Give me one set of laws of physics for alternate universe

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Saint, Feb 9, 2017.

  1. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,227
    The laws of physics are set permanently.
    Science can only explain what is existing naturally, but can never explain "why" it exists this way.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Can you explain why science works so well?
    Alex
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. el es Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,227
    Science explains how, based on evidence, and evidence is based on precision or accuracy of your measurement instrument.
    Hypothesis comes first, and evidence is used to test the hypothesis.
    If evidence disproves the hypothesis, then a revised hypothesis must be produced.
    Science also can have pre-conception, scientists can choose to pick evidence that fit their hypothesis and ignore other evidence that disprove their hypothesis.

    For example, even though most scientists blame global warming on burning of fossil fuel, but there are also scientists who said it is not relevant,
    and so Trump said that global warming is a hoax.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,990
    Actually, it can work either way around. Sometimes a new hypothesis is needed to explain evidence; sometimes new evidence is needed to test a hypothesis.

    No!

    Ideally, scientists should try their best to disprove their own hypotheses by all possible means. Because, as Feynman said, the easiest person to fool is yourself. There's nothing more embarrassing to a scientist than having to retract a finding because it has been disproven by somebody else who collected evidence that the original scientist was unaware of, or ignored, or chose not to collect.

    Trump doesn't appear to be too hot when it comes to his knowledge or understanding of science.

    How could burning fossil fuels not be relevant to global warming? Burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which can only drive warming. The argument is very simple to understand.
     
  9. el es Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
  10. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,234
    Salvation, faith (not belief), and wish.
     
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,667
    That would be easier to do IFF we actually had a complete set of the laws of physics for THIS universe, and we don't.

    For instance, at the exact dead center of every gravitating body, at the point where the radius is zero, there exists a singularity of gravitational force. It does not matter at all how small or how large, how dense or how light a gravitating body may be. That force at the geometric center is always infinite, in the theories that have "won" in terms of being incorporated and ordained by science.

    Hard to reconcile how that could possibly be. Wouldn't everything (planets, moons, galaxies, nebulae) simply collapse to singularities, just like so many black holes? This isn't an alternative universe we are talking about. It is this one.

    ONE candidate physical parameter you probably could change, if you wished, would be the speed of propagation of light in a vacuum. Physicists are always setting c=1.0 anyway. This would theoretically be a universe in which time itself proceeded at a more leisurely pace. Except that it wouldn't work that way at all, because the speed of the propagation of light is evidently NOT the basis of time itself. If it were, light wouldn't just propagate slower; it would not propagate at all. The electric and magnetic fields of Maxwell's equations would not propagate in the direction of the Poynting vector, because whether they derived of something actually moving or the vacuum itself, it would be impossible for them to change at rates that exceeded c. Note that an EM wave, even and expecially light does not need to be sinusoidal. And there is nothing to prevent a radial component from changing much faster than a wheel can roll.

    About the only alternate universe I can think of in which we could possibly define sufficiently to describe in any detail would be one in which real, actual time came to an abrupt halt. To imagine such an exotic universe, it would only be necessary to increase the speed of a single observer in this one to 0.99999999999999999 x c. At that speed, all forward momentum of the geometric center of particles comprising anything stops dead in its tracks almost indefinitely. Timepieces stop moving altogether. Brownian motion stops. Radioisotopes halt their process of decay. But atomic structure would remain intact because most of that structure is already time dilated all by itself, in real time. Even if we don't completely understand all of the physics or the nature of time, this alternate universe is one that is doable. Sorry about the rest of the 10^500. That would be a non-starter.

    I think we can also safely rule out alternate universes in which time proceeds backwards as a viable candidate.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,696
    Apparently we have cracked part of the universal functioning codes, which we can represent symbolically with maths and standardized language.

    But long before we knew of gravity, Leibnitz already symbolized the effects of gravity as a pattern. He just had no proofs.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,696
    What if this alternate universe is the same universe, but seen from a different perspective, a form of mirror function where left is right. This would not require a different set of universal laws yet none of these dimensions could interact with each other.
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/oct/08/is-the-universe-a-dodecahedron
    with a mirror function?
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,696
    A Cosmic Imperative?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  15. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,340
    True .
     
  16. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,667
    We have no way of knowing that "The laws of physics are set permanently", even in a single universe.

    There are theories that both the fine structure constant and the universal gravitational constant, not to mention the cosmological constant, or the vacuum expectation value, may change over time, or even quite abruptly, depending on what developmental era of the cosmos we are living in. Until or unless someone can rigorously derive such constants (find out where they come from), this situation will not be changed.

    Rather like the time before Newton, when we didn't know if the Sun would come up the next day, or Ray Davis, when we didn't actually know how old the Sun was. There is always something new to fear, and this is unlikely ever to change either.

    Trump knows this only too well. He appeals to the fear of the unknown immigrant, or the unknown terrorist, or the "unknown" cause of climate change. Just like another Donald named Rumsfeld tried getting us all fearful of "unknown unknowns". Gambling casinos would not make a penny if people didn't pay handsomely to place bets on the unknown. Garbage.

    Fear the "unknown" tax return, and the contributions from the "unknown" multi-trillionaires. That kind of money can buy you into some serious hardship. Fear that. Makes Putin look like kindly, generous old St. Nick. I fear stupidity, and that fear, I can assure you, it is well justified.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,585
    Proofs? There are proofs in mathematics but not in scientific theories. Newton's gravitational theory is in fact an excellent example of that!
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,696
    Sorry, that was poorly worded. I meant to say that Leibnitz observed and symbolized the gravitational phenomena, but had no equation to explain the force itself.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,585
    Did Leibniz observe gravitational phenomena? I was not aware that he did. Do have a reference for this? You don't mean Kepler, do you?
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,696
    No, Roger Antonsen mentioned it in this lecture (with illustration). I've posted it before but if anyone has not seen it yet, please do... I believe it is both entertaing and profound in its implications.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,585
    Sorry but the last thing I need right now is a video of some pony-tailed git telling me about maths and "hidden secrets" of the world. It's just the thing to induce apoplexy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    521
    Perhaps . . . . . they were specified in the original blueprints by an intelligent designer?
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,696
    Did you actually see the clip? Instead of apoplexy, you will be mentally stimulated.
    I spotted several scientists in the audience. Antonsen actually displays a copy of Leibniz' notes. Does it matter what website it is shown on? It is not a fake document.
    This guy ain't no "git" and his little presentation got a rousing reception from a critical audience. If you can point out were his posits are false, please point them out. I do respect your critiques, but outright dismissal is not very informative to anyone.

    Moreover, I showed this clip in response to the OP question.
    I realize my limitations in formal education, but I am selective in what I present as having some redeeming scientific qualities, especially his urging that people try to look at phenomena from several different perspectives in order to gain greater informed understanding.

    And the profound message that the ability to see (imagine) from someone else's perspective allows for understanding and true empathy (note the relationship to the *mirror neural network*).
     

Share This Page