Has Science Already Answered.......

[peter]

The biggest question of all - that most eloquently put by Gottfried Leibniz - Why Is There Something as Opposed to Nothing?

In a book I read recently the physicist author seemed to imply that it had been. The gist of what he was saying, if I have it correctly, is that the fundamental place of uncertainty (better called indeterminacy for this example) in the nature of 'what is' allows for the spontaneous appearance of the singularity (or whatever you choose to call it) from whence all that followed, in the 'nowhere/notime' place. This, given the bizarre stuff that we've all had to take on board with quantum theory, does not seem a stretch to far and on this basis I'll buy it - on one condition! That condition is that the math is in place to support it.

It's a big deal to me to accept that science has answered this most central of all questions; it closes many doors for me that I won't go into here - suffice to say I'll probably have to do some serious 'reviewing of the situation' if you guys can confirm that this is indeed the case. I'm thinking it won't be as simple as this (when is anything ), and that there will be disagreement within the discipline itself as to whether the question is sufficiently wrapped up by the math as to be considered done and dusted- but I rely somewhat lazily (and because I simply prefer talking to you than 'googling' every answer I require) on your knowledge of where we are, or might be, on this question. Forgive me and humour me both!



(Ps. If you answer in the affirmative I guess "I think I'll have to think it out again!" )

[Zarathustra]

Sounds like you are reading more about it these days than I am, Pete. I believe that there have been some theories put forth, but I wouldn't say that the question has been definitively answered. I believe Vraith once talked about nothingness being "unstable" and that's why there is something. It's still a mystery to me!

[Vraith]

Sounds like you are reading more about it these days than I am, Pete. I believe that there have been some theories put forth, but I wouldn't say that the question has been definitively answered. I believe Vraith once talked about nothingness being "unstable" and that's why there is something. It's still a mystery to me!

Yea...it's both "solved" [[the voidest of possible voids "generates" somethings. And sooner, rather than later [in infinite terms]]]] and also:

HOLY SHIT! TOTally NOT SOLVED!
Because a couple years ago some people directly observed energy in a void. [[lots of people said "well MAYBE they did"...but it's survived scrutiny, and has supportive other experiments since]]
But even before that...the math was done to calculate what the energy "should" be at quantum scale in a void.
The number they got was over 100 times HIGHER than the actual universe showed. [[If the number was correct, that would mean there would be no universe as we know it, because it would expand too fast for anything larger than quarks to form/bond. And not by a little---if the number was correct, the universe, when it was 2 seconds old would have been 10 billion billion billion billion billion times bigger than the actual 13billion year old universe is now. [[that's not me hyperbolizing...it's rounded DOWN]].

[[sorta like people are all "Life must be rare, cuz Fermi paradox." But what if, once we've looked around a bit outside our own tiny cubicle with better eyes, we discover "FUCK! There's people EVERY-damn-where?!" What the hell is wrong with our numbers????!!!!!????

and BTW, I totally think that's the real situation. I think there is life every-damn-where, and intelligent life a lot of damn wheres...it's just that time and space have too bleeding MUCH "There there."]]

[Skyweir]

I frickin love you guys

V you have such a way with words .. always make me lol

You funny af .. but not sure if I can ever forgive you for calling me "a dumb shit" lol ... luckily you made me laugh harder .. so theres that. Youre all such smart f*cks

But what does your last sentence mean? "... time and space have bleeding MUCH"?

Time bleeds into space? Or vice versa? Arent time and space distinguishable variables or dimensions?

[peter]

Simply what it says Sky, I think (V will correct me if I'm wrong); there is simply too much time and distance between us and ....well..... anything else really, for us ever to be remotely likely to encounter any other intellegences out there - even at technical levels way in advance of what we currently possess. The edge of the observable universe may be only 15 billion give or take light years away - but that's only the bit we can see (or could see if our telescopes were up to it). The bit beyond that, that we can't see is likely to be waaaayyyy bigger, in fact infinite. Whatever is out there, barring us overturning the laws of physics as we understand them (which is pretty well and thus unlikely to happen) is likely to remain so pretty much for good. More's the pity some might say - me I'm not so sure.

