Perhaps part of the problem is a lack of clarity over the meaning of 'random'.

Traditionally, it is supposed to mean that an outcome or next in sequence, occurs without a direct prior cause. Whether the same number appears twice in succession or the spaces' between numbers is consistent or not, the question is whether numbers in the sequence are generated by a prior cause.

This is normally taken to mean a mathematical/formulaic cause, or generated by a machine which operates from formulaic coded instructions, but why couldn't a random sequence be generated by the human mind?

I don't think it is accurate for to say that randomness disappears because two random sequences have something in common (ie. that they are random). If nothing else, the comment being made about the categorization of the set, not the contents of each set/sequence.

Banno

Despite your appeals to the moderators, and being told what you had to do to both disprove the alternate theory, and demonstrate the proof to support your own preference, you again fail to do so.
What's more, you now seem to be verging on the dishonest.

"The expansion of space, rather than the expansion of the physical universe..." Not at all sure what to make of that. — Banno

We have spent a good part of this thread discussing the essence of that difference.
Others have had the good grace to acknowledge that there are two valid theories, but not you.

So have you disproved the basic maths that I outlined? No
Have you disproved the widely accepted scientific values I presented about the size and age of the Universe? No.
Have you demonstrated that the speed of light can't be exceeded? No - you have merely quoted an assumption, sometimes shrouded in maths that used the assumption as a basis for the formula.

So given that my basic evidence, (which is also based on observation and considered scientific opinion), reflects the normal way in which science handles the concept of speed, and it is clear that you wish to break that long-lasting model, you should at least provide evidence for the additional factor of inflation that you claim must exist.

We're waiting....

.... and waiting....

and waiting for you to do so, after many requests. But none comes.

So having failed on all of the basic requirements, where does that leave the theory of inflation?
Well, from my point of view, it is a potentially valid theory without evidence to support it.
It is valid because it does match the evidence and can't be disproved - but it is the more complex potential solution, and requires additional factors to make it work.

The theory which I currently prefer is the accepted way in which the basic factors would normally be interpreted, which is directly supported by the observations that would count as normal evidence.

As a simple factor, cosmologists physically observe galaxies that are now judged to be images which are 13.2 billion years old - half a billion years after the big bang, (which is assumed to be when enough material had first gathered to form stars and began illuminating the universe). But.... they appear in the position they were in at that time, not now - and as I understand it, they show a spread that is seemingly more than the speed of light could achieve in half a billion years.
That is direct physical evidence for my 'normal' explanation.
Where's yours?

Silence.

MU - thanks for your general support, but that isn't quite my view.

Now, Gary would prefer not to apply the general theory of relativity, and therefore avoid the conclusion that space is expanding. That's a valid starting point. — Metaphysician Undercover

To clarify my position, I do not abandon General Relativity, but like every other theory it is only valid when it explains real evidence - which it does for the most part, but doesn't seem to in this instance - at least, not a face value.
I feel that General Relativity has an important place and has been very accurate and useful up to certain parameters. One of the key parameters is the speed of light, both in terms of its current value and as a 'maximum' concept.

There are very few instances where the assumption that... 'the current maximum speed of light cannot be exceeded'... can be applied and tested against reality. One is in calculating atomic energy values. The other is in observations of the cosmos.

The real quantification of energies released by atomic explosions is still not possible in absolute terms and could easily vary from our current estimates.

However the evidence from the cosmos is pretty clear.
What do we do when there is evidence that contradicts our assumptions and formulae? We should revisit our assumptions and formulae based on the new evidence, and either modify them appropriately, or find additional factors that will then allow them to explain the new evidence.

In this case we have a choice about which sets of values we wish to preserve. One set of values has been with us and totally successful for thousands of years. The other is an assumption that has been with us for a century, and has been useful, but largely untested at its extremes.

If you wish to preserve the untested extreme at the expense of proven theories that are thousands of years old, it is not unreasonable for ordinary people to ask for evidence to prove the additional factors that would justify belief in the extreme assumption.

If we have to modify General Relativity to accept that higher speeds are possible in certain circumstances, that modification won't impact on the vast majority of circumstances where it will continue to be applied here on Earth in current conditions.

I simply go with the only evidence available, but am happy to change if something other than dogma emerges.

Hi Niki

Despite people's preference for emphasising entropy instead of recognising assembly/accumulation when it arises, something had to create the original 'accumulation' from which entropy started to spread energy out and/or increase general disorder.

If you believe in the big bang - big crunch theory of existence, the big crunch will effectively re-assemble, using gravity. We can therefore say that Gravity is an assembling force wherever it is perceived.

The current increase in the red-shift of galaxies might mean that we are already in that crunch phase, or it may, as is more commonly perceived, be interpreted as a breakdown of the bang-crunch mechanism - in which case there has been a spontaneous or random change to a previously eternal system.

Alternate theories of origin have therefore been offered by scientists desperate to avoid spontaneity or randomness. They speculate, for instance, about hidden curtains of energy (conveniently beyond our view) that produce a big bang when they touch, but are kept apart when physical matter exists between them.

In other words, they seek to describe a different eternal/cyclical process which is not affected by the perceived accelerating expansion of the universe.

The point of me outlining these strategic factors is that if we are trying to be honest about what is possible - there is logic to say that your concerns may be unfounded in the long-term.

It is convenient for people, recognising the current state of the universe, to place a general emphasis on entropy and increasing disorder, but strategically there had to be an accumulation at some point - which leaves open the possibilitiy / likelihood that it would happen again.

That said, I agree with ChatteringMonkey when he/she said that what we do matters.

As I posted before, we can see forces of accumulation, it's just that people don't want to label them that way. If we acknowledge gravity in this way, then why not Life?

Individuals may come an go, but life as a whole has only ever increased in terms of size and complexity.
I liked a phrase from one of my favourite authors (Finipolscie) who said
"Thought is the only thing that can cause matter/energy to deviate from its inevitable chemical path".
Collectively, a growing force of life may yet have a significant impact on physical events.

The expansion of space, rather than the expansion of the physical universe, is commonly referred-to as inflation theory - and the invite is still there for you to present physical evidence for inflation, rather than a your simple desire to preserve doctrine over real evidence.

Hi Possibility

If entropy is based on the notion of energy flowing away from an aggregation of energy, I do not see why you should label the accumulation of energy as an accumulation of entropy? Are you saying that an accumulation is a gathering of the potential for faster dispersal? That seems ridiculous. Entropy is the dispersal not the accumulation. So let's call accumulation accumulation and not arrangement.

Entropy has also been extended into the concept of breaking down order into disorder. In the same way as the last paragraph, why are you saying that a build-up of order is not assembly but a build up of entropy. That again seems ridiculous.

Focussing on Entropy, whether the outward flow of energy or a tendency for order to break down more rapidly after a period of accumulation/assembly, still ignores the fact that assembly has occurred. Increased entropy isn't happening while there is accumulation.

..the scientific zealots are not prepared to compromise even when the facts are presented to them.
— Gary Enfield

...like if someone were to propose a theory about the size of the universe without presenting the maths to back it up. — Banno

Exactly - although the point in that thread was about the speed of expansion being faster than the current speed of light, rather than the size of the Universe as you have just implied. The maths concerning the speed of expansion, (based on known & accepted values for certain parameters), was very specifically laid out, together with the evidence to back it up.

Nobody challenged the calculation, or provided any evidence to counter the opinion - they just offered a bizarre inflation theory with no physical evidence to support it, and gave calculations of current speed of light values - instead of providing justifications for saying that it couldn't be exceeded despite the evidence to the contrary. The invite is still there to do so.

Given that there were two theories which had validity, did we get that acknowledgement, or did we get attempts to smear the counter-argument to inflation?

Hi Manuel

Anyone who is not working within a specialist field has to trust the findings being described by the experts, and rely on peer reviews to point out errors. That would be as true for Einstein on biochemistry, as it would be for you or me reading a text book.

Quite often, we can see a consensus amongst experts about the facts/basic evidence, but differences in interpretation about what those facts mean.

I don't mind the speculation, whether it comes from scientists or non-scientists, as long as
- it agrees with the evidence/facts; is logical; and doesn't have evidence to contradict it.

Most scientific principles (if not all) come down to quite understandable factors for the layman, and I think that scientists should explain their findings to their colleagues as well as the ordinary person in simple language, so long as it doesn't distort the true principles of their findings.

Assuming that this happens correctly, and the principles behind different interpretations are clear, it is open to anyone to comment on validity, so long as their criticism has a logical foundation.

It is also open to people with knowledge to explain why some interpretations are incorrect. But when they can't explain why something is incorrect, we rarely see an acknowledgement that two or more valid interpretations exist, and we need more evidence to determine which is correct.
No we tend to find that the desire to preserve previous dogma leads to bizarre explanation with no evidence to justify them, accompanied by attempts to smear the counter-view rather than argue against it.

Even ordinary people have a right to point out discrepancies - and when they do, it is up to scientists to investigate and resolve the dilemma honestly instead of trying to smear the commentators as cranks. If there is a deficiency in the scientific case that is a problem for scientists not the commentator.

Hi Banno

That's a great video - thanks for pointing it out.
The maths is largely beyond me, but I listened to the entire thing, to try and get the most from it.

I trust the calculations and the final formula - which left two factors to plug into the equation (at pre-determined values), which provided a number for the current speed of light in a vacuum.
(From what I can tell, this didn't set a limit on what the speed of light might be in different circumstances).

I think it's great that various parts of scientific theory came together to validate values in our current circumstances, but the reality remains - the size of the universe compared to its age suggests that travel faster than the speed of light is possible.

Is the expansion of the universe subject to different principles than the speed of light travelling within it?
Quite possibly, when the reality of the size and age of the universe show that expansion must have happened faster than light.

Clearly the basics of Maxwell's laws / equations reflect circumstances now, rather than then - and at a time when the emerging universe may have had different restraints or opportunities etc.

Part of the reason for my saying this is that the presenter admitted that there were a number of assumptions within the equations, as well as an admission that waves could exist in a vacuum.

As we know, there doesn't seem to be any part of space with an absence of anything in it, and so there is a potential for some restraining effect everywhere. This may explain why the the equations now would differ to effects then.

However, one way or another, the reality of the size of the universe compared to its age should leave open all possibilities that cannot be dismissed.

As stated several times on earlier posts, the more basic/fundamental definition/equation/Law is distance/time = speed. If you wish to show that this doesn't apply you need evidence to say why. Maths isn't evidence, it is an encoding of a theory - nothing more.

Hi Wayfarer

I totally agree that Stevenson's work was brilliant, even if it couldn't be held as conclusive.
I also agree that the Wikipedia article is grossly misleading and should be withdrawn.

Academia, through the University of Virginia and onwards to wider peer reviews, has accepted Stevenson's methods of data gathering as matching high scientific standards. The only things under dispute are the causes of the phenomenon he uncovered.

Anyone who reads the research and sees the tv programmes about this will see that the evidence from 'out of body experiences' to reincarnation are genuine cases with honest victims of this effect.
Whether this is down to reincarnation and the spirt, or something more mundane, is where the real debate should be happening.

Once again, the so-called scientific community has tended to try and smear the evidence rather than debate its nature.... and why? Dogma.

Banno - I think you have to be careful with sweeping statements.

I agree with Manuel when he said...

.... physics is simple in the following sense: the structures they study are simple.....

But, it's certainly true that the mathematics, the theories, the experiments and all the false leads are fiendishly difficult. — Manuel

There is nothing wrong in trying to simplify the message that science has established through complex analysis. We are all on a journey of discovery and self-learning, so if people mis-interpret what science is saying then you have the opportunity to point out where their thinking has gone wrong.

However there has been a tendency in recent decades for such corrective answers to be unavailable, and for people to be just beaten down without justification - because the speculation being advocated by scientists was being promoted as fact, when it wasn't.

If we are truly scientific we should acknowledge real facts and good logic if there is nothing to counter them - even if caveats are placed around the alternate speculation.

But sadly, as in the old days of religious zealots, the scientific zealots are not prepared to compromise even when the facts are presented to them.

That is not pseudo-science - that is real science vs scientific dogma.

Hi Possibility

To clarify a couple of background points before we get onto the proper discussion - I was categorizing entropy as negative, and assembly as positive. As I said to '180 Proof' above, assembly isn't reduced entropy but actually the reverse of entropy within a balanced pot.

I agree with you that we, as a species, are definitely consuming in a highly entropic way, and that our assemblies don't fully compensate for the entropy as yet - but there are various things in nature which do genuinely assemble - with Life and Gravity being the two prominent ones... as I think you were implying.

That said, I feel that we have to be careful to distinguish those activities which genuinely increase entropy, from those which are neutral or negative on the entropy front. In other words, a change in itself isn't necessarily bad. We have to see what a change achieves over the course of its life.

As two simple examples, we can a) cover a mountain with mirrors to harvest and use light in particular ways over a long period to reduce our necessary consumption of other resources, and potentially without increasing global warming. b) we can plant forests which grow based on the energy of the sun, and which seem like a good example of life's assembly.

However this needs to be distinguished from the harmful effects of global warming, (which is also an assembly of energy).

At the risk of going off at a tangent here - if I understand the science correctly, forests only act as a net carbon sink after some 25 to 30years, because the rotting material on the ground around the forest outweighs the absorbed CO2 for the first 10 - 15 years and then it takes a further 10-15 yrs before the deficit is soaked up by the larger trees. By implication, if we planted a forest and then left it, we would be doing a positive thing and 'storing CO2' and energy in the wood. But industrial farming of wood - collecting it every 25 years is at best carbon neutral.

Is such energy storage the reverse of entropy?

No choice. That's how entropy works. "Assembly" increases global entropy by decreasing local entropy with energy added from the environment (i.e heat source) that is mostly lost through transmission or storage media radiating it back into the environment (i.e. heat sink). — 180 Proof

I don't think that's correct.
The whole underlying philosophy of physics is that the size of the universal pot never alters. Nothing is ever lost, it just changes. If there is assembly, then there is aggregation and potentially greater order in that place, then there may be less energy elsewhere, but it doesn't mean that there is greater disorder. Overall, the pot won't change size - there won't be greater disorder or less energy overall.

The whole point I was making, is that by emphasising entropy, physicists effectively localize on those bits where energy is dissipating while ignoring those places where it is increasing and in a pot that doesn't change the overall amount of energy, that's a distorting bias.

Pop was right - the Big Bang not only spread energy but it was undeniably a major assembly event for Matter/Energy - especially if you believe in a big crunch.

Again, by focussing on entropy (both in terms of energy and implied disorder) you miss the potential balancing of the pot and the need for assembly - which is not less entropy (a reduced rate of entropy) but genuine assembly.

Hi Apollodorus

I don't understand your question.
What is there to philosophise about?
It either exists or it doesn't. The only thing that can determine that question is evidence, not philosophy.
You asked us to suppose that it exists as a fact or possibility - so what's left?

If the dimensional lines (labelled x y and z for height width and depth) can conceptually extend for ever, then even if the universe hasn't expanded that far yet, we can still conceive of the location and so we have the potential to reach it.

Even as a concept, 'that location over there' must exist unless you can explain why it is impossible for anything to get there.

Some physicists tried to argue that space (the dimensional lines) were therefore curved and self-contained within the boundaries of the universe, so you couldn't reach any place beyond the bounds of the universe because it truly didn't exist.

However the 9 year results of NASA's WMAP survey concluded that ....
"The universe is flat, with a 0.4% margin of error, and that Euclidean geometry probably applies".

In other words, the dimensional lines are straight and therefore the Universe is potentially infinite.

"I think, therefore I am"

This is not an absolute proof for the simple reason that we can't ever prove that we have understood our proofs correctly. — Qmeri

Sorry but I think that is nonsense.
You don't require understanding to know you exist.
The very fact that you can 'think and do' means you exist. Understanding only explains why. That is not necessary to the basic premise.

I'm not aware of any evidence that a particle/fundamentally different stuff
differentiation exists. — Enrique

The Double Slit experiment for one. Dark Energy and the accelerating expansion of the universe as another. What about particle entanglement? What about the loophole free Bell Tests?

if particles ride dark matter waves their behavior is probably mutualized enough with dark matter for whatever reason that this amounts to a synthetic substance in some degree. — Enrique

The word 'Probably' here is perhaps the giveaway. We can all set boundaries wherever we want, and if you are determined to only see things one way, that is indeed possible.

However I and others see merit in categorising things in different ways, which allows us to explore new potential answers in those areas where your approach cannot find them

The laws of physics dictate the speed of light. — Banno

No they don't. The Laws of physics merely build-in an assumption.
They don't prove that the speed of light is fixed.... and the evidence would seem to contradict that notion. You always have to calibrate equations against reality.

In this case however, scientists want to preserve doctrine over substance.

To say that Life is part of entropy because it consumes (disassembles) its food/nutrients ignores the incredible amount of assembly that it does in creating living beings (described as the most complex things in the universe) which in turn assemble buildings etc.

Why do you choose to isolate the negatives and ignore the positives?

In the universe as a whole, there had to be assembly in the first place before increasing disorder was able to take effect.

It seems to me that within the universe there are effects which assemble and some which disassemble. They are all part of a cyclical system.

What most scientists choose to do is to ignore the incredible mechanisms of assembly because they cannot explain them within their one doctrine of entropic chemistry/physics.

Its about time that scientists woke up to the importance of assembly and to investigate it properly.

Schrodinger was on the right track.

Hi Banno

An interesting reply - thank you.

As I understand it, Maxwell's equations only demonstrate how we consistently perceive light.
The size of the universe is a measurement within our perception.

Those equations also show that no mass can travel faster than the speed of light. — Banno

They only do this I believe because they assume a fixed c. That is not proof - it simply says that there might not be anything that could push faster.

However, what is to say that the special circumstances of the Big Bang wouldn't create a faster push?

Hi ghostlycutter

The author, Christophe Finipolscie came up with a great phrase when discussing the principle of entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, (from which the concept came). He said...

"You cannot disassemble something before it has first been assembled".

Gravity was one way to demonstrate assembly instead of disassembly (entropy) but life is also a classic way to demonstrate regular complex assembly too.

