-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
God
- Thread starter theAlkēmist
- Start date
xss27 said:
The layman can also be incorrect on matters. Considering us humans have been known to be wrong before, and knowing how our own minds (and "hearts" ) can play tricks on us, and we do occasionally have mistaken perceptions and beliefs, do you consider the possibility you might be wrong in your so-called "intuition and common sense"?
If you consider that at all possible (even if unlikely), what would it take for you to be convinced ? What kind of evidence, if any, would it take for you to be able to change your view and consider for example general relativity or quantum physics to be a good-enough model, or the best we have so far?
xss27 said:
It has nothing to do with Einstein as an icon, it has to do with how the model makes very accurate predictions that can be tested independently by several different types of experiments. Contrary to what you said, some are indeed use in daily life (GPS as mentioned before is just one of the examples. ). Same for quantum physics.
xss27
Rising Star
hug46 said:
Direct current and alternating current, our practical manifestation of electricity for human needs, were invented/discovered long before relativity theory. Neither system requires relativistic thinking for their operation, though mathematically I think there is some interchangeable thing going on between some of the classical formulas associated with electrical theory and special relativity.
endlessness said:
That is not the issue. The crux of the matter is that we're talking about theories, which are subject to alteration, revision, superseded or even abandonment. The question you posed should be directed at those who hold those theories to be impenetrable dogma. I have no issue with questioning anything and everything, if I did I wouldn't be doubting relativity theory.
endlessness said:
'Good-enough' and 'best we have' is a different matter. I freely admit that the theory may fit the reality picture we have, but that doesn't mean the theory is actually correct or not in fundamental error. That is the problem with theoretical physics that relies too heavily on mathematics. I nor 99% of others can dissect the mathematics because we're not trained to that level, so we rely on the simplified explanations provided in order to make sense of the theory and it's those explanations that do not, to my mind, appear to be correct.
I can't offer an alternative theory or paradigm, all I can say is I do not believe space-time to exist, that it is a metaphysical abstraction arising from mathematical speculation and that it exists solely on paper. No one can directly observe space-time, or dark matter/energy, only the supposed effects of these abstractions. I say that whilst the mathematics may explain elements of what we see in experiments, that doesn't mean the theory itself is correct.
downwardsfromzero
Boundary condition
Quantum mechanics is crucial to the understanding of chemical bonding and has been used to make some practically useful predictions in the field of chemistry (just don't expect me to start listing them here).
And gold, for example, is yellow due to relativistic effects.
Understanding this stuff and applying it to organic synthesis (for but one thing) is basically indistinguishable from magic (eh, ML?
) The results of that are undoubtedly observable.
And gold, for example, is yellow due to relativistic effects.
Understanding this stuff and applying it to organic synthesis (for but one thing) is basically indistinguishable from magic (eh, ML?
) The results of that are undoubtedly observable.
Hello xss27.
I don't think anyone claimed here that our scientific theories are an absolute truth. Far from it, I think everyone here will agree that theories we have now will likely be replaced or updated by something better/more complete.
However, when you specify what is specifically wrong in our current theories you sound... and I'm sorry to say this... foolish. How are you so sure? Seems like you are fooling yourself into some kind of odd conviction. You don't even seem to understand the current theories and their real-life applications, how could you pinpoint their issues?
If I were you I would question my convictions in the matter. Just because our current theories are incomplete, does not mean that it makes sense to jump with confidence into what is wrong with them before even taking the time to fully understand them.
Just want to make you aware, that starting from a good place (questioning current theories), you seem to end up in what looks like a state of uniformed conviction that lacks mental hygene (in my opinion).
Just my two cents. I don't mean to attack you, but I do want to let you know how I see it (and I could be wrong). I actually applaud your interest and curiosity on the subject.
Cheers.
I don't think anyone claimed here that our scientific theories are an absolute truth. Far from it, I think everyone here will agree that theories we have now will likely be replaced or updated by something better/more complete.
However, when you specify what is specifically wrong in our current theories you sound... and I'm sorry to say this... foolish. How are you so sure? Seems like you are fooling yourself into some kind of odd conviction. You don't even seem to understand the current theories and their real-life applications, how could you pinpoint their issues?
If I were you I would question my convictions in the matter. Just because our current theories are incomplete, does not mean that it makes sense to jump with confidence into what is wrong with them before even taking the time to fully understand them.
Just want to make you aware, that starting from a good place (questioning current theories), you seem to end up in what looks like a state of uniformed conviction that lacks mental hygene (in my opinion).
Just my two cents. I don't mean to attack you, but I do want to let you know how I see it (and I could be wrong). I actually applaud your interest and curiosity on the subject.
Cheers.
xss27 said:
xss27 said:
How can you doubt a theory without first even understanding the theory in the first place? You've demonstrated that.
You're not being 'intuitive' or creative, you're just being lazy. What you are doing with physics is no different than what flat-earthers do with physics
xss27 said:
Nuclear power didn't exist before relativity and humans finding out about mass-energy equivalency, so how does it work? How does GPS error-correction due to special relativity work?
Also, classical physics is also "just theories".... Yet you arbitrarily choose to believe those set of theories and not others.
xss27 said:
Despite pointing at others, it seems you have an impenetrable dogma, which is, "special relativity and quantum physics are wrong". Everybody else here is basically saying "if they are shown wrong by experimentation/data, then we will happily update our models". If that is not the case and you are not dogmatic about it, then please do tell me, what evidence would it take for you to change your mind?
xss27 said:
What should it rely on, instead? Beliefs?
xss27 said:
It doesn't mean it's incorrect either.
theAlkēmist
Alchemist
Mindlusion said:
L...O...L @ flat-earthers, they really don’t understand anything. I think relatively and quantum physics are fundamentally flawed because of two reasons.
1. I already brought this up. A unification theory is impossible with our current model.
2. Protons sit together in a nucleus, but we know if two electromagnetic fields are the same charge they will repel. So a constant was made up by physicists so the current model works. Correct me if I’m wrong. But we cannot just make up values so our equations work. It requires a whole restructuring of the system.
And although Einstein is revered for what he brought to the table. Most of his work is outdated and is not used in modern physics.
And just because his Theory Of Relativity is the best explanation we have right now, most definitely doesn’t make it truth. Don’t forget his relativity replaced Newton’s Theory Of Gravity, that took 350 years until we came up with a better model. Relatively has only been around 80 years? Give it time, we are just beginning to understand the most elementary things.
And for the person that scoffed magick. Are you aware that all matter is made of the exact same quantum particles? And from a physical standpoint the only difference between matter is the oscillation frequency? So if those frequencies are changed, matter is changed? They did studies (I don’t have references on hand), but when Buddhist monks all get together and chant, the sound frequencies interact with the frequencies of neurotransmitters and effect dopamine, serotonin, etc. Isn’t that what a verbal magick spell is? This gets very complicated with cymatics, but I’m writing a paper about this at the moment. Like I said, current humans don’t know much, we just think we do.
theAlkēmist said:
1) Impossible is too strong of a word, but yeah everyone agrees that our theories are not complete. Even if unification were done tomorrow, we would still expect future improvements/refinements/changes to our theories.
2) There is more than just electric charge in the nucleus. There are also quarks that have their own strong-force charge (color) and are attracted to each-other. You will not be able to find a stable nucleus with only two protons (Helium has two protons and two neutrons for example). Neutrons serve an important role to put in more quarks in the nucleus to stabilize it against electrostatic repulsion with more strong-force interactions. Nuclear physics has a solid explanation for this, no need to make anything up. We've learned a lot about these quarks over the years.
theAlkēmist
Alchemist
Loveall said:
Yes you’re right, I should of said highly improbable not impossible. And I didn’t mean literally two protons, my mistake I should’ve been more precise in my language. I meant numerous protons. Correct me here, physics isn’t my forté, I just have an interest. But quarks have four fundamental properties:
1. Electromagnetism
2. Gravity
3. Strong interaction
4. Weak interaction
However, the issue I have is there is no accepted quantum gravity theory? So something in the quark model is flawed? I mean although quarks have been observed in colliders, the physics is purely theoretical right?
And I’m talking about the strong-force constant. As far as I’m aware physicists, to put it very crudely (I realise it’s a little more complicated then this), but wasn’t this force made up so that the theory presented in the 60s could be modeled, I saw a lecture about this a while ago.
