Ever dreamed of a nice piece of software that actually tries to simulate the evolution of an universe? Ever thought it would be possible? Now after a long time of planning and writing of some source code a small group of developers goes public with their innovative project: the G System.
The G System, often simply called "G", is an effort to create exactly this: simulation of evolution. This is both, a scientific exercise and a virtual reality where many "users" can participate in an ever changing, realistic and ... evolving universe.
The goal is a virtual reality which can be experienced by users as a realistic world and as a place for scientific development with a goal of creating a realistic evolution simulation. The realism is not so much of physical reality but more of a realistic human - and especially life as a whole - evolution. This also means that nothing keeps us from creating space shuttles that allows for exploring a whole solar system, which can get quite fascinating ;)
Currently the system is in an early stage of development. We have come so far that we think it IS possible to create a realistic evolution simulation and now we want to "bootstrap" development. That means we are looking for contributers. If you are fascinated by the idea you probably already fit the requirements, fascination is what drives development forward. To get an overview of the technology that is covered/used by the project, this list should help: network layer for a "grid" of server systems as well as client connections, database systems, 3D client application with KDE integration, artificial intelligence and some common sense for evolution; Qt and KDE as base libraries. But this list is not complete, there also are many areas where no special knowledge is needed. And after all, everything can be learned.
At the moment a small demo application is already available, it currently shows that the core infrastructure works but doesn't provide much in terms of virtual reality. A later release will bring the system nearer to this goal and will let people enter this simulation experience.
For more information you can take a look at http://www.g-system.at (it is an international site, the .at domain was just easier to get in our case). The source code release and the API documentation are already available. Check out the page at KDE-apps.org!
Comments
WOW I GUESS THAT GOD HAS WOW OF A COMPILER!
Err, no. You think it has been designed because we are built by the same standards, so to us, it seems 'sensible'. In fact, it's just nothing more than what happened.
I think the list is quite wrong. Some of the facts listed are consequences
of lower level laws/conditions.
A better description is (IMO):
1.~20 Standard Model free parameters (you forgot e.g. all the mixing angles) or
the ~100 MSSM free parameters (or whatever theory you belive)
2.Initial conditions.
Where point 2 means intial conditions for a very large number of particles 10^xx with xx >> 1.
I'll have to side with the majority here, and say that I'm still waiting for evidence of an intelligent design.
However, maybe this can be a useful measure of success of the G project: If you can eventually simulate an argument between the denizens of the simulated universe about evolution v. intelligent design, you'll know you've got it right.
Chris
funnily, I tried to simulate a "social situation" [was a small argument] with the G System (back then on paper, with nice circles representing elements and their connections,...) and got a quite nice picture of it, I think such things - and especially such things - will be suitable for simulation with this system.
... and since I started on the project I actually try to put almost everything I experience into a G System "setting" inside my head, this is constant testing of the concept.
This thread. What can I say but Holy Crap!
If I am going to have to accept a metaphysical answer as to the origins of your "physical tuning", I would think that even the anthropic principal is more believable than intelligent design, since you have already implicitly claimed the existence of other universes (somewhere for the designer to live). This site describes the idea, which can be extended to apply to the universe as a whole instead of the earth: http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer.html
Furthermore, how do you know that, had any of those constants (or variables, in some cases?) been slightly different, some other kind of self-organizing system would not have evolved?
And what sort of reason is #12, "Entropy level of the universe"? The entropy level is increasing all the time, so it had to reach the right level for life at some point.
Numbers 15-19 are all closely enough related to be considered the same thing.
6 and 25 are very closely related, and not really separate values to be tuned at creation.
I think that 40 is dependant on 13.
#14, "Age of the universe"? Do you really think that this was chosen by God at the moment of creation? ;-)
Admittedly though, the "Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons" is a bit weird.
Are you familiar with the concept commonly called the Lamppost Theory?
--
JRT
As a Christian KDE user who has seem plenty of the debate on these topics, I just thought I'd clear up a few prominant misconceptions and add what I hope is more insight than heat.
1. When "talking origins", people on all sides (yes, there are more than just two!) tend to blow much more hot air than facts. Accept that, accept that your side is doing it too, and move on.
