Thread: The universe and it's order.

Originally Posted by Xei

Quantum gravity? Wow, I'd get writing to Nature right now if I were you.

I believe that everything with mass has gravity. So atoms are attracted to eacother by gravity.

Is evolution a law? If something is suitable for starting and attaining life does it have to?

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

Is evolution a law? If something is suitable for starting and attaining life does it have to?

I am not the leading expert on evolution but here is my answer (It is probably wrong). Evolution is a theory because it cannot be 100% proved at this time. If something is suitable for sustaining and starting life it just does. It can't choose one way or the other. If it is suitable it just does.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I am not the leading expert on evolution but here is my answer. Evolution is a theory because it cannot be 100% proved at this time. If something is suitable for sustaining and starting life it just does. It can't choose one way or the other. If it is suitable it just does.

Nothing can be 100% proved, arguably.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I believe that everything with mass has gravity. So atoms are attracted to eacother by gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

Gravity only works with massive objects. Atoms are attracted to each other by Van der Waal's forces or electrostatic forces if they're ions.

Nothing can be 100% proved, arguably.

Prove it.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Nothing can be 100% proved, arguably.

ok. Thats not very helpful. True, but not helpful. It didn't answer his question. Thats probably not what you were trying to do though right? You were just stating a fact. Note: mean none of this in an offensive or rude tone. Like 90% of comunication is body language and voice tone. Both wich we lack.

Originally Posted by Xei

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

Gravity only works with massive objects. Atoms are attracted to each other by Van der Waal's forces or electrostatic forces if they're ions.

Prove it.

Maybe we'll get an answer to our silly little argument when CERN proves or disproves the theory of quantum gravity.

I wasn't having a 'silly little argument', I was telling you about quantum gravity.

Why do you think gravity works on the quantum scale? Any evidence?

Quantum gravity isn't a theory anyway, they're still trying to find it. And CERN isn't going to cause a revolution in particle physics overnight...

But atoms are massive objects, aren't they?
And I hope atoms are attracted to eacother by gravity, if that wasn't the case, the moon would fly away...along with everything else with mass in the universe.

You can only apply it to macroscopic objects.

Originally Posted by Xei

That just seems like a play on words to me. In reality, every single probabalistic event has a probability of 1 for one outcome and of 0 for all the others. If you were to drop a deck of cards from the top of the skyscraper and they all landed back together in the correct order on the ground, you could say that due to the unchanging laws of our universe and determinism, that was always going to happen. However it's something that clearly requires explanation.

I don't think you got what I was trying to say. My point is that we don't know what the universal constants arise from, or why they even exist (I mean the mechanical why, not the 'purpose' why). For all we know, asking "What if gravity was different" could be similar to asking "What if the atoms of solids were able to slide around each other?". Maybe these constants are simply a property of matter, and there is no way they could possibly be any different. This is why I have a problem with associating a probability with them.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, the only plausible way I can think of that intelligence could arise was if there was some sort of system by which the complexity of an object increases over time. Intelligence comes about because it has a purpose, which is to survive, and I think evolution is the only way such a thing could concievably happen.

Yes, which is why I proposed a way in which evolution could be carried out on these nebulous plasma beings, or whatever happens to exist. I don't really see where you're going.

Originally Posted by Xei

You can only apply it to macroscopic objects.

Define macroscopic. Can't an atom bend the fabric the same way a planet does?
A planet is made of atoms you know. The atoms combined mass and with that gravity pull keeps them together.

Originally Posted by Your link

In fact, gravity is in many ways a much better quantum field theory than the Standard Model, since it appears to be valid all the way up to its cutoff at the Planck scale.

Doesn't that speak in my favor?

Anything with mass can be influenced by gravity. Even light is affected by Gravity. However, because it is such a weak force, it is extremely hard to comprehend it at the atomic and sub-atomic level, and only really shows on the macroscopic level. However, if atoms weren't affected by gravity, our universe would be more or less uniform in terms of distribution of atoms and particles, with variations occurring due to other effects. The fact that we have an atmosphere shows that free, individual atoms are affected by gravity, and is not something that is restricted to macroscopic objects.

What Scientists are having trouble with is defining gravity at the Quantum Level. They know gravity exists and understand how it works on the macroscopic level, but when it comes to explaining how these attractions occur between individual particles, then they simply don't know. Is there a particle that gets emitted, or is it some other form of interaction?

If anything, it's just another part of Science that is still subject to experimentation and revision. "We know it exists, but we don't know how it goes about doing what it does", etc...

^see above.

Thank you.

The big bang theory does not describe an explosion. It irks me when its described in this way.

Its an expansion, not an explosion.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The big bang theory does not describe an explosion. It irks me when its described in this way.

Its an expansion, not an explosion.

It was an explosion of expansion.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It was an explosion of expansion.

Would you call dragging the edge of a picture in towards the middle and making it smaller (in mspaint) an 'implosion'?

I am not the leading expert on evolution but here is my answer (It is probably wrong). Evolution is a theory because it cannot be 100% proved at this time. If something is suitable for sustaining and starting life it just does. It can't choose one way or the other. If it is suitable it just does.

Gravity is a theory.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Gravity is a theory.

Gravity is actually a force, of which there are theories to explain how it works. Maybe wording these things better may help others understand them (along with not misusing the word Theory, as it only devalues the meaning of the word, but that's something else).

"It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life". That's from Stephen Hawking, who knows a great deal more about any of this than we do, I think it's safe to say.

So you can therefore say that either

-fundamental constants vary throughout space and/or time, or
-there are multiple universes with different constants, or
-there is one universe with a conscious designer.

The problem is that there isn't any evidence for the first two, except the fact that we do exist and so we assume there must be a range of different universal constants, but to be assuming that you have to have automatically refuted the third...

Originally Posted by Xei

"It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life". That's from Stephen Hawking, who knows a great deal more about any of this than we do, I think it's safe to say.

No one, not even Steven Hawking, knows what other forms intelligent life could take than the ones we're familiar with. Hell, we don't even entirely know how carbon-based life works yet. This is an appeal to authority, and no human authority is great enough to currently provide a 'final' answer.

I don't think you got what I was trying to say. My point is that we don't know what the universal constants arise from, or why they even exist (I mean the mechanical why, not the 'purpose' why). For all we know, asking "What if gravity was different" could be similar to asking "What if the atoms of solids were able to slide around each other?". Maybe these constants are simply a property of matter, and there is no way they could possibly be any different. This is why I have a problem with associating a probability with them.

You didn't really respond to this, and I think it's still a relevant rebuttal to your latest point.

Appeal to authority, touché.

[edit]
Gnome beat me to it.

Originally Posted by Xei

"It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life". That's from Stephen Hawking, who knows a great deal more about any of this than we do, I think it's safe to say.

So you can therefore say that either

-fundamental constants vary throughout space and/or time, or
-there are multiple universes with different constants, or
-there is one universe with a conscious designer.

The problem is that there isn't any evidence for the first two, except the fact that we do exist and so we assume there must be a range of different universal constants, but to be assuming that you have to have automatically refuted the third...

And so you rely on the anthropic principle to decide it? First of all, let us look at the actual different options for the universe, since you missed a few:

-The universe is the way it is, and the fundamental constants are just that, constant, or
-fundamental constants vary throughout space and/or time, or
-there are multiple universes with different constants, or
-there is one universe with a conscious designer, or
-The universe is simulated.

The first option could simply arrive by chance (I don't see why people have a problem with this). Second option could be possible, but would be hard to measure directly. The third option can't be proven as we can't measure something that isn't part of this universe. The fourth option can't be proven as well, and so can't the fifth.

But the fifth option is perhaps the most interesting one. Perhaps the reason we see things to be the way they are is not due to the fact that it happened by chance or through the guidance of a deity/designer/etc, but because this reality is being simulated. It is merely a massive program in which we are part of, and thus can only experience what the program has provided. We literally exist within a massive computer or neural network, in which our minds (or AIs) are integrated within the simulated reality.

But because all the other options face the same problem of "why did it come to be that way?', does that make the fourth or fifth option more feasible? No. That is unless you actively want to believe in them. Which is fine, however, it doesn't make it a fact. Scientists can only do what they are good at doing, which is explaining and documenting how things work and how they came to be (please note the wording of the last part). God doesn't even come into the equation, and is only imposed by others who wish to see these things as the work of God, etc.

That is my two cents on the whole thing, so take it for what it's worth.