Conspiracy Theory: Planet X/Niburu

[Max™]

English is so limited at times.

Reciting the laws of conservation of energy and momentum is all well and good, but what I am asking is think about WHY those laws function.

It doesn't have to be so, the rules by which this Universe function are not bound to be expressed in only such a manner.

Why should there be conservation of momentum, what does it imply about the Universe?

What is the underlying mechanism behind conservation of momentum?

Some Relativistic Frameworks represent it as seeking the simplest path through any given spacetime geometry.

What about non-Relativistic explanations?

[Woozie]

English is so limited at times.

Reciting the laws of conservation of energy and momentum is all well and good, but what I am asking is think about WHY those laws function.

It doesn't have to be so, the rules by which this Universe function are not bound to be expressed in only such a manner.

Why should there be conservation of momentum, what does it imply about the Universe?

What is the underlying mechanism behind conservation of momentum?

Some Relativistic Frameworks represent it as seeking the simplest path through any given spacetime geometry.

What about non-Relativistic explanations?

What conservation of momentum implies about the universe is that the laws of physics are invariant with respect to spacial location. In other words, conservation of momentum just means that the laws of physics are the same regardless of where you are in the universe.

What conservation of energy implies about the universe is that the laws of physics are invariant with respect to time. In other words, conservation fo energy just means that the laws of physics are the same regardless of when you are in the universe.

THAT'S why these laws function. They function due to certian properties that this universe has. These properties makes sense inituitively and our conservation principles simply verify them.

Wow, would you look at that: An explanation that doesn't require relativity.

But anyways, since the universe is relativistic, why would you want an explanation that's in contradiction with relativity anyways? It sounds to me like every time I explain something to you by invoking other known principles, you question the other known principles.

There's something else you need to realize. Most non-mathematicians know very little of a certain theorem, so it's no surprise that you seem to be leading yourself into this unfortunate paradox of logic with the pattern of questions you're asking.

It sounds like you're wondering why the universe has the properties it does. Well, the way physics works is by introducing a set of postulates and prove certain properties are true based on these postulates. Note that postulates, by their very nature, are assumptions. As webster states:

Axiom:

1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth


Or wikipedia:

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be self-evident. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

Can our assumptions be wrong? Yes, and in many cases they are.

But the point is that you seem to not be aware of a property that logical systems (that meet certain criteria) face.

Note: I'm using the words "axiom" and "postulate" interchangebly here

Let's take special relativity, for example. It simply states that the universe has no preferred frame of reference and states the consistancy of the speed of light. It never makes any sort of attempt to prove its own axioms or explain why they are true. It simply notes that they are indeed factual and use them to explain why OTHER things are factual.

This is how theories about our universe work in general. Is it possiblie that someday we will find REASONS for these postulates? Sure, that's always a possibility. Newtons laws were once considered axioms. But nowadays, they're considered to be theorms provable by lagrangian/hamiltonian dynamics (or at least the first two laws are are provable by both lagrangian/hamiltonian dynamics as well as quantum theory. Newtons third law is actually false but nevertheless, it's still very useful in a wide range of physical applications). [note that the law of inertia is one of Newtons laws, and note that I just told you the system of mathematics in which they're provable]. However, one of the systems in which they're provable in is the one that invokes the property that objects tend to minimize a certain condition. You've already asked "Why" this works. Every time I explain a "why", you ask "why the why's?". If I was to give you an explanation based on quantum theory instead of either relativity or lagrangian's, you'd still ask "why does quantum theory work?"