2. The truth of Christianity does not depend on acceptance of a certain interpretation of science. I've seen very smart Christians who believe in evolution, others who believe in various forms of intelligent design, and others who hold to young-earth or even young-universe creation. There are also many non-Christians and anti-Christians who have doubted evolution. So evolution vs. design is not really about "religion".
3. There is presently no "theory of everything". All extant scientific theories rely on the existence of something outside their theory. For example, in terms that computer users can readily understand: there is clearly much much more information ('bits') in the universe today than at its moment of inception (Big Bang or whatever you believe in). A universal theory would have to account for where all of that information came from. Quantum mechanics strongly suggests that the processes that would normally give rise to increase in information content are non-deterministic. So the universe needs a "random number generator". Software developers should know well that an RNG isn't a given -- it must be explicitly programmed into the system. I've seen no complete theory yet for the random number generator in our universe. I know this is simplifying things way too much, but you should get the idea.
In general, all the relevant scientific theories propose a way that the universe got from "then" to "now", but inevitably leave unsaid how the "then" came to be. Lest the theists start cheering here, I caution that it's a problem for us too: all the finite-regress-to-God theories leave unknown how God came to be. I strongly suspect that the problem of origins, as it is generally given, is unsolvable. Perhaps this was purposeful, to keep us from getting arrogant about our theories.
4. All that Intelligent Design can ever allow us to conclude is the existence of a Designer. I haven't met anybody who is really bothered by that. By extension, if all we have to go on about the nature of God is philosophy and ritual (e.g. most "Eastern" religions and the insiduous New Age "spirituality" movements of today), then we could really conclude, as many want us to, that everyone is equally right. But that's not all we have to go on. The arbiter between religions is the historical evidence of God interfering in the course of history. As far as I have been able to determine, all theories of how the historical record as we have it today could have come about without the actual resurrection of a 1st century Jew named Yeshua have been shown to be flawed. As far as I have been able to determine, nearly all accusations of historical or cultural inaccuracies in Biblical accounts have been repudated by archaeological finds mainly within the last century. And as far as I have been able to determine, all alledged contradictions between the 40 (plus or minus) authors of various books of the Bible have been explained, many as not only acceptable alternatives but as expected harmonies.
I have not reached these conclusions without many doubts and uncertainties; I wouldn't listen to anyone who makes these kind of conclusions without wrestling with the alternatives. In fact, while researching for this post, I came across other conflicting views that I have no answer to yet. However, the answer to encountering conflicting views is not to run back to your sand fortresses and throw sand at one another. No, the answer is to meet in the middle and talk. You might even find out the answer to the greatest mystery of life: what happens when it's over.
In the name of truth,
Ken
PS - This is already off-topic for this discussion board, though it could be argued that the article itself is off-topic. So if you feel the need to say something in response, I suggest that you email me instead. You should be able to figure it out from the link under my name, but if not, look on directory.cornell.edu.
PPS - Please, please, do not injure anyone in the name of your theories. That's the ultimate in arrogance. So while I speak no harm to Muslims in general, I hope you will join me in unilaterally condemning those (mainly) Islamic fundamentalists who seek to destroy rather than love. (But do not fear: they will be judged.)
Ok, here's the best answer I can come up with, which is not very good.
I value reason. I find the idea of a god that creates the world and populates it with the evidence of a spurious past, like the young earth or young universe adherents propose to be the unnecesary creation of an evil god who cheats its creation, giving it a mind and feeding lies to its senses. I find such belief repugnant, yet luckily unnecessary.
The idea that because things have a cause, all causes must regress to something that's uncaused makes sense (although it's not very interesting). Why that uncaused cause is supposed to be an omniscient supernatural human-like entity, I have no idea. I find such belief childish and immature, yet luckily unnecessary.
I *am* bothered by the idea of a designer, if such designer is one of the two described above.
In the first case, I consider such designer to be evil and a liar. In the second case I consider such designer distasteful, stupid, and an insult to its creation, who would seem to be toys for its amusement. Consider it: god can prove god exists, and end all doubt. But he doesn't. What's the point? I refuse to play a sick game of hide and seek.
I won't even bother with the idea of predetermination, which is amoral, and an excuse for avoiding responability.
So, I would rather be the result of random linking of molecules than the creation of evil, or stupidity, were it my choice.
It is not my choice, though, but I must accept I don't know which one is the truth. However, I can see, because I value reason, what is *not* the truth, and call it when I see it (for example, claiming that speciation has never been observed).