Very interesting that the universe should actually be smaller than it should be according to theory! Like there was a deliberate 'damping mechanism' slipped in to bring voidal energy down to the point where optimal expansion for life to occur; PierreTeilhard de Chardin you are vindicated!

[Vraith]

Very interesting that the universe should actually be smaller than it should be according to theory! Like there was a deliberate 'damping mechanism'

Right? But it all depends on which, of several, perspectives/fundamentals one takes [[even if one is just choosing among different quantum takes]].

It's fun, though, that your question is "answered" in its way...there are an absurd number of reasons why there is something...and zero reasons why there would be nothing instead...but the reasons for something
keep assassinating each other over what the thing IS...fuck your spacetime curve, I'm gonna take my graviton and go home!

[peter]

Presumably the boffins get together occasionally to thrash out the wheat from the chaff on these competing theories? I'd have thought the best way forward would be first to set aside those which are not falsifiable - whose predictions cannot (and never will be able to) be tested. Then you have those that currently cannot be tested and finally those that can be subjected to experimental verification. Do not from these any stand out as good candidates (in terms of the math or perhaps even experimental indicators) as the best candidates for initial study? Or are these practitioners of the art (for science is an art as well as a ....... science) like a bunch of children en masse - each shouting for the loudest noise, clamouring to be heard over the others, with no order to their progression?

[Vraith]

Presumably the boffins get together occasionally to thrash out the wheat from the chaff on these competing theories?

Yea, of course there are conferences/gatherings and journal articles [[though as someone somewhere around here mentioned quite often research papers/presentations are more often the beginning of a debate/question-raiser than end/answer.]].

To me, what it looks like---taken as one giant field---is that everyone knows that GR and Quantum don't get along, everyone knows the Standard Model cannot possibly be the whole model...
But all the alternatives SO FAR, while answering questions the others can't, raise/create/fail to answer more/other questions [and/or contain contradictions to observations].

As far as I can tell, all the legitimate contenders are currently untestable.
[[Heh...which makes labeling them legitimate a shaky endeavor in itself]]

For instance, I'm pretty sure entire swaths of theory could be eliminated if we could just "see" a graviton [[or definitively look for it and find it not there]].
I mean...we know quite a lot about what its properties must be, what it should look like, where it should be...we just have no [as yet, and maybe never] tech/methods that can check those scales.

[[for a while many---like String family/cousins---were thought to be untestable...but people are starting to come up with possible tests...though AFAIK, none are doable with current tech.]]

[FindailsCrispyPancakes]

In relation to the question "How do you get something out of nothing?", I always found it interesting that:

1) All of the atoms in the universe contain positive and negative electrical charges. That's a lot of electric charge. Add them up and the net electrical charge is zero.

2) Add all the positive numbers (an infinite set) to all the negative numbers (another infinite set) and the result will equal zero (an empty set).

There's something about symmetry...

[Zarathustra]

While both points are true, it should be pointed out that there are not equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

You've been posting some good stuff tonight. Glad to see that you decided to come back. Sincerely, I mean that. I regret that we got off on the wrong foot.

[peter]

My apologies also FCP, for not saying hello and welcome earlier (got to be honest, I think I only ever respond to one post of yours - the aliens one iirc - and at that point I thought you were an old member returning after a protracted absence; only learned later that you were a new member and I'm sorry for this - you should have been welcomed on my part much better).

As an aside Z, I found Deutsch's earlier book The Fabric of Reality selling for twenty five cents in a charity shop the other day and well - it would have been rude not to wouldn't it? So expect me to be coming up with some pretty searching questions in the near future as I give the work my best misunderstanding.

(Interestingly he starts with an explanation that the much used phrase 'the Theory of Everything' is not by any means the same thing as the Unified Field Theory - a theory which when found, will tell us much, but still leave shitloads of questions unanswered, and in a way that the theory of everything, when it is finally discovered will not. He explains that while, of course, it is not possible to know everything that can be known it is entirely possible to understand everything that can be known (I hope I have that right - I bought six other books at the same time and alas couldn't resist dipping into all of them; I'm now reading about the adventures of Dirk Pitt in the south American jungle, where having been thrown into a vertically sided and water filled sink hole he is scaling the glass like sides with no more than a set of rapidly assembled climbing aids knocked up from his shoe laces and belt buckle - quality stuff I'll tell you! ) so expect more on this!

[peter]

I have a question; I use an accurate thermometer at work for measuring internal food temperature and out of interest - let's call it scientific curiosity shall we......sounds better - decided to see what temperature water I could reasonably stand putting my hands into. I discovered that by fifty degrees C it was pretty damned uncomfortable and could not keep my hands in the water for any extended (think a second or two) period. Now if you asked me what the effect of being totally immersed in a bath of water at this temperature would be, I'd say it would beyond question have you screaming in pain and would undoubtedly result in your death in short order.

But.......

I read that the temperature in places like Dubai and the UAE regularly reaches this level and while it's no doubt bloody uncomfortable to be out in for any extended period, it doesn't have people screaming in pain within seconds and dying shortly thereafter.

Why this difference; is it something to do with the thermal capacity of water which I understand is very high ......or perhaps the insulative properties of air in the microenvironment surrounding your body.

What exactly is going on here?

[FindailsCrispyPancakes]

Hi Peter and thanks for the welcome. Pleased to meet you and no apologies required!

I like your posts, you have a habit of asking questions that appear straightforward but in fact relate to deep subjects. Right up my street.

[Vraith]

peter, yea, it has everything to do with the skin, the surroundings, and heat movement. You already knew that, though, I'm pretty sure, being a Euro dude. A dry sauna and a steam sauna have vastly different safe temp ranges. [U.S. people don't do those so much, most of them. Too bad. I'd do them daily if I could. Physical and mental benefits are proven...unlike most of the drugs we take in ginormous quantities that DON't do what they're supposed to for the same problems].

LIVING and DOING all day in extremes is different, of course...but related.

FunkyCakes: peter does that on purpose. he pretends he's dumber than he is, too---but to good effect/affect.

Also FunkyCakes: one of the first, if not THE first things Z ever responded to me with was "I like the way you think!" and we been fighting ever since, so maybe you got off on the RIGHT foot with him.

Return to peter: Nice buy with D. Just don't forget he has a definite POV, and it's not as sound as he claims, and he dismissises viewpoints/perspectives/entire schools of though that he just plain doesn't understand. He's a grumpy old man...just a smarter one than most.

[FindailsCrispyPancakes]

To the best of my knowledge, the temperature of the sea even in the hottest of places would rarely exceed ~30 degrees Centigrade, which is still significantly lower than your body temperature.

I'd imagine one of the main reasons immersing your body in water of 50 degrees C (way higher than your body temperature) would feel far more unpleasant that being exposed to air of 50 degrees C would be the much higher density and energy content of the water.

As heat always flows from a hotter environment to a colder one, while it might take a while for 50 degrees C air to overheat you, water at 50 degrees C should do it far quicker.

[Skyweir]

Oh V lol ... FunnyCakes ... love it

On Petes question a bit bored at work? You really are funny af lol

However, I recall watching a doco about the early astronaut training .. the astronauts were put in ovens to see how theyd cope with climatic extremes. To demonstrate the extremes they baked cookies in the same conditions.

Its not unusual on a hot day down under to cook eggs on a metal plate in the sun or on the bonnet of a vehicle. Now of course the metal plate assists in the cooking process.

Of course EVA suits cushion humans from the outer extremes.

Anyhoo your question must have something to do with the difference in density. I thought water being denser than air would make it harder to tolerate extreme temperatures than air. So the same would apply to steam experienced in saunas, no?

Then I read this

Technically, there is no difference. A volume of air that is 30 degrees C is the same temperature as a volume of water that is also 30 degrees C. ... Water is a good heat conductor, and air is a good insulator. Therefore, a volume of water will feel warmer to us than a volume of air with the same temperature

So no difference but for the fact that water is a better conductor than air _ So what does that in fact mean?

The difference between how hot the water feels compared to the air, at the same temperature, is determined by how this heat is transferred, says Associate Professor Zdenka Kuncic, a physicist at the University of Sydney.

"A human body in 38_C air will absorb heat from its surroundings, including the air itself, as well as radiant heat from sunlight, and from other surroundings like nearby buildings," she says.

If we get too hot we sweat.

"Sweating is a very efficient way of cooling because you're giving off water molecules which can take with them huge amounts of energy, especially when they're evaporating into water vapour," says Kuncic.

