jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (56 posts)

Astrophysics and the snowflake

  1. A.Villarasa profile image71
    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago

    We all agree that no two snowflakes are alike, when viewing its variegated intricately complex design. One could analogize it to the similarly intricate/complex design of the cosmos. String theory proposes the existence of an immense variety of "universes", and if correct, different universes could be governed by different laws of physics. The laws of nature that we are familiar with on our universe may just be laws inherent and locally distinctive   to our universe, but still "consistent with some overarching theory"  that may be arbitrary in some cases but not in others.
    Going back to the snowflakes...their ubiquitous six-fold symmetry is a direct consequence of the properties and shape of water molecules. But snowflakes display an immense variety of patterns, because each is molded by its distinctive history and microenvironment; how each flake develops is sensitive to the specific temperature and humidity changes during its growth.
    Similarly, our universe would not then be just a random one. It would belong to the unusual subset where there was an intelligent draw of cosmic numbers conducive to the emergence of complexity and consciousness.

    1. Sed-me profile image78
      Sed-meposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Best thread title ever.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, it indicates a true flame is burning. (A snowflake might be melting because of it...)

    2. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      With you right up to the end, where you decide (without evidence or reason I can see) that our universe subset is very limited and due to intelligent creation.  With zero information about other universes, it just isn't possible to decide that this type is rare OR that the supposed rarity means a god made it.

      I can see no reason to suddenly decide that the "some overarching theory" determining possible laws does not make our type of universe a necessity instead of rare.  Not, at least, until we have some solid information about that overarching theory.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Logical deductions are not permissible?

        "...our universe would not then be just a random one. It would belong to the unusual subset where there was an intelligent draw of cosmic numbers conducive to the emergence of complexity and consciousness."
        ...seems valid to me!

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Logical deductions require a premise known to be true.  What is the premise used to make that deduction?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            The premise: logically speaking, according to all the great thinkers…       Nothingness cannot create Somethingness!

            Strangely, none of these great thinkers reside in the world of physics! just looked...  I thought there were a few!   maybe not.
            So to rephrase: according to me...
                      Nothingness cannot create Somethingness!
            and to further elaborate:
            Only Somethingness can create Something!



            To think otherwise would be beyond logical.

            TWISI

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              I disagree with your premise; you have absolutely no evidence proving it to be true. 

              Beyond that, no one has ever, that I've heard, proposed that the universe came from nothingness.  Various opponents of the big bang make the claim that scientists claim that, but they are lying through their teeth to make an emotional appeal and it is beneath you to repeat such nonsense.  Which I'm sure you are aware of.

              1. Prodio profile image62
                Prodioposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                Where did that thought of yours come from - that the universe 'can' come from nothing?

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  From the post I replied to:
                  "So to rephrase: according to me...
                            Nothingness cannot create Somethingness!
                  and to further elaborate:
                  Only Somethingness can create Something!"

                  Or do you think Sed-me was referring to construction of a Lamborghini?

                  1. Prodio profile image62
                    Prodioposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    Where did that thought originate?

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image58
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  That theory came from science based on the evidence. While it may be well beyond your comprehension, others certainly do understand it. Try cracking open a book. smile

            2. Sed-me profile image78
              Sed-meposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              My husband says there are a lot of believers who are astrophysicists.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                There are believers in every field in the world.  I AM a little surprised that your husband knows a significant enough percentage of astrophysicists to make the claim that "a lot" of them are believers.  Unless he knows a couple in his circle of believer friends and considers two or three to be "a lot"?

                It is apparently quite easy for some people to willingly suspend rational thought in favor of emotionalism and imagination.

                1. Sed-me profile image78
                  Sed-meposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  He reads a lot and has an avid interest in astronomy... less so, talking on forums. He leaves that to me, the real brains of the family. smile

                  edit :cosmology... I should have said.

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    lol

              2. EncephaloiDead profile image58
                EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                And, of course, you believe him.

                1. Sed-me profile image78
                  Sed-meposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  He's the smartest man I know. You could google though if you want to prove him wrong.

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image58
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    lol He's the one making the claim, he has to prove himself right. It has nothing to do with me.

            3. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              Using intuition?

              Yea, maybe not.
              Then what created the Somethingness? If this logic is to hold true then everything has to have been created including the creator of the universe.



              Follow that logic through and you'll see it conflicts with the Gods described by most people.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                Well, that is certainly the great mystery... what something created the original something?
                I guess it has always been and will always be. Boy, do we talk about some trippy stuff…

        2. Sed-me profile image78
          Sed-meposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Funny, speaking of logical deductions. This quote has been on my mind for 2 days.

          “I had always felt life first as a story: and if there is a story there is a story-teller”
          G.K. Chesterton

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Is it your intent to then "logically" deduce that there was a creator (writer) for the story we are in?  Because I would question the truth of the premise that life is like a story.

            1. Sed-me profile image78
              Sed-meposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              It is your God-given right.

      2. A.Villarasa profile image71
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        @wilderness:
        The "string theory" was proposed and uniformly agreed upon by  theoretical and experimental physicists as well as by astrophysicist, as potentially the one unifying theory that could explain the inner workings of the universe or at a minimum try to  connect the dots from quantum mechanics to Einstein's relativity theories, and everything else in between.

        Fourier's theorem, a lesser  known but still deep and elegant explanation emanating from the mathematics of physics,  proposes, that any complex pattern, whether in time or space, can be described as a series of overlapping  waves of multiple frequencies and various amplitudes. Thus, it is an  an assuredly uncomplicated way of analyzing complex visual patterns in non- biologic systems, but also has applicability in biologic structures as well.

        The string theory if followed to its logical conclusion, could explain the more than chance probability that a "multiverse" exist. Fourier's theorem attempts to explain the development of  simple systems to complex structures, and the  inner workings of  those complex  structures i.e. the multiverse or the snowflakes.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Fine, but none of that addresses the laws, requirements and nature of the "super-universe" (I forget the term you used) that produced this one.  And it is those laws and attributes that would determine what laws are possible or probably for any other universe produced.

          Remember, that theorem(s) can attempt to describe THIS universe and it's nature and laws, but cannot begin to address those of any possible universe that produced this one.  Not until we have at least the minimum information as to the probability that the laws of this one would come about.

    3. EncephaloiDead profile image58
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry, how did you possibly go from a snow flake to intelligent design in one gigantic leap of ... ?

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    It is very natural to believe that God caused the Big Bang… he thought of it and bang… existence!
    Whats wrong with that presumption?

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Presume all you want.  Just don't try to pass it off as truth for you have no idea if your presumption is true or not.  That is, after all, the nature of presumptions.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Some things are not provable because we don't have the tools to prove them. When we can measure the energy of a soul as it leaves the body after the heart has stopped beating, we will have proof. 

        ...maybe in the Golden Ages.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          And some things are not provable because they are not true.  The trick, of course is to know when to stop trying and just accept that we don't know.  Or, in rare cases, it is possible to prove a negative, but it is notoriously difficult.

          1. Prodio profile image62
            Prodioposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            And sometimes, some 'things' are not provable because some people are determined not to accept them to be true.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              Agreed, but people somehow still insist that evolution can't happen and that mankind is 100% responsible for the heating of the earth.  We can lead them to drink but can't open their mouths to swallow.

        2. EncephaloiDead profile image58
          EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Sure, and when we can measure the speed of a galloping unicorn with a leprechaun riding, it, we will have proof.

          ... maybe in our dreams.

          1. Prodio profile image62
            Prodioposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            What allows you to dream?

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image58
              EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              Do you not actually know that, never been to school, never cracked open a book?

              Seriously, this is not kindergarten.

              1. Prodio profile image62
                Prodioposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2607188


                It thought you would rather point to your brain (as the origin of your dreams). I mean, the one which.

 
working