Furthermore, Ernst Schrodinger defined life as...
"That which avoids the decay into equilibrium".

Hi MondoR & Enrique

Well the question then is how did these two types of stuff get differentiated if they interact? To explain that you have to presume the two types of stuff are different, divergent forms of the same stuff. Two fundamentally and eternally unfiliated stuffs that cocausate is preposterous. — Enrique

We differentiate things because they display fundamentally different characteristics or effects. If Mater/Energy can't do something, then something else must, (if determinism is to be preserved as a concept). Alternatively, you have to accept the possibility of either spontaneity or randomness as the opposites to determinism.

Clearly, we have demonstrated that many physical aspects to our existence do conform to deterministic principles, but there are also many unexplained aspects of our existence which do not, from the double slit experiment to particle entanglement to the activities of motor proteins, consciousness etc

There is no conceptual logic that I can see which would prevent two types of stuff bouncing off each other for all eternity. Please explain it if one does exist.

It is much more straight-forward to think of the fabric as a continuous wave form, similar to how one imagines a hologram. — MondoR

Yes, it is more straightforward - but that doesn't make it true.
I'm not saying that the alternate is guaranteed to be true either, but it is a possibility driven by evidence.

But I wonder if Feynman wasn't onto something when he argued to do the calculating, focus on the math and stop speculating. — jgill

Hi jgill

The trouble with Feynman was that his deterministic approach, based on the traditional maths that underpins all of the scientific Laws of Physics and Chemistry, fails philosophically as soon as you introduce probabilities, which are an admission that there is no known cause in those circumstances.

Science deploys probabilities quite a lot. In some circumstances it is probably valid to presume that an outcome which cannot be specifically explained because we have failed to monitor precise circumstances, are still operating accorrding to the known laws.

But in many other circumstances where scientists do look carefully and find no other factor to generate an effect, such assumptions would not be valid. The double slit experiment is one such example.

I think Gary explained it to you quite well. If I understood correctly, what he said was that for the (material) parts of the universe to get to where they are right now, from the big bang, they must have traveled faster than the speed of light. I did not check his math, but I think this is what he was saying anyway. Does it not make sense to you? — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks for that "MU".
The maths is quite simple....

The age of the universe is now agreed at approx 13.7 billion years.
An explosion at the speed of light would travel outwards 13.7 billion light years in that time.
However that is only a radius, so that distance has to be doubled for the diameter.
So 27.4 billion light years should therefore be the maximum diameter but scientists/cosmologists agree that the universe is at least 96billion light years across.

Hope that helps.

Well, apart from the laws of physics becoming inconsistent... yeah, what are folk worried about. — Banno

Hi Banno

I don't think there are inconsistencies..
The Laws concerning movement won't be affected by the possibility that travel faster than light is possible.

In practical terms, the only things that would be affected in our Earth-bound circumstances are the potential amounts of energy being released in a nuclear explosion - because it is only when you get to those levels that we get to anything near the factors that the speed of light would affect.

Given that the energy from even detonated nuclear explosions, (which we have tried to measure as verification of estimates), can themselves only be estimated by their effects, the potential reality exposed by the size and age of the universe will have no practical impact on the application of our current descriptive laws.

Tim - if you're going to resort to blatant lies, there's no point in continuing.
Your credibiilty is shot - and others who can read can verify what I am saying — Gary Enfield

In relation to your latest bit of nonsense... why don't your read the previous posts?

The two basic examples which break the principle that the speed of light is the fastest speed that anything can travel are:-

1 - the size of the universe, which on current estimates is more than 98bn light years across - and therefore more than 4 times the widest spread that could be achieved by an exploding singularity at the speed of light.

2 - the faster than light experiments conducted by Nicolas Gisin across lake Geneva which demonstrated that particles of light travelling away from each other in opposite directions (twice the speed of light) were still able to communicate instantly - (or technically, at least 10,000 times the speed of light). — Gary Enfield

Tim - your credibility is shot, and you don't understand what real evidence is.
I'm done with you.

Hi Enrique

it seems to me that reality must consist in different forms of a single substance. In essence, apparent dualism always resolves into a multifaceted monism within the most accurate explanations since initial conditions of all causal events are shared, even if this causality proves to arise from an eternal substrate. — Enrique

There is a difference between determinism and dualism.
In fact, a 2nd type of stuff underpinning reality is the prime way to preserve determinism (single cause & single effect), in the light of various unexplained experimental results.

I never liked the description of 'Pilot Wave' because is tends to ignore the other stuff that must be generating the wave. It places the emphasis on an effect - not the capabilities of this other stuff.

I don't see why the presence of 2 types of stuff underpinning reality is such a problem. Where is the conceptual difficulty in imagining two types of material underpinning the universe, and them interacting with each other? Why does that have to become two aspects of the same stuff?

Envisaging 2 types of stuff is also helpful to our analysis, because it can help to distinguish different effects and influences. In the same way that we can separate the Laws of Physics & Chemistry that apply to our level of existence, from the very different rules that seem to apply at the quantum level (within or smaller than atoms), there is a natural separation between these realms... which aids analysis.

There have been various concepts of 'other types of stuff', from matter vs antimatter through to the capabilities of an unspecified stuff that generates Thought - or which even constitutes an 'information layer' of existence'.

So conceptually, I don't have a problem with the concept of 2 types of stuff. The main problem has been in isolating, detecting, and analysing what it might be. Perhaps Matter/Energy isn't capable of detecting the other stuff and we can only observe subtle interactions between them?

I think we all realise that there is no direct evidence for this other stuff, but the Dual Slit experiment may be one of the best indirect pieces of evidence for it. As I said before, it is easy to imagine Dark Energy being another manifestation of this.... another factor, like gravity, that we can't detect directly. We only observe effects.

Imagining another type of stuff underpinning existence is the simplest way to explain the Dual Slit effect, while preserving all existing notions of how Matter/Energy operates - and avoiding the nonsence of 'wave-particle duality'. It is likely that such stuff would be everywhere around us too, so there are many other factors in existence that it might explain.

If you're going to resort to blatant lies, your credibility is shot. — Gary Enfield

I did answer the points, and my evidence is far beyond just claims. They are accepted basic science.
None of the others who advocate inflation could produce any evidence to justify that speculation either.
That's because it was only ever invented as a way to preserve the doctrine of a fixed C - doctrine over reality.

If you don't even know what real evidence is, you shouldn't be on this forum.
If you do have evidence for your claim then present it - as I have asked everyone to do.
But you can't, because there isn't any.

Scientists should go with the evidence - clearly you aren't.

Hi Enrique

True - single particle experiments can only be done with modern equipment, but I don't see why there is a need to imagine a different mechanism at work. All we are trying to do is find out about the original effect and why it is occurring. Unless you can show a reason why a different mechanism might be kicking-in, there is no reason to suppose that it's a different factor.

There may be different factors in some of the strange effects recorded in certain experiments - eg. the disappearance of the interference pattern when monitoring equipment was put near the slots, but that is not what you seemed to be discussing here.

Again - instead of imagining that particles miraculaously turn into waves, and then back again to form a dot on a detector, why not accept the simpler option of a hidden pool of stuff that is causing the wave which the particles ride?

Tim - if you're going to resort to blatant lies, there's no point in continuing.
Your credibiilty is shot - and others who can read can verify what I am saying

Well, just for you I have reviewed your posts to this thread, and you have done nothing of the kind. My guess is that you have fastened onto gee-whiz aspects of popularized reports of some pretty esoteric science without understanding them and now think you know something. The giveaway is your insistence that you have already posted your arguments and proofs when you have not, together with your unwillingness to provide them. — tim wood

I have looked back on this thread and I first made the comments on 23rd March.

The two basic examples which break the principle that the speed of light is the fastest speed that anything can travel are:-

1 - the size of the universe, which on current estimates is more than 98bn light years across - and therefore more than 4 times the widest spread that could be achieved by an exploding singularity at the speed of light.

2 - the faster than light experiments conducted by Nicolas Gisin across lake Geneva which demonstrated that particles of light travelling away from each other in opposite directions (twice the speed of light) were still able to communicate instantly - (or technically, at least 10,000 times the speed of light). — Gary Enfield

I have also defended the same points to you and others on 24th, 25th and 28th March

So again - If you're going to resort to blatant lies, your credibility is shot.


In summary, you have asked me for evidence - and I have given 2 proven examples from science which you and others do not deny.

When I ask you for evidence of your inflation idea, you can produce none.
End of story

Hi Enrique

Sorry - I missed your post on 9th April, due to all the other comments.

The reason why I don't think that an electromagnetic field generated by the equipment would explain the effect is because the original experiment conducted by Thomas Young in the early 1800s used candles, not lasers.

But the test is applicability outside of fantasy land. You have not met that test. And in making your claims, you have neglected/contradicted what by all accounts is good and sound science, without yourself having offered any evidence or proof to ground such claims. — tim wood

What a load of rubbish.

I have stated my evidence many times, as this thread easily shows, and quite clearly - the size of the universe compared to the age of the universe, and the faster than light experiments by Gisin.
You haven't denied or contradicted any of it.

To say what you did, is simply false.

The only thing that lacks real world evidence is your suggestion (along with others) that the universe is inflating.