This is due to water's uniquely high heat capacity. Water molecules are held together with strong hydrogen bonds so water can absorb huge amounts of heat without increasing in temperature very much.

Water in your sweat sucks the heat out of you and cools your skin temperature by several degrees so the air temperature 'feels hot' in comparison, says Kuncic.
But when we immerse our bodies in water at 38_C, the difference in temperature between our skin and the environment is smaller.

This is partly because evaporation of sweat is less efficient when you are immersed in water, and you are exposed to less heat from indirect sources such as sunlight.
Hence, water doesnt

So even though she concludes the opposite of your experience Pete .. she notes the function of perspiration.

It would make sense to me that one could cope less immersed in higher temp water than being enveloped in higher air temps because in water .. perspiration would presumably be less effective.

[peter]

Thanks guys; kind words and appreciated.

(If only it were a pretence V! ) Absolutely, Deutsch doesn't take prisoners; already in chapter two on quantum theory, he is adamant that the resulting pattern we see from passing laser light through double slits (and four slits in the same distance apart as the double) can be interpreted in no other way than the parallel universes of quantum theory haveing to have physical reality. If they didn't, they could not produce the real effects that we see on the screen/plate before us. He uses the term 'shadow' photons/particles/universes to denote these (to him) absolutely real parallel universes that constitute the true fabric of reality (of which he says, we only experience the tiniest tip of the iceberg) and is scathing about those in his own community who cannot see what he considers so obvious. As with his later book he is dismissive of anything that smacks of an instrumentalist or logical positivist approach.

Good answers on the heat thing; I sort of know why this is (now) - but it still bugs me not to have it nailed down pat. Serves me right for being lazy and trying to get you guys to do the footwork instead of me. Think I'll have to get off my butt and tie up the loose ends myself on this one!

[Skyweir]

Do share what you find ... Id like to know.

[Vraith]

while it might take a while for 50 degrees C air to overheat you, water at 50 degrees C should do it far quicker.

There is the flipped vector of that, too.
You can live outside in air of 60-70 degrees totally naked and comfortable.
But extended immersion in water of 60 [obviously I'm using Farenheit...I should stuck to C.] will almost definitely bring on hypothermia, and even 70 can, IIRC, eventually. Active swimming/movement can/will stave it off for a while...but eventually, you'll almost certainly die.

When I was an outdoor lifeguard at a lake, there were WAY more people that suffered minor hypothermia challenges than people with failure to float/swim...and the former can easily/rapidly cause the latter, so we watched pretty closely for hypo signs.

[peter]

Ok, let's hope I'm not going to make an idiot of myself here, but I think I'm getting a handle on it in terms of Findail's Crispy Pancakes post above. I'm thinking it's not so much to do with the temperature as with the different heat energy contents of equivalent volumes of water and air at a given temperature, and the subsequently massive difference in the transferred amount of energy between the surrounding medium and the skin, depending on which one is immersed in.

Temperature is of course a measure of atomic/molecular movement (vibration, kinetic ?) with absolute zero (-273 degrees C) being the lowest achievable temperature since this is the point at which all movement of the atoms or molecules ceases. Now a given volume, say 1 cubic centimetre, of air will contain far fewer molecules than the same volume of water, so the actual heat energy contained therein at a specified temperature will be correspondingly, very much less. When we consider our 1 cubic centimetre of air or water sitting against an area of skin (assuming a cube shape) we have a contact area of 1 square centimetre, and there is a certain amount of energy flow between the two, the rate of which will be dependent upon the temperature difference between the two and in the direction of higher to lower. This of course is writ large over the whole body surface in the case of full Immersion. But while the rate of flow of heat energy will be dependent upon the temperature difference, the actual amount of heat energy flowing will be dependent upon the amount contained per unit volume of the surrounding fluid (air is a fluid too) which will in turn be dependent upon the number of atoms or molecules contained therein. In the case of water, with far more molecules per unit volume than air, the amount of heat energy contained per unit volume, and hence the amount of heat energy transfer per unit area, will hugely greater and the temperature perception nerve endings will record this correspondingly.

Or something like this.......



(I haven't checked any of this, it's just sitting in the bath thinking stuff so if it's bull then I prostrate myself before the court and beg their indulgence.......)