Smeggy's Forums

Forums where you CAN vent!

Skip to content

What has always bugged you about science?

Into science? Chat about its amazing wonders here. E really does equal MC^2 -> Einstein would be proud!

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Sorry I haven't been around. Can't let it get to two years...

dougal wrote:It's this: Science has determined there are 4 fundamental forces in the Universe, one of which is Gravity. The other three forces are fairly well-understood and the bosons that carry them have been identified. But Einstein theorized that gravity is not really a force per se, but the apparent effect on the inertial properties of a mass that is travelling through a region of spacetime that has been "curved" by another mass.

Right?


That's correct. In Einstein's schema, gravity isn't actually a force, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime.

So why are TOE guys trying to incorporate gravity into their theories in terms of being either a wave (gravity waves) or particle (the graviton)? Is this simply a contrivance made for mathematical purposes, for convenience and simplicity's sake? What I mean is, is the force of gravity expressed mathematically in terms of a particle (or wave) so that the issue can be approached mathematically within the context of both GR and QM, within which particles and wave behavior is already mathematically robust and well-understood?

Am I way off on this?


Well, we know we need a quantum theory of gravity for several reasons. The first is that we know that QM and GR are both incomplete. Neither tells the complete story but, more importantly, there are real situations in which they seem to contradict each other.

The first and most obvious scenario to deal with is a black hole. According to a purely relativistic treatment of black holes, any entity whose mass is contained entirely within its Schwarzschild radius will necessarily end in a singularity. Let's first deal with what a singularity actually is, from the perspective of physics, because we are working between two very distinct definitions here, and it is apposite to expose just what those definitions are:

The first definition of a singularity is a region of infinite density and infinite curvature. This is what we have as the classical picture of a black hole singularity (and indeed the big bang singularity). It is important to note that this type of singularity, i.e. a physical singularity, is far from having been established, and when we deal with the second definition of 'singularity' we will actually be a lot closer to understanding why this is.

The second definition of a singularity is an event at which our theories break, usually by yielding solutions that amount to nonsense. Infinities are generally taken to be a sign that there is something wrong with our theories, not because there is any barrier to an infinite actually existing, but just because we expect the universe to be quantifiable, and infinity is, by definition, something that cannot be quantified. This is the erroneous basis of arguments such as Kalamity Kraig's that something must halt the regress of causes, which he calls god. Of course, this is an error, because there is no barrier, physical or theoretical, to infinities actually existing in nature. Having said that, infinities are extremely unhelpful to theories, because they mean that the results of theories cannot be quantified, which means that our understanding is not progressed by them. For this reason, when we reach a singularity, or a solution of infinity, we usually take it to mean that we're on the wrong track.

More importantly, in this context, those infinities arise when we try to marry the equations of general relativity with those of quantum mechanics. Quantum theory renders outputs that are necessarily probabilistic in nature. Now, probabilities can only fall within a certain narrow range of values, namely 0 and 1. A probability of 0 means that something is impossible (although some caveats are appropriate here, because events with a 0 probability do occur), while a probability of 1 means that an event is inevitable. Most often, we see probabilities rendered as a fraction, a ratio or a percentage, but it must always fall between 0 and 1. Since we encounter solutions to the marriage of the equations of GR and QM that tell us that probabilities are infinite, we know the solutions are nonsense.

In the case of black hole singularities (and it is this second definition that is the reason that we call it a singularity, regardless of what the singularity actually comprises), General Relativity, from which the black hole singularity arises, tells us that the singularity should be a singularity under the first definition, which means that it is a quantum event with relativistic mass. Unfortunately, every attempt thus far presented to marry the equations of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity yield solutions that equate to infinity, which we take to mean that our theories aren't working properly together. More importantly, the details of the physical singularity are such that QM tells us that the singularity is an asymptote, which means that it can be approached but never reached.

It's fairly certain that, in order to fit gravity into a quantum framework, it will have to be a dual theory (wave and particle)*, because that's what quantum theory deals with.


*Actually, this is a bit misleading. What QFT (quantum field theory) actually tells us is that neither particle nor wave are real, nor any combination thereof. Both particle and wave are simply the behaviours of fields that result from the way we interact with the field during observation. So, we interact with the field one way (watch the particle go through one slit in the double-slit experiment, for example) and we see particle. Interact with the field another way (don't watch it go through the slit) and we see wave. Neither are real, it's just a field.



User avatar
On a roll!
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:01 am
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

smeggypants wrote:Science determined that the earth was flat at one point in time. how do we know there are only 4 forces?


We don't. In fact, two of those forces have only been known for less than a century, and one of them is probably not actually a force.



User avatar
On a roll!
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:01 am
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

crumbs wrote:Science is simply what we currently know.


Not really. Science is the iterative process by which we accumulate knowledge, usually by demonstrating that what we thought we knew wasn't actually true.

Science will never be able to explain everything.


That's a strong statement. I'm less certain. I think it's unlikely that we'll ever know absolutely everything (so, for example, I think it unlikely we'll ever know how many cosmic expanses arose prior to ours if indeed there were any), but I see no barrier to o9ur knowing the complete set of processes by which the universe operates.

I believe that the human mind is an experiment set up by a higher force (something we do not currently know about or understand)


I think that such a posit is pretty silly, and definitely unjustified.

into how close we can come to understanding WHY we exist.


This commits the fallacy of circular reason, in that it begs the question that there even is a why. 'Why' questions are invalid in science.



User avatar
On a roll!
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:01 am
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

crumbs wrote:Why are there so many thread resurrections today on totally random threads?


I think the OP has a perfect right to resurrect this thread. He has responded to several posts including one of yours which contained your usual nonsense. :D

Never forget the iron law of unintended consequences

User avatar
Nutter!!
Posts: 9721
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:42 am
Location: Fylde Coast
How Hot Are You?: Frosty Weekend in Rhyl
Current Mood: less tired than I was

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

crumbs wrote:Why are there so many thread resurrections today on totally random threads?


Being a Christian, I thought you would like a good resurrection. :D

I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!

Irritating the humorless since 1973

User avatar
Complete Nutter!!
Posts: 10575
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:33 pm
How Hot Are You?: Frosty Weekend in Rhyl
Current Mood: Sexy as fuck!

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Mr Squirrel wrote:
crumbs wrote:Why are there so many thread resurrections today on totally random threads?


Being a Christian, I thought you would like a good resurrection. :D



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:maddy: Image


Image

User avatar
Forum Slapper Lush
Posts: 35264
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 9:53 pm
Location: East London with Just Dave now.
How Hot Are You?: Centre Of The Sun
Current Mood: Eff it.

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Dolls wrote:
Mr Squirrel wrote:
crumbs wrote:Why are there so many thread resurrections today on totally random threads?


Being a Christian, I thought you would like a good resurrection. :D



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 118533
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Mr Squirrel wrote:
crumbs wrote:Why are there so many thread resurrections today on totally random threads?


Being a Christian, I thought you would like a good resurrection. :D


:howl: :howl: :howl:



User avatar
Complete Nutter!!
Posts: 19242
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:11 pm
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Mr Squirrel wrote:
crumbs wrote:Why are there so many thread resurrections today on totally random threads?


Being a Christian, I thought you would like a good resurrection. :D

It would be the first!



Loves The place!
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:35 pm
Location: France
How Hot Are You?: Frosty Weekend in Rhyl
Current Mood: Not so grumpy

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Mr Squirrel wrote:
crumbs wrote:Why are there so many thread resurrections today on totally random threads?


Being a Christian, I thought you would like a good resurrection. :D


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



User avatar
On a roll!
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:01 am
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

crumbs wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
crumbs wrote:Science is simply what we currently know.


Not really. Science is the iterative process by which we accumulate knowledge, usually by demonstrating that what we thought we knew wasn't actually true.


So the accumulation of knowledge is not what we 'currently know'? FAIL.

Science is our understanding of things. Nothing more. I say that as a scientist. What are your credentials?

Knowledge in science is gained mostly by confirming theories, not by demonstrating what we thought to be true wasn't actually true. The former is simply disproving a theory - that doesn't result in gaining actual knowledge.



Well I would say one goes hand in hand with the other. For example, proving that the earth was "spherical" and orbited the Sun, confirmed those theories but also proved hitherto claims that the earth was flat and was the centre of the universe in which everything else orbited.

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 118533
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

crumbs wrote:So the accumulation of knowledge is not what we 'currently know'? FAIL.


No, it's the process by which we garner knowledge. Save the fail for yourself, as you seem particularly skilled at that.

Science is our understanding of things. Nothing more.


Total arse-water. It's the means by which we come to understand things. It's a process.

I say that as a scientist. What are your credentials?


Ah, the attempt at argument from self-authority. Got any other fuckwit logical fallacies you'd like to share with us? Of course, I'm supremely skeptical of your claim, so I'd lovbe to actually see your credential. Not that it will make much difference when you commit such sophomoric epistemological errors rooted in the rudiments of the philosophy as science as the following:

Knowledge in science is gained mostly by confirming theories,


Bzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing.

Don't know if you'ver ever heard of this little thing formalised by Hume known as 'the problem of induction', but what it tells us is that we don't EVER confirm a theory (that would actually require omnipotence omniscience (oops)), we can only ever show it to be empirically adequate, i.e. not yet falsified by observation.

not by demonstrating what we thought to be true wasn't actually true. The former is simply disproving a theory - that doesn't result in gaining actual knowledge.


Bzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing.

Don't know if you've ever hear of this little thing called 'falsification', which is what underpins all progress in scientific knowledge. You may want to gen up on something that pretty much all real scientists have read, namely The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper.

Fucking scientist my arse. Oh wait, you're not a psychologist are you?

When you want to learn some more about science, feel free to talk fucking bollocks again.

Edit: Word substitution as annotated..



User avatar
On a roll!
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:01 am
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

if crumbs is a scientist I'd like to hear how that aligns with his belief in a deity?

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 118533
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

crumbs wrote:There are many, many religious people who work in all fields of science. Here are some Christian ones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... in_science

I work with loads of people who are inventors, researchers, have many Patents, pioneers, etc., who have a faith.


Oh, look, a long list of people who also couldn't answer the question. That doesn't actually answer the question, but in fact commits another logical fallacy, the argumentum ad verecundiam. Three more obvious fallacies and you win a set of steak knives.

To be fair, most of those people lived in extremely credulous times, long in the past. Those living after the mid-19th century have fewer excuses.



User avatar
On a roll!
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:01 am
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

crumbs wrote:
smeggypants wrote:if crumbs is a scientist I'd like to hear how that aligns with his belief in a deity?


There are many, manyreligious people who work in all fields of science. Here are some Christian ones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... in_science

I work with loads of people who are inventors, researchers, have many Patents, pioneers, etc., who have a faith.



Argumentum ad populum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum.

Lots of other people feeling the same isn't a valid argument.

How does your scientific ethos align with your belief in a deity ?

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 118533
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

How does religion help you morally (I'll set aside the massive petitio principii being committed with regard to 'spiritually')? What has religion to do with morality? Should we split to another thread while we explore it, or would running away be preferable?



User avatar
On a roll!
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:01 am
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

crumbs wrote:When you can pay me a six-figure sum for advancing knowledge and capability in cutting-edge technology using this thing called 'science' that you speak of - the very cutting-edge technology that you will use in the future to post shite on the Internet - then you can come onto a forum and slag people off.


Errr, who have I slagged off, numbnuts? You talk shit, I fuck it over. That's how this works. Don't like it? Stop talking through your fucking arse, moron.

Love the second attempt at erecting an argument from self-authority, though. Is that how science is advanced, by committing crystal clear logical fallacies?

I don't believe you when you say you're a scientist, because you're ignorant of the most basic principles of scientific epistemology.

Until then, go back to reading books to make yourself look clever


Look clever, fuckwit? Compared to you, I needn't read anything to accomplish that.

, in between watching daytime TV.


As opposed to wanking in your mum's basement, you mean?

Seriously, if you ever wish to be taken seriously, don't attempt insults at people better at it than you, and don't erect schoolboy fallacies in place of argumentation.



User avatar
On a roll!
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:01 am
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

crumbs wrote:
hackenslash wrote:How doers religion help you morally? What has religion to do with morality? Should we split to another thread while we explore it, or would running away be preferable?


As you don't understand religion you wouldn't know.


I understand it a fuck of a lot better than you do, you stupid cunt. I understand that there's no connection between it and morality, except in its idiotic claims.



User avatar
On a roll!
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:01 am
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Thing is Crumbs, how can you believe in something with zero evidence (god) and then claim to be a scientist? Surely a scientist would look for evidence of god, find none and then discount it as something very unlikely to exist?



User avatar
Complete Nutter!!
Posts: 19242
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:11 pm
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Resonance wrote:Thing is Crumbs, how can you believe in something with zero evidence (god) and then claim to be a scientist? Surely a scientist would look for evidence of god, find none and then discount it as something very unlikely to exist?


Crumbs claims many things, Res... All of which we all know is bollocks.

Its a good job he dosent use internet forums to be taken seriously because nobody does take him seriously.

:D :D :D

I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!

Irritating the humorless since 1973

User avatar
Complete Nutter!!
Posts: 10575
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:33 pm
How Hot Are You?: Frosty Weekend in Rhyl
Current Mood: Sexy as fuck!

PreviousNext

Share this Topic on Facebook:

Return to General Science

Similar topics

  • Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
    Top of Page

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests