Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 29> |
| Author | |||
Silverbeard McStarr 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: October 05 2009 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 167 |
 Topic: Evolution vs. CreationismPosted: December 08 2009 at 11:19 |
||
|
Evolution full on.
|
|||
 |
|||
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: July 24 2008 Location: Big Muddy Status: Offline Points: 5208 |
Posted: December 08 2009 at 11:06 |
||
|
Well you know what I'm reading (Gould's _Rocks of Ages_) I bought Jared Diamond's _The Third Chimpanzee_ at the same time (he's the Germs, Guns, and Steel guy
|
|||
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: December 08 2009 at 10:57 |
||
|
^ An hourlong video doesn't mean that you have to watch it to the end. Usually - and also in this case - the speakers give a short summary at the beginning. And "A Universe From Nothing" is already a very good summary. :-)
What caused the perturbation in the equilibrium? I don't know. Currently I'm more intrigued by philosophical questions, reading Victor J. Stenger's "A New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason", and I also ordered the books of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett (which lead to the notion of "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse"). Maybe later I'll also get more books about biology. :-) |
|||
|
|||
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008 Location: Big Muddy Status: Offline Points: 5208 |
Posted: December 08 2009 at 10:47 |
||
|
Mike, hourlong videos are not going to be watched. At least summarize.
But I'm very interested in ideas about those early moments, because the asymmetry and resultant potential differences are what made the manifest world possible.
What did cause the pertubation in the equilibrium?
I am not assuming it was God, especially as an outside agent. I'm seriously curious about the ideas on this.
|
|||
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: December 08 2009 at 09:51 |
||
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
(a good presentation by Lawrence Krauss titled "A Universe From Nothing") |
|||
|
|||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator 
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: December 08 2009 at 09:27 |
||
Well, first off there's the spelling error - it's Ylem not Yelm and is an archaic (poetic) term dating back to 12th Century - the chances of finding that term in a published scientific document are pretty remote, so I assume this quote is taken from a blog or forum somewhere.
I have to admit I am intrigued by whatever this guy said before "So much so that we decided to call it "the standard model", people don't normally start talking with "so much so that..." .. ho-hum, I doubt it's that important.
As a piece of internet-chat thrown together in a hurry it's okay - could be better - no glaring errors other than omission - nothing to bust a capillary over.
Sorry, there are no simple bitesize answers for this, (and what we do know is way over my head
 ), what happened during the Big-Bang prior and during the Planck Epoch (1st 1x10E-43 seconds) will undoubtably contain a different kind of physics to the one we currently know (or at least a variant of it), quantum cosmology is a highly speculative field because of the limitations of observation and/or understanding.
People should be locked up for lots of perfectly valid reasons - saying something you disagree with is not one of them.
 |
|||
|
What?
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: December 08 2009 at 09:19 |
||
|
^ agreed. :-)
|
|||
|
|||
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 16 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31169 |
Posted: December 08 2009 at 09:05 |
||
I think I misunderstood what you were saying. I think we're in agreement. The diffraction pattern is a result of the probability distribution ("wave"). Just that you need not have a coherent illumination, you can send particles one by one and get the same result. |
|||
|
|||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: December 08 2009 at 07:13 |
||
|
^ that's correct, thanks for pointing it out. It's on the same wikipedia page, but a different chapter. :-)
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: December 08 2009 at 06:01 |
||
|
|||
|
What?
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: December 08 2009 at 05:56 |
||
|
Apparently the big breakthrough came with quantum electrodynamics - initially (pre 19th century) light was supposed to be particles, then it was waves, then it was both, and now it's back to particles again (albeit a really strange form of particles). ;-)
This is yet another example how scientists are prepared to refine or even discard theories as new evidence is found. |
|||
|
|||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: December 08 2009 at 05:18 |
||
I actually don't get what you are driving at here. This experiment has been repeated with electrons, (which are descrete particles and do have mass), and it produces the same results.
"Photons have no [invariant] mass" (parenthasis mine)...
because they have energy and velocity they also have momentum (p=E/c) which means they have relativistic mass (which is so unbelievably small as to be undetectable).
How selective do you have to be to "prove" your point?
Here is the following paragraph from the article you selectively quoted:
"At the time, this seemed to conclusively prove that light traveled in waves, causing a revitalization in Huygen's wave theory of light, which included an invisible medium, ether, through which the waves propagated..."
(My underline - the word "seemed" indicates that the effect appears to support your conclusion but does not)
And a few paragraphs later...
"It became possible to have a light source that was set up so that it emitted one photon at a time. This would be, literally, like hurling microscopic ball bearings through the slits. By setting up a screen that was sensitive enough to detect a single photon, you could determine whether there were or were not interference patterns in this case."
and...
"Just such an experiment was performed and, in fact, it matched Young's version identically - alternating light and dark bands, seemingly resulting from wave interference."
and here's all the text for all to read: http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/doubleslit.htm
|
|||
|
What?
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: December 08 2009 at 04:14 |
||
The energy of a photon is directly proportional to the frequency of the wave (Max Planck... E=hf)). High frequency waves have high energy content and low frequency waves have low energy. Once we get below the levels of visible light the energy of each photon is incredibly small, and decreases with frequency until it is swamped (in detectors) by thermal noise (Boltzmann) and cannot be measured. The quantised particle behaviour remains unchanged, you just can't detect it at lower frequencies.
|
|||
|
What?
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: December 08 2009 at 01:47 |
||
Not really. Have a look at this pattern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Results_observed It shows that the diffraction pattern emerges from the single particles (photons or electrons) hitting the sensors. So whenever you observe a wave, it's really because your resolution isn't high enough. At least that's, from my impression, what Stenger also says. Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 08 2009 at 05:11 |
|||
|
|||
|
AmbianceMan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2009 Location: Dayton, OH Status: Offline Points: 113 |
Posted: December 07 2009 at 21:35 |
||
In a way, yes. But not directly. The energy is absorbed by an electron for example and causes the electron to move somewhere else, thereby causing a change in mass of another particle. So in and of itself, it does not add or remove mass.
Like being absorbed by the cones in your eye, triggering an impulse through the nervous system (in which particles move across synapses for example).
See Einstein's photoelectric effect theory.
To simplify the whole thing, an electron gives up it's energy as a photon, and this photon is absorbed as energy, causing heat for example.
As an aside, here's one theory. Please point out the craziness in the following:
"So much so that we have decided to call it "the standard model" At early times there was so much energy floating about that matter and anti-matter popped into existence, then annihilated each other. This went on for a while but due to a deep asymmetry in nature slightly more matter was created than anti-matter. This eventually condensed out as the universe expanded and cooled. In about 11 minutes after the point at which our physics doesn't work. The technical term for stuff in the universe before the matter froze out is Yelm. "
Oh really? And the energy came from where?
So it just "popped into existence" eh?
So could everything just "pop out of existence"?
People should be locked up for spewing stuff like this.
Not directed at you negoba but while I'm here....someone was asking for it earlier. Edited by AmbianceMan - December 07 2009 at 22:03 |
|||
|
|||
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008 Location: Big Muddy Status: Offline Points: 5208 |
Posted: December 07 2009 at 21:28 |
||
|
General relativity says energy and mass can switch back and forth. The total mass / energy of the Universe is conserved, but that's the whole point of the famous equation.
A photon has potential mass, so to speak...
Or I may be oversimplifying this. It's been awhile since these classes for me.
Einstein was skeptical of quantum mechanics in general, hence "God doesn't play dice."
|
|||
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 16 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31169 |
Posted: December 07 2009 at 20:35 |
||
But Young's experiment directly contradicts this. Single photons create diffraction patterns. |
|||
|
|||
|
AmbianceMan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2009 Location: Dayton, OH Status: Offline Points: 113 |
Posted: December 07 2009 at 20:35 |
||
Young's experiment: copied and pasted: "In quantum mechanics, the double-slit experiment (often referred to as Young's experiment) demonstrates the inseparability of the wave and particle natures of light and other quantum particles."
The word "quantum particle" is used, and this has even been up for debate. Some of his theory has changed. The key word here is "natures". They are not both a wave and a particle. They only share some behaviors.
Also from more recent (2008) college level physics textbook by Bushong (one of the foremost experts on radiation physics):
"Photons have no mass and no charge. They travel at the speed of light (c=3x10^8 m/s) and are considered energy disturbances in space." (underline mine)
Bushong, Steve. Radiation Science for Technologists, Physics, Biology, and Protection 9th ed. St. Louis, MO. Mosby, 2008 (page 53)
And also: "
Particle interpretation: If light exists as particles, the intensity of both slits will be the sum of the intensity from the individual slits.When the experiment was conducted, the light waves did indeed show these interference patterns. A third image that you can view is a graph of the intensity in terms of position, which matches with the predictions from interference. " His experiment actually reinforced the wave theory over the particle theory.
Look up this and come back to me. But even so, nobody has conceded on a single point with me, and it will probably continue since I am a "crazy creationist" and could not possibly know anything about real science. Wonder how many sources it would take?
Heck here's another....Einstein:
"In 1905, Albert Einstein published his paper to explain the photoelectric effect, which proposed that light traveled as discrete bundles of energy. The energy contained within a photon was related to the frequency of the light. This theory came to be known as the photon theory of light (although the word photon wasn't coined until years later). "
And yes, the position in the em spectrum does determine it's wave/particle behavior. Directly. See above textbook page 63. The word "rays" are used to describe em radiation with more particle-like properties (x-rays, gamma rays) and "waves" the other (microwaves, radio waves). He also discusses how photons interact with matter, and this assumes photons are not matter.
I really don't understand. How could you accept the big bang theory being taught in schools? You HAVE to say matter originated spontaneously from nothingness in order for it to work, buying into Sagan's "cosmic egg". Evolutionists must find another theory. It does not work. But accordingly, evolutionary scientists are already on the ball, and even they are realizing it doesn't work. The public of course will be soon to follow.
Edited by AmbianceMan - December 07 2009 at 21:23 |
|||
|
|||
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008 Location: Big Muddy Status: Offline Points: 5208 |
Posted: December 07 2009 at 19:22 |
||
|
It's extremely hard to wrap your brain around. I've heard it discussed somewhere as a "probability wave." But using it as an analogy to brain/mind/soul is truly pseudoscience. The best analogy is brain is hardware and mind is software. The exist on different domains and knowing you have PC doesn't let you know that I'm running Cakewalk to record my album. There is of course the possibility that there are multiple layers of emergent phenomenon in between, and there are higher levels of organization of mind, one of which is called culture. I DO however draw a parallel between the wave / particle duality and the duality between manifestation and potential, the difference between what is in this exact moment vs what can be. This is the fun stuff, the edge of our current knowledge. This is where we who like asking the big questions love to dance in the waves and debris. (poet I'm not) And here is where I'm not so sure science is going to give us all the answers. I, in fact, think math with give us next big step forward, not science. But even then there are somethings even further beyond....
Funfunfunfun. |
|||
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: December 07 2009 at 16:30 |
||
|
^^ of course.
Stenger's topic is the often cited wave/particle duality, and how it is sometimes used by religious people - by analogy - as a possible explanation for the soul/mind "duality" (reasoning that the mind/brain is mere matter, and that the soul/waves transcend matter). What Stenger says about photons is that their wave "aspect" is not a property of individual photons, but "the statistical property of an ensemble of many particles". So a single photon is just matter, while a group of photons can be observed as a wave (function), depending on the resolution on the detection equipment. @Negoba: Yes, Stenger mentions that "what we observe is exactly what physicists have been saying about quantum mechanics since the 1920s". Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 07 2009 at 16:32 |
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 29> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Evolution vs. Creationism
Topic Options
AmbianceMan wrote: