1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why does the Moon look large in a camera picture?

« on: 29/12/2012 16:26:49 »

"Why is the camera fooled too?"

It surely isn't. Well, it isn't capable of being 'fooled' since it isn't attempting to recognize objects. But you can make a photo show anything you want really. If you zoom into the moon and include a distant landscape into the scene, then you can make the moon look quite big in photographs. This probably requires a nice camera/lens though.

Otherwise, my guess is that photographs are one of the ways to actually show that the size of the moon is constant, depending on how you take the shot.

2

New Theories / Re: Could the big bang be the uncurling of our three spacial dimensions?

« on: 05/10/2012 01:58:52 »

If this is all novel thinking from you, then you can be pleased to know that I've heard of several popular theories on this idea of curled up higher dimensions that we cannot see. I'm not sure if I understand exactly what your idea is, but I've conjured up similar images of the big bang myself where the dimensions of space are essentially inflated with information/energy much like a balloon as all the dimensions uncurl out and "flatten out".

I've mostly dropped the idea since since it was missing some basic features necessary to explain experimental results. But then, my model was probably quite different from what you've imagined.

3

New Theories / Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?

« on: 01/10/2012 00:10:29 »

No, no “reality outside the measurable” and no “absolute reality." Rather that the “reality” of lengths and shapes of objects and distances between them is best measured from at rest with them, in the same frame with the object of measurement rather than from frames flying by at relativistic speeds, which will, for instance, (probably, theoretically) distort the naturally formed (by the law of gravity) nearly spherical shape of Earth into a more flattened image with a contracted diameter, not its true shape.

I get what you're saying I think. The laws of physics describe the formation of planets such that the planets have a roughly spherical shape, and since this shape arose from the laws we all agree to be correct, then the shape of the planet is, in reality, roughly a sphere. And said spherical shape is apparent only from a reference frame at rest with said planet, so the real description of an object should be described at rest with that object.

I get all that and as others have pointed out, they might even agree with such a view, but the basic problem is that this question is really just asking "what is reality?" The mainstream view, at least as JP points out, and barring unavoidable assumptions, is that reality is what can be measured. But you are essentially asserting that there is a preferred reference frame in which reality is given definition; the reference frame at rest with whatever object we would like to study the real description of.

I think JP's point is that this adds an unnecessary additional assumption to the SR model, since if SR included a definition of reality, it would then have to explain where this definition comes from. I will grant you that it is an intuitive and straightforward idea, but the buck will never-the-less get passed to you as you'll have to present your argument for why reality should be defined only at rest with an object.

That leaves science with the challenge in all cases to find the best way to measure things to determine their intrinsic properties, as they were formed by the laws of physics rather than just as seen from extreme frames of reference.

Unfortunately for you Sir, science is not taking that job As has been variously mentioned on these forums, it is not the job of science to define reality; they have passed that responsibility to meta-physics and religion. Which I find unfortunate as well. Please do correct me again if I am overstepping on my presumptions here.

Yes, but only by defining real as synonymous with each *variable* measure (*even of the same object.) That is why I introduced the probe retrieval thought experiment. I must assume you have read it and don’t  need a replay. The probe does not, in reality, change from the 10 meters *it is measured* from Earth (as it approaches at .866 c) to  20 meters, *as measured from at rest with it* (after “coming alongside”, matching velocities to at rest with it.)

Again, I agree with you on principle, but as it has been said repeatedly, this is a matter of definitions. How you have defined reality, and how it has been defined by most of those who you are having this discussion with is quite different.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could our universe be similar to looking under a superpowerful microscope

« on: 29/09/2012 18:30:05 »

But the succession of structural scales tends to be about five orders of magnitude apart. Atoms 5 orders bigger than nuclei, galaxies 5 orders bigger than solar systems, etc. The Hubble limit is only about two or three orders of magnitude larger than the median bubble size of the cosmic foam, so if there is a larger structure, it's probably way beyond what can be seen.

I remember a post on this forum about the golden ratio and how it arises out of a requirement of efficient packing in space. As fractals grow in space, wouldn't they also be subject to this requirement? I wonder then if the order of five that you mention is the same five in the golden ratio: (1+sqrt(5))/2

5

Geek Speak / Re: Who's afraid of windows 8

« on: 28/09/2012 22:59:54 »

Apparently a bunch of game developers are very afraid of win8 thinking its app store is a bad deal for their business. I'm thinking Valve, the maker of that block-game, what's it called...(after a minute of searching) Minecraft and a couple others I think.

6

New Theories / Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?

« on: 28/09/2012 19:10:00 »

You care less about predictions and want to know some ultimate truth, even if you might not be able to test that truth with measurement.

I appreciate the overall clarification, as well as the logic behind it, but perhaps you meant the general "you" above. If not then I can see why you would think that, but it isn't quite right; I believe in a reality that is fully ascertainable by science (well, there is a subtlety but this isn't the place for it). As I pointed out once before, if in fact a God-reality is true, then my cheer-leading for the existence of God will ultimately make no difference in the thermodynamics of the equation, merely in the kinetics of it. Provided that this version of reality is measurably correct, science will do its thing and come face-to-face with that reality on its own.

7

New Theories / Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?

« on: 28/09/2012 17:10:26 »

I don't think that's true of the forum.  I think it is probably more accurate to say that realities are what can be measured PLUS some set of immeasurable assumptions.

Right, I just remembered the basic assumption of SR is that the physics laws that apply here apply everywhere. Does this assumption fall into the immeasurable? Or I guess the laws we work out here are measurably true as far as we can see.

8

New Theories / Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?

« on: 28/09/2012 03:11:09 »

I can't comment on SR in any detail, but would it be correct to say that the major source of disagreement here is that you, Old Guy, acknowledge a reality outside of the measurable, whereas the mainstream view is to bind reality exclusively to the measurable?

So as per the mainstream view of SR, if you measure a contracted length at a particular frame of reference, then that is by definition reality in that frame of reference. Reality, then, is defined in SR for a particular frame of reference (I feel like I'm duplicating lightarrow's comments here). On the other hand, you're essentially arguing for an absolute reality outside of frames of references. But rather than questioning the validity of the details of the mainstream view, you would be better served, I think, if you questioned instead the validity of the idea that reality is to be defined exclusively by the measurable. If I'm understanding the discussion, then this is the more fundamental question that needs to be answered.

And I think it has been made quite clear in this forum that the mainstream view is that reality is by definition what can be measured and nothing else. So if that is the basic position that one takes, there is really no sense to argue about derivative questions such as whether or not a contraction in the measured length of an object moving at a near-c velocity reflects, in reality, actual contraction of that object.
[Edit: My physics-senses are tingling. Hmm, I think I mean to say "contraction in the measured length of an object moving *relative to* yourself moving at near-c velocity"?]

To someone who defines reality as the measurable, then the measured change in length is, by definition, real.

9

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Where in Our Brain does Consciousness Lie?

« on: 27/09/2012 23:01:21 »

Lol, I wasn't expecting anything concrete, just hoping for some idea of where neuroscience is at right now with the idea of consciousness if its made any progress.

10

Physiology & Medicine / Where in Our Brain does Consciousness Lie?

« on: 27/09/2012 20:29:53 »

Hi,

Here's another "Where in Our Brain..." question. I know this is inherently a very speculative topic, but I read somewhere a few years ago about an experiment where they had some rats memorize a maze. Then they started to progressively lesion the rat's brain after each test to see when the rat would no longer be able to remember the maze. It seemed that even after a significant portion of the brain was removed and it couldn't properly move its limbs, it still knew where to go. The admittedly speculative and likely self-serving point it was trying to make was that memory, once past the hypothalamus, is actually stored 'in a different place' and brought in QM to its defense. I know, meta-physics through and through.

But it made me wonder, has consciousness been defined in any clear way yet by science? And can we say that it lies in any particular part of the brain?

P.S. If anyone can point towards or against the validity of the experiment mentioned, I'd greatly appreciate it. I've never been able to track any reference of this experiment down though.

11

Technology / Re: Will robots take over the world?

« on: 27/09/2012 20:05:25 »

Edit: I'm obviously thinking more along the lines of the Matrix films.

What always gets me is why we worry about robots taking over the world, when I can't off-hand come up with a very extensive list of "People Who Tried to Take Over the World". Actually, has anyone ever, really, tried to...Take Over the World? Start a new empire in a power-hungry craze maybe.

Supposing that agency accidentally arises in a robot, why do we think it would be characteristically different than human agency? Wouldn't it more or less fall under the same sorts of conditions that we experience? Maybe if you mistreat it (sorry, it would be a person at that point wouldn't it...need a new pronoun) enough it might, unsurprisingly, lash out in retaliation. If anything, full agency would likely be a bulwark against those pesky need-to-take-over-the-world tendencies. After all, our own offspring are by and large pretty descent to begin with:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

12

Cells, Microbes & Viruses / Re: Do humans utilise their full muscle fibre strength?

« on: 27/09/2012 19:02:30 »

I recall a professor of mine mentioned an old anecdote about a child suffering from leprosy (if I remember right). Due to nerve damage, the child could no longer feel any pain in his hands. A doctor walks by trying to unlock an old rusty lock but is unable to, and the child asks if he could have a go. The doctor, taking it as a joke, gives him the lock and to his surprise, the child unlocks it! Unfortunately, in the process he sheered the skin off his fingers without realizing it. Can't be sure of its authenticity, but it does illustrate the importance of regulation in power output from our muscles.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Big Bang: How Did Life Begin if Everything Was Sterile?

« on: 26/09/2012 21:18:07 »

On the note of "intelligent design" leading to lazy science, I would say, it depends. If you allow the argument into a scientific discussion that something has particular properties because it was designed to have those properties, and simply leave it at that, then of course this would be a step backwards. On the other hand, we might ask that if something has particular properties because it was designed to have them, then is there such a thing as a blue-print to those designs? If so, where would the blue-prints exist? In what form?

And all of this is philosophical debate rather than scientific, and probably should be consigned to a different area of the forums. (But I note that the Physics forum here, in particular, often diverts into speculative and philosophical debate well removed from any real science content).

I would add, that physics forums in general probably attract people like me It shouldn't be surprising though, since it is from physics that the grandest of claims about the nature of reality come from.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: We want your space/astronomy pictures!

« on: 26/09/2012 18:12:47 »

From Hubble's extreme deep field.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Big Bang: How Did Life Begin if Everything Was Sterile?

« on: 26/09/2012 17:25:03 »

Thanks, I put those on my to-read list. I am realizing that my impression of scientific methodology is wrong and not fair in some ways, as JP and others have pointed out. I've been trudging away at my own models and hypothesis that have come out of my interest in neural networks and emergent properties, and I guess I've been getting the wrong impression from visiting forums and the like that such ideas will ultimately not be given the light of day by their very nature.

I guess what irks me sometimes is when science seems to overstep its own calls for evidence-based statements of belief, and when claims or interpretations of experimental results are given authoritatively when they have no basis in evidence. It's not unlike some of the recent discussions on this forum about interpretations of SR as being many-words, or wave-function collapse, or pilot-waves. JP noted that the math behind SR does not imply any particular interpretation. But I won't argue that this was done with any particular intention in mind, as I see where poor reporting of science can play a role here.

If I remember right, you said you were Christian, so you might sympathize why such claims can be a hot-button issue for believers. At least for me, it is anything but in defense of some vague spirituality or psychological need for belonging. The teleological argument for me lies at the height of pragmatic importance as it affects the public conception of the very nature of reality.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Big Bang: How Did Life Begin if Everything Was Sterile?

« on: 26/09/2012 15:10:52 »

The universe does have a set of rules and these have led directly to life. The four fundamental forces, the family of elementary particles and a small group of constants (read Martin Rees's Just Six Numbers) are what has made it possible for life to emerge from a sea of energy via some complex, but apparently inevitable processes. (If one wished to make an argument for a creator the best evidence lies in the fortuitous combination of forces, particles and constants.)

I don't know about that, I was under the impression that the argument of the fortuitous combination of forces, particles and constants, as you say, had never held much sway with respect to the scientific method. Isn't that what you mean when you say "There seems to be, in the universe, and inherent tendency to build complexity out of simplicity....It is not a popular view and it is at odds with the current methodological naturalism of the scientific method..."?

17

Technology / Re: Will robots be able to think for themselves?

« on: 23/09/2012 02:24:58 »

I do think it's a possibility, I just don't agree on the definition of thinking. Perhaps it would be more precise to divide the question into two complementary ones: will robots be able to learn with the same plasticity as humans? I'm sure this is just a matter of time, and will likely happen sooner than later. And will robots be able to obtain the same agency that for now we humans only allow ourselves? And on this, I don't think that this is matter of time and something that will happen routinely given better models of the workings of neural networks. IMHO, this latter question will be answered only after a fundamental shift in the way we think about consciousness.

18

Technology / Re: Will robots be able to think for themselves?

« on: 21/09/2012 02:55:56 »

A pain to read, but an interesting attempt at thoroughness. It seems to me that the constraints that it sets upon its logic is that of the known properties of the physical universe. There's a whole class of what is for now pseudo-science and meta-physics that deals with information, and in particular, emergent properties that I think in time, provided with a relevant testable hypothesis (or more likely a set of) dealing with these themes, will produce important new directions for research that might ultimately show that consciousness is a real 'physical' thing, it's just not a physical thing in 'the universe'. A literal manifestation of Descartes' dualism expressed as two Worlds: one physical, and one meta-physical.

19

New Theories / Re: G.O.D. designer IS compatible with Science. Fresh perspective.

« on: 20/09/2012 20:30:51 »

It's a mistake to assume that because science doesn't have a "theory of God," that scientists are actively rejecting God (or gods, for our polytheistic friends).  Some wonderful scientists are strong atheists while some are strongly religious. 

I understand what you're saying as we've already had this discussion. It may well be the popular media's fault in projecting their own atheistic views, by showing scientists who generally find it, to say the least, highly improbably that God could actually exist or questioning the need for a God-like being at all. And you could in turn criticize my taking these views as representative of 'the scientific body', whatever that may be. Otherwise, I find it disingenuous to suggest that my comments are completely out of step with reality. Besides, I never said "actively rejecting God", which is quite different from "reject God" and qualified my statement with "...or otherwise deny Him a place in evidential reality, though I am not naive and understand the practical reasons behind it". Scratch that, I'm the outsider coming in with a different background, so I'll be more careful with my words so as not to seem insulting.

I try and keep myself rather self-aware of the generalizations that I make, so please don't get the impression that I come here to have a religious duel. I am of course convinced of a certain truth that arose from outside scientific literature, but inside a none-the-less readily accessible book, and find simply no contradiction between this truth and anything that I've read in science (except perhaps for interpretations of some experimental results). So I'm naturally drawn towards any discussion of areas of research that could yield evidence pointing to, directly or indirectly, God's existence. I'm not sure if working out the type of evidence needed to support a hypothesis before hand is a logical no-no, but I don't really see any other possibility. Not to mention that doing even that much seems unlikely since I don't actually have a conception right now of what form this evidence might take.

20

Technology / Re: Will robots be able to think for themselves?

« on: 19/09/2012 20:54:41 »

David, your definition of thinking makes me think you yourself are a thinking machine jk But let me offer some food for thought. I assume you've read Orwell's 1984? Do you remember the part about 'doublethink'? It's an extreme example, but it should be rather illustrative in where your definition fails. Humans have a brilliant capacity for simultaneously holding and, crucially, believing two contradictory views, what Orwell referred to as doublethink. Humans aren't the rational beings that you believe you can model on a computer program. In fact the highlights in our memories are often things that happened during moments of irrationality.