So when you produce evidence that it is inflating we will all pat you on the back and say well done. But as you can't, you are still talking rubbish - just because others are.

Try to be mature about this Tim.

If you have a reason why you feel that my suggestion is wrong then say so, but saying that it is wrong simply because other people have said something else is just crass.

Hi Enrique

I think a basic problem with your idea is that the first experiments were conducted with light, and therefore an electric field wouldn't apply. I can't help believing that whatever mechanism applies - it would apply to both mediums equally.

I'm not sure what sort of field 'light beams/photons' could generate, but the idea that I ran with (above) - poached from Finiposcie, was of a wave being generated in a hidden pool of other stuff. The photon or electron particles would therefore ride the troughs of the wave without having to change from particle to wave themselves (which seems a nonsense to me anyway).

If you substitute waves in a field, for waves in a pool of 'other stuff' - there may be some merit in it.

The Quantum Eraser Experiments weren't just about entanglement, although they used paired particles.
They were trying to demonstrate whether the same split particle of light would produce different effects under similar conditions. The patterns achieved were significant in ruling out certain possible explanations.

Denis / All

As I have mentioned on my thread in the Philosophy of Science forum, probabilities are an acknowledgment of no known cause for a range of outcomes, and therefore their function is to provide a description in the absence of an explanation.

In providing that description, I agree with T Wood that

Probability is a measure of information about a system. — tim wood

Determinist theory, and the maths involved in the traditional Laws of Physics & Chemistry, (rather than the principles emerging from QM), says that for every action from a precise start point, there can only be one inevitable outcome - and if you were to accept that premise for all aspects of existence, then everything in existence would be truly inevitable and we would all be acting-out a fixed script.

The trouble is that this theory contradicts our living experiences, and requires us to effectively deny both the reality of our lives, and the experiences of every person who has ever lived, simply to uphold a doctrine - which may or may not be true. That is a very big ask.

However, determinists will point out that there is a difference between our limited knowledge and therefore our ability to predict outcomes vs the underlying inevitability of existence. There is an important difference in that respect, but it doesn't deny the possibility of truly random events instead of hidden causes/variables.

The Laws of Physics demand one outcome - not multiple outcomes from a given start point, (called randomness) - because that is the basis of their explanations. So when multiple outcomes arise, there is either a missing factor, or a lack of determinism.

In trying to resolve the unknown factors behind the differences in outcome, people may try to assume that the gap simply reflects known factors that are not being monitored. But that is an assumption, and where there is no factor that can logically be applied to resolve a scenario, then such a presumption seems to be at odds with the evidence. It is perfectly valid to look for missing factors, but it is also valid to consider that there may be genuinely non-determinist (spontaneous or random) factors in existence.

The more narrow the range of potential outcomes, the more likely it would seem that a hidden mechanism is at work, which has not yet been identified - but conversely, a very broad range of outcomes, without any discernible pattern might also be evidence for a lack of determinism.

As has been pointed out, probabilities, like odds in a lottery, provide a generalised description rather than a firm prediction. The most extreme and unusual outcome could occur next time around. But the converse is also true, probabilities indicate likelihood, and so the chances of the same extreme outcome occurring a second or third time would be extremely remote if the statistical model were originally correct.

That is the dilemma when trying to apply probabilities to the origin of the first living cell. Multiple examples of every single protein would be needed for nature to experiment and evolve. When the odds of a single protein occurring by chance are one in '10 to the power 366' (ie. more options than there are atoms in the universe), then yes the likelihood of a 2nd example occurring by chance are pretty well nil. Yet life emerged.

In other words, the problems are not confined to randomness, but also examples of co-ordination that break the scientific models. So I don't agree with fishfry that

We are hard pressed to give even a single example of an ontologically random event. Most people will fall back on quantum events. The low-order bit of the femtosecond timestamp of the next neutrino to hit your detector is random because QM says it is. — fishfry

The traditional main source of examples for a lack of determinism arise from Thought and consciousness. But as we have seen, the origin of proteins, plus the growing number of examples from the activities of molecules within living cells, point to other equally challenging issues. For instance, (as again discussed in the Philosophy of Science forum), certain molecules display characteristics of problem solving which defy the logic of the Laws of Physics which should apply to them.

In terms of randomness there are also many examples from other disciplines, such as cosmology including the broad theory of origin and the Big Bang. The evidence of the accelerating expansion of the universe either says that the 'Big Bang - Big Crunch' explanation must have had a start point 13.7 billion years ago (representing spontaneity without cause), or had a change to a previously eternal sequence - requiring a change that had to be either spontaneous or random - ie. non-deterministic. (I confess that I got that principle from Finipolscie's books).

The problem with QM is that we can't see what's happening at that level of existence, and can only describe what is observed. The extensive use of probabilities in QM is a way to try to bring the perceived randomness of the observations into the deterministic fold - but they still represent a description rather than an explanation, because they are basically an admission that we don't have a cause to explain the different outcomes.

Tim

If you don't believe in the application of logic to evidence, then you have no basis for any opinion.
The evidence and logic I presented are perfectly valid.

Even if you might prefer an alternate explanation you have not yet provided any logic to say that mine is invalid. If it is a valid possibility - then it should be able to stand on its own merits - which it does.

Until you act like a scientist and acknowledge the range of valid potential explanations, and explain why others are not valid, you are just mud slinging based on doctrine over substance.

Hi Pop

There is clearly information and logic within the totality of existence, as we all know that we use this as part of our conscious lives. That doesn't necessarily mean that there has always been information as a base part of existence, rather than it being an emergent property from our consciousness.

To my mind, the results from CERN do not demonstrate any base level information layer. Indeed, much of scientific research seems to be aimed at finding physical/particulate answers to everything.

You may be right - that in some way, information may be an ever-present factor. But that hasn't been demonstrated as far as I know. If you believe that such evidence exists then it may well be worth a separate thread.

I still believe that the current scientific explanations for existence as a whole must be missing one or more factors, because they simply don't explain everything we observe. That is why I was interested by the finding from CERN (above).

I suppose that in the case of the origin of life, as mentioned across many previous comments on this thread, there are certain key unexplained features, and I have been trying to determine what physical characteristics might be required to resolve them if the gap is truly physical rather than information/will of God.

The use of codes within the replication mechanism is a particularly interesting aspect of this.

If you wish to build up an argument for an information layer, can I suggest that you assemble such factors that might require it, and put them into your model so that we can all appreciate how the logic / explanation might work?

Hi Enrique

May the force be with you too!

I have tried to re-read your initial post, and to some degree, I think you're suggesting that the electrical charge may indeed represent a different type of stuff that generates the interference - the sea or air in the examples I gave.

Am I right about what you're saying? I did find the post quite difficult to follow in terms of emphasis.

However, you have various things to explain. Why wouldn't this lightning mechanism produce the interference pattern when there is only one slit open. How do you get a build up of the interference patterns when single photons or electrons are fired? How would this work in the context of the Quantum Eraser experiments?

The big things that led me to agree with Finipolscie's logic are
1 - the width of the interference pattern - which goes well beyond the width of the two slits (when open).
2 - that wave particle duality requires the particle collapse to perfectly occur in one place, not many, to match the results of the single particle firings.

If you inflate a balloon, the objects you draw on it inflate too. In reality, objects in space stay the same size.

Why you persist in the nonsense of inflation without evidence is beyond me. What is so sacred about a fixed C that you wish to abandon the basic evidence?

Why not spend your time investigating the opportunities of faster than light travel under whatever abnormal circumstances the Big Bang might create?

Why not try and acknowledge the results of the faster than light experiment by Gisin - which said that communications at least could be 10,000 times the speed of light even in the circumstances that we occupy?

If you want to break the real fundamentals of science, in preference for speculative doctrine, then you need real evidence.... which you don't have.

Hi Aryamoy Mitra

What you're asserting then, is that the near entirety of Inflationary Cosmology, as physicists apprehend it today, is a facade. — Aryamoy Mitra

I am saying, very clearly, that Inflationary Cosmology was specifically proposed to preserve the notion of a fixed speed for light. It may be true, but it lacks any real evidence.

When it was pointed out that objects in space were not inflating, (which they should if space itself was inflating), then a 2nd round of gobbledygook emerged to try and justify the nonsense, despite the simple evidence. You are arguing for doctrine of substance - because you have no actual evidence for inflation as opposed to the basic implication of faster than light travel.

You can't straddle between two, antithetical narratives. Either abnegate General Relativity, and be a proponent of nonstandard ideas - or accept it, — Aryamoy Mitra

I think I can just about guess what this jargon means - but you seem to be suggesting that I am jumping around between theories, when I am not. I am simply saying that the evidence of distance divided by time - when applied to absolute and agreed values, trumps vague notions based on doctrine over real substance.

As I said before. I acknowledge that your preferred theory may one day be given substance, but it hasn't yet - and the historical fact remains - it was dreamt up to preserve a fixed C

Do you acknowledge a semantic difference between the expansion of a spacetime fabric, and the celestial bodies ensconced on that fabric?

If you don't concede to the existence of that distinction to commence with, you'll be unamenable to any evidence that underpins it. — Aryamoy Mitra