A Question on Abiogenesis

[VonNeumann]

By my attempt at provoking a new look into something, I've stepped on some deep emotions in one person. He is even issuing permission to post now. Hehehheh...

If you are a reader and have found some of what I say provocative, then that's excellent. Go research this on your own and come to your own conclusions. The poster with the fundamental attachment to continuum has been riled into a mild rant- this is testimony to how 'skeptics' can behave just as the very religious fundamentalists that they oppose.

Renormalization is a patch job for the infinities induced by non-discrete modeling. Feynman had to know some day a better understanding would allow those patches to be replaced by a more reasonable model. But renormalization is a trick that allows you to go forward. And it has worked very well in QED, for instance (Feynman's greatest opus). In string theory, and of course there are so many brands of it how can I stereotype it (?) - but it is renormalization galore in a theory that has still not predicted anything.

This forum is interesting to me as a place where I can see what are other people's opinions. Their reactions are something I have a curiosity about. I have my own selfish reasons for probing that. I don't expect to get a following or to convert anyone over to my way of thinking. Not immediately. Years later, when people start to shift in their thinking, they do not often remember what they read or what someone said that moved them out of their old groove. I don't expect anyone to say 'yep, it was vonneumann on the randi forum who taught me this'. Basically, it's got to be induced from multiple sources and repeated many times.

I'm humored by the one who thinks I've embarassed myself. I'm not embarassed. I don't care. I can tell when I've challenged the fundamental foundation of someone's worldview - the pitch increases. This is good. Someday when someone he respects says some of the same things I've said, he'll do a double take. Right now, the concepts are too alien.

 

[VonNeumann]

(accidental double post)

 

[Schneibster]

That wasn't wise; woos always attempt to belittle the opposition. You just managed to prove I was right, you're a woo. Bye now, and this time I won't be looking again.

 

[VonNeumann]

 

[DeviousB]

So what was the argument about again?
"Do continua exist?"
"Is space one?"
What?

LQG, CDT, Heim Theory (?) and others have all suggested quantised models for space-time. Why don't these models immediately run afoul of Scheibster's proofs of a continuum?

And what is proof (3) supposed to show again?

A photon's energy is inversely proportional to its wavelength, which may vary from observer to observer (let's just treat an accelerated observer as another instance of an observer for know). So a photon can apparently have any energy right? Well only if observers can have any relative speed. Which implies a continuum. Which this was supposed to be a proof of.



Also, what did this have to do with abiogenesis again?

 

[Dancing David]

Pardon me, I don't mean to be offensive (at least to you- I don't really care what hammy thinks). It's worth pointing out that Zeno's Paradox is based on ignoring an important fact:

Converging series can have definite values, even though their representation never terminates. For example, the exact rational number 1/3 is represented by the repeating decimal 0.333... which is the converging series (3/10 + 3/100 + 3/1000 +...) yet has a precise value. Thus, Zeno neglected to note that despite being an infinite series, his paradoxes always involve a definite value.

The Greeks weren't all that good at fractions. Zeno's paradoxes were all based on that.

I think that Xeno's paradox is just a mental paradox with no real reality. I prefer Heraclites. I think it is an emotional appeal to the non-rational nature of humans.

 

[steenkh]

By my attempt at provoking a new look into something, I've stepped on some deep emotions in one person. He is even issuing permission to post now. Hehehheh...

I do not think the emotions are running so deep as the fact that you do not seem interested in entering into a serious discussion where you actually read what has been written.

I am not well versed in these subjects, but I also wondered why you claimed that vacuum should contain "unlimited" energy, when every article or book I have seen have been stating that the vacuum energy is not only limited but extremely small. the point being that because there is so much vacuum, there is actually an enormous amount of energy - and hence matter - present in vacuum.

Among other things, Schneibster called you on that, but you chose to ignore it. Why?

 

[Dancing David]

Too bad that adds nothing to your contention that space, as analog, offers infinite divisibility.

Matter of choice, I don't see analog as being infinitly divisible but the deeper we look the finer it gets. I think it is a perceptual overlay of the ration.

DD: Interesting comment; after measurement spin does sound digital rather than analog, and if involving a paired system, would pertain to both.

Entagled pairs are chosen for that reason, what other aspects are 'digital'. Spin means the exclusion of states in an electron shell. But it probably means a whole lot more than just a on/off choice. I recall it also effects scattering angles or something like that.

Where is the on/off universal?

Schneib does point to an interesting question; should we be discussing space, or space-time, as the infinitely devisable 'stuff'.

Just for understanding, what would be the importance of being divisible?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I haven't had a chance to catch up on the thread or research everything you mentioned but let me respond a bit to your two messages replying to me.

