View Full Version here: : Large Scales & Chaotic Behaviour
17-09-2010, 12:39 PM
Ever read something that sticks in your mind and you can't get rid of it ?
Well, this is mine for the week
I've been pondering this one for some time now. (I warn most .. this is a bit of a brain-bender and it is purely theory-related).
It all started with this article:
Researchers show that the big bang was followed by chaos (http://www.physorg.com/news203097805.html)
Its a difficult article to understand, but basically some theoretical researchers have demonstrated mathematically, that highly chaotic behaviour immediately following the big bang is a perfectly valid assumption. The term 'chaos' is used in the mathematical theoretical sense ala Chaos Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory).
Translated loosely, that means that mathematically, they have shown that initially after the Big Bang, the Universe wobbled like a blob of jelly
the top got short while the sides blew out, then the sides contracted and the top balloned, etc.' That would seem to be obvious but, so what ?, what does this mean ? why is it important ?
That's where it starts to get interesting .. apparently, for 22 years the 'chaos' premise has not been obvious, nor agreed (for sound General Relativistic reasons). So, now that it is clear, what does this mean ?
I think what this 'discovery' means is that cosmological evolution models, (post Big Bang), now have been given a firm foothold to go forward and fill in the details of how Large Scale Structure, (galaxies, super galaxies and upwards), evolved to where it is today. I also think that they can now start to more firmly relate things like present day Sky Surveys and mappings, to the WMAP CMBR data, and begin to explain with firm foundations, why large scale structures are where they are today, along with their general shapes.
Also, it shows that the common view that closer to, or at the time of Big Bang, things were too hot and chaotic for present day Physics to hold, is not necessarily so. There may be some present day things, like mathematically describable chaotic behaviour, which are now shown to be perfectly valid at the very outset of the Universe, despite the unimaginable conditions at that time.
If my thinking is correct on this, this is a major step forward and shouldn't go unrecognised.
17-09-2010, 01:00 PM
Another thing to notice about this is that from history, whenever major streams of Science come together, (in this case Chaos theory and Cosmology), big things have usually resulted.
This one may, or may not be, one of those big things
but it is certainly looking promising.
17-09-2010, 01:06 PM
The usual thing that happens with so called Chaos theory is that for non linear systems oscillations will spontaneously surface as quasi stable complicated states.
17-09-2010, 02:02 PM
Ok .. I'll admit right upfront, that I'm pushing my limits on this topic.
From reading the article, these guys seem to be saying:
From this, should one conclude that they have given Chaos Theory in Cosmology the 'green' light, in so far as to explain a possible initial behaviour state of the universe, thereby dissolving previous barriers?
Wiki also says:
I'll now be completely honest in asking a question for which I have no clue as to what the answer might be (and I'm not even sure I'll understand the answer to it):
Would the "non linear systems oscillations spontaneously surfac(ing) as quasi stable complicated states" prevent the application of Chaos Theory contributing to the theoretical explanation of the Universe's initial states, (post Big Bang), and possibility also contributing to the explanation of parts of post BB evolution ?
Cheers & Thanks for the feedback.
17-09-2010, 03:53 PM
OK Craig it is quite simple. We can mathematically define and predict all the variables with a single proton and a single electron. After this we have the multi body problem.
We cannot mathematically define the quantum states of a Hydrogen Molecule to the same exactitude quantitively.
And then we think we can predict the behaviour of the Universe!
It gets worse as we can barely get the evidence to fit our pathetic theories.
We scientists are well aware of the limitations of our knowledge.
The turkeys who spout fundie drivel are not even aware of their own ignorance.
At least we are further than these morons as we at least still have questions not simple answers for simple folks.
It gets better though as we are on the cusp of understanding our own biology. It is not about the human genome it is about the living dynamic interactions of molecules that make us all.
Do you really think that an essential molecule once produced within a cell just randomly drifts to where it is needed? We do not know how, yet!
17-09-2010, 04:18 PM
Ok. I can see what you're saying.
Don't small steps take us part of the way towards an increased understanding of complex systems ?