On the rest of the moral argument: I want justice on this world. I like justice to be a deterrent, I like justice to be verifiable, I like justice to be conmensurable to the damage.
In all those criteria, the justice described by most religions fail to pass. I would rather all those who "sin" against me to be judged by fellow men and convicted or set free than have their souls weighted by Anubis, or sent to a lake of fire for failing to confess a sin before dying, or to go to limbo for being unbaptized, or whatever your favourite religion prescribes.
So, dear god, if you happen to exist and are reading this site, I'll sign it: I am not asking for divine justice for anyone. If you judge someone it is not in my name, just like any religious fanatic that burns something, or the warmonger that shoots the religious fanatic are not doing it in my name, either.
Of course this post, in several religions, would be enough to go to hell. Well, if that's so, that's the way the cookie crumbles, it would be just another sign of god's evilness.
So, peace brothers, and love your fellow men, because we are all there is, as far as the eye can see.
Now, I am outta this thread.
Bravo! My feelings exactly (except that you are more eloquent than I).
A Book "Physics Foibles"
for math, physics and computer students
by Melvin Goldstein
The Theory of Everything occupies the attention of many of our great thinkers. It is a noble effort but it may be misnamed. There may always be unknowables. Will a real Theory of Everything be trumped by Entropy, Godel Incompleteness, Heisenberg Uncertainty and Chaos? Read Physics Foibles.
Stephan Hawking, ranked on the like of an Einstein, gave a talk at Texas A&M in 2003. The subject: "Universe still an Unknown".
Hawking said:
"Physics has problems that prevent it from being used to develop an ultimate theory to explain the universe. Physicists have been searching for a rule that would overcome the problems of current theories. I belonged to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I am now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end because we will always have the challenge of new discoveries. Without it, we would stagnate."
Read "Physics Foibles" and opine on Hawkings statement and the Theory of Everything.
Click on the following to view more details on the book:
http://web2.airmail.net/mgold/tst2.htm
http://physicsfoibles.com
http://www.trafford.com/robots/03-0139.html
email questions to the author: [email protected]
.. I might as well do it.
Shouldn't it be the K system? ;)
Honestly, I expected something like that :)
The thing is, that I started to take down ideas about it exactly 2 years ago. Back then I had not much todo with KDE (it was just the desktop on the system I used, but I had nothing to do with KDE development).
And ... "G" is what came to my mind back then (note: the name has nothing to do with the GNOME desktop as well, or GNU or whatever, I just had the feeling it should be "G").
Raphael
2004 and you release an announcment without screenshots? Come on :)
Oh, didn't you know: we are living in a screenshot :-))
J.
There is no screenshot.. :-))
Or is God a Gnomie?!
I already replied to exactly this kind of question (I know, it's probably something many people would ask...) please see above.
Of course God is a Gnomie. God = GNU Omnipotent Divinity.
@todo: advanced concepts of G, evolution of human beings
@todo: (as hinted in the introduction)
@todo: subsets (mental, intuition, ... physical, ...)
@todo: interaction between subsets
@todo: interaction between humans
@todo: connections
@todo: evolution
Erm, hello God, how are you today? Kidding besides, I actually compiled it and looked at it. My conclusion, here we see an awfull lot of bold theory where in reality we see 3 spheres rotating around 1 and we can move around the 1 ball in the middle.
Look, I know this is early stuff, but please, remain having some grip on reality before you go too deep into this. A project is not innovative as long there is a todo list which basically says: implement the innovation. Be humble before you go online saying "you are going to simulate a universe".
That said, it's original (at least the theory behind the concept of the application), it could become quit interesting, but any simulation of "the evolution of a universe" is going to require bizarre system specs and some serious insight into data structures and biology, chemistry and physics. Look my point is, good luck _getting the forum up first_, then next, erm, perhaps the evolution of a universe (in that order).
THIS todo list is actually from the documentation, this has nothing to do with the source code todo list(!)
But you are right when you say there is still _much_ to implement ... but not everything. The core system exists for a year now and it had only minor modifications since - which means that this is already stable. If you take a close look at it you will find that most of the work has to be done _outside_ this core system, defining the "rule systems" by implementing agents (among other things), but again this can be (essentially) small if it is abstracted enough.
> ... grip on reality before you go into this...
well, yes, I am rolling around the idea for about two years now and as I said we now think it is possible to simulate this stuff in a "reasonable" code base.
> Be humble before you go online saying "you are going to simulate a universe".
honestly I am, and I have really much respect from creation. But I think just this fascination from creation caused the project in the end. ... and it will happen - AFAIK ;)
> Look my point is, good luck _getting the forum up first_,
> then next, erm, perhaps the evolution of a universe (in that order).
Someone else is in charge of the homepage and the forum ... we are working multithreaded / multiprocessed(?) ;)
[the bad thing is that again someone else is in charge of the server and he will be back from holiday on 1st August - he needs to update some stuff on the server to make the forum (and database) work]
Thanks for constructive criticism by the way.
The main problem I see (apart of not doing much): it's very very slow. It takes time to display, it takes time to get the keyboard key answer and I cannot even move the window. I would say you start with investigating why it is so slow. My system is an Athlon AMD 2500 with 512 Mg RAM so it's not the cause.
I have been recently interested in AI that's why I ran this. I was quite disappointed.
make sure you have 3D acceleration enabled!! It does run without it as well because the X Server is emulating it, but it runs loads faster with 3D acceleration.
check if you have a /dev/dri/cardX entry, if you have, you are halfway there.
"chmod o+rw /dev/dri/cardX" can do miracles.
If you don't have such a device (/dev/dri/card0) then check /etc/X11/XF86Config and have a look at the module section, make sure modules "glx" and "dri" are loaded (I guess in some cases you only need one or the other, I don't know the details). If you then get the device, you still have to make sure that the permissions are correct (see above).
I run this thing fluently with a 1 GHz PIII mobile CPU and a 830M board (it's a laptop). But if I don't have 3D acceleration enabled it is also extremely slow on this system.
Good luck!
I have the 2 modules loaded
Load "glx" # 3D layer
Load "dri" # direct rendering
My video is an ATI Mobility Radeon.
Anyway, I don't want to mess with my system just to see a sphere :]
the chmod o+rw /dev/dri/card0 (as root) won't hurt, but I agree, the demo itself is not such an excellent "show", as I said it currently serves testing purposes mainly.
The next release will provide more in terms of interface and world/universe content.
>>Be humble before you go online saying "you are going to simulate a universe".
>honestly I am, and I have really much respect from creation. But I think just this fascination from creation caused the project in the end. ... and it will happen - AFAIK ;)
I don't think you are humble enough personally. It is not a simple matter of simulation by a group of people trough some magical codebase who imagine how certain things are like. You will eventually end up making a many great compromises and present very rough "interesting" interactions between variables positioned in certain complex data structures. All this stuck to an OpenGL framework for the sake of acheiving some kind of recognizable form of visuals. You will not end up with a stable relational self evolving environment in the sense that it simulates a complete stable universe as we know it including the evolution of itself in moments of time. The very formation of sub atomic particles into matter and from thereon the higher reaches of reality. If you do, you would have to be the greatest person to have been born on this planet. So far, Quantum theory, general relativity and string theory are the closest thing you can get to "emulating" a universe - and all those math based theories took centuries to develop by a great many man - and they agree to call it "only" theory so far. And so far that has only been based on the universe as we are currently capable of observing it. You think you can beat all that and some more with an x86 based chip architecture and some code based logic and data sets on some miserable little planet called earth?
3 spheres rotating around 1 other sphere are just that and what you and others call it is just part of your young and growing perception of that little OpenGL "universe".
I will not argue ever about the fact that it's a nice educative exercise for people to participate in, but you have to stay realistic about some things.
wait and see, as I have posted somewhere else you won't reach the goal by getting to it from only _one_ side, as you try to do. Of course there are many good(?) mathematical/scientific conceptions about such things, but they all suffer from the same "bug", they try to start _solely_ from the manifested physical world which is just so complex that you practically can't find a unified system in it ... alone.
Oh, and yes, I can't simulate everything with it, but I have some idea where the border of what still _can_ be done is, and what not, everything above this border is beyond reach for us persons anyway, so we need not be concerned with it, we just need to know it is there.
>wait and see
OK, fair game, I will "wait", you take care of the "see" part ;)
There's a third probability that nobody ever thinks of because both sides of the creation/evolution debate are too busy worshiping their respective gods to think for themselves. "Chaosionists" worship the lord, Chaos with equally fanatical zealotry as "Creationists".
1. The universe is decidedly one sided, the "INCLINATION" is for it to come apart more than it "TENDS" to stay together.
2. This defines a purpose, since it means that the universe is BIASED toward equilibrium... even if you can't get there from here, the OVERWHELMING drive is still PREDOMINANT.
3. So, the purpose of our expanding univese is defined by its entropic effort toward equilibruim... since t=10^-43 when the Big Bang INSTILLED this PRIMAL inclination into EVERY object in it.
hmmmm... humans are BETTER at the advancing the entropy of the universe than most every other system in the universe... and this ability has increase exponentially since we... "leaped"... coincidence?... or causal mechanism???
YOUR mistake is to automatically assume that their ISN'T purpose in a universe that expresses a VERY CLEAR one, just because you are SO AFRAID that their god will replace yours.
Here's the correct model for your universe, BTW, ignore it at your own peril.
http://www.geocities.com/naturescience/index.html
Using quotes for emphasis: -15 credibility.
Overuse of capitals: -10 credibility.
Multiple question marks together: -20 credibility.
Claiming that everybody else is wrong and you are right: -100 credibility.
Dire threats should you not listen: -20 credibility.
Geocities homepage: -50 credibility.
Grand total: -215 credibility. I don't think I'll be paying much attention to your theories, thank you very much.
Hey STOOPID... The science stands alone on its own merrit, and, well, you obviously know nothing about the subject, or you would know this.
OR...
It requires the typically manipulative stupidity of willful ignorance to use the crackpot index as an argument against the validity of what is right in front of your face.
Not to mention the lame calls for a higher authority, speaking of crackpots.
FYI, only the fanatics disagree with me, not real honest scientists.
That was copied from a spam mail you received!
Okay... enough games.
Dispute my post... point by point... or shut up:
There's a third probability that nobody ever thinks of because both sides of the creation/evolution debate are too busy worshiping their respective gods to think for themselves. "Chaosionists" worship the lord, Chaos with equally fanatical zealotry as "Creationists".
1. The universe is decidedly one sided, the "INCLINATION" is for it to come apart more than it "TENDS" to stay together.
2. This defines a purpose, since it means that the universe is BIASED toward equilibrium... even if you can't get there from here, the OVERWHELMING drive is still PREDOMINANT.
3. So, the purpose of our expanding univese is defined by its entropic effort toward equilibruim... since t=10^-43 when the Big Bang INSTILLED this PRIMAL inclination into EVERY object in it.
hmmmm... humans are BETTER at the advancing the entropy of the universe than most every other system in the universe... and this ability has increase exponentially since we... "leaped"... coincidence?... or causal mechanism???
YOUR mistake is to automatically assume that their ISN'T purpose in a universe that expresses a VERY CLEAR one, just because you are SO AFRAID that their god will replace yours.
Blah. Your point is unarguable. And I don't mean that in a nice way.
For example, all that stuff about "coincidence or causal mechanism".
Coincidence doesn't preclude causality, it precludes intention. Sure, Z happens because of Y, which happens because of X, and so on, but if A is casual, then there is no design, despite it all being caused from it.
Just because things happen, and actions have consequences, it doesn't follow that intention is at the start of the chain.
The stuff about how humans are better at advancing entropy... well, depends on how you measure it. I am pretty sure nuclear reactions in the sun have a larger effect on entropy than men!
So, before you say that, you should define it somehow.
The fact that this clown ducked the main points in order to attack what the fool PERCEIVES that I cannot prove, proves that he is a fanatically opposed to physical logic that goes against his "BELIEF SYSTEM".
This person has no interest in science they are strictly motivated by politics
Look, I have defined it in numerous places around here, so either you will either accept the obvious plausibility... or you're necessarily going to stick you neck into a scientific noose!
Sorry if I misread your intentions, but I'm still not convinced that I did
Before untangling the universe, learn to reply to the correct post, so I get notified.
No, you have not defined anywhere what being "better at advancing entropy" is. If you did, I missed it. Better by unit of mass of the agent? better in a specific period of time? Better in its lifetime? better in the lifetime of the universe?
Mind you, a star has you beat on every one of those, but be my guest to show how you advance entropy faster than, say, 200 pounds of detonating TNT, over a period of 1/10000th of a second.
Or better than a star over your respective lifetimes.
Or, at least, say what the hell you mean. I'll wait on that corner over there.
a) Clowns at least serve a useful social function
b) Insistence on how telling your opponent how he should argue his position is childish. You say things the way you like, I mock them the way I like. Isn't free speech nice?
c) I thought you were finished with me. Be coherent.
d) Your last post is on the edge of incoherence. On the far side. I attacked what seems easier to attack. If you expect your opponent to do something else, you are expecting your opponent to be stupid. And I am not.
e) Please, please, be a little more grammatical. I don't mind spelling.
The single most important failure of particle theory has to do with the fact that we do not readily observe nearly as much antimatter as it predicts exists, because antimatter particles are typically very short lived, and they annihilate when they meet up with ordinary matter. No priori distinction gets made between matter and anti-matter since the observed antiparticle has postive mass in spite of its sign.
Dirac's, " Sea of Electrons " was dismissed as implausible for this reason, but the opposite sign of all other charges indicates that the asymmetry between the two classes of particles is due to the fact that the anti-particle, (the " hole "), has negative mass AND density, until it becomes a real particle.
Dirac's, cosmological model is valid if the sign of the mass indicates that the asymmetry that exists between the two classes of particles is due to the fact that the anti-particle exists in a negative energy state, by way of -rho and negative mass, until enough vacuum energy is condensed over an isolated area to achieve positive gravitational curvature. Particle theory says that for every fermion type there is another fermion type that has exactly the same mass as its counterpart particle, and negative mass and density particles explain this without jumping to the conclusion that particle theory is necessarily wrong
because our observations don't seem to support this predicted symmetry.
Symmetry is maintained if particles that are created from the energy of the vacuum, have negative mass and density before they are condensed into positive mass and density virtual particles, which can then be converted into real particles, given enough energy. Negative energy and density is then **Generally** maintained by the negative pressure component, so both virtual and real that are created will increase negative pressure via further rarefaction of the vacuum.
The process described above will affect vacuum expansion while G will remain constant, because the increase in mass energy which occurs by way of condensation of vacuum energy, will immediately be offset by the described increase in negative pressure which necessarily occurs if negative mass particles have negative density... until they don't!
The main difference between this and Dirac's Hole Theory is that BOTH both the electron as well as the anti-electron will leave REAL holes in the vacuum. As with electric charge, the *normal* distribution of negative energy does not contribute to pair creation. Only *departures* from the normal distribution in a vacuum will isolate enough vacuum energy to produce virtual particle pairs. These pairs can be converted into real particles given enough energy, but they do not have -rho if they represent localized departures from the norm.
Modern Quantum Field Theory is not a replacement of Dirac's hole theory. The only difference is in the treatment of the Boson fields, where the positive spectrum condition has no Dirac sea analogue. The net charge density still exists as the zero-point charge, but it's cancelled out.
The cancellation represents an anomaly removal condition amounting to the restriction on the charge spectrum, where...
4(nu)+4(e)+12(up)+12(down)=0
The condition is often credited as a consequence of quantum gravity, but in reality, it's a direct consequence of the requirement that the zero-point charges all be finite. Dirac's subtraction argument hasn't been removed by quantum field theory, it has only been shifted into a different place...
...the operator, as normal ordering of QED.
Negative mass particles make up the cosmological constant by way of -rho, which is entirely difffernt than observed antimatter particles, which do not. Holes that get left in the vacuum are a result of condenstion of energy that only has negative mass because it exists in a negative density state until the emmense gravitational energy of a Black Hole or other high energy photon events result in an incease in uncertainty that cause vacuum fluctions which enables the creation process.
General Relativity tells us that gravitation is essentially curvature due to the energy contained in a region, so the condensation of enough vacuum energy over a region of space effectively converters this energy to the positve mass of particle pairs, and the 'departure' is maintained in this manner. These departures will no longer produce negative curvature, so they cannot have negative mass, because the energy density of these particles does *not* represent the background density.
In terms of the Entropy of a Black Hole, the emmited anti-electron has the same gravitational properties as an electron and the electron has a greater chance for survival, (thus maintaining the departure, *indefinitely*), since it might be a long time before it meets an antiparticle if its counterpart antiparticle gets sucked into the black hole.