You don't need gravity to have a model of the nucleus because it is so weak compared to the other forces.
You are right that quarks started out as "made up". Someone imagined them in a beautiful moment of insight. Their existence was indeed in question until experiments like deep inelastic scattering (essentially allows one to"see them", the successful prediction of the neutron magnetic moment, new particle families observations, etc.
Today quarks are an established part of our reality. The model we have of them may be refined in the future, but I don't think they are going away.
The strong force was also made up, but it turns out to explain all kinds of stuff we can see. It's as real as anything else you can see and touch with your own senses.
We make up a lot of things. Sometimes, it turns out that they meet a reasonable standard of existence. Reasonable in the sense that you can question your own existence, so let's avoid that when talking physics.
So while you are correct that the divergences we see when trying to formulate a quantum gravity field formalism indicate our theories are not complete, the stability of the Helium nucleus (two protons + two neutrons) is well understood. No contradictions or deep mysteries there. Your observation/question of electrostatic repulsion is good: it just means that you need a couple neutrons to add more quarks and stabilize the system. Indeed, you will not find a nucleus with only two protons: that is unstable due to electrostatic repulsion.
Also, the strong force that stabelizes the nucleus drops off quickly with distance. That's why you need extra neutrons for the larger atoms with more distance between hadrons. See plot below for the ratio of stable nuclei:
You are right that quarks started out as "made up". Someone imagined them in a beautiful moment of insight. Their existence was indeed in question until experiments like deep inelastic scattering (essentially allows one to"see them", the successful prediction of the neutron magnetic moment, new particle families observations, etc.
Today quarks are an established part of our reality. The model we have of them may be refined in the future, but I don't think they are going away.
The strong force was also made up, but it turns out to explain all kinds of stuff we can see. It's as real as anything else you can see and touch with your own senses.
We make up a lot of things. Sometimes, it turns out that they meet a reasonable standard of existence. Reasonable in the sense that you can question your own existence, so let's avoid that when talking physics.
So while you are correct that the divergences we see when trying to formulate a quantum gravity field formalism indicate our theories are not complete, the stability of the Helium nucleus (two protons + two neutrons) is well understood. No contradictions or deep mysteries there. Your observation/question of electrostatic repulsion is good: it just means that you need a couple neutrons to add more quarks and stabilize the system. Indeed, you will not find a nucleus with only two protons: that is unstable due to electrostatic repulsion.
Also, the strong force that stabelizes the nucleus drops off quickly with distance. That's why you need extra neutrons for the larger atoms with more distance between hadrons. See plot below for the ratio of stable nuclei:
Attachments
theAlkēmist
Alchemist
Well Loveall, thank you for taking the time to educate me. 
Although I still have an issue with the strong-force. And even though we might say gravity is insignificant at the quantum level. It’s still a quark force, so cannot be ignored.
Although I still have an issue with the strong-force. And even though we might say gravity is insignificant at the quantum level. It’s still a quark force, so cannot be ignored.
xss27
Rising Star
Loveall said:
Hi Loveall.
I know, no one claimed they were an absolute truth. I set out my opinion where I attacked the priesthood of science and then the validity of quantum theory+relativity and then others were drawn to attack my position, which is fair enough and I understand why;
Yeah I totally understand why you and others would think it's a foolish position, honestly I do. I don't mind that, though we should remember that truth isn't established by democratic vote or consensus thinking - just because someone doesn't run with the crowd doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong.
Loveall said:
Conversely the scientific establishment should not immediately rush to add more bells and whistles to a paradigm without first taking the time to examine whether progress was made in haste and cumulative errors generated, pushing us down the wrong path. My position rests largely on the belief that modern science has made a rush to judgement and set off down the wrong path around the turn of the 20th century.
'Understanding' the theory, or getting 'educated'.. this is not a prerequisite for seeing error in a theory. What a person is really saying there is allow yourself to get beaten down enough by a relevant authority in order to accept the notion as true first, then go on to try and actually decipher the theory and justify your decision to accept without question. Students do not have the time to replicate and really understand the entire genesis of scientific development, it is not practical to reinvent the wheel, so we take certain things on good faith - this is practical and logical, and I accept that. However, it does expose us to cumulative error by not taking the time to examine every step taken to get to where we are now.
Loveall said:
I didn't start off at the position I'm at. Loved science all through my education, was good at it, and loved it outside of education, genuinely fascinated by it; mysterious things like blackholes and ball lightning often occupied my mind when I was young. There was a solid foundation and respect for science, parents were athiest, no hindrance.
My doubts started in cosmology and astrophysics, and in particular how relativity fits within them i.e blackholes. The more I read and learned the more I became convinced that it was just one assumption built on another and eventually I came to doubt blackhole theory too, my early fascination! Then the same thing happened at the other end of the scale with particle physics.. theories are convincing and I see where they're coming from, but there's just too much assumptive thinking apparent in the paradigm.
I reserve my right to doubt everything - the only true freedom.
Theories are never perfect. There can be no grand unifying theory of everything.
I am absolutely convinced of that.
To me, that is something like an axiom. It is true, though i can't explain why. But once you see it, you can't unsee it.
Almost any branche of science has these problems. There is no grand unifying theory that brings neuroscience and psychology together (without sacrificing a bit of both), the same is true with relativity and quantum physics, and within physics there is heisenbergs uncertainty principle, and withing math there is godels incompleteness theorem, etc.
I think the godel theorem is the most telling part. If there would be one field where the perfect theory should be possible (because the lacking of empirical "grittyness" ), it would be math and logic. And even in those fields, the perfect theory is litterally unthinkable.
But some theories are better and more complete than others. I am not aware of any theory, at this moment, that can replace relativity and/or quantum mechanics. Not yet. But so many very bright people are working at it, that it will happen some day.
I am absolutely convinced of that.
To me, that is something like an axiom. It is true, though i can't explain why. But once you see it, you can't unsee it.
Almost any branche of science has these problems. There is no grand unifying theory that brings neuroscience and psychology together (without sacrificing a bit of both), the same is true with relativity and quantum physics, and within physics there is heisenbergs uncertainty principle, and withing math there is godels incompleteness theorem, etc.
I think the godel theorem is the most telling part. If there would be one field where the perfect theory should be possible (because the lacking of empirical "grittyness" ), it would be math and logic. And even in those fields, the perfect theory is litterally unthinkable.
But some theories are better and more complete than others. I am not aware of any theory, at this moment, that can replace relativity and/or quantum mechanics. Not yet. But so many very bright people are working at it, that it will happen some day.
So...
I like to stay far from religious discussion... but seeing that this is mainly conceptual discussion - then it's ok to play.
Last night, I decided to give the "4-HO"-MiPT a second run - the first was great! But, it was a lower dose, so i wanted to crank it up a notch or three. See, I'm the superstitious type - what lands on the scale IS the dose. If I want to add more, fine... usually won't, but ok. Trying to scoop a powder in mg increments is a total pain in the ass, so I chose this superstition. It's never "failed" me, though delivered some humbling messages at times.
Right, rambling, get to the point - thursday, took the first dose: ~7.5 mg. Loved it! I decided that it was a nice mix of "phenerhylamine + tryptamine" headspace and body feel. Yes, it's a tryptamine, but I like phens. I'm not gonna deny it any longer... I did for a long time. Meth use, in my teens, resulted in a self-imposed hell that took years to battle my way back to reality. I hated myself and anything that was related to meth - including the idea of drugs being similar.
Time passed. I licked my wounds and hid inside myself. Eventually, MDMA said, "yo, don't throw the baby out when you throw out the bath water..." which kinda peaked interest... and then mescaline - "come here, you silly guy! Gimmee a big hug and let's fix this shit, eh?" So, my perspective began to question itself. Maybe phens aren't so bad?
So, last night I wanted to try the 4-HO-MiPT at a higher dose. I was aiming for 15 mg, but 20 mg hit the scale. You've been informed of my superstition - what hits the scale goes. Ok, so skipping some - about 30 mins later I am feeling pretty strong onset. An hr in, nearly full throttle, my mind visualizes a wave. Let's assume it's a Sin wave for ease of explanation. At first, the wave was typical 2-D that your see in a book. But... i decided that didn't seem right. So, I added the third dimension of spacial concept and saw a new model. Rathe than a flat wave, it was more like a tube that constricted and flared continuously.