Isn't the attempt worthwhile ? (Even if it still results in ignorance ?)
We're all "turkeys who spout fundie drivel" in some way, shape or form sometimes. Are you suggesting we should stay that way and give up the chase ?
17-09-2010, 04:34 PM
To make it very clear the turkeys who spout fundie drivel are the faith based morons.
At what point in human knowledge should we stop?
Cave dwellers? A myth. Stone age? Bronze age? Iron age?
We now have the tools to really make a difference.
17-09-2010, 04:49 PM
Ok. I misunderstood where you were coming from for a while.
So "non linear systems oscillations spontaneously surfac(ing) as quasi stable complicated states" is just another hurdle, huh ?
17-09-2010, 05:18 PM
Forget about the original meaning of the word chaos. All that Chaos Theory is that complexity can arise from very simple dynamic systems. Nature has used fractal theory to then propagate even more complex systems. Do you really think that the structure of your lungs are encoded in your DNA as a one to one map? It is a cellular based algorithm blind to its ultimate structure but results in complexity far in excess of the simple algorithm.
17-09-2010, 05:31 PM
I've read up a bit on Chaos Theory, Complexity, Fractals and Mandelbrot sets etc. I was quite excited about it all, at the time.
Interestingly, I've forgotten a lot about it because I almost never see any of it put to practical use
perhaps its just the friends I keep or something ??
So, I've always tried to convince others who are passionate about it, that nature isn't aware of the algorithms it runs, which result in fractals, and complexity. It is man who has given rise to the algorithms that describe what those critters are up to.
At last we're in agreement, Bert. (I think).
18-09-2010, 07:18 AM
I've also read "The God Delusion". I started on "The Blind Watchmaker" but I found that my interest disappeared pretty close to the end of the second chapter.
I find it it 'trying' to maintain an interest in something that's abundantly evident.
I do feel however, that Richard Dawkins is a scientist who has unfortunately come very close to turning evolution-by-natural-selection into a religion. He is one scientist who I believe, 'argues religiously'.
Perhaps it's just Newton's Third in action.
18-09-2010, 10:41 AM
I wonder how Dawkins would react if he was invited to join the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.:sadeyes:
Many brilliant minds, your master Ed Witten and Stephen Hawking are members. A host of atheists and Nobel prize winners all appointed by the Pope. Sounds like a paradox.....
18-09-2010, 10:58 AM
Very interesting … I didn't know this.
Didn't work out too well for Galileo (who now appears to be a founding leader ?).
I notice Georges Lemaitre is there as well.
'Twould be awesome to see Dawkins there !
I wonder why he isn't ? :question:
Thanks for that. Very interesting.
Whaddya say, Bert ?
18-09-2010, 11:08 AM
I imagine the potential of biting the hand that feeds it could be a major factor, or Dawkins simply doesn't make the grade.
18-09-2010, 11:09 AM
The Jesuits have known for centuries that the Bible is at best allegorical and at worst simple stories for simple folk. It is quite simple, a moral compass should not impinge on science.
If Dawkins sounds exasperated or religious it is because most of the time he is interviewed by ignorant fools or interviewers posing as religious believers using every debating trick in the book to undermine his rational message.
Science is not in the business of undermining any religious faith. Conflict occurs when some humans use faith as a control mechanism on other humans citing pseudoscience to prove the existence of the god of choice. They then have a conflict of interest when science points out their ideas are merely delusions used to inflict control on others.
The solution used to be burning at the stake for the heretic. Now it is ridicule infront of an audience that barely knows what day it is.
18-09-2010, 11:17 AM
Science can be used, (& is used) in the same way.
People are people, regardless of which pigeon hole we put them in.
18-09-2010, 11:25 AM
Couldn't have put it better myself:)
18-09-2010, 11:31 AM
No you are totally wrong. Humans will always cheat other humans whether they use delusions or concrete scientific knowledge. It does not matter to the perpetrators.
The only reason there is so much fear in fundie land of scientific knowledge as it can completely undermine the drivel that is and has been used to make other people behave like docile serfs.
All Dawkins and many others including myself are pointing out is that the Universe is far more complex than we can even imagine and we have the ability to understand how it ticks.
Have a look at the moron O'Reilly in this lot
18-09-2010, 11:41 AM
I agree (sort of) with the second part of what you say. I say 'sort of' because I don't see humans always doing this. (I don't think I'm wrong either, because I think we're agreeing in principle).
A bit generalised here. Like the Pope doesn't seem to fear science .. he actually sponsors it (from Steven's post).
This is what I get from him, too. Many others don't, though .. as you point out. I will not call those people 'ignorant fools', however. People are always better than that label.
Will do - later. Gotta go now.
Cheers & Rgds
18-09-2010, 11:55 AM
"Oh Really" is a dope and a loud mouth opinionated fool. The number of times he's put if foot in his mouth is incalculable. This video is just another example.
18-09-2010, 12:11 PM
There are elements of fundamentalists in Catholicism, Opus Dei comes to mind. As far as fundamentalists in the USA bible belts they are the model for ignorance and superstition. The fundamentalists in Islam are the extremists that produce terrorists. I could go on and an and on. No faith does not suffer from this. How many people were killed for religious differences when India was partitioned in the late forties?
I find it very curious that science is attacked from all quarters when a major breakthrough changes any long held paradigm. At first the religious lot dissagree and then quietly agree centuries later well after they have buried the bodies that were burnt at the stake!
The thing I find most hilarious is that any argument within scientific circles is held up as 'proof' that we scientists do not know anything. This from people who cut a bit off their willies before they know how big it will get.
Quantum Mechanics and Chaos theory both point to a Universe that is not predetermined. In simple terms there is no such thing as destiny.
Chaos theory does not apply at the quantum level as an indeterminate state can hardly feed back to the current state by any real means as there is nothing real to feed back yet!
18-09-2010, 01:40 PM
Ahhh … you are talking about religious fundamentalism! (And what I'd call fairly extreme fundamentalism, at that).
Sorry !… I missed that ! I didn't quite understand your use of the term 'fundie'!
Sure .. there are always extremes in any human society … I notice its a relative term, also.
As a corollary, you're also saying that Science has no extreme fundamentalists.
Hmm .. none seem to come to mind .. I'll have to ponder that one for a while.
Dawkins seems to hover dangerously closely to that sometimes, at least, so it seems. (And, as you have pointed out, that is probably due to manipulation of his image by the media, to promote ratings and to provoke controversy).
18-09-2010, 04:53 PM
On the topic of Dawkins and the question of 'Scientific Fundamentalism', it seems others have contemplated Dawkins' tendencies before: (from Wiki)
18-09-2010, 05:52 PM
Coming back onto the original topic and, as unexciting as it may seem (compared with the other discussion), I found these words (http://www.secs.iub.edu.bd/TechNews/Physics/0104.htm) which I'll add to this thread , just for the sake of completeness:
19-09-2010, 06:52 AM
Thanks for that Craig as I am not really up with the latest in Chaos theory etc as it is an interest outside my specialised field of Structural Molecular Biology.
What is important here that science can say nothing about any faith. What people wish to believe about the supernatural is completely outside science by simple definition.
Neither should blind faith interfere with any science when it does not match their limited or primitive world view. Here they are on shaky ground as evidence should trump the nonsensical versions they hold about reality.
We have enough knowledge now to explain how the Universe ticks from the Big Bang all the way to the complexities we see now in biological systems. This of course includes us. It does not need a supernatural force or being to drive anything.
Who knows what we can discover once quantum computing becomes mainstream. My guess is that it will show that the whole Universe is a quantum computer. It may even be self referential.
Is our consciousness part of the calculations or the final output? Only the mice really know!
19-09-2010, 07:11 AM
Totally agree with that one, Bert.
I see that we all have to struggle to keep not just 'faith' at bay, but also to keep something undefined by most of us called, 'opinion' separated from our rational side. It would seem that even the best minds in Science have to contend with this one, every day. Some are better at it than others. We also have that trait constantly exhibited here at IIS.
I'm really excited about quantum computing .. fantastic stuff .. and all courtesy of science !