There will be a contribution -e for each occupied state of positive energy and a contribution -e for each unoccupied state of negative energy, because negative pressure increases in proportion to the holes that the departures represent.
Taking a supported, but speculative shot at gravity from this:
Uncertainties in the vacuum state (inherent imperfections in the energy), CAUSE the matter/antimatter, gravity/antigravity asymmetry into being per the second law of thermodynamics, which, when taken for its face value and without further assumption, says that the described, natural imbalance requires that the entropy of the universe must always increase.
This idea is readily and plausibly supported by the previously given physics.
...and that has nothing to do with the reputability of the website, the point is valid, regardless. I don't know anything about the sponsor of this particular website, but it was the only example that I could find on the net. That doesn't mean that the idea is by any means new to science.
Here is an excellent illustration for how it works on both scales, as it applies to the high energy physics, as well as human evolution:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMILL.html
This DOES represent the correcly calculated odds:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMTRANS.html
... in an expanding universe and this effect gets compounded by a positive cosmological constant which serves to pull harder and harder on the matter in it until forces get isolated in order to satisfy increasing negative pressure.
That just means that the universe isn't perfect, so imperfections in the energy cause it to work harder toward balancing the whole mess out and this is what necessarily gives rise to the many different forms of accomplishing this task in a force decoupled universe.
It takes a religious-like form of faith to think that we're not just another player in the game of imperfection constrained entropy, just like everything else in the universe.
I should have said that it takes a religious-like form of faith to think that we're not just specially ordered players in the game of imperfection constrained entropy, just like everything else in the expanding entropic universe that has a positive cosmological constant.'
We're "Special" because we satisfy the grand scale effort that's described by the physics in the first post of this barrage.
This is directly associable to the universe's method for evolving to a higher order of entropic efficiency as described in that same post.
That clearly defines our purpose here.
... by human entropic evolutionary theory, which predicts that the universe will, as humans have leaped to a higher order of entropic efficiency, (as this is observationally proven).
So the physical logic then falls out where,
~
A big bang is to an evolutionary leap...
... what punctuated equilibrium is to a "NEAR" static universe.
... as supported by all of the three theories, above; high energy physics, entropic favoritism, and human evolutionary theory.
~
-and after much observation, Darwin had produced enough obvious macroscopic evidence for evolution... that they finally had no choice but to conclude that he must be right!'
Are you insane? No one is listening to you. It looks like your copying pages out of physics textbooks at random.
Please confine your confused ramblings to KDE.
Cheers,
Ryan
While I'm not pushing intelligent design, I wish that the people who denigrate it would come up with an alternative a little bit more convincing than evolution.
Problem is: evolution does not exclude intelligent design. Even when God created the earth and its inhabitants 5000 years ago, the evolution theory still holds.
Evolution tells us how life evolved, not what the beginning of life was.
However, religion has one big problem with the evolution theory: it makes a higher power less nescesary. When you think about it, you don't need a God. And that's a dangerous thought to religous people. It's far easier to deny evolution, making creation a nescessity, rather than a possibility.
Another thing I don't understand: if you're convinced that evolution doesn't work, you must also be convinced that this program will never work. Problem solved.
Exactly... well, design can also come about as a result of a physical need in nature that has nothing to do with a higher intelligence, like god... and no real scientist will even try to deny this.
Evolutionary theory doesn't necessarily negate a higher authority, where abiogenesis, evolution, and even the survival instinct arise from the physical need for intelligent humans, where an increase in order represents an increase in the potential for disorder. The effect gets compounded by expansion and a cosmological constant serves to isolate the forces toward the satisfaction of the higher need.
It requires an unfounded leap of faith to presume that humans are anything more or less than required players in the thermodynamic process of the universe, and the fact that we can isolate the release of enough energy to create real particle from the energy of the vacuum puts us right up there with black holes and supernovae in terms of high energy entropic efficiency.
I'm glad you know what you're saying, cuz sure as hell no one else does.
This is a KDE forum, not your own personal crazy-land. Take it elsewhere.
Cheers,
Ryan
Then perhaps you should study the subject that you are so pathetically unable to even address, before you run your ignorant mouth about stuff that you have absolutely no clue about... in ANY forum.
What a totally lame assed ignorant thing to say...
Take it to kindergarden where you belong, punk, because I can assure you that you are utterly clue-less about stuff that any real scientist or even your average science nut can understand.