creation equation (Introduction)

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, St Leonards on Sea, Wednesday, February 22, 2017, 10:31 (293 days ago)

It's a while since I visited here.
But I came across this piece about the "Creation Equation"
and thought of you.

https://geneticfractals.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/joseph-fourier-and-creation-equation/

The comments are quite interesting too.

--
GPJ

creation equation

by dhw, Wednesday, February 22, 2017, 13:53 (293 days ago) @ George Jelliss

Thank you for thinking of us, George. It's always a pleasure to hear from you.

I'll need to come back on another occasion
To tackle the intriguing creation equation.

creation equation

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 22, 2017, 22:29 (292 days ago) @ dhw

dhw:Thank you for thinking of us, George. It's always a pleasure to hear from you.

I'll need to come back on another occasion
To tackle the intriguing creation equation.

Yes, nice having you drop in. Creation of life as a fractal equation is interesting.

creation equation

by dhw, Thursday, February 23, 2017, 11:42 (292 days ago) @ dhw

Thanks again, George, for dropping by. I’m afraid the following made me laugh:

That’s an amazing perspective. Every tree of a species is truly and out growth of its earliest predecessor. There is only one tree that happens to have fallen apart into billions separate branches across the world.
That’s what this Creation Equation tells us.
By extension it also tells me that every living species not only has a single common ancestor, in fact, every living being is part of that same organism whose root is that common ancestor. “We are one” is not just New Age speak: we really are one.
But we knew this already, right?
That often happens in science, we discover equations that match what we know already. It tells us scientists that we are on the right path. The next step is to look back further. What preceded the first common ancestor? The science of evolution tells us that it all started with a hot cocktail of monomers of life: Amino acids, Phospholipids and Nucleotides. How exactly this soup merged into life, has not been fully understood. And that is an understatement.”

It sure is. But it’s nice to have a scientist so cheerfully and enthusiastically confirming what Darwin told us 150 years ago.

creation equation

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 23, 2017, 15:04 (292 days ago) @ dhw

Quote: What preceded the first common ancestor? The science of evolution tells us that it all started with a hot cocktail of monomers of life: Amino acids, Phospholipids and Nucleotides. How exactly this soup merged into life, has not been fully understood. And that is an understatement.”[/i]

dhw: It sure is. But it’s nice to have a scientist so cheerfully and enthusiastically confirming what Darwin told us 150 years ago.

Yes laughable, but totally incorrect as to how current science struggles to explain anything about origin of life.

creation equation

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, St Leonards on Sea, Saturday, February 25, 2017, 16:44 (290 days ago) @ dhw

Another interesting link

https://origins.asu.edu/events/materiality-vacuum

This time about origin of the universe rather than life.
Can nothing be something?

--
GPJ

creation equation

by dhw, Sunday, February 26, 2017, 09:31 (289 days ago) @ George Jelliss

GEORGE: Another interesting link
https://origins.asu.edu/events/materiality-vacuum
This time about origin of the universe rather than life.
Can nothing be something?

QUOTE: In modern physics we've discovered that it is very fruitful to regard empty space, or vacuum, as a sort of material, which can have exotic properties, like superconductivity. Conversely, materials can be viewed "from the inside" as the vacua of alternative worlds, which often have exotic, mind-expanding properties. These ideas suggest new possibilities for cosmology, and bring to life a profound question: What is a Universe?

Modern physics appears to indulge itself in fantasies that are no less “exotic” than those of religion. We now have highly respectable scientific theories about strings and multiverses and alternative worlds and the mind-expanding properties of nothing. Personally I have no problem defining the (but not “a”) universe in BBella’s words: all that is. The profound questions for me are (a) what does it consist of, and (b) how did it come into being? The first of these questions includes the unexplained world of quantum physics. However, if by nothing/a vacuum we mean an absolute zero/a completely empty space without any content whatsoever, I do not for one second believe that nothing/a vacuum can have any content whatsoever. If theoretical physicists believe otherwise, they will have to come up with new definitions of “nothing” and “vacuum”.*

*(They have already done so, in terms of a vacuum containing very low density gas, but even that is a far cry from it being a sort of material with exotic properties!)

creation equation

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, St Leonards on Sea, Tuesday, February 28, 2017, 22:34 (286 days ago) @ dhw

Here is some more mind-boggling new quantum theory from Wilczek:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20170228-anyons-a-new-kind-of-quantum-particle/

it seems that "any-ons" are sort of sub-particles that tie themselves in knots
and can become bosons (like photons) or fermions (like electrons)
An electron can split up into three anyons,
so it seems the electron is no longer a fundamental particle.

--
GPJ

creation equation

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, St Leonards on Sea, Friday, March 10, 2017, 09:31 (277 days ago) @ dhw

More strange new discoveries in quantum physics from Wilczec

http://www.nature.com/news/the-quest-to-crystallize-time-1.21595

Time crystals.

Not sure if this has implications for creation or evolution etc.
No doubt things will become clearer in time.

--
GPJ

creation equation

by David Turell @, Friday, March 10, 2017, 19:27 (276 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George: More strange new discoveries in quantum physics from Wilczec

http://www.nature.com/news/the-quest-to-crystallize-time-1.21595

Time crystals.

Not sure if this has implications for creation or evolution etc.
No doubt things will become clearer in time.

