Astrophysics and the snowflake

1. 60

   A.Villarasaposted 10 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.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Sed-meposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Best thread title ever.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
   2. 95

      wildernessposted 10 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.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 10 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!

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

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

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Kathryn L Hillposted 10 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

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 10 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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Prodioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

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

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 10 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?

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Prodioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Where did that thought originate?

                           replyreport
                           1. 55

                              EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              It's called a brain, most learned that in school. Did you not attend school or just didn't pay attention there?

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Prodioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

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

                                 replyreport
                           2. 95

                              wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              I answered that question before, in more detail.  To repeat:
                              From the factory inside the electrons, built by the tiny people that live there.  Inside the electron in the electron flow in the nerve in the brain in Sed-me's body.
                              
                              If you want to do more than play word games, we can do that, too.

                              replyreport
                              1. 81

                                 Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 Apparently, Human Intellect has its limitations.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 95

                                    wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                    I dunno - it seems able to imagine gods from another universe pretty well. Can't find or prove them, but can sure imagine them.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       Prodioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                       You do know - imagination can never find any evidence. It never did.

                                       report
                              2. 60

                                 Prodioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 Thank you for letting me (us) know your final answer to that very question.
                                 
                                 
                                 [ http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2607192 ]

                                 replyreport
                              3. 78

                                 Sed-meposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 I really did not foresee ppl calling me "Sed-me." Though it's very kind of you, and totally respectful, pls feel free to call me Beth. lol

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    Prodioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                    ha ha ha!

                                    replyreport
                     2. 55

                        EncephaloiDeadposted 10 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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Prodioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2607195

                           replyreport
               2. 78

                  Sed-meposted 10 years agoin reply to this

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

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 10 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        Sed-meposted 10 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.
                        
                        edit :cosmology... I should have said.

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           

                           replyreport
                           1. 78

                              Sed-meposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              Check out the list of nobel peace prize winners on this link...
                              
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch … in_science

                              replyreport
                              1. 95

                                 wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 I said there were people like that.
                                 
                                 But, out of curiosity, have you looked at the number of believers vs non-believers, all also top scientists, that were born in the last, say, 50 - 75 years?  When it has become OK to not believe and you won't be jailed or even ostracized for such heresy?
                                 
                                 I WOULD have to say here that "scientist" is a very confusing term to some people, though - phrases like "creation science" have muddied the field considerably as believers attempt to lend credence to themselves.  And frauds and scammers abound, too, and always have.
                                 
                                 *edit* - it is interesting to not that I don't recognize a single name on that list that was also born since 1950.  I'm not "up" in any of the fields anymore, but do read some and would have expected to at least recognize some of the names if they were actually highly recognized in their fields.  Not all, certainly, or even most, but at least one or two!

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 78

                                    Sed-meposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                    http://www.whyfaith.com/scientists-and-christians-list/
                                    
                                    http://www.portaltotheuniverse.org/blog … ew/116060/
                                    
                                    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html
                                    
                                    http://godevidence.com/2010/08/quotes-about-god/
                                    
                                    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/ni/20 … ce_po.html
                                    
                                    I could provide you with a lot more, but Norton's family filter is blocking most of them. lol

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 95

                                       wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                       Looked at only one, about Peter Brand.
                                       
                                       The man is either an idiot or running a scam and making up a new definition for "God".  Science cannot find the Christian god, by definition, and there is certainly no evidence for one to be found in astronomy.  Check what Stephen Hawking has to say about the necessity for a god in the creation of the universe.

                                       report
                                       1. 78

                                          Sed-meposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                          Well as long as you looked at one...

                                          report
                  2. 55

                     EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     And, of course, you believe him.

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        Sed-meposted 10 years agoin reply to this

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

                        replyreport
                        1. 55

                           EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

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

                           replyreport
                           1. 78

                              Sed-meposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              I printed a bunch of links, feel free to check them out if you are interested.

                              replyreport
                              1. 55

                                 EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 Yes, I can see you've provided an entire page of names, amongst the tens of thousands of scientists in the field. Well done.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 78

                                    Sed-meposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                    I suppose I could print thousands of individual names if you'd like, but it seems easier when they're contained within those links.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 55

                                       EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                       There aren't thousands there, only a handful compared to the huge group of scientists in the field. So far, your husband isn't right.

                                       report
               3. 0

                  Rad Manposted 10 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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 10 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…

                     replyreport
         2. 78

            Sed-meposted 10 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

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 10 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.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Sed-meposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  It is your God-given right.

                  replyreport
      2. 60

         A.Villarasaposted 10 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.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 10 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.

            replyreport
   3. 55

      EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
2. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 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?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 10 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.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 10 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.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 10 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.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Prodioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

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

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 10 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.

                  replyreport
         2. 55

            EncephaloiDeadposted 10 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.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Prodioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               What allows you to dream?

               replyreport
               1. 55

                  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Prodioposted 10 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.

                     replyreport