Funny the medicos are still wrestling with what consciousness is .. it still makes me laugh when I read up on the latest where they're trying to understand how it comes about .. and yet we all yield to anaesthesiologists and anaesthetics when the going gets rough !!
By the way, the mice have been superseded by us Hamsters !!
Cheers, Rgds & thanks for your input on this one.
19-09-2010, 07:43 AM
Craig anaesthesiologists do not know what underlying mechanism is responsible for the shutting down of consciousness. It just works!
The LHC is producing huge amounts of data even on idle. The fat pipes can barely transmit the data to where it will be analysed.
Quantum computing will reveal a universe more strange than we can even imagine.
Although I have no concrete evidence I am sure that consciousness is based on interactions at the quantum level. There is a bit of evidence where photosynthesis relies on quantum tunnelling for charge transfer. So if photosynthetic bacteria and by evolution plants can by trial and error harness quantum effects who knows what else is hidden in four billion years of biological evolution.
Have you ever had a problem without an easy solution and then hours if not days later a possible answer seems to come to mind from nowhere?
What is important in science is good questions, not to sit smugly and think we have all the answers.
MS word does strange things or I am stupid.
19-09-2010, 07:57 AM
A bit like gravity, huh ? (chuckle, chuckle)
That sounds really interesting.
So how about 'quantum effects gave rise to the plants and bacteria which then do what they were always going to do because of it
ie: photosynthesize ? (Just playing with the concept of what plants really are. They have no intent, they just are).
All the time. Something blocks us from seeing the solution. It takes a while for it to dissolve
(although, i have no evidence for that
Got it !
Cheers & Rgds
19-09-2010, 08:42 AM
So how about 'quantum effects gave rise to the plants and bacteria which then do what they were always going to do because of it
ie: photosynthesize ? (Just playing with the concept of what plants really are. They have no intent, they just are).
Hindsight is a wonderful thing! Evolution has no intent as it is the random interactions of matter produced by stars and supernovae. It just so happens where liquid water exists for a long time these random self sorting experiments lead to sentient life.
Nucleosynthesis in stars and supernovae are no more miraculous than chemical interactions in liquid water that ultimately leads to 'life'.
Complexity is an inevitable outcome of the 'simple' rules that is quantum mechanics, chaos theory and the fractal nature of the Universe.
I am sure I have left out the bits I do not understand.
What if the huge Universe needs to exist so in one tiny corner at the outer arm of one of billions of galaxies life only exists on Earth? I find this hard to believe!
19-09-2010, 10:03 AM
Sorry just had to go out to church !! (Just kidding).
Actually, the universe doesn't have to exist for any reason.
But, I think it is perfectly valid to say that the fluke of life, that did happen … once - perhaps here on Earth, does require a very big, big universe for it to emerge. (Statistically speaking).
19-09-2010, 10:34 AM
I lost my 'faith' at about nine years old Craig. I was up till then brought up as a Catholic and through the further years. In year twelve at school we had to go to a retreat with Jesuit priests. As usual at a discussion I voiced my opinion that all religious teachings were a mish mash of folklore and downright superstition. My class mates collectively drew a deep breath. The Jesuit priest leading (there were six in the room) the discussion questioned me further. I got bold at this stage and told him it was all crap! He then agreed with me! Then he asked me to give reasons for my conclusions.
Long discussions then went on in front of all my class mates. Some of them later were in fear of what would happen to my immortal soul. They were ignorant fearfull indoctrinated fools.
These priests to this day wonder how I got to their position at nine years old.
The year this happened was 1967.
19-09-2010, 10:51 AM
You have mentioned this before and you are proud that you broke through that barrier at such an early age. I wouldn't attempt to undermine that pride in any way. Sounds to me like the Jesuits had some other variant of belief. Still faith and belief orientated however .. also sounds hypocritical somehow, too.
But what of DNA and of self-replication ? The 'coding' in DNA and the permutations required to build a single, simple protein ! Mind boggling ! Just as incomprehensible as the Scale of the Universe, eh ?
I read just yesterday, somewhere, that there's a new project getting kicked off at Darling Harbour this week .. a 10 year one .. has a fancy name
something about relating human genes to the proteins transcribed by them?? Fascinating .. need quantum computer for that beauty !
19-09-2010, 11:10 AM
The really interesting science is not in the simple transcribing of DNA to RNA to protein. The so called 'junk' DNA contains the information needed for the architecture of cells and organs.
It gets more complicated as everything you do in your life shuts down or allows DNA to replicate.
What is even worse this gets passed on to your offspring as your actions can shut down access to the DNA you inherited to your children.
19-09-2010, 11:20 AM
I'm not sure I understand that. You say your actions can shut down access to inherited DNA ?
Interesting also, is that viruses have infiltrated human mitochondrial DNA !
Now isn't that interesting ? Wonder how that influences it all ?
19-09-2010, 11:31 AM
Yes the actions of your ancestors can change their core genome not by erasure but by switching bits of it it off! This first came to light with populations who had good recorded histories. After a famine for example the granchildren were smaller in spite of food resources being back to normal.
It is called epigenetics so google it and be very scared!
19-09-2010, 11:51 AM
I'll do that when I get a chance.
Its also very disturbing reading the creationist/ID take on DNA.
And they're always trying to get it into the curriculum at schools !
(I think Bill O'Reilly mentioned this in the YouTube you mentioned yesterday).
Pseudoscience in the classroom
masquerading under the subject header of 'Science' !! NSW Dept of Education almost did it, too !
Mind you, there's many things I object to in that curriculum, also.
19-09-2010, 11:59 AM
Education should be giving children the tools to deal with life. Not telling them fairy tales!
19-09-2010, 12:12 PM
Interesting chatting with you Bert but I've got to go
Time for Confession .. !
19-09-2010, 12:23 PM
Jesuits have always been the intellectual and frequently the controversial arm of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Church has attempted to destroy the Jesuits in the past.
Jesuits have made important contributions to science in particular astronomy.
19-09-2010, 01:00 PM
Very interesting .. an order which originates from true thinkers and naturalism.
The Catholicism component seems to stem from history. After all, everyone had to have a religion way back in the 14th/15th Century .. on up until fairly recently.
19-09-2010, 01:19 PM
The list surprisingly doesn't have the most famous Jesuit scientist of all, Georges Lemaξtre founder of the Big Bang Theory.
19-09-2010, 01:27 PM
I noticed that.
He made it onto the Pontifical Academy of Sciences list … whereas Einstein didn't !
One ponders on why not ?…
Bohr, Planck, Rutherford, Heisenberg, Schrodinger but no Einstein !!
19-09-2010, 01:38 PM
Way too outspoken, I guess …
Hawking had better watch out .. he might get struck off, too.
Dawkins never made it to the starting gates, so it seems.
19-09-2010, 01:43 PM
What's more perplexing is Heisenberg being a member.
He worked on the Nazi's nucleur fission research program.
19-09-2010, 01:53 PM
They're no slouches in astro telescopes, either:
Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Advanced_Technology_Telesco pe)
Been at it for a long time, too.
19-09-2010, 01:53 PM
These blokes were incredible as they had the nads to say all that we have taught you so far is bool****! They did not have a hidden agenda.
19-09-2010, 02:05 PM
Errr which 'blokes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Church_ doctrine)' ?
These guys had/have their reasons ...
19-09-2010, 02:16 PM
Craig they were so called men of a mythical god. They told me a long time ago that it was all boolS_H_I_T. Have you ever wondered why all these places have been sold off due to lack of new members.
There were a minority who exploited young boys and a few girls sexually but if the Pope keeps stalling we all will get over this severe embarassment. It did not really happen just like it has happened for centuries. The bishops have a lot to answer for!
19-09-2010, 02:36 PM
Its certainly a melting pot of many differing views and principles.
The parallel-ling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Church_ doctrine) of Science and religion seems to complicate matters.
Undoing history has never been achieved.
Through the ages, some institutions seem to have paid some of their contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Observatory) to science. This goes mostly unrecognised. The Jesuits were sponsored. So too are the Pontifical Academics.
19-09-2010, 03:02 PM
No it is the religious twits who fear science. Craig I will stop now as there is no further point to this argument or discussion.
When an ignorant pope says science is fine as long as it does not upset the ignorant masses at any point in history he sounds like someone who will give up mas_turbation until he needs glasses!
19-09-2010, 03:27 PM
OK .. I wasn't attempting argument. I see the church as a relic of the past. They still have huge followings. It is extremely difficult for them to move the masses they control towards the present day. Anything that comes out of their leaders' mouths will always sound bizarre to those of us who make the choice of moving toward, or who already live in, the future.
Undoing the trail of destruction that has been brought about through a long history of misinterpretations, misrepresentations, subjugation and abuse would seem to be beyond anyone's abilities. Some of it continues in modern day as well. All this said, I do believe that some recognise that the end may be near. Others continue to bolster the fortifications. Some are still attempting to destroy that which does not comply with their flavour of it all.
Humans will always interpret what their senses detect. We are all meaning-adding machines. Science attempts to keep us from deceiving ourselves. Scientists do not have to make others wrong and put down others, purely because of their beliefs. Decisions can be made on the basis of actions and wisdom.
Technology and the tools created by science, improve understanding. They are in their infancy. Hopefully over time, more will come to see these perspectives also. Realisation of this cannot be forced.
Cheers & Rgds.
21-09-2010, 04:18 PM
Does a lone voice in the forest ever be audible? Today in the Australian some twit wrote this drivel
This idiot is claiming that reason needs to be based on faith!
This sort of woolly thinking has been going on for millenia.
When these idiots and there is no other word, come to their collective senses I will bother to even talk to them.
Yet these morons will scream bias if I doubt their dogma and then shout heretic when we show them evidence, they are definitely deluded.
Have you seen the cunning plan they are mixing faith and reason into a melange that cannot be separated by the ordinary person.
21-09-2010, 04:53 PM
Actually, I found reading thru the three paragraphs was a bit of a challenge.
Paragraph 1: Yeah .. ok .. get on with it boys …
Paragraph 2: Ok .. I can see where they're coming from. Its hard to separate human consciousness from cold, hard reality .. everything we do and perceive involves our senses (perception) and then our thinking (interpretation) and its always been difficult for any human to completely separate the two.
How could you, if you're human ? We can develop framework and tools to assist but the are invariably, human constructs.
So, Ok Paragraph 2 sounds reasonable. They've got me onboard.
Paragraph 3: Whooaa there boy !! Forget it ! They just lost me .. big time !
Pity .. a 90 degrees hook turn in paragraph 3.
Their 'cunning' plan is the same as the EU thread Carl posted yesterday. Suck 'em in with rationality and them hit 'em from the side with what they think you want to hear. Which tears their own credibility apart for those who don't want to hear that.
21-09-2010, 05:41 PM
If you cannot see logic or consistency in this little bit of drivel, I am not surprised. These people are deluded as badly as the doomsday cults. I know we are pushing the limits of this sites T&C's.
I will stop arguing with these deluded humans when they look at the evidence and draw the same logical conclusions.
What makes me angry is they can claim the most ridiculous beliefs to be dogma and then block any refutation as impinging on religious freedom. This by the way is to be as moronic as mortal man can make!
I am not a johnny come lately troll here so my opinion should not be treated as such.
21-09-2010, 08:24 PM
Where to take this ?
Let's face it .. this Forum is about rational thinking.
Science is merely the subject matter.
The battle is with human nature .. or is it ?
21-09-2010, 10:35 PM
As I have said time and time again it is not the job of science to explain supernatural anything!
Conversly the religious people should stay away from distorting the reality of science with their faith based beliefs that were written by goat herders a few thousand years ago.
I wonder if these people reject all the comforts of modern life like the Amish do. Even the Amish are stuck in the eighteenth century not life as it was a few thousand years ago. They stubbornly think their way is better.
This bloke is up with the latest Amish Drifting
The hypocracy is appalling!
23-09-2010, 04:47 PM
Please explain! What was that about? Bert
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.