OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
If one being can ignore the laws of physics - they aren't laws. If one being can break the laws - other beings, entities, energies, and objects can.

*shrug* there's nothing in my proof that necessarily precludes that option. I could not figure out how to work it in, and so am not currently arguing on that basis.

[Gandalf Parker]

The big bang is no longer the accepted theory. Its now Quantum strings and branes. And since that theory tosses out anything that was previously "proven wrong" by the rule of "energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed" we have a whole new ballpark for discussions of faster-than-light drives, teleportation, anything supernatural, and God.
We will have to wait for them to iron out all the quantum stuff alittle more.

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Of course, having the modern, apparently unbreakable laws of physics not apply past a certain point is a variation on one of the four possibilies of the logical proof I listed, isn't it?

Is it (original post has scrolled off, and I can't be bothered digging for it)? If that's the case, then what is it, exactly, that you're proving? That contemporary physics plus some other more exotic ideas are all possibilities?

If so, then I guess I'm forced to agree

[Sindai]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
The big bang is no longer the accepted theory. Its now Quantum strings and branes.

Za? I thought those were being incorporated into the Big Bang theory to explain inconsistences between older Versions of it and observations. The BBT itself (which I understand to mean simply that the universe began expanding from a single point) wasn't in question, since it's pretty broad.

And since that theory tosses out anything that was previously "proven wrong" by the rule of "energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed"

Za again? Since when? I didn't think that quantum physics violated those rules yet. An explanatory link would be nice.

[ July 30, 2004, 05:02: Message edited by: Sindai ]

[Arryn]

Sindai,

You're correct in your thoughts.

It seems that Gandalf has misinterpreted the "new physics" that's he's read about in the popular press, and drawn some conclusions that are not justified from the theories. I could Google up a bunch of relevent links to show this, but you or Gandalf should be able to find out the facts just as well. If not, let me know and I'll post them.


-- Arryn

[Gandalf Parker]

True, I was trolling abit. No "rules" have been broken yet. The new Quantum theory concerning big bang gives a crossing of membranes releasing matter/energy into our "brane" (their word, not mine). So there is still a bang but no need for a collapse and re-bang. And the matter/energy cannot be destroyed/created rule isnt void but with Quantum Theory comes 11 dimensions and infinite branes. New measurements and new energys and new sources for matter will mean that recorded phenomena cast aside under the old rules will need re-examined. Most of my reading is from .edu sites and more likely to give headaches than answers. But there are some sudo-scientific publications which strive to explain things at a more human level.

The era of scientific stability which causes theorys to become concrete just by the passage of time was predicted to be running abit long just before Quantum broke in. They hoped Chaos Theory would do it but it didnt shake things up as much as Quantum. Its hitting every area. Even in my area (computers) its hitting cryptography, media storage, cpu speeds and wide-area-networks. So far, all in theory of course.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/ph229/
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/

-- I knew the future was coming,
but it seems to be picking up speed.

[ July 30, 2004, 14:52: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
True, I was trolling abit.

Ah. Okay. But shame on you.

So there is still a bang but no need for a collapse and re-bang.

No need, true, but it's possible. There is a particular "colliding branes" model that is very interesting ...