What was the Big Bang

[Thermos aquaticus]

the measure of it......is in your head

You might as well say that all of reality is an illusion.

 

[`mud]

and there are no `voids` !

 

[exchemist]

We could use radioactive decay as a measure of time. In this case, the subatomic particles tunnel out of the nucleus with no movement. They are in the nucleus at one moment and outside the nucleus at the next moment. This is an inherently quantum event.

It does however involve change, which is surely the thing we are trying to measure with the yardstick of time, isn't it?

 

[ChristineM]

Also, gravity warps space. You can't warp nothing.

And? Is this actually relevant?

 

[`mud]

Change is something that is always changing,
and we still can't see all the way to infinity.
That's some long `stick` there !

 

[james blunt]

Change is something that is always changing,
and we still can't see all the way to infinity.
That's some long `stick` there !

Your looking the wrong direction if you can't see infinity.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

so ...time IS a concept.....

not a force or substance

Gravity is a concept, but is also a force.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It does however involve change, which is surely the thing we are trying to measure with the yardstick of time, isn't it?

It does involve change, but not movement.

 

[ChristineM]

Your hair colour has nothing to do with objective facts. People misinterpret what space is , a common problem that many of you are not even aware. Space is an unknown volume of nothingness, relative space time occupies nothingness.
It is in no way an attempt to belittle you, but I have to correct you if I know you have a misunderstanding about the semantics of a word.

Space = space

Universe = space and substance

Yes you do misinterpret space, i have been specific and you have ignored and squirmed.

One definition of space is the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.

You said the universe is not space, so tell me how it does not have dimensions, tell me how all things don't exist in the universe

And i still no explanation of god magic.

Also I'd be grateful if you could cite your source for space being unknown volume of nothingness.

You can correct !e when you are correct, as it stands I'll take the general and scientific definition of space over your opinion any day.

 

[james blunt]

Yes you do misinterpret space, i have been specific and you have ignored and squirmed.

One definition of space is the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.

You said the universe is not space, so tell me how it does not have dimensions, tell me how all things don't exist in the universe

And i still no explanation of god magic.

Also I'd be grateful if you could cite your source for space being unknown volume of nothingness.

You can correct !e when you are correct, as it stands I'll take the general and scientific definition of space over your opinion any day.

Oh dear, you feel offended for no reason. Let me educate you , there is two types of xyz ,

1) The dimensions of an object (reality)

2) Relative space time (a coordinate system of imaginary lines, arbitrary)


Do you understand this firstly?

 

[exchemist]

It does involve change, but not movement.

Sure. To me change, rather than movement, is the fundamental thing we address with the concept of time.

 

[james blunt]

Sure. To me change, rather than movement, is the fundamental thing we address with the concept of time.

Delta k0 = t = S told you already , sick of telling you .

 

[Polymath257]

Exactly! Loschmidt's paradox seems to be precisely what we have been discussing. I had not previously been aware of this. Thanks for the information.

In my previous reply I was studiously avoiding a quick leap into the safety net, by means of a hand-waving invocation of quantum uncertainty. But indeed, the question of which specific atoms or molecules are in exactly which excited states, of which of their various degrees of freedom, is governed by QM transition probabilities, i.e. is not deterministic. So calculating Q element by element, deterministically, could never be done (unless there are, after all, hidden variables that restore determinism). However if this is a genuine way out of Loschmidt's Paradox, the Wiki article does not refer to it as such. Although it seems to me that on the face of it it could be.

But tell me, have you not discussed this with colleagues in the Physics or Chemistry Depts at your institution?

The standard way of computing Q is based on the QM energy states as solved by Schrodinger's equation. For non-interacting atoms which are identical, it is done via Q=q^N /N! where N is the number of atoms. Interactions affect this, of course. The division by N! is because the atoms are identical. But, again, the computation is based on looking at microstates that are equivalent (same total energy, same volume) on the macroscopic level.

This equation is produced by looking at the state of the entire system and 'breaking it down' into a product of states for individual atoms/molecules. This is an approximation, but in the non-interacting case is a very good one. For systems that are highly interacting, we have to look at the state of the whole system and do the computation of Q with the energy levels there. In practice, the energy levels are highly degenerate, which is what leads to the higher Q value. Alternatively, we can look at the energy is a range E to E+dE.

