What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
91 Comments
- FaithclubDotNet, on 06/22/2008, -1/+39In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
- Mewchu11, on 06/22/2008, -2/+30Well that's a pretty boring conclusion to make.
- dopplerdog, on 06/22/2008, -1/+17Nor can it be disproved by showing two, three or more laws are the same in three, four or five places. It's a question of collecting evidence, not proving or disproving the hypothesis.
Are you suggesting they test all laws in every point in space, in every instant in time? That would be an interesting experiment, how do you propose it be carried out? - transmothra, on 06/22/2008, -4/+17not sure if this counts, but my pants contain enormous amounts of dark energy - girls seem to be repelled at greater velocities than elsewhere in the universe.
- Azerael, on 06/22/2008, -3/+14You don't know; you just would like very much to think that he did.
- gravyboy, on 06/22/2008, -3/+14Some problems here...
1. The proton-electron mass ratio is not all the laws of nature.
2. Earth and one other galaxy are not "everywhere"
So really this article should be titled: "Was the proton-electron mass ratio at quasar B0218+367 the same as it is on earth?"
The hypothesis that it is possible for some laws of nature to be different in some places or times in the universe can't be disproved by showing that there is one law which is the same in two places...
Stupid article. - CanTheSpam, on 06/22/2008, -6/+15Well, I guess theists can no longer dismiss logical arguments against God by saying that logic is a human invention.
No, theists, there can't be miracles in the distant quasar B0218+367. - Jaydude765, on 06/22/2008, -0/+9No. It means the particles are all anti particles. That means they have the opposite charge than the matter counterparts.
Hydrogen is one negative electron and one positive proton.
Anti-Hydrogen is one positive electron (anti-electron, positron) and one negative proton (anti-proton).
When a particle meets an anti-particle, they annihilate each other releasing pure energy. - DrCyclops, on 06/22/2008, -1/+9It seems that way, but the universality of the laws of nature is one of the pillars of the philosophical foundation of science. Just goes to show, everything in science is testable--even its most basic tenets.
- thePuck77, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7Hence your name, KnowledgeclubDotNet....wait...
- illt, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6true, but the fact that the proton-electron mass ratio is the same, is evidence that many laws of nature are similar, not just the one fact either.
- ism70605, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5This is likely an impossibility; read this wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace's_demon - adamwho, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4FaithclubDotNet FaithclubDotNet: Nobody agrees with me! You are all so unfair!
What a cry baby! - stanleyford, on 06/22/2008, -3/+7"Well, I guess theists can no longer dismiss logical arguments against God by saying that logic is a human invention." -- This is the first time I've ever heard this, and I suspect it's a strawman you invented in order to criticize those who believe in the existence of God.
There seems to be a belief on Digg that those who believe in God (Christians in particular) dismiss the importance of reason and rely purely on mysticism in order to formulate their beliefs about existence. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I am mystified as to how such a belief could have gained traction on this site. Christianity has a long history of philosophical and scientific inquiry, all rooted in the fundamental belief that the world is a logical, orderly place which is governed by interactions discoverable through human reason and experimentation. - PrintScrn12, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5You don't prove in science. You disprove. So you'll never quite get a proof even if you might pile on evidence that laws are universal, or at least apply to all observed/studied.
- CanTheSpam, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4FaithclubDotNet, if there were proof of miracles, then why would theists demand that we need to have faith to experience them?
Only a con man would argue that holding beliefs without reason is one of the three highest virtues. It sure sounds like a vice to me. - bratterscain, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4Well, I'd say they have to be the same in the underlying structure, or so my math says so. If the universe is equatable to an on-going calculation, then if one number/unit doesn't adhere to the underlying rule structure of what the other numbers/units adhere to, then the sum would just not add up. It's like taking a .000000009 out of a simple 2+2 problem. No matter how small of a change you make, then end product just won't add up to what it should. And so, we have laws of nature we can make and with those, make successful predictions.
Maybe, quite possibly, there may be something or somewhere where things just may not seem to go by our known laws of nature, but we've seen this before and we come to find out, it does, we just have to refine our laws a little more. - Plotinus, on 06/22/2008, -2/+5Oh dear, someone, who either hasn't got a clue about why this is so important, or who is functionally illiterate (because it explains that this is important in the article), decides to show of his ignorance by commenting.
Did you think that relativity was really boring as well? "oh, time and space are the same and speed is relative, how boring." Fool.
Hint, the anthropic principle is a huge debate with repercussions on the very existence of life (you did know that the anthropic principle is what this discussion is about didn't you) go look it up. - JagPop, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Sometimes in my part of the galaxy my login to Digg just drops off for no apparent reason.
Are you experiencing the same thing?
Also, I once proposed (maybe I didn't shout it loud enough) that
so-called Dark Matter might *simply* (how does one perform a cross-out on Digg?)
be a demonstration of the non-constancy of the UGC Universal Gravitational (so-called) Constant.
UGI
What goes up might go sideways. - CiXeL, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4this is why i believe we havent ever been contacted my aliens.
i believe at a certain point in our technology we are able to recreate every permutation we see out there here in our own solar system or in virtuality. therefore, we have no reason to venture out 'there'.
computers are already fast enough to emulate the life processes of simple lifeforms, eventually it will grow to complex lifeforms and eventually whole ecosystems.
you will be able to simulate millions of years of evolution and dial in custom parameters such as environmental stresses to get the results you want. you will then be able to isolate these designer genes or series of genes, build, and plug them into a modern plant/animal and reap the benefits.
the simple matter is, if you could recreate in full confidence in virtuality every type of alien civilization that could possibly exist out there, what reason would you have to actually go out there? - m4csrgh3yk3v, on 06/22/2008, -2/+5It may have something to do with the american phenomenon of religion invading scientific schooling and politics. This is the backlash, lead by those such as Dawkins.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. - finn, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3this is 'news'? wtf...
the short answer: yes the 'laws' of the universe apply to the whole universe, by definition.
the long answer: ... there are exceptions: within the event horizon of black holes, the 'laws' break down and no longer apply, and zoom in close enough, down to the planck length (the smallest measurable length) and the 'laws' again dont apply within this length, i'll let the philosophical implications of this go off into some other thing :P - Metasquares, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3If they are not, the laws are not general enough. That's why Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation was a big deal: it worked in space as well as on earth (similarly, relativity described things at our familiar insignificant velocities as well as relativistic ones). Our current set of laws may not hold everywhere, but that doesn't mean that laws of nature in general don't. It just means we don't have a perfect understanding of what they are yet.
- illt, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4there's a difference in obvious speculation, and trivial confirmation by observation.
scientists can't just say that's the way it is like theists can. - nkstn, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Exactly.
- bmac12, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2I'm not a physicist, and hopefully someone can help me out, but the experiment assumes the laws of physics in the intervening galaxy (containing ammonia) are identical to that on earth. It seems odd to me that we use light from uber-distant phenomenon to determine the chemical composition of relatively closer phenomenon, then we use the closer phenomenon to demonstrate the essential properties of the distant. But in both cases we're already assuming the laws of nature are the same everywhere; then experiments like this come along which "prove" based on what we're already assuming.
- RussellDovey, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2And also in that house WAY over there.
- adamwho, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Trust me, that is a real argument for the existence of god.
- S4MF1SHER, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Link to the original study press release:
http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/public/pr/pr-munh3-en ... - CanTheSpam, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Put the cart back behind the horse.
The laws of logic were constructed by observing empirical evidence. A circle can't also be a square. A can only equal A. Show me a square circle, and the law of non-contradiction falls to pieces.
It is because of the nature of the universe that logic exists.
"But the universe didn't *have* to make sense to a human. It just does."
Remember, humans evolved to be capable of processing the universe. If they got confused every time they saw gravity work, then they would die out.
Understanding quantum mechanics isn't essential for our survival, and look how hard that is to grasp. - Spoomeister, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Pics (of a representative sample of the universe), or it didn't happen.
- thePuck77, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2"but argue against it using the language of science " Logical fallacies is not the language of science. Unless you mean trying to use complicated words, which they then use improperly while explaining that Evolution is a "religion" that teaches we went from "slime to monkey to man". That's not science.
- Mewchu11, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Sheesh I'm a chemical engeenering major, I've taken more that a fair share of physics classes...
I never said it wasn't important, I said it wasn't very interesting to people who aren't willing to waste years of their lives clawing their eyes out in a physics class. - Disgod, on 06/22/2008, -2/+4A bigger and much cooler question for cosmologists is whether or not there are galaxies made out of antimatter. It is possible, not exactly probable, but possible, and from what I've read an antimatter galaxy would appear to be a normal galaxy, giving off the same spectrum of light as a normal galaxy, and you wouldn't know the difference until regular matter gets introduced, then we'd see a nice BIG BOOM. Pretty sure it isn't possible, but it's still a very interesting question, and could potentially help prove the Big Bang Theory, or demolish it, either way it'd still be cool.
