The more that I think about theoretical physics, the sadder I become

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Originally posted by: yankeesfan
How important is life? Spontaneously generated, we mean nothing. Just a natural formation of chemicals, no wonder man created a God to give us a meaningful purpose. I am not going to influence the universe, so why try to pursue a career to benefit myself? I am so sad. :(

"Spontaneously generated..."

How and/or by what?

Some of the most brilliant theoretical physicist of the last century were and/or are quite religious, and/or do believe in some supernatural entity or force, and think we have purpose.

Some of theoretical physics (e.g. string theory and even some particle physics) is highly speculative in nature.

Here are key points to consider:

1. We can all agree that a whole lot of mass and energy exists today and has existed for a very long time...

2. In our science experience we have a law which states that mass and energy can be neither created nor destroyed...merely converted from one form to another.

3. Well in light of #1 and #2...we have complete scientific impass according to our concept of space and time. If mass and energy can be neither created or destroyed...where the hell did all this mass/energy come from since, theoretically/philsophically, there must have been a "time" when all this stuff was NOT. Either that or we have to settle on the statement that: time and the existence of matter progresses back into history infinitely and we, therefore, can't probe it's absolute beginning. Well, I'll argue that that is an illogical argument which simply avoids the question of the origin of matter and existence as we know it...basically turning a blind eye on the whole question.

So there are two present answers to the origin of matter:

a) an event which exceeded/superceded natural physical law that was to follow thereafter... i.e. a supernatural / creational event.

b) the matter/anti-matter idea which, I think, is equally as supernatural. The notion that both matter and anti-matter particles formed from literally "nothing" (i.e. complete oblivion) and that matter stuck around while anti-matter mysteriously vanished immediately never heretofore reappear is equally as outlandish (to me anyway) as believing in the supernatural (i.e. God, a life force). This idea begs further questions and statements:

- We have never seen, been able to reproduce, matter / anti-matter splitting that actually holds -- that is, matter comes from nothing and stays around in an observable form for more than a picosecond (10^-12 seconds), a femtosecond even (to my knowlegde). So...that means that this massive matter/anti-matter splitting event was a one time thing for extent and purpose. WHAT THE FVCK caused it...and how is that not supernatural in and of itself??!

- while some would say that matter/anti-matter can literally form/split from "nothing"...others would not call it "nothing", they would call it "something" (even though it has zero mass and energy, according to our present understanding) and wonder where "it" came from. As you might see at this point...this kind of reasoning would generate an infinite recursion of exploratory thinking which could only terminate in something that is simply beyond human comprehension...well, "simply beyond human comprehension" is a plausable working definition for things like "the supernatural", "God", and so forth.


So I've tried to present a brief treaty on why the "supernatural" simply does exist and thus you and I and, indeed, all of us do have a purpose.

BTW...this is not an argument about whether or not the big bang happened or not...it is an argument about what caused it...how and why it happened. Certainly creation or whatever that brough matter in "being/existence" must have had a mechanism and fallout which could be studied according to natural law/science.
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Originally posted by: edro13
The usual evolution of thought goes like this:

1. You start to understand science and you are amazed.
2. You understand think about the fundamental aspects of life and displace "higher powers".
3. You start to realize that human thought, love, sight, everything can't be a coincidence.
4. You come to the conclusion that everything is so perfect because of God.
5. Repeat every few years until you die.

Hopefully, if there is a god, you are on step 4 when you die.


I love the way you put it... it is so true.

science is only the study of the natural world...it only deals with the mechanics of things. But it doesn't answer the real "why?" or the even the real "how".

I really believe that thought, imagination, emotion, love, joy, sadness are self evident of the existence of a higher power and a higher order to the natural world...one that we will not understand, ever.

BTW, I'm a chemical engineering & solid-state physics ph.D. student... not that it matters, really...but the more science I learn, the more I am amazed and the more I believe.

Cheers!:beer:
 

badmouse

Platinum Member
Dec 3, 2003
2,862
2
0
BTW, I'm a chemical engineering & solid-state physics ph.D. student... not that it matters, really...but the more science I learn, the more I am amazed and the more I believe.

Cheers!:beer:


I find that physics and :beer: go together really well. Cheers back at ya! :beer:
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
3. Well in light of #1 and #2...we have complete scientific impass according to our concept of space and time. If mass and energy can be neither created or destroyed...where the hell did all this mass/energy come from since, theoretically/philsophically, there must have been a "time" when all this stuff was NOT. Either that or we have to settle on the statement that: time and the existence of matter progresses back into history infinitely and we, therefore, can't probe it's absolute beginning. Well, I'll argue that that is an illogical argument which simply avoids the question of the origin of matter and existence as we know it...basically turning a blind eye on the whole question.

....

BTW...this is not an argument about whether or not the big bang happened or not...it is an argument about what caused it...how and why it happened. Certainly creation or whatever that brough matter in "being/existence" must have had a mechanism and fallout which could be studied according to natural law/science.

But the accepted theory is that our laws of physics do not hold in a singularity (either in the big bang or a black hole), thus the basis of your post: that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only change form; may not be a law as we know it outside of our presently observable universe. It's yet another paradox.
 

sonz70

Banned
Apr 19, 2005
3,693
1
0
Originally posted by: DaShen
Originally posted by: badmouse
Originally posted by: yankeesfan
Spontaneously generated, we mean nothing. Just a natural formation of chemicals, no wonder man created a God to give us a meaningful purpose.

That's quite a stretch. Maybe God is a natural formation of chemicals and He/She created people to give Him/Her a meaningful purpose.

Me, I like theoretical physics. It's loony. Love the silly names for tiny bits - quarks, mesons, and so on. Love the strange theories like Schroedinger's cat and the Butterfly effect. String theory? What are those physicists smoking? Etc. It's fun.

String theory is basically a derivative of brane theory nowadays.

A lot of math goes into trying to balance the equations for string theory.

But theoretical physics makes me sad too because it seems to point to the universe not being able to support life indefinitely. At least when it gets to Astrophysics.

If a higher being were to step in and recreate a "perfect" universe later on, there would be a difference.


Who is to say what powers we will have in 1,2,1000 millenia that perhaps we will be able to "recreate" na perfect universe, re-introduce fuel into dying stars ect ect. It would be better to strive for this, than to stand back and watch everything slowly disapere.
 

yankeesfan

Diamond Member
Aug 6, 2004
5,922
1
71
Google Quote of the Day:

It may be that the old astrologers had the truth exactly reversed, when they believed that the stars controlled the destinies of men. The time may come when men control the destinies of stars.
- Arthur C. Clarke