So, that was fine. Conceptually, maybe a photon would be in any of the places with the wave. Mb maybe not. It led to thinking about the double slit experiment and the results. I wondered - how can the people that produce the experiment insure that each photon is in-phase with the previous? Could that attribute to the odd phenomenon? Maybe flawed equipment provides inconsistent phases. And then I wondered... maybe the "wave" is only observed because of a "spiralling action" that is created from the interference of other photons on their "spiralling path."
So, they say - ok, do this in a vacuum. Makes sense... but, the behavior seems consistent. So, what if the photon has an affinity for itself. Perhaps there is never a single photon. Maybe there are only pairs. However, due to "uncertainty" we can only detect "one." Maybe the wave occurs from an attraction that meets a central "singularity," where an inversion ocurs and they are sent spiralling away... until they invert again - returning to attraction.
Maybe we only see "one" because of our resolution of observation. Maybe one is not just two... maybe one has many intricate parts.
Just drugged up thoughts. It was fun though.
Take Care!
ACY
I like to stay far from religious discussion... but seeing that this is mainly conceptual discussion - then it's ok to play.
Last night, I decided to give the "4-HO"-MiPT a second run - the first was great! But, it was a lower dose, so i wanted to crank it up a notch or three. See, I'm the superstitious type - what lands on the scale IS the dose. If I want to add more, fine... usually won't, but ok. Trying to scoop a powder in mg increments is a total pain in the ass, so I chose this superstition. It's never "failed" me, though delivered some humbling messages at times.
Right, rambling, get to the point - thursday, took the first dose: ~7.5 mg. Loved it! I decided that it was a nice mix of "phenerhylamine + tryptamine" headspace and body feel. Yes, it's a tryptamine, but I like phens. I'm not gonna deny it any longer... I did for a long time. Meth use, in my teens, resulted in a self-imposed hell that took years to battle my way back to reality. I hated myself and anything that was related to meth - including the idea of drugs being similar.
Time passed. I licked my wounds and hid inside myself. Eventually, MDMA said, "yo, don't throw the baby out when you throw out the bath water..." which kinda peaked interest... and then mescaline - "come here, you silly guy! Gimmee a big hug and let's fix this shit, eh?" So, my perspective began to question itself. Maybe phens aren't so bad?
So, last night I wanted to try the 4-HO-MiPT at a higher dose. I was aiming for 15 mg, but 20 mg hit the scale. You've been informed of my superstition - what hits the scale goes. Ok, so skipping some - about 30 mins later I am feeling pretty strong onset. An hr in, nearly full throttle, my mind visualizes a wave. Let's assume it's a Sin wave for ease of explanation. At first, the wave was typical 2-D that your see in a book. But... i decided that didn't seem right. So, I added the third dimension of spacial concept and saw a new model. Rathe than a flat wave, it was more like a tube that constricted and flared continuously.
So, that was fine. Conceptually, maybe a photon would be in any of the places with the wave. Mb maybe not. It led to thinking about the double slit experiment and the results. I wondered - how can the people that produce the experiment insure that each photon is in-phase with the previous? Could that attribute to the odd phenomenon? Maybe flawed equipment provides inconsistent phases. And then I wondered... maybe the "wave" is only observed because of a "spiralling action" that is created from the interference of other photons on their "spiralling path."
So, they say - ok, do this in a vacuum. Makes sense... but, the behavior seems consistent. So, what if the photon has an affinity for itself. Perhaps there is never a single photon. Maybe there are only pairs. However, due to "uncertainty" we can only detect "one." Maybe the wave occurs from an attraction that meets a central "singularity," where an inversion ocurs and they are sent spiralling away... until they invert again - returning to attraction.
Maybe we only see "one" because of our resolution of observation. Maybe one is not just two... maybe one has many intricate parts.
Just drugged up thoughts. It was fun though.
Take Care!
ACY
RoundAbout
Rising Star
AcaciaConfusedYah said:
The wave/particle duality doesn't resolve that easily; the same sorts of observations crop up everywhere. Quantum mechanics is the fundamental explanation of many, many phenomena from many different forms of spectroscopy.
A few general statements to no one in particular:
Ignorance is no excuse and dwelling on entertaining but baseless ideas does little good. The evidence supporting quantum mechanics is not up to explaining why or how you should live your life. The robust intricacy of the solutions to the Schrodinger equation (with Dirac's) is stunning... when applied to the problems it is relevant to. The fundamentals of atomic spectroscopy is one of the more simple examples I can think of... plenty of books on that if that's what tickles your fancy. But why would it interest you enough to actually become proficient? It does not have much explanatory value for your life's problems, unless contorted by some 'alternative' character.
My 2 cents.
downwardsfromzero
Boundary condition
IMO, veracity of a set of beliefs shall be determined by who can put on the best buffet.endlessness said:
Raising my hand here, for being the person that said the magic word. Far from scoffing, it is rather an acknowledgement of just how powerful so many of our technological methods actually are, remarkable instances of manipulating matter in accordance with our will. The Buddhist monks apply a different form of technology (arguably more elegant) and with equally remarkable results. [It's a funny coincidence that you should choose that example, as the harmonic overtone resonance has fascinated me, to a greater or lesser extent, for over twenty years]
So, yes, I am aware, and I'm also reasonably aware of how little I know. Perhaps that's why I tend to avoid this type of debate. That and my thoughts on these matters tend to be in a form which lends itself badly to verbal transposition.
This was in fact a nod to the rather well-known quote, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. ClarkI said:
Loveall - I do so like that N/Z nuclear stability graph. IMO it's more conveniently plotted with 'neutron excess' - i.e. N-Z - on the y-axis as this results in a more compact graph and, of course, the N=Z line becomes the x-axis. Never seen that anywhere except the one I drew by hand while sitting, bored in a hospital bed once.
Anyhow, that aside, it's also remarkable the amount of potassium there is here on earth. In the vast majority of the universe, the amount of argon far outweighs the amount of potassium. The fact that life as we know it exists here is as much down to the unusually high levels of potassium as it is to any of the other dozens of 'Goldilocks' factors that make planet Earth this cherished (well, it ought to be...) and, as far as we know, unique haven. Are we here because some benevolent cosmic mind created this perfect garden, or was it just a gigantic stroke of luck? Is there a differrence?
RoundAbout said:
Oh yeah, I am not saying that is any kind of explanation for anything. It's a speculation. Keep in mind the quoted text.
My mind-imagery was entertaining and it was fun to consider the idea of solstice particles that would travel in a general direction, spiraling in and around the "wave area" coming to a singularity at 0, and then repelling away from each other in a spiraling motion.
Is it the answer? Nah. Was it interesting to consider? Sure, why not? If it's something that pops into my head for 5 minutes out of 4 hour trip, I wouldn't consider too much time invested in playing with the idea. I moved on to other things after I decided that it was likely not a valid explanation.
theAlkēmist
Alchemist
downwardsfromzero said:
I’ll get references for you so you know I’m not talking hocus pocus. But cymatics are fundamentally creating beautiful geometric patterns through specific frequencies. Very specific frequencies create sacred geometric patterns. I won’t get into the importance of sacred geometry in Alchemy or Hermetic Societies, but these are patterns intrinsic in all creation, have been observed from the atomic level (in magnetic spins) to the galactic level, not to mention the oldest sacred geometric patterns ever discovered are 10,000 years old and they appear in our visuals on psychedelics. So there is something very sacred about them this can’t be denied. It’s emerging in the scientific community that somehow sacred geometry is directly correlated with reality and somehow they are deeply connected, and a few out there scientists have suggested that reality can be influenced with sacred geometry. Which is ironically what has been written down since Ancient Egyptian Alchemy and what esoteric teachings say. So I think it’s only a matter of time till we rediscover these things like with other ancient texts. We really are very naïve and have just come out of the dark ages.
There was a cymatic study done on mantras, whereby mantras produced some of the famous geometric mandalas and symbols like the Sri Yanta. I’ll get the researchers name later, but recently there was a cymatic study done on certain sounds in Hebrew and they produced perfect geometric patterns, which is just very speculative but maybe there is some underlying magick to it all. Because why?