- AlaskaLoneWolf, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1They're the same, except in California and Massachusetts where vast black holes have suddenly appeared on Earth, yet seem to be doing no apparent damage.
- CanTheSpam, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1I think you can reword your first point to actually make sense. Maybe. Try saying it again.
I meant understand gravity in an intuitive way. If I throw you (or a dog) a ball, then you will be able to track the path the ball takes in the air, mentally complete the parabola, and catch it. That's an intuitive understanding of gravity and geometry. Nothing similar exists with quantum mechanics because that would require an intuitive understanding of extremely small probabilities, something that humans are really very bad at. All I'm trying to say is that it's not weird that the universe "makes sense" to humans, and a creator is not required to show us that.
Of course there's a chance that you can survive, but can we agree that the better someone is able to understand the objective universe, the more likely they are to thrive in it? - m4csrgh3yk3v, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1* all logic is emperical: nope, many things exist in maths and your imagination that do not exist in nature. Your circle is one of them (If you like quantum or gravity, then there exists no perfect circles in nature. You can't have it both ways. Ironic you cite both theories.) Don't confuse logic with science.
* If humans didn't understand gravity, they would die out: nope again. My dog exists, and has little understanding of the logic of gravity. Furthermore, it is not essential to my survival that I can compute the perihelon of mercury to several decimal places....but I can.... In fact, I can be *deluded* about the true nature of the world (let alone the universe) and still survive. Most living things are deluded about the true nature of the world. - CanTheSpam, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1It's no straw man! Someone made it to me IRL just a couple of nights ago.
It's a common response to anyone that points out the logical inconsistencies inherent to the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, immaterial consciousness with a burning desire to create our ***** up world. - LLLSecretChimp, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1What if ammonia affects light differently in different parts of the universe? I'm not a cosmologist, but isn't any research like this circular? It starts by assuming that a whole bunch of things are the same in different parts of the universe, and measures to see if one more thing is the same. What if those assumptions are wrong?
I'm not trying to stir up anything here. I'd much rather somebody point me to some good references so I can reduce my ignorance. - CanTheSpam, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1The intelligent design hypothesis is not falsifiable, therefore it is not the language of science. It is junk science. It is whims masquerading as science.
- Azuroth, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1To go somewhere new.
- YourDoom123, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1ehh, that's a bit different. That the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames is the principle of relativity, but its a little misleading in that form. Rather, what it actually means is that you can't measure your absolute velocity, it's a meaningless concept.
- stanleyford, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1"Logical fallacies is not the language of science. Unless you mean trying to use complicated words..."
This is from the Wikipedia article on intelligent design: "Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled."
Notice how ID proponents do not dismiss natural selection out of hand on religious grounds. They argue against it on scientific grounds. Their argument--that certain biological systems are "irreducibly complex"--is not reliant on religious dogma (though it is certainly informed by religious belief). It is an argument based upon observation, and it can be disproved through experimentation.
Just for the record: I am not a creationist. I believe that life as we know it evolved from other life forms through the process of natural selection over millions of years. I just wanted to point out Christianity's long history of scientific inquiry, and how this is reflected even in the positions of the extreme wing of Christianity. - ethornquist, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Thank you - the article's inspired me to go to the source.
- YourDoom123, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2that's what makes it science. your damn sure of what you know, and then you try to apply it to something that it may or may not apply to and see if any contradictions result. If they do, great! you've just advanced science and brought in new understanding of the way the world works. If they don't, great! you've just advanced science and brought in new understanding of the way the world works.
- RussellDovey, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Good question. The people digging you down are idiots who would rather pretend they know everything, and not ask questions for fear people will know they're ignorant. Of course, they will remain ignorant, while you, who ask questions, will not.
- CanTheSpam, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Oh, and, for the record, you're right about the circle thing. Perfect circles don't exist empirically.
But perfect circles are just the result of graphing the relationship x^2 + y^2 = constant. That relationship, like the rest of math, is built upon the concept of 1 + 1 equalling 2.
You can see that in nature when you put two rocks next to each other. - inactive, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Nothing I just think the plot is a little convoluted.
- liuite, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1if a Big Bang occurs in parallel universe, would it make a noise?
-
Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is