Any time we prove an postulate of one system, it's done by using an external system. No system is used to prove it's own axioms. This is no coincidence: There's a mathematical law known as "Godel's Incompleteness Theorem" that proves that it's impossible for any consistant logical system (obeying certain criteria) to prove it's own consistancy. Paradoxicaly, this means that any system that can prove it's own consistancy is necissarily inconsistant (technically it's not "really" a paradox. An inconsistant system can prove false theorems to be true, so we wouldn't have proven that the laws are both true and false [which would make it a paradox]. We would have only proven that the laws are false. It seems paradoxical because our method of proving that the laws are false is to use the laws to prove that the laws are true). If I could use the laws of physics to prove to you WHY these are the laws of physics, then I would have just proven that the laws of physics are wrong due to Godel's theorm. This is why we physicists can't have an answer to every "why". The only way I can prove that the laws of physics are correct is by introducing new laws of physics (i.e. a new set of axioms in which I could use to derive theorems). After the introduction of these axioms, you'd simply ask the physicist why these set of axioms are true. Again, we'd have to either prove they are true with their own laws (thus proving that they actually aren't true) or introduce new axioms (to which you'll ask "why?" and the cycle repeats). If we can prove that these are true, then we've proven that in reality, they're false. You can't just ask "why" to everything a physicist states. Eventually we'll get to the point where you just have to accept the laws as-is without any proof. Any deeper explanation would either [1] bring up new questions for you to ask why to [2] prove that we were wrong all along or [3] not necissarily be based on any formal logical or scientific method. There's nothing wrong with number [1], that's how science progresses, but the fact remains that we can't answer all of your "why?"s and that we never will be able to. For this reason, many top physicists (including Steven Hawkings) believes that a TOE is impossible. They believe that number [1] can continue indefinietely. The physicsts who argue in favor of a TOE have a different view on the definition of a TOE. Those who argue in favor of a TOE believes that we will have one set of axioms that can't be explained by other axioms. Even in their system, the entire universe wont be explain. The reason is because the axioms themselves wont be explainable. They'll have to be accepted as fact. So even if we did find a theory that could explain the entire universe, there would still be room to ask "why". However, asking why would necissarily lead to part [2] or part [3].

[Nystul]

I really get the feeling that Max is trying to delve into the theological (or teleological, or metaphysical, or spiritual, or whatever) side of things- "yes the laws of physics are nice but WHY do they exist?"

[Khamsin]

English is so limited at times.

Reciting the laws of conservation of energy and momentum is all well and good, but what I am asking is think about WHY those laws function.

It doesn't have to be so, the rules by which this Universe function are not bound to be expressed in only such a manner.

Why should there be conservation of momentum, what does it imply about the Universe?

What is the underlying mechanism behind conservation of momentum?

Some Relativistic Frameworks represent it as seeking the simplest path through any given spacetime geometry.

What about non-Relativistic explanations?

Why would you assume the most intuitive expectation is that moving must require energy? The only reason we, in our own human experience, don't see it in our everyday lives is because there are drag forces involved in the things we most often see. You roll a ball across flat ground and it comes to a stop eventually because of friction and air resistance. But there without those forces, it would just keep on going. To complain that explanation is insufficient because a human child would think it needs energy to keep moving is a little off-base.

However, if you want an alternative answer, think of it in terms of relativity. Set two balls next to each other. Now roll one. Which ball is moving? How would the universe distinguish between the ball you rolled and the one at rest? Because the one at rest just happens to be moving along with the most mass (the rest of the earth)? What if you did the same thing in open space? Everything is moving, we're zipping along through space like nobody's business, yet we don't notice because the rest of the earth is moving with us. The only time the universe "notices" is when we change the natural course of things. Namely, once we push the ball to roll it, that's an acceleration. That's the difference between the one at rest and the one we rolled. The universe "knows" which one to tug on because it's the one that changed from it's course.

If everything needed energy to move, rather than only to change it's natural course, the universe would be at a standstill. Not to mention, you wouldn't have probes and satellites able to travel to other planets like they can now. You don't suppose NASA packs a ton of fuel for the trip on those things? No, they use a ton of fuel just to get off the planet. Out in space, they only take a tiny bit, and only to change course.

As for the basic question of "Why?", well, think of it this way. We're here to observe this universe, right? If the universe required energy to move, we wouldn't be here to observe this universe. Therefore, the reason for "why" is simply because if it weren't, we wouldn't be observing it. Same argument for why we're living out here in a seemingly empty universe in terms of life. Are we alone? Life has such a small chance of just happening, how did we get so lucky? Well, if we didn't get lucky, we wouldn't be around to ask such questions. So naturally, we kinda had to get lucky.

[Mizango]

I really get the feeling that Max is trying to delve into the theological (or teleological, or metaphysical, or spiritual, or whatever) side of things- "yes the laws of physics are nice but WHY do they exist?"

Yeah that is the vibe I was also getting. More of a rhetorical "why" as opposed to the literal sense.

[Woozie]

As for the basic question of "Why?", well, think of it this way. We're here to observe this universe, right? If the universe required energy to move, we wouldn't be here to observe this universe. Therefore, the reason for "why" is simply because if it weren't, we wouldn't be observing it. Same argument for why we're living out here in a seemingly empty universe in terms of life. Are we alone? Life has such a small chance of just happening, how did we get so lucky? Well, if we didn't get lucky, we wouldn't be around to ask such questions. So naturally, we kinda had to get lucky.

Anthropic principle'd! I knew it was just a matter of time before it was stated

(I don't have any problem with what you said. I wanted to say it too, but anything that resembles the Anthropic principle causes too much debate and controversy in the scientific community, so I just avoid it even when it's relevant, like in this case )

[Khamsin]

As for the basic question of "Why?", well, think of it this way. We're here to observe this universe, right? If the universe required energy to move, we wouldn't be here to observe this universe. Therefore, the reason for "why" is simply because if it weren't, we wouldn't be observing it. Same argument for why we're living out here in a seemingly empty universe in terms of life. Are we alone? Life has such a small chance of just happening, how did we get so lucky? Well, if we didn't get lucky, we wouldn't be around to ask such questions. So naturally, we kinda had to get lucky.

Anthropic principle'd! I knew it was just a matter of time before it was stated

(I don't have any problem with what you said. I wanted to say it too, but anything that resembles the Anthropic principle causes too much debate and controversy in the scientific community, so I just avoid it even when it's relevant, like in this case )

Well, it merely describes why things appeared to have worked out "just so". I don't believe that us being here to observe actually affects anything, as the universe does what it does and will continue to do it long after we're gone. However, that is an explanation for how we "just happened" to observe these conditions with such low probability of occuring. We can only observe conditions that we are capable of existing in, which skews our view. It's more of a warning to watch what you consider 'luck' or 'random chance', when it has to be a certain way for us even to be worrying about it in the first place. Perhaps the universe and life is a result of happenstance, and only randomly turned out that everything works together perfectly to enable life and what we know of physics. There could be a graham's number of other universes where things aren't perfect and don't work out. We may have had to wait as many years, too, for the planets and stars to align in the right way for an environment to support life. But whenever, wherever, and however it all finally worked out, just like Shakespeares monkeys, it did. And it's at this time that we are able to observe how it all just happened to come together perfectly.

I suppose the other side of that argument is that it's not random, and there was never any chance for life or the universe as we know it not to happen the way it did.

[Woozie]

As for the basic question of "Why?", well, think of it this way. We're here to observe this universe, right? If the universe required energy to move, we wouldn't be here to observe this universe. Therefore, the reason for "why" is simply because if it weren't, we wouldn't be observing it. Same argument for why we're living out here in a seemingly empty universe in terms of life. Are we alone? Life has such a small chance of just happening, how did we get so lucky? Well, if we didn't get lucky, we wouldn't be around to ask such questions. So naturally, we kinda had to get lucky.

