The Universe is a strange place

About the Lecture Perhaps the universe is not so much strange as brimming with lovely paradox. The search for such beauty seems to lie at the heart of Frank Wilczek’s work. Twentieth century physics, from Einstein through Wilczek’s own Nobel Prize-winning efforts, involves demonstrating the existence of a topsy-turvy reality: for instance, that such sub-atomic particles as quarks and gluons, which have little or no mass, “orchestrate themselves into not just protons and neutrons but you and me,” according to Wilczek. “How is it possible to construct heavy objects out of objects that weigh nothing?,” he asks. Only by “creating mass out of pure energy.” These particles are essentially “excitations in otherwise empty space.” Says Wilczek: “That suggests something …beautiful and poetic: the masses of particles are not like, or similar to or metaphorically suggested by—they are the tones or frequencies of vibration patterns in dynamical voids.” The theory of quarks and gluons and the strong interaction accounts quantitatively for “the mass of protons, neutrons and ultimately you and me and everything around us.” But physics has not yet squared away all aspects of the universe. Wilzcek says that “in cosmology, we meet our match, and don’t know what’s going on.” This is because scientists can’t account for much of the mass in the cosmos. 70% of this mass is in “dark energy,” which is pushing the universe apart. Wilczek hopes that explanations for the dark stuff will emerge through improving equations, unifying theories of different interactions and extending their symmetries. “Beautifying equations leads not to ugly consequences but beautiful surprises,” he concludes.

About  the  Lecture  Perhaps  universe  is  not  so  much  strange  as  brimming  with  lovely  paradox.  The  search  for  such  beauty  seems  to  lie  at  heart  of  Frank  Wilczek’s  work.  Twentieth  century  physics  from  Einstein  through  own  Nobel  Prize-winning  efforts  involves  demonstrating  existence  topsy-turvy  reality:  instance  that  sub-atomic  particles  quarks  and  gluons  which  have  little  or  no  mass  “orchestrate  themselves  into  just  protons  neutrons  but  you  me  according  Wilczek.  “How  it  possible  construct  heavy  objects  out  weigh  nothing  he  asks.  Only  by  “creating  pure  energy.”  These  are  essentially  “excitations  in  otherwise  empty  space.”  Says  Wilczek:  “That  suggests  something  …beautiful  poetic:  masses  like  similar  metaphorically  suggested  by—they  tones  frequencies  vibration  patterns  dynamical  voids.”  theory  strong  interaction  accounts  quantitatively  “the  ultimately  everything  around  us.”  But  has  yet  squared  away  all  aspects  universe.  Wilzcek  says  “in  cosmology  we  meet  our  match  don’t  know  what’s  going  on.”  This  because  scientists  can’t  account  cosmos.  70  this  “dark  energy  pushing  apart.  Wilczek  hopes  explanations  dark  stuff  will  emerge  improving  equations  unifying  theories  different  interactions  extending  their  symmetries.  “Beautifying  leads  ugly  consequences  beautiful  surprises  concludes. 

Channels: Lectures In Astronomy  Cosmology  Major questions in astronomy 

Added: 718 days ago by deek

Runtime: 00:01 | Views: 1210 | Comments: 1

     

God Does NOT exist

that which consists of either matter or energy. Therefore if a god exists, it must be composed of either matter or energy. The opposite must also be true. If a god is not composed of matter or energy, then that god, by definition, does not exist. Thus to argue that a god exist, despite a total absence of matter or energy, is to argue, existence equals non-existence, which is a complete contradiction. If a god exists, then physical evidence is really the only methodology by which we can ascertain that a god exists. Of course, this does not require direct physical evidence -- we cannot perceive black holes directly, but we know that they exist due to the effects of their gravity wells on surrounding matter, as well as the flashes of energy that are released as captured matter crosses the event horizon. But since "existence" is defined as that which is composed of matter or energy, the proof of existence must be some evidence of that matter or energy. Evidence is defined as that which impacts our physical senses in some manner, either directly, or through some translating device such as a spectrograph or an oscilloscope. Since our sensory organs are designed to perceive the effects of matter and energy, it is through the evidence of the senses that we can determine the existence or nonexistence of things. If I argue that something exists, but then claim there is no way to detect it, my argument contradicts itself. Let's say I tell a deaf man that I hear a deep, loud sound coming from a speaker. If he lays his hand on it and feels no vibrations, he has every right to be skeptical. If I say that this loud sound does not have vibrations, he may then pull out his trusty microphone or other sound wave detector. If this instrument detects no sound in the vicinity, can I still tell him that this loud sound is occurring? At some point, if my definition of "loud sound" basically boils down to "that which is the opposite of any evidence that a loud sound is occurring," then clearly my approach to truth needs a little work. This approach helps clarify the truth value of the proposition that a god does not exist. If a god exists, then sensual evidence of some sort is required to determine the existence of that god. If a god is not made up of matter or energy, then that god does not exist, since that which is not composed of matter or energy -- does not exist. If a god is made up of matter and energy, then it is subject to physical laws. Since it is bound by physical laws, miracles are impossible, because miracles are, by definition, violations of physical laws. Likewise, a god cannot be all knowing and all-powerful, since both attributes would violate the basic tenets of physical laws. All knowing would require instantaneous knowledge of all matter, past, present and future, which is clearly impossible, while all powerful would require the ability to break the bounds of physical laws, which brings us back to the realm of nonexistence. If a god is subject to physical laws, then praying to a god makes about as much sense as worshiping a black hole, begging the Sun to grant you favors, or circumcising your son to appease the moon. If a god is not subject to physical laws, then the concept of a god is synonymous with the concept of non-existence. Why is there such resistance to the fact that a god does not exist? Many people redefine "God" within their own minds as "a potential form of matter or energy that has not been discovered yet," or "that which could exist in an alternate universe," or something to that effect. However, either a criterion for determining truth exists, or it does not. If such a criterion exists, then it must be objective, and based on the evidence of the senses and reason, which precludes the existence of any deities. If no such criterion exists, then both everything and nothing is true, and agnosticism, atheism, superstition, religion and the belief of the flying spaghetti monster are all equally valid. If an objective criterion for truth exists, then it cannot logically be applied according to whim, or only in situations that feel emotionally comfortable. Through this logical method we can determine no god exists. Actions are more important than beliefs.

God  Mater  Energy  Existence 

Channels: Cosmology  Cosmic Debris 

Added: 769 days ago by lonewolf

Runtime: 01:00 | Views: 320 | Comments: 1

Not yet rated