the big bang

meursault

Tom Dean wrote:

Sorry, the question was badly put when I said "a particle". My point is, scientists are able to quantify the uncertainty and perform experiments that verify theory to a very high level of precision.

OK, but high level, is not exact.

I understand this is the interwebs and neither of us, or anyone, is going to change their position based on what they read here but...

Imagine you are going to the shop to buy a 1kg bag of sugar.

In formal logic terms this is fine, you go into the shop and you pick up and buy a 1kg marked, bag of sugar.

But...

In actual reality, you could never buy an exactly 1kg bag. With accurate scales, you would see the bag never equals 1kg. Due to many (possibly/probably infinite) variables, like bacteria, quantum processes, air pressure, gravity, earths rotation etc. We say 1kg because it's convenient. That's all, convenient but not reality.

Abstract math numbers do not exist in the real world. They are labels that help us make sense of the real world. There is nothing wrong with that, but it's important to realise the difference.

alanp23

Sorry, I do want to jump in now as I think you are confusing a number of issues here.

It is perfectly possible to create an exact 1kg bag of sugar. You are right that if you go down to the shops you will not find one that matches exactly 1kg. That is because the manufacturing process that creates 1kg bags of sugar is not designed to create bags of exactly 1kg. It is only designed to create bags that on average have 1kg in them.

The processes to create an exact 1kg bag would be so expensive to create that it would price that particular bag out of the market. You would need to create a measuring device that weighed right down to quantum measurements. Perfectly possible. You may well need to do it in space as well in order to remove some of the variation factors that you describe. But it is all perfectly possible.

And yes, Heisenbergs uncertainty principle and all that good quantum stuff will come into play, but it is part of reality and will be reflected in the measurements you take.

Hope I make sense. Big Bang to Bags of Sugar - only in a cycling forum thread

Tom Dean

This is what I have an issue with:

meursault wrote:

Imagine you had to weigh some energy. Because it's dynamic, you could never actually weigh it exactly. Now imagine you had to weigh some mass from the other side of the equation. You could also never weigh it for the same reasons stated.

Therefore in reality, E does not equal mass etc.

But as math theory it's fine.

Formal logic is OK to a point, for rough estimations, but it doesn't work for exactness, because everything in reality is dynamic.

You are saying that because the measurements are inaccurate, the maths CANNOT be an accurate description. You must see the flaw in your reasoning here. The maths is either right or wrong, it is not a rough estimate. Our assessment of the theory may depend on the measurement, but the reality is not dependent on our measurement.

pinno

bianchimoon wrote:

DevonClimber wrote:

what happened before the BB, where all the the standard notions and parameters of human thought may just go out of the window .

Spooky Big Bang (BB) has the same initials as Bottom Bracket (BB) where again, all the the standard notions and parameters of human thought go out of the window :shock:

Got to the end of this 7 page epic and still have not seen a single bl00dy decal !

I crawled out of Bottom Bracket where apparently 'all the the standard notions and parameters of human thought go out of the window'.
Now I am going to stick my oar in 'cos the thread has now degenerated into mass and particles and lost its way (ironically).

If Science is now being based on assumption and not observation, philosphy is denied. If the maths don't bend to fit current theories of the universe, then bend the universe because the Western Jewish-Christain culture of Begginning, Middle and End has to be conformed to.
It has been until recently, cosmological herecy to believe in anything other than the big bang theory. In the US, unversities and colleges who do not preach the BB theory were unlikely to get funding in those departments not espousing the BB theory.
The culture supporting the theory of the BB is the same culture that thinks that there is a gene for criminality, a gene with the potential to rape, to murderer etc. It smacks of the convenience of absolutes where in their perfect world, everything can be solved when in fact the reality is somewhat very different and very complex.

Escadrille Ecosse

alanp23 wrote:

Sorry, I do want to jump in now as I think you are confusing a number of issues here.

It is perfectly possible to create an exact 1kg bag of sugar. You are right that if you go down to the shops you will not find one that matches exactly 1kg. That is because the manufacturing process that creates 1kg bags of sugar is not designed to create bags of exactly 1kg. It is only designed to create bags that on average have 1kg in them.

The processes to create an exact 1kg bag would be so expensive to create that it would price that particular bag out of the market. You would need to create a measuring device that weighed right down to quantum measurements. Perfectly possible. You may well need to do it in space as well in order to remove some of the variation factors that you describe. But it is all perfectly possible.

And yes, Heisenbergs uncertainty principle and all that good quantum stuff will come into play, but it is part of reality and will be reflected in the measurements you take.

Hope I make sense. Big Bang to Bags of Sugar - only in a cycling forum thread

Bags of big Bangs, Sugar

Problem with measurement is that once you get beyond the approximation of say "1kg" any absolute accuracy is impossible due to the combination of the discrimination (essentially the number of divisions) of your measuring device and what is called measurement uncertainty and confidence.
The number of divisions bit is fairly obvious, if your scales are marked in say divisions of 1% (0.01kg) then the best you can really measure your 1kg of sugar is +/- 0.01kg. You can keep spending money on your scales but you keep coming down to an integer, with a +/- value and that's even before you have the problem of having an integer number of grains of sugar in your bag which will not add up to a round 1kg even if its only because life's like that (otherwise known as Sod's Law).

Uncertainty of measurement is fairly abstract part of the science of metrology (measuring things) and is best described by the UK gurus on this stuff

http://www.ukas.com/library/Technical-Information/Pubs-Technical-Articles/Pubs-List/M3003.pdf

Pretty arcane and boring, but essentially it is about assessing the effects of getting from the base standard definition of the kg to the device you will use to weigh your sugar. You can't use the standard itself and each transfer from that to your scales adds a layer or potential for measurement error. The upshot of this is that there is always going to be an error (uncertainty) and you can never have 100% confidence in what that uncertainty is...you are in effect doubly screwed.

But at the end of the day if you're just buying sugar for your tea then 1kg is a good enough approximation of reality for the purpose.

meursault

Escadrille Ecosse wrote:

alanp23 wrote:

Sorry, I do want to jump in now as I think you are confusing a number of issues here.

It is perfectly possible to create an exact 1kg bag of sugar. You are right that if you go down to the shops you will not find one that matches exactly 1kg. That is because the manufacturing process that creates 1kg bags of sugar is not designed to create bags of exactly 1kg. It is only designed to create bags that on average have 1kg in them.

The processes to create an exact 1kg bag would be so expensive to create that it would price that particular bag out of the market. You would need to create a measuring device that weighed right down to quantum measurements. Perfectly possible. You may well need to do it in space as well in order to remove some of the variation factors that you describe. But it is all perfectly possible.

And yes, Heisenbergs uncertainty principle and all that good quantum stuff will come into play, but it is part of reality and will be reflected in the measurements you take.

Hope I make sense. Big Bang to Bags of Sugar - only in a cycling forum thread

Bags of big Bangs, Sugar

Problem with measurement is that once you get beyond the approximation of say "1kg" any absolute accuracy is impossible due to the combination of the discrimination (essentially the number of divisions) of your measuring device and what is called measurement uncertainty and confidence.
The number of divisions bit is fairly obvious, if your scales are marked in say divisions of 1% (0.01kg) then the best you can really measure your 1kg of sugar is +/- 0.01kg. You can keep spending money on your scales but you keep coming down to an integer, with a +/- value and that's even before you have the problem of having an integer number of grains of sugar in your bag which will not add up to a round 1kg even if its only because life's like that (otherwise known as Sod's Law).

Uncertainty of measurement is fairly abstract part of the science of metrology (measuring things) and is best described by the UK gurus on this stuff

http://www.ukas.com/library/Technical-Information/Pubs-Technical-Articles/Pubs-List/M3003.pdf

Pretty arcane and boring, but essentially it is about assessing the effects of getting from the base standard definition of the kg to the device you will use to weigh your sugar. You can't use the standard itself and each transfer from that to your scales adds a layer or potential for measurement error. The upshot of this is that there is always going to be an error (uncertainty) and you can never have 100% confidence in what that uncertainty is...you are in effect doubly screwed.

But at the end of the day if you're just buying sugar for your tea then 1kg is a good enough approximation of reality for the purpose.