Thank you, George. I had seen a different article which did not explain the concept as well as yours. Quantum mechanics are as confusing ever, but they are the basis of this universe and its evolution. We must develop a better understanding if research can do it for us.

http://cosmosmagazine.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=6624e5edea055e3f68a7b4b28&i...

creation equation: Georges LeMaitre

by David Turell @, Monday, March 13, 2017, 19:25 (273 days ago) @ David Turell

This Catholic priest is one of the giants of cosmology:

http://www.livescience.com/58204-lemaitre-should-be-famous-like-einstein.html?utm_sourc...

"Young students lucky enough to benefit from a science education will likely recognize Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Charles Darwin, Marie Curie, or Gregor Mendel. But ask them about Georges Lemaître and they'd probably be stumped.

"Indeed, the man who first proposed that the universe is expanding and formulated the theory of the Big Bang is scarcely recognized by Google. Search for "famous scientists" and scroll through the horizontal list that pops up. Lemaître is nowhere to be seen.

***

"Lemaître's spirituality flourished over the next few years, but this did not diminish his scientific aspirations one bit. Upon being ordained in 1923, he traveled to Cambridge, Massachusetts to study astronomy at Harvard Observatory, while at the same time earning a doctorate in physics from MIT. Two years later, he finally began his academic career as an associate professor of mathematics at the Catholic University of Leuven.

"In 1927, Lemaître proposed that the Universe is expanding, deriving the notion mathematically from Einstein's theory of relativity. When Einstein and Lemaître met that same year, Einstein told him "Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious." Einstein did not question the math, but he could not accept the finding. When Edwin Hubble discovered astronomical evidence of expansion two years later, Lemaître's theory was confirmed. Einstein, along with the rest of the physics community, was convinced.

"At the same time, a more existential question was born: If the universe is expanding, does that mean it originated from a specific point in time and space? In 1931, in a now legendary paper published to the journal Nature, Lemaître answered "yes." The universe began as a "primeval atom," he argued. Today, this idea is better known as the Big Bang.

***

"Throughout his adult life, Lemaître straddled both science and religion, often receiving harsh criticisms from naysayers in both disciplines. Scientists accused him of trying to promote creation with cosmology. Not helping this perception was the fact that Lemaître wore his clerics all the time, even at scientific meetings. At the same time, believers accused him of placing constraints on God. When Lemaître heard that Pope Pius XII intended to speak to members of the International Astronomical Union in Rome, he urged the Pope's advisors to ask the Holy Father to refrain from using his findings as evidence for divine creation. 

"'Professor Lemaître wanted his scientific theories to be judged exclusively on their physical merit, keeping metaphysical implications completely separate," Joseph R. Laracy wrote.

"Lemaître believed that science and religion must be separate, but at the same time, he also believed they could co-exist.

"'Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity?" he wrote. "Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes..."

"Popular British science writer Simon Singh, who founded the Good Thinking Society, excellently sums up Lemaître's views on science and religion:
"He said that there were two ways of arriving at the truth, and he decided to follow them both. If he wanted to explore issues of morality, ethics, and spirituality, he would look at his Bible. But if he wanted to understand the universe… he would do experiments."

"Just as important as his contributions to knowledge, Lemaître showed incredible genius in rationally reconciling two competing notions that still divide peoples today: science and religion. His way of thinking — measured, considerate, rational -- is a blueprint for peace and understanding. We all can, and should, learn from his example."

Comment: Thought I would introduce him. 'Big Bang' as a nickname came from Fred Hoyle as a joke, and he is another giant in the field

creation equation: Georges LeMaitre

by dhw, Tuesday, March 14, 2017, 09:03 (273 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "Just as important as his contributions to knowledge, Lemaître showed incredible genius in rationally reconciling two competing notions that still divide peoples today: science and religion. His way of thinking — measured, considerate, rational -- is a blueprint for peace and understanding. We all can, and should, learn from his example."

Thank you for this interesting article. I would add the names of Darwin and Turell to the very, very, very long list of people who have shown that science and religion are not incompatible, though one should differentiate between religion and the established, organized, dogmatic religions.

creation equation: Georges LeMaitre

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 15, 2017, 00:38 (272 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "Just as important as his contributions to knowledge, Lemaître showed incredible genius in rationally reconciling two competing notions that still divide peoples today: science and religion. His way of thinking — measured, considerate, rational -- is a blueprint for peace and understanding. We all can, and should, learn from his example."

dhw: Thank you for this interesting article. I would add the names of Darwin and Turell to the very, very, very long list of people who have shown that science and religion are not incompatible, though one should differentiate between religion and the established, organized, dogmatic religions.

Thank you, but you need to re-read Darwin. What I've read strongly suggests he is at least agnostic, but probably atheist, notwithstanding his sentence about God's creations in some of the editions of Origins, but not all. And our discussions certainly avoid dogmatic religious precepts.

creation equation

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 26, 2017, 19:48 (288 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George: Another interesting link

https://origins.asu.edu/events/materiality-vacuum

This time about origin of the universe rather than life.
Can nothing be something?

By definition the vacuum of our universe is not nothing. It is filled with field effects (Higgs is one) and virtual particles. I assume whatever is outside the universe is a true void and therefore nothing. Thanks or an interesting website

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum