Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.
by Newfie » Tue 28 Apr 2020, 19:50:25
VT,
Or to put it another way “shit happens”.
Not disparaging your ideas. We always come back to some black hole of knowledge.
As far as we know, maybe, everything started from the Big Bang. What created the Big Bang?
It’s too much like asking “Who created God?” to not draw comparisons.
At some point the “scientific theories” fall short or simply defy human understanding. I lost it in doing eigen vectors and comprehending 13 dimensional matricies.
So here’s a wacko contemplation of mine. Most of our 4 fundamental forces seem to have opposing components, positive and negative. Gravity excepted. Of our 4 dimensions x/y/z/time, only time is unidirectional. But maybe time and gravity are locally visible manifestations of one another, the underlying force being something that exists in more than the normal dimensions we can detect?
A 3 wine glass explanation is that gravity pulls everything together while time pushes everything apart. We try to measure the expansion of the universe and find it accelerating, and lament it’s countered by gravity. But the expansion only happens with a time coordinate. So I wonder is there is not some tie between gravity and time we are not fully appreciating?
Well, that went waaaay off topic. My apologies, we will now return to your regular programming.
-
Newfie
- Forum Moderator
-
- Posts: 18651
- Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Between Canada and Carribean
-
by vtsnowedin » Tue 28 Apr 2020, 20:05:51
Newfie:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y apologies
Accepted.
Have another glass. The night is young.
-
vtsnowedin
- Fusion
-
- Posts: 14897
- Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
-
by EnergyUnlimited » Wed 29 Apr 2020, 03:26:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', 'A')nd I thought it was love and sex that got us here.
You have an uphill struggle with no prospect of success while attempting to explain origins of life on purely materialistic grounds with randomness and vast numbers of trials as the only resource available.
But that appears to be the only valid explanation that exists.
It is not an explanation because it is supported by nothing and also in breach of laws conserving information in physics.
Life of course exists but we don't know
why?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Life is basically processing of an information (coded in DNA/RNA for the forms we know).
Emergence of life out of unliving matter would call for said information to appear out of nowhere.
That would be contrary to few most sacred cows in physics.
It can be proven that information appearing out of nowhere is an equivalent of breach of energy conservation laws.
Total content of
information in Universe is constant, very much like content of mass/energy.
information is not energy and the amount of it is not constant.
You really need to learn more of physics before pursuing this nonsense any further.
Here you have a relevant lecture from Stanford University, lengthy but informative:
http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/s ... /lecture-1 Also some current conundrums in modern physics related to hypothetical breach of conservation of information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hol ... on_paradox And classical Maxwell's Demon related reasoning in physics demonstrating that
non-conservation of information causes non-conservation of energyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon Physics is more interesting than many people suspect.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')
Refer to Unitarity Principle if in doubt.
So where this
information about workings of living organisms was before RNA/DNA existed?
How it got loaded into those molecules?
Etc...
You must go back to random events over a billion years with several theories from lighting strikes on a primordial ocean to thermal vents on the sea floor with or without an ice sheet above etc. One I dismiss is that fragments from some other planet with life on it seeded earth. That just moves the question to how it got started on the source planet without any available evidence to study it.
The least probable theory is that God on the third day created plant life and on the forth and fifth days added fishes and land animals.
But believe what you will there is no way to go back and observe what actually happened.
by vtsnowedin » Wed 29 Apr 2020, 06:46:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is an interesting subject and VTS is a pain in the buttock,
Said the kettle to the pot.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is not an explanation because it is supported by nothing and also in breach of laws conserving information in physics.
It is supported by the fossil record that clearly shows life began at a point in time and began quite simply and evolved over billions of years. Today we expect our scientists to develop a vaccine in a few months to a couple of years. Imagine a lab that takes a billion years to get an experiment right. And the formula for that vaccine will be new information that did not exist before and no amount of energy being applied could have created without experimental trial and error. Lose the formula and that information is gone as if it never existed. Imagine the amount of information lost each generation before the advent of writing. Each persons knowledge was wiped clean upon their deaths except what could be taught to children and grandchildren before you died. So the two greatest advancements in our history are writing and then printing, one to record our successes and the other to spread the word of same to the world.
I find it ironic that while arguing science over religion I am being called a GOP science denier for mentioning snow in late April in Vermont. To call into question the validity of one experiment or theory is not to deny all science just the one theory. If theories were not questioned and tested it would not be science.
There that is my first cup of the day view.
by EnergyUnlimited » Wed 29 Apr 2020, 11:57:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is not an explanation because it is supported by nothing and also in breach of laws conserving information in physics.
It is supported by the fossil record that clearly shows life began at a point in time and began quite simply and evolved over billions of years. Today we expect our scientists to develop a vaccine in a few months to a couple of years. Imagine a lab that takes a billion years to get an experiment right. And the formula for that vaccine will be new information that did not exist before and no amount of energy being applied could have created without experimental trial and error.
Physics approaches such issue differently than you suggest.
If lets say vaccine is developed, it implies that information how to get around this task already exists in Nature.
The job of researchers involved is to retrieve it and act upon it.
There is no creation of information upon any scientific discovery.
Information is simply retrieved from Nature.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ose the formula and that information is gone as if it never existed. Imagine the amount of information lost each generation before the advent of writing. Each persons knowledge was wiped clean upon their deaths except what could be taught to children and grandchildren before you died. So the two greatest advancements in our history are writing and then printing, one to record our successes and the other to spread the word of same to the world.
Every mainstream physicist will assert that information content of the book is
not lost upon burning said book.
He will assert that the information within it is scrambled and recovery might be incredibly difficult but not impossible as long as energy required to retrieve it is available.
He will say that exceedingly detailed analysis of falme spectrum and properties and trajectories of molecules and atoms froduced by burning will indeed make such a task feasible, resources given.
It may be impractical but still possible.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') find it ironic that while arguing science over religion I am being called a GOP science denier for mentioning snow in late April in Vermont. To call into question the validity of one experiment or theory is not to deny all science just the one theory. If theories were not questioned and tested it would not be science.
There that is my first cup of the day view.
by EnergyUnlimited » Wed 29 Apr 2020, 12:16:09
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dissident', 'U')nderstanding life is dependent on understanding organic chemistry. It is clear that RNA and DNA are a class of "anti-entropic" chemical reaction products where simpler organic precursors assemble into more complex and functional products. It is the actual evolution of this part of organic chemistry that is interesting. Self-replicating molecules appeared before any life. Whether a substrate played a role is not clear but would be likely since it would increase the probability of the chemical system evolution in the right direction. So hydrothermal vents playing a role is not "zero evidence" hypothesis. A catalytic environment provided by the surface of complex mineral solids would be a cheat on the time needed to sample enough of the reaction phase space to find the Gibbs free energy minimum that gives rise to self-replicating molecules.
For all these wonders to proceed, there must be an information in Nature
already present, how to proceed with a task.
In absence of this information evolution would not proceed.
Without this information which can be retrieved somehow from Nature evolution is a meaningless concept.
You will also find number of stages in evolution of life where something known as
irreducible complexity is present.
Photosynthesis is a good example.
It requires about 100 different enzymes working in concerted fashion to proceed.
There are no "simpler versions" of photosynthesis, regardless of few variants currently known.
Take away or sufficiently alter one of these 100 enzymes or genes responsible for their production or other genes and fragments of DNA regulating expression of putative coding genes and process no longer works.
So getting there by evolution of simpler variants is simply not plausible.
No one up to date have come with credible evidence to the contrary and many tried.
You need all 100 of these very specific enzymes and cooperating genetic machinery to run photosynthesis but all of them separately are completely useless.
Do you see a problem here?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nyway, life of some form is basically inevitable on any planet that has any chemical resemblance to Earth and there are vast numbers of such planets and even moons. It would not be a surprise if fossil life was found on Mars since it had oceans in the past.