You have expressed it far more eloquently than I could ever have done. Well played sir.

meursault

alanp23 wrote:

Sorry, I do want to jump in now as I think you are confusing a number of issues here.

It is perfectly possible to create an exact 1kg bag of sugar. You are right that if you go down to the shops you will not find one that matches exactly 1kg. That is because the manufacturing process that creates 1kg bags of sugar is not designed to create bags of exactly 1kg. It is only designed to create bags that on average have 1kg in them.

The processes to create an exact 1kg bag would be so expensive to create that it would price that particular bag out of the market. You would need to create a measuring device that weighed right down to quantum measurements. Perfectly possible. You may well need to do it in space as well in order to remove some of the variation factors that you describe. But it is all perfectly possible.

And yes, Heisenbergs uncertainty principle and all that good quantum stuff will come into play, but it is part of reality and will be reflected in the measurements you take.

Hope I make sense. Big Bang to Bags of Sugar - only in a cycling forum thread

See Escadrille above, I am afraid it is not possible.

meursault

Tom Dean wrote:

This is what I have an issue with:

meursault wrote:

Imagine you had to weigh some energy. Because it's dynamic, you could never actually weigh it exactly. Now imagine you had to weigh some mass from the other side of the equation. You could also never weigh it for the same reasons stated.

Therefore in reality, E does not equal mass etc.

But as math theory it's fine.

Formal logic is OK to a point, for rough estimations, but it doesn't work for exactness, because everything in reality is dynamic.

You are saying that because the measurements are inaccurate, the maths CANNOT be an accurate description. You must see the flaw in your reasoning here. The maths is either right or wrong, it is not a rough estimate. Our assessment of the theory may depend on the measurement, but the reality is not dependent on our measurement.

No, I don't think so. The maths is fine in a maths universe, but no good for reality. I don't see the flaw. Numbers are abstracts, and reality is reality.

If we use my sugar analogy above

1kg + 1kg = 2kg All good in the maths universe.

a bag of sugar + a bag of sugar does not equal two bags of sugar, for reasons posted above. One bag of sugar can never equal another bag of sugar in the real world. There can only be two different bags of sugar.

You can have

apprx 1kg sugar + apprx 1kg sugar = apprx 2kgs sugar.

I am saying formal logic is not accurate enough to describe reality exactly, and this may lead to computational errors.

meursault

Got to the end of this 7 page epic and still have not seen a single bl00dy decal !

I have this one on my ride.

alanp23

I think you are right to move onto decals. I can see how all the arguments get started on here.

This thread has moved from discussing the truth behind the Big Bang to the accuracy of my kitchen scales. I stand by what I say, but I can see where you are coming from, so I am off to bake some scones.

GiantMike

alanp23 wrote:

This thread has moved from discussing the truth behind the Big Bang to the accuracy of my kitchen scales. I stand by what I say, but I can see where you are coming from, so I am off to bake some scones.

And they will taste like sh!t if you don't measure the flour out to 17 decimal places. At some point you'll have to make the decision whether to leave that piece of flour in or out. Unless your making Maths Scones(tm).

Tom Dean

meursault wrote:

a bag of sugar + a bag of sugar does not equal two bags of sugar, for reasons posted above. One bag of sugar can never equal another bag of sugar in the real world. There can only be two different bags of sugar.
...
I am saying formal logic is not accurate enough to describe reality exactly, and this may lead to computational errors.

You are confusing accuracy with precision. A mathematical theory can have absolute precision. Its accuracy is whether it is correct or incorrect. Real world measurements may never be totally precise but it does not follow that the theory is inaccurate, i.e. wrong.

To take the extra step and say a theory can never be correct is nonsense. Your bags of sugar may be equal, regardless of how well you can weigh them, nothing is preventing them from being so.

alanp23

GiantMike wrote:

alanp23 wrote:

This thread has moved from discussing the truth behind the Big Bang to the accuracy of my kitchen scales. I stand by what I say, but I can see where you are coming from, so I am off to bake some scones.

And they will taste like sh!t if you don't measure the flour out to 17 decimal places. At some point you'll have to make the decision whether to leave that piece of flour in or out. Unless your making Maths Scones(tm).

