing out how it is defended when it isn't accepted science.

Now youns can go back to your normal programming

Do you have another scientific alternative? I'm sure someone would be very interested if you do.

 

[shunyadragon]

And how did any of that massive quote support your position that time on the quantum level is different than time at the classical level?

The demonstrated that the concept of emergent time is accepted by many scientists within Standard Quantum Mechanics. The reference on decoherence demonstrates the difference between the macro scale of Classical Physics and smallest scall of Quantum particles that is the realm of Quantum Mechanics. Of course not everyone accepts the mergence of time/space, but it is supported by experiments and research and as cited supported by many scientists. The biggest problem is you nor anyone else has demonstrated that the continuous time of the macro scale exists at the smallest scale of Quantum particles.

We will have to disagree to disagree, because, again you failed to support your argument. Simple asserting what's 'standard physics' is not a winner.

 

[joelr]

I never asserted time did not exist at the Quantum scale. Yes time exists but not continuous time/space and 3D space of the macro scale of our universe. No, the Quantum scale is NOT apart of space time of classical physics, It has its own rules under Quantum Mechanics.

First, so what? That doesn't prove or even suggest time isn't exactly the same at the quantum scale.

Second the rules of QM also apply at all scales. You cannot find a dividing line. Superconductivity, Superfluidity, Bose Einstein Condensates, are all examples of quantum behavior at a macro scale.
Generally Quantum waves cancel out and are not noticeable at a macro scale. But time is not fully understood so why you would make a definitive statement like that is bizarre.
Also it's spacetime. Space is continuous at the quantum scale and time is as well. Space and time do not break down until the Planck scale which is much smaller.

You didn't answer any of the questions, why would particles decay in a continuous way or particle collisions behave as if they are in normal time? What phenomenon causes you to believe time is not continuous at a quantum scale?

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles.[2]: 1.1  It is the foundation of all quantum physics including quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science.

Classical physics, the collection of theories that existed before the advent of quantum mechanics, describes many aspects of nature at an ordinary (macroscopic) scale, but is not sufficient for describing them at small (atomic and subatomic) scales. Most theories in classical physics can be derived from quantum mechanics as an approximation valid at large (macroscopic) scale.[3]

Quantum mechanics differs from classical physics in that energy, momentum, angular momentum, and other quantities of a bound system are restricted to discrete values (quantization); objects have characteristics of both particles and waves (wave–particle duality); and there are limits to how accurately the value of a physical quantity can be predicted prior to its measurement, given a complete set of initial conditions (the uncertainty principle).

Please reread my posts and respond to what I said.

Well you haven't responded to anything I said? So you first.


So here is the problem with this information above. Yes light at the quantum scale is broken up into discrete values but it's still moving at the same speed and isn't "slower" at the quantum level.
However, that is particles, SPACE is NOT restricted to discrete values until the Planck scale which is far far smaller. Space and time are linked and likely share the same issues with breaking down at the Planck scale.
The information above is for energy/mass. But being quantized doesn't mean a light beam isn't a continuous phenomenon. Or energy isn't the same as it is at the macro scale.