5 ms·

The universe works differently at different scales the same way water looks different at -5 oC and 120 oC. However there is an underlying theory that can explai

by Iolaum 5y ago

The universe works differently at different scales the same way water looks different at -5 oC and 120 oC. However there is an underlying theory that can explain both. Finding that theory is hard to find for our current knowledge and capabilities. But extrapolating that this will remain so will not age well.

wiz21c 5y ago
> current knowledge and capabilities Do you think we will be able to grow capabilities indefinitely ? For example, let's imagine we know how to build a detector for some phenomenon. For some reason we need to go to another star (for example, to mine all of its planet for some unobtainiun). Then we would be stuck in our progress... I'm not in physics but is there lot of room to improve our capabilities left ?
eyko 5y ago
I'm not convinced that comparing two different states of matter is a useful comparison. The universe doesn't necessarily work differently, we're just observing different phenomena, aren't we? The behaviour of an atom or subatomic particles in isolation is not necessarily the behaviour of the same particles when part of a much larger system. Could one could also argue that quantum indeterminacy makes it difficult make predictions the more interactions you add to a system? That is, interactions at the atomic and subatomic levels are manageable enough to observe, but as we add actors, the interactions grow exponentially, and each actor's state is influenced not just by itself but by other actors in the system, ad infinitum.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  > I'm not convinced that comparing two different states of matter is a useful comparison. Actually, it is probably a terrific comparison. What is a state change? It is a drastic change in the properties of a material once some threshold condition (usually temperature and/or pressure) is crossed. And in fact QM and GR describe the same system under different lenses - maybe not pressure or temperature but certainly different conditions. Don't forget that the universe itself has undergone a phase transition, after (or during, depending on who's lecturing) the inflation period (very shortly after the big bang).
  - eyko 5y ago
    I was mainly thinking in the difference between an atom in laboratory conditions being observed in a very controlled way, vs an atom at the core of a protostar, for instance, but that's an interesting point, thanks!
  - Filligree 5y ago
    > Don't forget that the universe itself has undergone a phase transition, after (or during, depending on who's lecturing) the inflation period (very shortly after the big bang). I prefer calling it a vacuum collapse, 'cause that's what it was. "Phase transition" sounds too clinical. Always wondered if there's any chance there may have been some form of life existing prior to reheating. It's not as though we have any way to find out, unfortunately.
    - dotancohen 5y ago
      > "Phase transition" sounds too clinical. I never liked the term either, but physicists use it because that is exactly what happened. I'm not going to argue with physicists. What does "vacuum collapse" mean? No matter how I try to interpret it, I cannot come up with anything that resembles the cosmic inflation.
      - Filligree 5y ago
        This, more or less: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum_decay#Inflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum_decay#Inflation The problem is we're not sure that's what caused reheating. There's been other suggestions, some of them quite exotic -- a collision with a neighbouring brane, for instance. Still, my bet's on false vacuum decay.
tzs 5y ago
> Finding that theory is hard to find for our current knowledge and capabilities. But extrapolating that this will remain so will not age well. On the other hand, have you ever tried to explain even the most elementary concepts of basic special relativity to a crow? Crows are intelligent and can reason about problems, but special relativity is just beyond them no matter how long you try to teach them, and it seems likely that this is something crows will never be able to understand. At best some distant descendant of crows that has evolved so much from present day crows to be a completely new species might get it. I see no reason to assume that the capabilities required to completely understand physics fall somewhere between the limits of crow intelligence and the limits of human intelligence.
- arrosenberg 5y ago
  I'm pretty confident that if we can conceptualize a problem (as we have in this case), then we also have the capacity to solve it.

by Iolaum 5y ago

wiz21c 5y ago

> current knowledge and capabilities Do you think we will be able to grow capabilities indefinitely ? For example, let's imagine we know how to build a detector for some phenomenon. For some reason we need to go to another star (for example, to mine all of its planet for some unobtainiun). Then we would be stuck in our progress... I'm not in physics but is there lot of room to improve our capabilities left ?

eyko 5y ago

I'm not convinced that comparing two different states of matter is a useful comparison. The universe doesn't necessarily work differently, we're just observing different phenomena, aren't we? The behaviour of an atom or subatomic particles in isolation is not necessarily the behaviour of the same particles when part of a much larger system. Could one could also argue that quantum indeterminacy makes it difficult make predictions the more interactions you add to a system? That is, interactions at the atomic and subatomic levels are manageable enough to observe, but as we add actors, the interactions grow exponentially, and each actor's state is influenced not just by itself but by other actors in the system, ad infinitum.

dotancohen 5y ago
> I'm not convinced that comparing two different states of matter is a useful comparison. Actually, it is probably a terrific comparison. What is a state change? It is a drastic change in the properties of a material once some threshold condition (usually temperature and/or pressure) is crossed. And in fact QM and GR describe the same system under different lenses - maybe not pressure or temperature but certainly different conditions. Don't forget that the universe itself has undergone a phase transition, after (or during, depending on who's lecturing) the inflation period (very shortly after the big bang).
- eyko 5y ago
  I was mainly thinking in the difference between an atom in laboratory conditions being observed in a very controlled way, vs an atom at the core of a protostar, for instance, but that's an interesting point, thanks!
- Filligree 5y ago
  > Don't forget that the universe itself has undergone a phase transition, after (or during, depending on who's lecturing) the inflation period (very shortly after the big bang). I prefer calling it a vacuum collapse, 'cause that's what it was. "Phase transition" sounds too clinical. Always wondered if there's any chance there may have been some form of life existing prior to reheating. It's not as though we have any way to find out, unfortunately.
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    > "Phase transition" sounds too clinical. I never liked the term either, but physicists use it because that is exactly what happened. I'm not going to argue with physicists. What does "vacuum collapse" mean? No matter how I try to interpret it, I cannot come up with anything that resembles the cosmic inflation.
    - Filligree 5y ago
      This, more or less: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum_decay#Inflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum_decay#Inflation The problem is we're not sure that's what caused reheating. There's been other suggestions, some of them quite exotic -- a collision with a neighbouring brane, for instance. Still, my bet's on false vacuum decay.

tzs 5y ago

> Finding that theory is hard to find for our current knowledge and capabilities. But extrapolating that this will remain so will not age well. On the other hand, have you ever tried to explain even the most elementary concepts of basic special relativity to a crow? Crows are intelligent and can reason about problems, but special relativity is just beyond them no matter how long you try to teach them, and it seems likely that this is something crows will never be able to understand. At best some distant descendant of crows that has evolved so much from present day crows to be a completely new species might get it. I see no reason to assume that the capabilities required to completely understand physics fall somewhere between the limits of crow intelligence and the limits of human intelligence.

arrosenberg 5y ago
I'm pretty confident that if we can conceptualize a problem (as we have in this case), then we also have the capacity to solve it.