My scone baking skills are not dependent on the accuracy of my scales. I've got far easier methods of making them taste sh!t

simona75

alanp23 wrote:

This thread has moved from discussing the truth behind the Big Bang to the accuracy of my kitchen scales. I

If we're not careful it will soon move onto whether a jet engined plane can take off on a conveyer belt

meursault

Tom Dean wrote:

meursault wrote:

a bag of sugar + a bag of sugar does not equal two bags of sugar, for reasons posted above. One bag of sugar can never equal another bag of sugar in the real world. There can only be two different bags of sugar.
...
I am saying formal logic is not accurate enough to describe reality exactly, and this may lead to computational errors.

You are confusing accuracy with precision. A mathematical theory can have absolute precision. Its accuracy is whether it is correct or incorrect. Real world measurements may never be totally precise but it does not follow that the theory is inaccurate, i.e. wrong.

To take the extra step and say a theory can never be correct is nonsense. Your bags of sugar may be equal, regardless of how well you can weigh them, nothing is preventing them from being so.

I don't agree I am confusing anything. It appears you cannot see the difference between mathematical abstraction and reality.

I have no problem with mathematical formulas being correct, but that they cannot be exactly transferred to reality. You said they can to a high level of precision, that's fine, but it's not exact, therefore, what may be correct on paper cannot be correct in reality.

Two bags of sugar in reality can never be equal, for the reasons already stated. I am just repeating myself now, but there are no two things, that exist in reality, that are the same, or equal. It's just not how reality works. Be it bags of sugar, snowflakes, grains of sand, or anything.

Anyways, are those scones ready yet? I'll take one with a black americano (no sugar).

meursault

simona75 wrote:

alanp23 wrote:

This thread has moved from discussing the truth behind the Big Bang to the accuracy of my kitchen scales. I

If we're not careful it will soon move onto whether a jet engined plane can take off on a conveyer belt

Yes, I have seen this one, on quite a few forums.

GiantMike

meursault wrote:

simona75 wrote:

alanp23 wrote:

This thread has moved from discussing the truth behind the Big Bang to the accuracy of my kitchen scales. I

If we're not careful it will soon move onto whether a jet engined plane can take off on a conveyer belt

Yes, I have seen this one, on quite a few forums.

Why wouldn't it be able to? As long as the airflow over the wing produced sufficient lift and the airflow through the engine produced sufficient thrust to allow the transition from ground to air, all should be good.

[inevitable caveat to stop people putting words into my mouth and then trying to hit me with them] I haven't read the other forum posts, I'm not a Christian fundamentalist, I don't actually care what you think. [/inevitable caveat to stop people putting words into my mouth and then trying to hit me with them]

Tom Dean

meursault wrote:

I have no problem with mathematical formulas being correct, but that they cannot be exactly transferred to reality. You said they can to a high level of precision, that's fine, but it's not exact, therefore, what may be correct on paper cannot be correct in reality.

No! you cannot say 'cannot' here!

You can say you cannot ever have absolute confidence in a theory, but not that a scientific statement can not possibly be true.

meursault

GiantMike wrote:

meursault wrote:

simona75 wrote:

alanp23 wrote:

This thread has moved from discussing the truth behind the Big Bang to the accuracy of my kitchen scales. I

If we're not careful it will soon move onto whether a jet engined plane can take off on a conveyer belt

Yes, I have seen this one, on quite a few forums.

Why wouldn't it be able to? As long as the airflow over the wing produced sufficient lift and the airflow through the engine produced sufficient thrust to allow the transition from ground to air, all should be good.

[inevitable caveat to stop people putting words into my mouth and then trying to hit me with them] I haven't read the other forum posts, I'm not a Christian fundamentalist, I don't actually care what you think. [/inevitable caveat to stop people putting words into my mouth and then trying to hit me with them]

Like the caveat! The thing is, it's only the web, I take the Buddhist position. It doesn't really matter what anyone says( including me). Who cares who's right or wrong? I just post for entertainment.

meursault

Tom Dean wrote:

meursault wrote:

I have no problem with mathematical formulas being correct, but that they cannot be exactly transferred to reality. You said they can to a high level of precision, that's fine, but it's not exact, therefore, what may be correct on paper cannot be correct in reality.