As for determinism, the Schrodinger equation *is* deterministic, but it is deterministic at the level of the wave function, NOT of the values of observables.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

And? Is this actually relevant?

I was just adding to your argument. Sustainer had said:
"We are talking about space 0k, not the additives. The universe is not space."

 

[ChristineM]

Oh dear, you feel offended for no reason. Let me educate you , there is two types of xyz ,

1) The dimensions of an object (reality)

2) Relative space time (a coordinate system of imaginary lines, arbitrary)


Do you understand this firstly?

What makes you imagine am offended? Oh, right, your imagination.

Because you fail to comprehend 3 dimensions is not my problem.

3 dimensions relates to everything on this universe including this universe.

Relativity has little to do with 3d other than movement within that 3d space.

Stop trying to teach your granny to suck irrelevant eggs. I spent my working life manipulating 3d coordinates, op j, vectors, imaginary numbers etc.

And again you refuse to provide evidence of god. This is getting boring, or is that your ploy, to bore people into not bothering so you can claim victory by default? Sounds a silly way of proving god to me.

 

[ChristineM]

I was just adding to your argument. Sustainer had said:
"We are talking about space 0k, not the additives. The universe is not space."

Ok but the universe is space, astoundingly huge amounts of space.

 

[exchemist]

The standard way of computing Q is based on the QM energy states as solved by Schrodinger's equation. For non-interacting atoms which are identical, it is done via Q=q^N /N! where N is the number of atoms. Interactions affect this, of course. The division by N! is because the atoms are identical. But, again, the computation is based on looking at microstates that are equivalent (same total energy, same volume) on the macroscopic level.

This equation is produced by looking at the state of the entire system and 'breaking it down' into a product of states for individual atoms/molecules. This is an approximation, but in the non-interacting case is a very good one. For systems that are highly interacting, we have to look at the state of the whole system and do the computation of Q with the energy levels there. In practice, the energy levels are highly degenerate, which is what leads to the higher Q value. Alternatively, we can look at the energy is a range E to E+dE.

As for determinism, the Schrodinger equation *is* deterministic, but it is deterministic at the level of the wave function, NOT of the values of observables.

Sure, but this is still a statistical approach, assuming no knowledge of each individual atom or molecule, as one would need in attempting to reverse a gas diffusion process, as I was hypothesising. So in your terms, this approach has already "lost" the information. What I was driving at is that the deterministic simulation may be impossible for QM reasons, because of how the distribution among states actually arises through QM processes.

But again, what about discussion with people in other departments at your institution? Or are you retired already?

 

[exchemist]

What makes you imagine am offended? Oh, right, your imagination.

Because you fail to comprehend 3 dimensions is not my problem.

3 dimensions relates to everything on this universe including this universe.

Relativity has little to do with 3d other than movement within that 3d space.

Stop trying to teach your granny to suck irrelevant eggs. I spent my working life manipulating 3d coordinates, op j, vectors, imaginary numbers etc.

And again you refuse to provide evidence of god. This is getting boring, or is that your ploy, to bore people into not bothering so you can claim victory by default? Sounds a silly way of proving god to me.

Christine, you will get nowhere talking to this person. There are no arguments, it's just a game to get attention. This is why he has been banned so many times, under a wide variety of sockpuppet names, involving both sexes, on several science forums.

 

[james blunt]

And again you refuse to provide evidence of god. This is getting boring, or is that your ploy, to bore people into not bothering so you can claim victory by default? Sounds a silly way of proving god to me.

I have give plenty of evidence, quite apparently you cannot get past your subjective interpretation of God.

According to most beliefs God is immortal/eternal , so is space.

So providing the maths A = B

Demonstrated , what more do you need ?

God is all around you , everywhere, so is space

A = B

etc,etc.

It is obvious.

Without God to exist in , something cannot exist. TRUE

 

[james blunt]

Consider it this way, two objects cannot exist in the same space, without space neither object could have a free and independent existence. Thank you God for being spacious.