Anthropic principle'd! I knew it was just a matter of time before it was stated

(I don't have any problem with what you said. I wanted to say it too, but anything that resembles the Anthropic principle causes too much debate and controversy in the scientific community, so I just avoid it even when it's relevant, like in this case )

Well, it merely describes why things appeared to have worked out "just so". I don't believe that us being here to observe actually affects anything, as the universe does what it does and will continue to do it long after we're gone. However, that is an explanation for how we "just happened" to observe these conditions with such low probability of occuring. We can only observe conditions that we are capable of existing in, which skews our view. It's more of a warning to watch what you consider 'luck' or 'random chance', when it has to be a certain way for us even to be worrying about it in the first place. Perhaps the universe and life is a result of happenstance, and only randomly turned out that everything works together perfectly to enable life and what we know of physics. There could be a graham's number of other universes where things aren't perfect and don't work out. We may have had to wait as many years, too, for the planets and stars to align in the right way for an environment to support life. But whenever, wherever, and however it all finally worked out, just like Shakespeares monkeys, it did. And it's at this time that we are able to observe how it all just happened to come together perfectly.

I agree with all this. Regardless of probabilities and such, the fact is, the universe is formed in a way that allowed us to exists and we always have to take that into account. This is called the "Weak Anthropic Principle". The problem is that many physicists take this to a whole new level, to something called the "Strong Anthropic Principle", which is basically what you said below.

I suppose the other side of that argument is that it's not random, and there was never any chance for life or the universe as we know it not to happen the way it did.

I understand that you're just throwing this idea out there and you aren't really trying to argue in favor or against this side of view, but just merely pointing it out as a possibility or suggestion. But there are many physicists out there who DO argue for this point of view and even try to incorporate it into physical theories. Because of this, any form of Anthropic principles usually make me cringe even when it's only the weak form because I'm so used to seeing the strong form follow closely afterwards D:

[Max™]

No, I wasn't delving into deep theological meanings.

I was saying that I personally don't find it satisfying to say "Conservation of Momentum works because it just does, that's how the Universe is."

We may never find a single theory that explains everything in a satisfactory manner, but we still have a lot that we should logically be able to understand better, in a more cohesive framework, if you will.

As for the Anthropic Principle, there are many variations of the physical laws and constants in a Universe in which Mind could still function. This is not the only way a Universe can work and produce intelligence capable of pondering about it.

There are many variations which would preclude mind entirely as well, and matter, causality, star formation, conservation laws, etc.

I wasn't asking those questions to get answers, I was trying to explain where my train of thought came from, starting all the way back with a pair of magnets thinking "why do these two objects seem to extend beyond their visible and physical selves?"

You were close when you said that I would continue questioning the axioms you used to prove the others, until you got down to the quantum one, provide an explanation from a quantum framework by which relativistic effects result, without invoking relativity, and I'd guess you're a step closer to the holy ToE grail, huh?

I believe the Universe is fundamentally comprehensible, in all aspects of itself.

As for Godel, I think of that as a mismatch between our formulation of mathematics, our limited perceptions, and the nature of the Universe.

[Woozie]

I was saying that I personally don't find it satisfying to say "Conservation of Momentum works because it just does, that's how the Universe is.

I've already given you reasons beyond that. Do you want me to PROVE conservation of momentum? If so, just tell me and I'll give you a classical proof and a quantum mechanical proof. I can't guarantee that you'll understand them. I've tried explaining it in simple ways that anyone could understand, yet you still keep questioning it. So if you really want an answer to conservation of momentum that isn't saying "that's just how the universe is", ask, and I'll give it to you.

We may never find a single theory that explains everything in a satisfactory manner, but we still have a lot that we should logically be able to understand better, in a more cohesive framework, if you will.

Well, if there is to be a TOE, then you have to stop expecting everything to have some sort of deeper reasoning. If there is a TOE, then we will definitely eventually reach a point where it no longer makes sense to ask "why?" and instead, we'll have to just accept the basic framework as fact without asking for formal justification.

You were close when you said that I would continue questioning the axioms you used to prove the others, until you got down to the quantum one, provide an explanation from a quantum framework by which relativistic effects result, without invoking relativity, and I'd guess you're a step closer to the holy ToE grail, huh?

I believe the Universeis fundamentally comprehensible, in all aspects of itself.

As for Godel, I think of that as a mismatch between our formulation of mathematics, our limited perceptions, and the nature of the Universe.