No! you cannot say 'cannot' here!

You can say you cannot ever have absolute confidence in a theory, but not that a scientific statement can not possibly be true.

I'm not sure if you are making a semantics point here or not. Either way, I'm not really interested in getting into that.

Tom Dean

No, the point is nothing to do with semantics. It is to do with the logical validity of your argument.

pinno

Very confused me !

If there is a difference between maths and abstract maths then nothing can be proved when it comes to making presumptions (calculated or not) about the universe.

If I took 1000 presumed 1kg bags of sugar and weighed them on 1000 very accurate scales and came up with an average that was + or - the yardstick of 1kg, can we then suppose that the scones are going to be pretty bang on, 'cos any presumptions about our existence and where we all came from and why are immaterial and unprovable. After all, theories about the universe aren't going to improve my existence or average speeds but scones just might.

If the thought of a winters ride was going to end with a Devonshire cream scone, I just might ride quicker even if there wasn't actually a scone waiting for me: placebo effect of scone.
If the thought of a solid theory of the universe was derived, it may be so overwhelming that I may never ride my bike again: anti placebo effect of the theory of universe.
Thats the Big Scone Theory.

alanp23

Scones are ready!

I've tasted a few and each one is equally as good. Thats Math Scones (tm) for you!

PS I am still agreeing with Tom. I think we are heading towards a statistical sampling debate now.

Cleat Eastwood

Maths on paper can be fine but applied to the real world there are severe limitations - have a look at the Patriot missile failure during the first gulf war.

heres a pea and a microchip

Tom Dean

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Maths on paper can be fine but applied to the real world there are severe limitations - have a look at the Patriot missile failure during the first gulf war.

ultimately attributable to poor handling of rounding errors.

- badly written software.

Cleat Eastwood

Tom Dean wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Maths on paper can be fine but applied to the real world there are severe limitations - have a look at the Patriot missile failure during the first gulf war.

ultimately attributable to poor handling of rounding errors.

- badly written software.

no its a fault in that floats can't be precisely rendered as ram is finite and the numbers infinite- it's well known - it's called imprecision.

I know because I've trying to use a computer to design my ultimate infinite scone.

Tom Dean

I'm not sure what you are driving at. I would hold the engineers responsible for the thing not working, not the numbers.

Daz555

meursault wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

meursault wrote:

I am aware I am straying into philosophy here, but if science is the truth, then it must be universal. Also, I am not anti science, I am merely questioning it's accuracy.

Well science has delivered civilisation so it is certainly pulling its weight at least!

Indeed it did, but civilisation isn't necessarily a good thing, for the future of the species.

Far from it. It is ESSENTIAL for the survival of the human race.

"If the dinosaurs had had a space program, they would not be extinct." Carl Sagan.

GiantMike

Daz555 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Indeed it did, but civilisation isn't necessarily a good thing, for the future of the species.

Far from it. It is ESSENTIAL for the survival of the human race.

"If the dinosaurs had had a space program, they would not be extinct." Carl Sagan.

The trouble with Carl Sagan is that he failed to envisage the full scenario. If the dinosaurs had a space programme I would imagine the geeky dino-nerds would have taken the dino-rocket as soon as the meteorite collision was predicted. There would have been about 35 dino-nerds for every dino-chick, and all the male dino-nerds would just stand around embarrassed and looking at their shoes rather than making moves on the dino-tottie. Therefore, the species would still have died out.

[inevitable caveat to stop people putting words into my mouth and then trying to hit me with them] I am not a dinosaur, nerd, geek or chick. I haven't met Carl Sagan. I accept that the analogy above is probably flawed but I don't really care [/inevitable caveat to stop people putting words into my mouth and then trying to hit me with them]

meursault

Tom Dean wrote:

No, the point is nothing to do with semantics. It is to do with the logical validity of your argument.

I am not sure I can make the case against formal logic any clearer. I am not advocating the end of formal logic, just its shortcomings to bear in mind when say, designing patriot missiles as Mr Eastwood has pointed out.