I mostly agree with your reasoning and am mildly convinced that space is continuous, so I'm not "surprised". I'm not sure I find it "obvious" however, I could easily change my mind as I don't know everything there is to know on the subject nor do I find all of my own reasoning on the subject to be iron clad. Let me pick on a couple of nits that seem important to me:

3. Most importantly of all, once created, the photons can be continuously varied in energy level by relative motion of an observer, or by the presence of a gravity field or an acceleration on the part of either the source or the observer.

I hadn't considered this before as a reason for the universe to be "analog". At first glance I found this convincing but then decided this argument is assuming it's conclusion. The photons apparent energy can only be varied continuously if the observers motion can vary continuously and that's the point at issue. So I don't think this adds anything to the "analog" vs. "digital" debate.

This is an essential fact of quantum reality: THINGS DON'T HAVE DEFINITE VALUES. That's how it is, and we've proven it pretty conclusively.

Yes, but does that necessarily mean there are a continuous range of indefinite states to be occupied?

In my line of reasoning, everything hinges on whether the universe is bounded or not. I think a bounded universe will be digital because there will be a finite number of terms in the state equations for each quanta, an unbounded universe will be analog because there will be an infinite number of terms in all state equations.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Many of you have had college electromagnetics, at the very least, if you were a physics or engineering major. They had you calculate field potentials and energy stored in the field - things like that. Do you remember that there is, according to this classical theory, an infinite amount of energy stored around a point charge? That is per Maxwell's electromagnetism.

I remember that but I think it's irrelevant to the debate of whether space is analog or digital. Those infinities are resolved by QM regardless of whether there are a finite or infinite number of states available to be occupied. Those infinities are resolved by there being a finite number of occupied states, the number of available states is irrelevant.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

LQG, CDT, Heim Theory (?) and others have all suggested quantised models for space-time.

I think I recall that when the paper on Heim theory was published a couple years ago that someone at one of the big labs realized there was a simple test of Heim that was now possible. Something involving a large magnet. Does that ring any bells? Did anything come of that test?

[ETA: This may be the outcome of what I'm recalling: http://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/documents/ArtificialGravity.pdf]

And what is proof (3) supposed to show again?

A photon's energy is inversely proportional to its wavelength, which may vary from observer to observer (let's just treat an accelerated observer as another instance of an observer for know). So a photon can apparently have any energy right? Well only if observers can have any relative speed. Which implies a continuum. Which this was supposed to be a proof of.

Yes, that was my take also.

 

[hammegk]

Just for understanding, what would be the importance of being divisible?

I'd say GR infinities should be 'fixable' iff that were the case.

 

[VonNeumann]

I do not think the emotions are running so deep as the fact that you do not seem interested in entering into a serious discussion where you actually read what has been written.

I am not well versed in these subjects, but I also wondered why you claimed that vacuum should contain "unlimited" energy, when every article or book I have seen have been stating that the vacuum energy is not only limited but extremely small. the point being that because there is so much vacuum, there is actually an enormous amount of energy - and hence matter - present in vacuum.

Among other things, Schneibster called you on that, but you chose to ignore it. Why?

Steenk,
Please point out what you say I didn't read or didn't respond to, up until the point that I was accused of not reading. ...something that I had not already answered.

It is difficult to answer a poster who will not even concede a simple fact - I can only conclude the man did not go through undergraduate physics or he would not have protested against the simple notion of infinite energy near a point charge. What can I say to that? I don't need to teach him what he can go look up himself if he either forgot or never learned.

To answer why I said something about unlimited energy in a vacuum:
Physics breaks down at extremely small distances because the quantum model assumes spontaneous fluctuations in the vacuum. Since these fluctuations do not tear space-time apart with micro-black-holes everywhere, there must be some minimum distances in space-time. Another manifestation of infinite energy in current theory is if you apply Heisenberg's deltaE*deltaT >= h-bar with the assumption of continuous time. Simply take deltaT to zero and deltaE must approach infinity.

Theoretical physicists are quite deft at stepping around these things. They are very aware of them but there exists a paradigm of proper care and handling. Imagine if you re-cast all that vector calculus, all those continuous operators, into a discrete space-time mathematical model. Then you wouldn't need to be constantly re-defining your boundary conditions.

I would not be so bold as to say these things prove space-time is discrete. I have merely made bold statements for the sake of provoking outside-the-box consideration. The other poster naively stated he had proven that space-time is analog. So who stepped out farther on the proverbial limb?

 

[VonNeumann]

I remember that but I think it's irrelevant to the debate of whether space is analog or digital. Those infinities are resolved by QM regardless of whether there are a finite or infinite number of states available to be occupied. Those infinities are resolved by there being a finite number of occupied states, the number of available states is irrelevant.

I am unfamiliar with how QM resolves this (being infinitesimally close to a point charge) in the way you stated. Could you elaborate?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

QM says there is no field, but rather a series of discrete energy levels that can be occupied around any point charge.

 

[Schneibster]

Matter of choice, I don't see analog as being infinitly divisible but the deeper we look the finer it gets. I think it is a perceptual overlay of the ration.

I'm not sure I entirely followed that second sentence, but the first is pretty clear.

The reason that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics is because quantum mechanics doesn't talk about the sizes of particles. The underlying assumption is that they don't have a size; that they are infinitely small. String physics solves this conflict not by proposing that space or time are quantized, but by proposing that particles aren't infinitely small, that they have some actual, though very small, size. By doing this, the infinities that plague the combination of GRT and QM disappear; and, since GRT is the field theory of gravity, we also get a quantum theory of gravity, and eventually a quantum field theory of gravity.

That spacetime is a continuum is a postulate that leads to relativity; in other words, space and time are not discrete, but continuous. That's what "continuum" means. We've tested relativity pretty extensively, and the most sensitive tests yet will be coming out in a month or two, when they're done crunching the Gravity Probe B data. So basically, unless we see some startling results, we're looking at more confirmation of GRT; and that in turn bolsters its postulates. The existence of GRT, and its effectiveness as a theory of physics, and it is spectacularly effective, argues very strongly that neither space nor time is quantized. Unless or until someone finds a problem with GRT, quantized space or time are not even worth talking about.

Entagled pairs are chosen for that reason, what other aspects are 'digital'. Spin means the exclusion of states in an electron shell. But it probably means a whole lot more than just a on/off choice.

Actually, measured in one axis, spin is "digital," since it can have only two values. The "non-digitalness" doesn't emerge until you try to measure the spin on more than one axis simultaneously; what you find is, you can't. When we talk about digital logic, we're talking about things that are either one way, or another way; but the Aspect experiment shows us that, unlike Schroedinger's Cat, which is either alive or dead inside the box whether we can see it or not, the spin on the second axis isn't merely unmeasurable; it literally HAS NO VALUE. And that is the consensus understanding of the underlying physical reality by the majority of physicists.

Just for understanding, what would be the importance of being divisible?

I really didn't follow this line of reasoning. Could you be a bit more explicit?

 

[Schneibster]

I hadn't considered this before as a reason for the universe to be "analog". At first glance I found this convincing but then decided this argument is assuming it's conclusion.

Actually, it's not. If there were definite steps in the possible values, that would have measurable effects on what possible velocities we could attain; and that in turn would have effects on the quantization of energy, effects we could measure. We see no such effects. What is your conclusion based on that data?

Yes, but does that necessarily mean there are a continuous range of indefinite states to be occupied?

Yes: a continuous range of probabilities in the mixture of states in a chimera.

In my line of reasoning, everything hinges on whether the universe is bounded or not. I think a bounded universe will be digital because there will be a finite number of terms in the state equations for each quanta, an unbounded universe will be analog because there will be an infinite number of terms in all state equations.

Interesting reasoning, but essentially flawed by the above arguments that show that a finite universe could still have infinite states.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Actually, it's not. If there were definite steps in the possible values, that would have measurable effects on what possible velocities we could attain; and that in turn would have effects on the quantization of energy, effects we could measure. We see no such effects. What is your conclusion based on that data?

We have some way of knowing that the quantization would be measurable with current techniques?

Yes: a continuous range of probabilities in the mixture of states in a chimera.

I'll have to think about that.

Interesting reasoning, but essentially flawed by the above arguments that show that a finite universe could still have infinite states.

Which post contained the arguments you refer to? Does "could" mean "necessarily"?

 

[DeviousB]

Actually, it's not. If there were definite steps in the possible values, that would have measurable effects on what possible velocities we could attain; and that in turn would have effects on the quantization of energy, effects we could measure. We see no such effects. What is your conclusion based on that data?

That (assuming we are looking in the right place) the effect, if it exists, is smaller than the sensitivity of our instruments. No other conclusion is possible.

 

[Schneibster]

We have some way of knowing that the quantization would be measurable with current techniques?

That (assuming we are looking in the right place) the effect, if it exists, is smaller than the sensitivity of our instruments. No other conclusion is possible.

These are essentially the same idea, so I'll answer once.

You're both making the assumption that we would have to be able to measure the quantization itself. This is not correct; such a quantization would necessarily have effects on interactions at much larger scales. It would introduce certain inaccuracies into the action of gravity, inaccuracies that would be detectable over large time or space scales. This is part of why Gravity Probe B and the LIGO experiments are so important; they are capable of detecting these inaccuracies in relativistic predictions.

Which post contained the arguments you refer to? Does "could" mean "necessarily"?

The ones immediately before the post you were responding to here.