Space & Modern Theoretical Sciences

Love Nation

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
101
Thanked
44
Location
Berlin
Website
soundcloud.com
This Thread is for Space & Modern Theoretical Sciences, especially Theoretical Physics. For example Quantum Mechanics, the Multiverses, Time Travel, Higher Dimensions, Alien Life, weird Mathematics or your favourite Theory of Everything. Also other stuff would be interesting, like for example the connection between Modern Theoretical Sciences and Spirituality.

Please no conspiracy theories or something like that, only real theoretical science.
Overall, best would be modern theoretical stuff that almost has an philosophical character.
 

Love Nation

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
101
Thanked
44
Location
Berlin
Website
soundcloud.com
Here is a video from my favourite youtube channel. Its a bit complicated, but i like that. Its about what is inside a black hole, white holes, wormholes, parallel universes etc.
If you are interested in stuff like, that channel is the best one i know for that.


 

Gagi

Archon
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,062
Thanked
536
Location
Serbia
Ooof, at one point in my life I was really at awe of astrophysics, so much so that I considered switching my college to study that. Gonna buy me a telescope one day...one day.

Anyways, from channels my favs are Veritasium, minutephysics, Kurzgesagt (you have English and German versions).

I also loved Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos, and a couple of Brian Cox's shows. Two great dudes who really love what they are doing.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96

Love Nation

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
101
Thanked
44
Location
Berlin
Website
soundcloud.com
Ooof, at one point in my life I was really at awe of astrophysics, so much so that I considered switching my college to study that. Gonna buy me a telescope one day...one day.

Anyways, from channels my favs are Veritasium, minutephysics, Kurzgesagt (you have English and German versions).

I also loved Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos, and a couple of Brian Cox's shows. Two great dudes who really love what they are doing.
Nice, i would also study astrophysics, if i would study again. Saw maybe all documentaries about it, that have german versions. Then switched to youtube videos one day. In many of these documentaries, they for example say that they dont know what is inside a black hole. Or they dont know what was before the big bang. But that would be the only interesting things, that i would expect from these documentaries. So i think, youtube videos are better anyway.
However, a very good documentary series about the universe Mogan Freemans 'Through the wormhole'. It has many seasons and there are also many non-space topics explained.
Didnt know Brian Cox at all, have to check him. I like Brian Greene very much. There are some good documentaries about his books. My favourite youtube channels are PBS Space Time and Vsauce. On Vsauce there are besides space also many other different topics, for example psychology and mathematics and other interesting stuff.
 
Last edited:

Gagi

Archon
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,062
Thanked
536
Location
Serbia
Yeah, the thing about documentaries is they are all fantastic 60-minute pieces of visual art. Studying it is probably all math, chemistry, physics. You have to love those first, and really want to be an astrophysicist, but even then you probably spend most of your life either in space engineering or just do research and write papers all the time.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96

Love Nation

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
101
Thanked
44
Location
Berlin
Website
soundcloud.com
Yes true, forgot about that. I really dont like equations. A little bit of them is essential in some youtube videos, but dont want to solve them by myself, was bad in natural sciences at school. So maybe not a good idea to study it after all. But its so interesting, like for example, how did everything come into being? Or what is everything made of? The thought of intelligent matter is mindblowing, same is the coexistence of all times, at same time. And that are not even really brandnew findings...
 

Gagi

Archon
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,062
Thanked
536
Location
Serbia
Yeah, it's really mindblowing, but what I like the most is that we've basically evolved to be able to understand it all!
 

dmgtz96

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
842
Thanked
375
Studying it is probably all math, chemistry, physics.
Can confirm this bit for quantum, at least. I've been using this to self-study quantum chemistry, and so far have used differential equations, multivariable calculus, and complex numbers. Expect to see spherical coordinates when you study the hydrogen atom. There's a tiny bit of linear algebra, but it's more for a few special determinants.
Tbh haven't watched those documentaries/Youtubers yet, but they'd be cool to see.

Yeah, it's really mindblowing, but what I like the most is that we've basically evolved to be able to understand it all!
Right?! At least with quantum, what happened is that science couldn't explain blackbody radiation, and the math was not working out. Eventually, Planck proposed that energy was released in discrete units, and Einstein came up with his genius equations and explained the photoelectric effect. What's crazier is that a few years later Schrodinger almost pulled his equation out of a hat (the Schrodinger equation, likely inspired by the wave equation), and it matched with experimental results.

Here's a light reading into the blackbody radiation problem and how it was solved, if this stuff interests you: Ultraviolet catastrophe - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: Gagi

Hensmon

Admin
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
767
Thanked
431
Location
UK
Are you guys familiar with the teleological universe theory; Our universe is so intrinsically and minutely 'fine tuned' that it is essentially impossible for it not to have been designed deliberately.

For example "if the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball due to gravitational attraction". The conditions had to be precisely perfect. There are 92 of these conditions so far found (and more always being added), each of which the insane probabilities must be multiplied against each other, leading to a number that might as well be called infinity. There is essentially no chance whatsoever that the universe could assemble itself like it did, without something doing it deliberately. Fascinating stuff. Probably the first evidence of a 'god', and ironically it has come from science.

