Einstein's proven right

[Chris Peterson]

There will be no Grand Unified Theory, as such as theory calls for 100% predictability

No it doesn't. A good theory will set knowable boundaries on predictability, that's all. Some things may remain beyond perfect predictability, due to quantum uncertainty, chaos, or other mechanisms, even with perfect understanding (assuming such is even possible).

while:
Ecclesiastes 9:11...

Irrelevant, ancient mythology snipped.

[Sputnick]

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

=apodman = If you apply that quote to astrophysics or to theories, you can make it say a lot of things it doesn't say and never did. Bible verses apply to science like the ideal gas law to a solid.

Actually, Apodman, I was slightly in error although in the long run it's just an issue of semantics.

Hawking says we have three choices in explaining the universe: (Page 134 of A Briefer History of Time)
1. There is a complete unified theory (or a collection of overlapping formulations). which we will someday discover if we are smart enough.
2. There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately but are never exact.
3. There is no theory of the universe: events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner."

The answer of the choices being Number 3 because God has set (chance) in the 'equation'. I won't discuss how the verse applies beyond the inclusion of chance, meaning that while God may not throw dice, man's existence does .. but the verse definitely applies to physics as it shows 'chance' to be a definite reality .. and what is a reality cannot help applying to physics which is also reality. Thanks for the scripture, Apodman, but your quote from Ecclesiastes precedes the new thing which was done in Christ, and which was prophesied in scripture which foretold, "A new thing will I do, which you will not believe though a man declare it unto you." (Of course God did not mean you, personally won't believe it, Apodman .. just those to whom the prophet spoke.)

[Doum]

Geee that was a short leave sputnick. Next time try to leave us (We) a bit more longer. As for what you are talking about. Get lost and dont ever mix god or gods with this forum. Its a place where it does not belong. Science talk here. Thats all. And it's not negociable. Try to see other forum. You want a number 3 answer on your list. Well it's your problem. Just dont forget that there might be a # 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or...solution so dont bother with old religion stuff. I dont buy it at all. Hawkins said something bout it? hmmm:

"Either we have failed to see ninety nine percent of the universe or we are wrong about how the universe began." Stephen Hawking "

So since we can see at least 99% of the universe then we are right. These 99 % have been there to be seen and register. Enjoy it. So it's great cause we are not wrong. COOL. Long live science. Uhhh....

[harry]

G'day

What we see of the universe is just a fraction of a percent of a percent, if that.

Unless you are talking about the local observable universe.

[Sputnick]

Geee that was a short leave sputnick. Next time try to leave us (We) a bit more longer. As for what you are talking about. Get lost and dont ever mix god or gods with this forum. Its a place where it does not belong. Science talk here. Thats all. And it's not negociable. Try to see other forum. You want a number 3 answer on your list. Well it's your problem. Just dont forget that there might be a # 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or...solution so dont bother with old religion stuff. I dont buy it at all. Hawkins said something bout it? hmmm:

"Either we have failed to see ninety nine percent of the universe or we are wrong about how the universe began." Stephen Hawking "

So since we can see at least 99% of the universe then we are right. These 99 % have been there to be seen and register. Enjoy it. So it's great cause we are not wrong. COOL. Long live science. Uhhh....

Read Hawkings A Briefer History of Time.

[Sputnick]

There will be no Grand Unified Theory, as such as theory calls for 100% predictability

No it doesn't. A good theory will set knowable boundaries on predictability, that's all. Some things may remain beyond perfect predictability, due to quantum uncertainty, chaos, or other mechanisms, even with perfect understanding (assuming such is even possible)

You're arguing with Hawkings, Chris, not with me. I just happen to agree with him.
He's coming to my home province, Ontario, for a new position in Waterloo. I suppose you've read A Briefer History of Time?

[Chris Peterson]

You're arguing with Hawkings, Chris, not with me.

While I do not agree with every one of Hawking's scientific positions, I don't think I'm arguing with him here. Where does Hawking say that any GUT requires "100% predictability"?

[makc]

Bible verses apply to science like the ideal gas law to a solid.

According to wiki, for thermal expansion of solid we have dV/V=adT, or V=exp(aT) if I remember the math correctly. For ideal gas, we have P*V = const*T. If we plug the above V in, we have that with P = const * T * exp (-aT) this law could be perfectly applicable. We only need to construct the device to maintain required pressure at any given temperature.... humm wait, this is a bit opposite, i.e. ideal solid law applied to gas.

[apodman]

Bible verses apply to science like the ideal gas law to a solid.

I was thinking of a Gibbs free energy problem when I wrote that, dealing with a fairly complicated expression involving P, V, N, and T. When a rigorous section of the calculation went through unfamiliar territory, a foolish young student noticed that the terms would reduce more easily if he used the ideal gas law (PV=NRT). The gas constant R makes the terms align, but it doesn't apply to the situation, and the answer it produced was wrong. In this metaphor, the R that doesn't apply would stand for Religion. The foolish young student might have learned how to really solve the problem in lecture, but 75% of every class hour was wasted by an even more foolish student arguing from ignorance as if from authority.

[Sputnick]

You're arguing with Hawkings, Chris, not with me.

While I do not agree with every one of Hawking's scientific positions, I don't think I'm arguing with him here. Where does Hawking say that any GUT requires "100% predictability"?

Chris .. I've mentioned this to you before, that if you merely scan posts you will miss important information. I will requote from my original post.

"Hawking says we have three choices in explaining the universe: (Page 134 of A Briefer History of Time)
1. There is a complete unified theory (or a collection of overlapping formulations). which we will someday discover if we are smart enough.
2. There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately but are never exact.
3. There is no theory of the universe: events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner."

In my mind, and this is what I said in my post, the third choice is the only choice we have, because while Einstein said 'God does not throw dice', a certain religious book which is historically and scientifically true in every word but which I will not name because of dictatorial and tyranical forum constraints which do not permit freedom of speech and expression and expansion of thought clearly states 'Time and chance happen to all men' .. so 'chance' is a real factor in the existance of our physical universe, leaving choice three the only possible answer.

[Chris Peterson]

Chris .. I've mentioned this to you before, that if you merely scan posts you will miss important information. I will requote from my original post...

In my mind...

I'm glad you're restricting things to what is in your mind. Because there is certainly nothing in your quote (or requote) from Hawking that requires 100% predictability in a GUT. As you are basing you own opinion on personal philosophy, not on science, there's really nothing more to be said.

[Sputnick]

Chris .. I've mentioned this to you before, that if you merely scan posts you will miss important information. I will requote from my original post...

In my mind...

I'm glad you're restricting things to what is in your mind. Because there is certainly nothing in your quote (or requote) from Hawking that requires 100% predictability in a GUT. As you are basing you own opinion on personal philosophy, not on science, there's really nothing more to be said.

You're right, Chris, if you can't believe Hawking (or Einstein as you said before) and it seems you also can't differentiate between fact sources and personal philosophy, as well as perhaps being dyslexic in reading skills, there is nothing more to be said.

[Sputnick]

This is a little off topic but the Big Bang thread is locked:

Neil Turok, former chair of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University, now executive director of Perimetre Institue for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, says Big Bang's inlationary energy appears 'put in by hand" (is that pseudonym for 'fudge') to paper over Big Bang's flaws (like I said, Chris, "huge voids" in Big Bang theory). Turok, together with Princeton University's Paul Steinhardt favour the clyclical model. MacLeans Magazine, September 8/08. Stephen Hawking, by the way, has accepted a position at Perimetre.

I suppose in your view, Chris, I should not read magazines along with books? Because they can clearly and authoritatively substantiate my opinion that Big Bang has too many scientific flaws to be a supportable theory? Give your head a real good shake, Chris (meaning of course clear the cobwebs/open up your mind to exciting new possibilities/return to scientific exploration instead of dogmatic blindness).

[Chris Peterson]

I suppose in your view, Chris, I should not read magazines along with books? Because they can clearly and authoritatively substantiate my opinion that Big Bang has too many scientific flaws to be a supportable theory?

Obviously, your opinion has not been "clearly and authoritatively substantiate[d]", because the BBT is supportable, is supported, and continues to represent the consensus viewpoint of those with the education to understand it.

[Sputnick]

I suppose in your view, Chris, I should not read magazines along with books? Because they can clearly and authoritatively substantiate my opinion that Big Bang has too many scientific flaws to be a supportable theory?

Obviously, your opinion has not been "clearly and authoritatively substantiate[d]", because the BBT is supportable, is supported, and continues to represent the consensus viewpoint of those with the education to understand it.

Another example of you not reading forum posts, Chris. Please do a websearch on Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt .. big brains, big education, big positions in the scientific community, not supporters of Big Bang. Your view of consensus does not fit with what is happening today, right now, in science. Just do the websearch, please.

[Chris Peterson]

Another example of you not reading forum posts, Chris. Please do a websearch on Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt .. big brains, big education, big positions in the scientific community, not supporters of Big Bang. Your view of consensus does not fit with what is happening today, right now, in science. Just do the websearch, please.

Honestly, I don't know where you get this. Turok and Steinhardt are both supporters of the BBT. Steinhardt is one of the developers of the inflationary theory component of the BBT. Their work with cyclic universe models is not about rejection of the BBT, it is about extending it.

Either of these scientists would be astonished by your assertion that they don't believe in the Big Bang! Their current research simply focuses on the conditions that produced the BB- something that has proven difficult to deal with in a way that would allow testing.

[makc]

Chris, and all: Sputnick has been banned. There's no need to keep discussing this, as he will not be able to reply.