This is a statement of faith supported well... by nothing.
An attempt to plot a curve base on a single data point.
Also - in addition to hydrothermal vents there is a multitude of other proposals, how life have emerged.
If for example cosmic panspermia is correct, then life might be relatively common in Universe.
by EnergyUnlimited » Wed 29 Apr 2020, 13:25:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dissident', 'F')or example, in organic chemical oxidation there is no pure entropic cascade for hydrocarbons into CO2 and H2O. In fact, there are thousands of daughter products which can exhibit very complex moiety characteristics. And those daughter products can keep on generating even more complex compounds. There is a whole spectrum of functionalization reactions in addition to de-functionalization reactions. Auto-oxidation of isoprene generates molecules with substantially higher molecular weights.
All this is true and yet not relevant to our discussion.
BTW, there are limits of this complexity or otherwise final pathway to CO2 would not occur.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he implicit assumption you are pimping is that organic chemistry is too simple to explain DNA. This is outright BS since DNA and cellular respiration are exactly organic chemistry. Not some deus ex machina construct. Your dismissal of hydrothermal vents shows you have no understanding of the processes involved. You may as well claim that life is like finding a clock on beach and there must be a "maker". Well, genius, the maker is organic chemistry and microphysics.
You are confusing distinct chemical transformations with
retrieving of information required to implement useful sequences of these chemical transformations in practical setup like living organism.
And no, I do not have problems with organic chemistry.
While in the trade I was designing and running countless synthetic organic chemistry processes in pharma and from my earlier years I have research publications with a Nobel Prize winner (Prof. John F. Stoddart).
Further - these publications are dealing with self assembly of complex organic structures, with molecular switches etc.
It is precisely your
lack of understanding of organic chemistry what is sending you on a wild goose chases.
by vtsnowedin » Wed 29 Apr 2020, 14:07:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')Physics approaches such issue differently than you suggest.
If lets say vaccine is developed, it implies that information how to get around this task already exists in Nature.
The job of researchers involved is to retrieve it and act upon it.
There is no creation of information upon any scientific discovery.
Information is simply retrieved from Nature.
You are combining facts with information. The facts do not change, but when humans find the facts and how to use them they gain that "New" information. If they do not write down that information the information can be lost but the facts remain to be rediscovered again or perhaps hundreds of times until someone writes it down (or enters it into a computer today). Burning a book would only destroy the information contained if it was the only copy of the book or the source notes for that book. Think of Leonardo Da Vinci's note books. What a loss of information if they had been destroyed as there were no copies elsewhere.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')In general scientific theory is always a model of certain scope of application.
It can be falsified but never proven as "true".
.
[/quote]
There are many theories that have been proven to be true. The acceleration due to gravity on earth, the speed of light, the reaction of sulfuric acid,+ Nitric acid +glycerine to a shock wave.
by EnergyUnlimited » Wed 29 Apr 2020, 15:01:20
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '
') You are combining facts with information. The facts do not change, but when humans find the facts and how to use them they gain that "New" information.
That is lay man's interpretation.
For physicists content of information in Universe is constant or
time invariant if you prefer.
Look, this information conservation issues are of very profound consequences for development of modern physics.
There must be a lot of desperation out there if concepts like
holograhic principle are seriously considered.
Most likely another wild goose chase with the brightest people on Earth having a run but who knows?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')urning a book would only destroy the information contained if it was the only copy of the book or the source notes for that book. Think of Leonardo Da Vinci's note books. What a loss of information if they had been destroyed as there were no copies elsewhere.
Information can be copied for example in copies of book or copies of DNA.
Nevertheless even if the
last book of any author is burned physics
in principle allows to retrieve information contained in it.
Technicalities would be extraordinarily difficult, well beyond our current engineering capabilities, but in principle it is possible.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here are many theories that have been proven to be true. The acceleration due to gravity on earth, the speed of light, the reaction of sulfuric acid,+ Nitric acid +glycerine to a shock wave.
You don't understand basic concepts of scientific method.
We are dealing with *models* which are only approximations.
They are exceedingly good approximations but not more than that.
I will go through your examples:
1. Gravity on Earth is
not a theory.
Basically we have 2 connected working theories dealing with gravity.
Newtonian theory of gravity - suitable for low energy realm.
General Relativity suitable for low and higher energy realms.
Newtonian theory was falsified first time by observation of peculiarities of Mercury orbit which could only be explained by GR.
We also know that GR must be falsified in vicinity of events horizons (BH fireball paradox) and even more so closely to central objects present there because it is resulting in infinities - implausible.
So there must be a more general model of gravity theory - known as quantum gravity.
Sadly no one have presented any equations let alone experimental protocols testing its viability.
2. Speed of light.
Again - as measured it is a fact, not a theory.
I have never heard nor any physicist have heard about "theory of speed of light" - such animal does not exist.
Speed of light (c) is related to properties of vacuum, its electric (ε) and magnetic (μ) permeability.
So we can proudly say that c=1/sqrt [μ(0)ε(0)]
Fact, not theory
3. Your final example, eg production and subsequent explosion of nitroglycerine are
processes, not theories. These processes are well explained by quantum mechanics dealing with interactions of atoms and also thermodynamics dealing with flows of energy and entropy.
So you even cannot give an example of theory, let alone discussing it.
Basically there are 4 established theories in physics.
1. General Relativity dealing with gravity
2. Quantum Mechanics dealing with interactions of matter and radiation.
3. Standard Model dealing with properties of subatomic particles
4. Thermodynamics dealing with flows and conservation of energy, entropy and information.
Anything what science deals with currently can be derived out of these 4 basic theories as one of special examples.
Sometimes electromagnetism with Maxwell and Dirac equations is added as "fifth theory" but closer look easily reveals that it is a special example of QM with a tint of SM.
Of these 4 theories 3 are to a higher or lower degree troubled and are already to a degree falsified or are known to be incomplete.
So GR falls apart in vicinity of extremely dense objects by producing nonsensical outcomes (infinities), QM and precisely its emanation known as Quantum Field Theory fails miserably if applied to explain so called Zero Point vacuum energy by getting results 120 orders of magnitude higher than observable value and Standard Model is full of assumptions drawn out of hat (or out of ass if you prefer).
But Thermodynamics holds strong (minus so called
entropy gaps related to expanding, gravitationally unbound Universe what prevents true thermodynamic equilibrium to be reached between distant regions even after infinite time but these are fortunately of no serious consequence to integrity of this theory).
Of course
Big Rip could get rid of these
entropy gaps but at the horrendous price to integrity of our understanding of other parts of physics (and also physical integrity of our Universe) but who knows?
by jedrider » Wed 29 Apr 2020, 16:11:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou are spewing theoretical masturbation.
or mental maturbation.
I never quite understood information conservation as regards physics. I'm a complete blank on that.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n general scientific theory is always a model of certain scope of application.
It can be falsified but never proven as "true".
That'a a red herring. There are NO proofs in physics. That only exists in mathematics.
There are many hugely successful theories in physics that we take as true, not proven, but true, as in "true". Do I need to explain that further?
Yes, they can be 'falsified' completely or partially. but all they represent doesn't just go away. The data is still there.
Given energy, it appears complexity can be created. What more would you need to know to understand that life was created out of laws of physics? Is complexity information? It would seem so, but I don't see any conservation law there.
by EnergyUnlimited » Wed 29 Apr 2020, 16:32:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jedrider', '
')I never quite understood information conservation as regards physics. I'm a complete blank on that.
Not all is lost.
http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/s ... /lecture-1 $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n general scientific theory is always a model of certain scope of application.
It can be falsified but never proven as "true".
That'a a red herring. There are NO proofs in physics.
So you agree with me.
Or not?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here are many hugely successful theories in physics that we take as true, not proven, but true, as in "true". Do I need to explain that further?
Yes, they can be 'falsified' completely or partially. but all they represent doesn't just go away. The data is still there.
by vtsnowedin » Wed 29 Apr 2020, 19:28:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '
') You are combining facts with information. The facts do not change, but when humans find the facts and how to use them they gain that "New" information.
That is lay man's interpretation.
For physicists content of information in Universe is constant or
time invariant if you prefer.
Look, this information conservation issues are of very profound consequences for development of modern physics.
There must be a lot of desperation out there if concepts like
holograhic principle are seriously considered.
Most likely another wild goose chase with the brightest people on Earth having a run but who knows?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')urning a book would only destroy the information contained if it was the only copy of the book or the source notes for that book. Think of Leonardo Da Vinci's note books. What a loss of information if they had been destroyed as there were no copies elsewhere.
Information can be copied for example in copies of book or copies of DNA.
Nevertheless even if the
last book of any author is burned physics
in principle allows to retrieve information contained in it.
Technicalities would be extraordinarily difficult, well beyond our current engineering capabilities, but in principle it is possible.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here are many theories that have been proven to be true. The acceleration due to gravity on earth, the speed of light, the reaction of sulfuric acid,+ Nitric acid +glycerine to a shock wave.
You don't understand basic concepts of scientific method.
We are dealing with *models* which are only approximations.
They are exceedingly good approximations but not more than that.
I will go through your examples:
1. Gravity on Earth is
not a theory.
Basically we have 2 connected working theories dealing with gravity.
Newtonian theory of gravity - suitable for low energy realm.
General Relativity suitable for low and higher energy realms.
Newtonian theory was falsified first time by observation of peculiarities of Mercury orbit which could only be explained by GR.
We also know that GR must be falsified in vicinity of events horizons (BH fireball paradox) and even more so closely to central objects present there because it is resulting in infinities - implausible.
So there must be a more general model of gravity theory - known as quantum gravity.
Sadly no one have presented any equations let alone experimental protocols testing its viability.
2. Speed of light.
Again - as measured it is a fact, not a theory.
I have never heard nor any physicist have heard about "theory of speed of light" - such animal does not exist.
Speed of light (c) is related to properties of vacuum, its electric (ε) and magnetic (μ) permeability.
So we can proudly say that c=1/sqrt [μ(0)ε(0)]
Fact, not theory
3. Your final example, eg production and subsequent explosion of nitroglycerine are
processes, not theories. These processes are well explained by quantum mechanics dealing with interactions of atoms and also thermodynamics dealing with flows of energy and entropy.
So you even cannot give an example of theory, let alone discussing it.
Basically there are 4 established theories in physics.
1. General Relativity dealing with gravity
2. Quantum Mechanics dealing with interactions of matter and radiation.
3. Standard Model dealing with properties of subatomic particles
4. Thermodynamics dealing with flows and conservation of energy, entropy and information.
Anything what science deals with currently can be derived out of these 4 basic theories as one of special examples.
Sometimes electromagnetism with Maxwell and Dirac equations is added as "fifth theory" but closer look easily reveals that it is a special example of QM with a tint of SM.
Of these 4 theories 3 are to a higher or lower degree troubled and are already to a degree falsified or are known to be incomplete.
So GR falls apart in vicinity of extremely dense objects by producing nonsensical outcomes (infinities), QM and precisely its emanation known as Quantum Field Theory fails miserably if applied to explain so called Zero Point vacuum energy by getting results 120 orders of magnitude higher than observable value and Standard Model is full of assumptions drawn out of hat (or out of ass if you prefer).
But Thermodynamics holds strong (minus so called
entropy gaps related to expanding, gravitationally unbound Universe what prevents true thermodynamic equilibrium to be reached between distant regions even after infinite time but these are fortunately of no serious consequence to integrity of this theory).
Of course
Big Rip could get rid of these
entropy gaps but at the horrendous price to integrity of our understanding of other parts of physics (and also physical integrity of our Universe) but who knows?