Maybe it's the sleeping meds, but none of that made any sense to me although I guess, in a way, Godel's theorem could very well be the result of limitations of the human mind and our logic/reasoning capabilities, but nevertheless, it's an undeniable truth constructed from basic principles of first order logic, so regardless of why this theorem appears, we have no choice but to accept it as fact. D:

[Denchi]

Yeah, eventually you get down to certain metaphysical questions. Those questions are hard, though, so let's just take Woozie's word for it.

[Max™]

Not reasoning, mechanism.

I feel we have a workable, but very rough, framework of reality nowadays.

I think we're both coming at this from different angles, and not quite connecting.


How to say it differently...


Let's say I had asked you why magnets work.

You are giving me a description of field lines and charge, I'm asking for one about gauge boson exchange, and the extrapolation of that into a deeper theoretical framework which takes into account quantum and relativistic considerations.

[Atlasion]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, or is extremely obvious but.. Can dwarf stars orbit other stars? Or is this not whats going to kill us?

I don't know a lot about space.

[Woozie]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, or is extremely obvious but.. Can dwarf stars orbit other stars? Or is this not whats going to kill us?

I don't know a lot about space.

Dwarf stars can orbit other stars, but if this was going on in our system we would have noticed a long long time ago.

[Woozie]

You are giving me a description of field lines and charge, I'm asking for one about gauge boson exchange, and the extrapolation of that into a deeper theoretical framework which takes into account quantum and relativistic considerations.

That would be Quantum Electrodynamics/Quantum Field Theory. What exactly would you like to know about these subjects?

[Khamsin]

You are giving me a description of field lines and charge, I'm asking for one about gauge boson exchange, and the extrapolation of that into a deeper theoretical framework which takes into account quantum and relativistic considerations.

That would be Quantum Electrodynamics/Quantum Field Theory. What exactly would you like to know about these subjects?

He's probably asking for an explanation in terms of interactions of the most fundamental particles. What do those fundamental particles do differently between magnets to create what we observe as a field, and why are they different in the presence of atoms with electrons aligned and moving a certain way as opposed to other materials where the electrons aren't aligned or moving a certain way?

To which I assume the answer would simply be an interaction based on how those electrons, spins, and charges influence certain other atoms and their electron configuration, and would probably come down to a lesson on energy states, orbital configurations, spin, and what makes electrons push or pull each other around.

[Exoduso]

What happened to this thread lol... I wanna hear more about how Planet X is gonna fry the world. ;;

[Woozie]

What happened to this thread lol... I wanna hear more about how Planet X is gonna fry the world. ;;

It's going to deep fry us in oil with 11 herbs and spices D:

[Khamsin]

What happened to this thread lol... I wanna hear more about how Planet X is gonna fry the world. ;;

It's going to deep fry us in oil with 11 herbs and spices D:

Chicken, grease, salt.

[Mizango]

..
Let's say I had asked you why magnets work.

You are giving me a description of field lines and charge, I'm asking for one about gauge boson exchange, and the extrapolation of that into a deeper theoretical framework which takes into account quantum and relativistic considerations.

Oh nice, the Boson exchange force carrier card. This thread makes me happy......

As I am sure you know, the Boson exchange relies almost exclusively on mathematics and general theory so as far as I know (And I could be wrong, My college days have long since passed) there is nothing tangible that comes to mind that I can give an exact example of the principles. But even if I could it would be covering only 1 side of it in terms of the grand scheme of things. The other side shows us that quarks induce an electromagnetic field as well as a color field that interact with the total generated field.

This way an individual photon or light wave can be detected and/or measured. IIRC individual electrons can be detected (the charges) and particle beams can also be measured via electron microscope using interference and diffraction properties of said electron(s) correct?

It took me forever to remember how to word that, goddamn its been a long time. The fun thing about Quantum theory is that these different POV's are what drives the advancement of these theories. Do any of you use AIM or MSN? I miss threads like this.

What happened to this thread lol... I wanna hear more about how Planet X is gonna fry the world. ;;

It's going to deep fry us in oil with 11 herbs and spices D:

Ill take a 6 piece plz.