Here's a short but amazing article that outlines the details - Teleological Argument
 

Gagi

Archon
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,062
Thanked
536
Location
Serbia
Are you guys familiar with the teleological universe theory; Our universe is so intrinsically and minutely 'fine tuned' that it is essentially impossible for it not to have been designed deliberately.

For example "if the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball due to gravitational attraction". The conditions had to be precisely perfect. There are 92 of these conditions so far found (and more always being added), each of which the insane probabilities must be multiplied against each other, leading to a number that might as well be called infinity. There is essentially no chance whatsoever that the universe could assemble itself like it did, without something doing it deliberately. Fascinating stuff. Probably the first evidence of a 'god', and ironically it has come from science.

Here's a short but amazing article that outlines the details - Teleological Argument

For me, that just looks like a philosophical argument. I mean, of course it's incredible how it happened, but do we actually matter for it to have been created by someone? And where do they get the balls to say that the universe was designed to support life on Earth? The universe was created, now we have life, but guess what? The entropy will hit and the universe will literally die once every star shuts down. We're insignificant to the universe. It might have died at its birth, or it will many trillions of years later.

And what does probability actually tell you? I mean, probability that humans exist compared to the probability that they didn't is small, but why don't they factor in an infinite number of other possibilities, that they just can't because they can't see the potential outcomes if only one "parameter" is different. I don't think that the argument they pose is correct or well thought out.

That's why I see no science here, just belief. And belief is ok, even if I don't share it. But to say it's "science", while actually doing no research? They just don't understand how science works.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96

Love Nation

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
101
Thanked
44
Location
Berlin
Website
soundcloud.com
Are you guys familiar with the teleological universe theory; Our universe is so intrinsically and minutely 'fine tuned' that it is essentially impossible for it not to have been designed deliberately.

For example "if the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball due to gravitational attraction". The conditions had to be precisely perfect. There are 92 of these conditions so far found (and more always being added), each of which the insane probabilities must be multiplied against each other, leading to a number that might as well be called infinity. There is essentially no chance whatsoever that the universe could assemble itself like it did, without something doing it deliberately. Fascinating stuff. Probably the first evidence of a 'god', and ironically it has come from science.

Here's a short but amazing article that outlines the details - Teleological Argument
I heard that stuff and i think it clearly says, that either there must be something godlike that created the universe, or we live in just one universe among very many or infinite other universes i a multiverse. Also both possibilities could be true at same time. The probability for life being possible is too small to happen coincidentally at just one big bang. But if there are very many universes in a multiverse, then its most likely, that a few of them are phisically tuned for live being possible.
 

Hensmon

Admin
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
767
Thanked
431
Location
UK
And where do they get the balls to say that the universe was designed to support life on Earth?

The teleo arguement is for universes that can actually exist and function with stars or even just thermodynamics, not necessarily that carbon-based organisms like ourselves can appear. So even a starless universe when entropy has played out is still considered a life-supporting, because something happened. The list of 92 items is required just for the universe to be fundamentally functional from the perspective of physics.

Probability is actually very important to physics, both theoretical, mathematical and quantum. In this instance though the theory simply calculates the chances of all the 92 things required as happening together. As the article states; "Since the threshold of mathematical impossibility is 1 in 10 to the 50th power, and the odds of this fine-tuning coming into existence by chance are far, far beyond that, we can rule out chance." A single item from the list vastly exceeds chance, and that must be multiplied again and again. The outcome if one of those things is off is a collapsed, non-functional or non-life supporting universe.

As @Love Nation suggested. The only argument against a designer here is that we have multi-verses, and an infinite number of them, meaning that at some point in infinity the 92 requirements would happen by the impossible calculation of chance.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: jetflag

Gagi

Archon
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,062
Thanked
536
Location
Serbia
It still sounds like pseudoscience to me. They haven't actually proven anything, they haven't even tried. I see no actual numbers or data that would back up their claims. All there is to it is some theory, and half-quotes from some scientists. And they are clearly biased, because belief in God or a higher being is necessary to even come up with the theory itself (and to believe in it without scientific proof). None of that is science. It's belief.

I have a feeling they treated it like lotto. What's the probability that 3, 15, 26, 32, 39, 41 and 43 are going to be drawn? Same as the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Is there a reason behind that or is it coincidental? If calculated as such, it does absolutely nothing. And maybe one event happening increases the probability of another one which was necessary for this.

Second of all, physics was not something that was made with the big bang. It is something with which we try to understand and describe the laws behind the things we see in nature. And it's not definitive. Same as with statistics. You only see this through statistics and probability because it was represented to you that way. The universe just works and we try to understand it.

I agree, the probability for this to have happened is very low, but I believe it's a wrong way of looking at it, in this specific instance. It's much more complicated than that.

Plus, what of a million required things needs to happen for there to be a designer, a higher being behind all of this? What's the probability of all those things happening?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96

dmgtz96

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
842
Thanked
375
It still sounds like pseudoscience to me. They haven't actually proven anything, they haven't even tried. I see no actual numbers or data that would back up their claims. All there is to it is some theory, and half-quotes from some scientists. And they are clearly biased, because belief in God or a higher being is necessary to even come up with the theory itself (and to believe in it without scientific proof). None of that is science. It's belief.

I have a feeling they treated it like lotto. What's the probability that 3, 15, 26, 32, 39, 41 and 43 are going to be drawn? Same as the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Is there a reason behind that or is it coincidental? If calculated as such, it does absolutely nothing. And maybe one event happening increases the probability of another one which was necessary for this.

Second of all, physics was not something that was made with the big bang. It is something with which we try to understand and describe the laws behind the things we see in nature. And it's not definitive. Same as with statistics. You only see this through statistics and probability because it was represented to you that way. The universe just works and we try to understand it.

I agree, the probability for this to have happened is very low, but I believe it's a wrong way of looking at it, in this specific instance. It's much more complicated than that.

Plus, what of a million required things needs to happen for there to be a designer, a higher being behind all of this? What's the probability of all those things happening?
Man, this talk about the teleological argument (intelligent design or creationism, really) feels like a throwback to Catholic high school. It's been almost a decade since I last heard about it. Never thought much about it or looked into it. From a quick google search, it seems like this theory is pushed forward by conservative/religious fundamentalist types.
One of the pillars of this theory is irreducible complexity, but that falls apart quickly when you look at intelligent design's assumption that biological mutation is linear. In reality, it's more dynamic and non-linear, so things don't need to be in place for complex systems to work.
Intelligent design is interesting as a "what if?" thought experiment, but it's not been proven to be grounded on reality.

The Flaws in Intelligent Design

edit: From the article
And while ID advocates worry that evolution is too “random” or “unguided” to permit faith in God, chief Vatican astronomer George Coyne contends that this openness actually squares better than ID with traditional Western theology. Rather than “a dictator God or a designer God,” Coyne suggests the conception of a parental God, who is wholly responsible for creation but who gives it an independent life of its own, interacting through continual revelation and “encouraging and sustaining words,” rather than direct manipulation.
Now that is something I vibe with!
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: Gagi

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
261
Thanked
137
As @Love Nation suggested. The only argument against a designer here is that we have multi-verses, and an infinite number of them, meaning that at some point in infinity the 92 requirements would happen by the impossible calculation of chance.

the (infinite) multiverse, in which all options for all optional universes have to be taken into account as existing, is actually a defacto argument for (at least one) designer universe.

since it has to be included into the options by chance necessity alone.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96

Love Nation

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
101
Thanked
44
Location
Berlin
Website
soundcloud.com
Complex topic. I dont believe in god. Maybe only in intelligent matter or energy. Like everything made of a geometric language, according to quantum gravity research. That appears a little bit like the belief in buddhism, but thats another topic.
The theory of a multiverse appears to me as plausible, as i dont see any alternatives to it, except god, which i dont believe in. I think that every universe is created with different phisical laws that either allow the creation of stars and life, or not. The thing is that such topics are about theoretical sciences and we probably will never get a practical evidence of the multiverse.

Selected some videos about the fundamental constants and the multiverse


Here is a nice documentary about the Multiverse from Brian Greene. Among other arguments, its also about the string theory, which i dont believe in. But nevertheless its definitely worth to see it



Here some videos from PBS Space Time

Are the fundamental constants changing?



Does life need a multiverse to exist?



Are there infinite versions of you?

 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96

dmgtz96

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
842
Thanked
375
Are the fundamental constants changing?
This was a great video. The presenter mentions the possibility of fundamental constants changing and cites the paper that proposed changes in alpha, but also acknowledges the challenges that study has faced. We won't know for sure if fundamental constants change until multiple research groups arrive at the same results, but it's a research question worth exploring.
As for the teleological argument/intelligent design: I think this really depends on your personal background and beliefs. It's difficult to accept as a science, because these theories do not conform to current scientific practices. There's nothing wrong in thinking about it as a possibility.
You're an atheist, but you're open to the possibility of multiverses and intelligent matter/energy. As a STEM graduate with a religious background I'm hesitant to accept creationism and intelligent design (or anything that involves intelligent matter and energy), but the theory of a God settings the universe in motion and letting it develop on its own through evolution and complex, non-linear biological/transport processes sounds appealing. Someone with a strong connection to faith/organized religion would more readily accept intelligent design.
 
Last edited:

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
261
Thanked
137
As they don't for a designer/god. Physics is a science. I'm not talking about the actual laws of the universe.
your claim was: Physics was not something that was made with the big bang.

how do you know?

the singularity /unifaction 0 point is a massive blindspot in physics, we don't know if say: variety in Expansion speeds leads to different physics.

which is also where (in case of the multiverse/10th dimension) the inevitibility of (a) "god" or creator comes in. since its a potential option that must be included in all available options for all possible universes.

in essense, the branch of physics who argues for the multiverse can't have it both ways, when they say "god is impossible" when, according to their own theoretical framework, its inevitable for at least but not limited too 1 universe.
 
Last edited: