Physics question

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
obsessive_writer
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:45 am UTC
Location: Houston, TX

Physics question

Postby obsessive_writer » Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:56 am UTC

in theory, could it be said that all things are simply reactions to actions, which are reactions themselves, and that every single event during our billions of years in existence was pre-determined, and that there is proof of god in the idea of a reaction without an action, or the initial event that started our dimension?

User avatar
Blatm
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:43 am UTC

Postby Blatm » Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:18 am UTC

It could, but there wouldn't be much of a point to it. We only care about physics because it helps predict stuff. Saying "God did it" doesn't help us do that.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:35 am UTC

ehhhhh... spam bot, or stupid creationist?
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
SpitValve
Not a mod.
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:51 am UTC
Location: Lower pork village

Postby SpitValve » Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:41 am UTC

3.14159265... wrote:ehhhhh... spam bot, or stupid creationist?


Wouldn't say creationist so much as a determinist...

Anyway, it doesn't make sense when you take chaos and quantum physics into account, because there's more than one possible reaction for each action.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:45 am UTC

Also it goes bak indefinitely, so basicly time is infinite for the reactions to go all the way bak to god, because every re-action has a physical action.

Big bang theory, time not infinite, thus god doesn't exist?

By creationist I didn't mean young earth, just random, oh this world is so beautifull a god MUST have created it.

First cause theory.. oh Look, I have discoverd a proof god

that type of person
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
SpitValve
Not a mod.
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:51 am UTC
Location: Lower pork village

Postby SpitValve » Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:49 am UTC

Infinite time is actually an argument against what he's said. The argument is that every action is a reaction to another action, but if the universe is finitely old, then there must have been an initial action that was not a reaction.

But that argument doesn't tell us anything about the existence of God, so it's not a very useful argument, even if the premises were correct.

miles01110
Posts: 611
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:39 pm UTC

Postby miles01110 » Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:42 am UTC

So the short answer to the OP's question is "No."

User avatar
SpitValve
Not a mod.
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:51 am UTC
Location: Lower pork village

Postby SpitValve » Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:51 am UTC

miles01110 wrote:So the short answer to the OP's question is "No."


Yes.

I mean no.

I mean... the answer to his question is "no."

Yes.

miles01110
Posts: 611
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:39 pm UTC

Postby miles01110 » Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:28 am UTC

Haha I trapped you in a grammatical paradox, which was my intention all along.

*cackle*

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Hawknc » Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:45 am UTC

Hence the reason "yeahnah" was invented. It's the ideal way out in a situation such as that.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
scowdich
The Hedgehog
Posts: 771
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 4:55 am UTC
Location: University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign)
Contact:

Postby scowdich » Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:54 am UTC

Actually, I get the feeling the short answer to the OP's question has something to do with Shroedinger's equation.

Shadowfish
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:27 am UTC

Postby Shadowfish » Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:47 pm UTC

This isn't really a physics question. A physics question is something more like this. What you've got here is a philosophy question, where physical principles may help you make whatever argument you feel like making.

The difference is, you can always be sure about the answer to a physics question by making some observation. Not so with the question you asked.

I'm done with my semantic bitching for now.

User avatar
obsessive_writer
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:45 am UTC
Location: Houston, TX

Postby obsessive_writer » Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:46 am UTC

Okay, that last part was kind of a fluke. What I meant was that there must have been something that was output without input. My original question, that was replaced by the god question, was whether or not a reaction without action was possible.

User avatar
Blatm
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:43 am UTC

Postby Blatm » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:01 am UTC

I'm relatively certain that physicists havn't found an answer to that question. The Big Bang Theory is the best we have right now.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:12 am UTC

Blatm wrote:I'm relatively certain that physicists havn't found an answer to that question. The Big Bang Theory is the best we have right now.
I hate it when people say that!

Ok, the big bang theory is like 50 billion times cooler, and observable than the damn god theories.

Its not "well its not great but its ok.. i guess", its more like, ahhaha WE ROCK WOOOOOOOO, WHOA WE FIGURED SHIT OUT BACK TO 15 billion years, WHOAH WHOA WHOA, in your FACES the CHURCH, and politicians and all the crap. Hehahahah physics rocks, props to math. Yo.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
ArmonSore
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:40 pm UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, United States
Contact:

Postby ArmonSore » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:18 am UTC

Could you be more clear about what kind of action/reaction you're talking about?
I was useful Yesterday.
-Paul McCartney.

User avatar
NathanielK
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:47 am UTC
Location: Maryland, USA
Contact:

Postby NathanielK » Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:06 am UTC

obsessive_writer wrote:My original question, that was replaced by the god question, was whether or not a reaction without action was possible.
How about radioactive decay? It's not directly caused by anything, it just has an x% chance of happening each second.
This message composed of 100% post-consumer electrons.
My blag

User avatar
SpitValve
Not a mod.
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:51 am UTC
Location: Lower pork village

Postby SpitValve » Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:26 am UTC

NathanielK wrote:
obsessive_writer wrote:My original question, that was replaced by the god question, was whether or not a reaction without action was possible.
How about radioactive decay? It's not directly caused by anything, it just has an x% chance of happening each second.


You could argue that it's caused by an unstable nucleus being formed so many millions/billions of years ago... if one felt like it.

User avatar
parallax
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:06 pm UTC
Location: The Emergency Intelligence Incinerator

Postby parallax » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:37 pm UTC

The idea that every action must be caused by a prior action is flawed. Virtual particles are continuously spawned in vacuum fluctuations.

The analogy I like to use to solve the "What happened before the beginning of time?" question is this: The beginning of time is like the north pole. There is nothing "before" the beginning just like there is nothing north of the north pole. It is incorrect to say that "Every point on the Earth has another point to the north of it, but what's north of the north pole? God must be north of the north pole.".

User avatar
Blatm
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:43 am UTC

Postby Blatm » Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:59 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:
Blatm wrote:I'm relatively certain that physicists havn't found an answer to that question. The Big Bang Theory is the best we have right now.
I hate it when people say that!

Ok, the big bang theory is like 50 billion times cooler, and observable than the damn god theories.

Its not "well its not great but its ok.. i guess", its more like, ahhaha WE ROCK WOOOOOOOO, WHOA WE FIGURED SHIT OUT BACK TO 15 billion years, WHOAH WHOA WHOA, in your FACES the CHURCH, and politicians and all the crap. Hehahahah physics rocks, props to math. Yo.


Well we deffiently know that the Big Bang happened, and that we're awesome, but we're not sure why, which is what ther orriginal poster was asking about.

User avatar
evilbeanfiend
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:05 am UTC
Location: the old world

Postby evilbeanfiend » Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:48 am UTC

parallax wrote:The idea that every action must be caused by a prior action is flawed. Virtual particles are continuously spawned in vacuum fluctuations.


but then you have to ask if virtual particles physically exist, or are just a mathematical convenience in the standard model.
in ur beanz makin u eveel

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5228
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Postby Xanthir » Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:31 pm UTC

Hawking radiation would seem to indicate that they are real. Of course, I don't know if we've ever observed the effects of Hawking radiation... However, I think we *have* been able to directly measure the effects of virtual particles in empty space. They provide a bit of a 'pressure', iirc. Or something like that.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25817
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:50 pm UTC

That would be the Casimir effect.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests