The evolution of complex life

Perry Phimosis said:
Again, probably not technically correct. I'm not sure when the first rate kinetic was calculated, but the rate kinetics which cover radioactive decay are first order. This is a standard rate kinetic even for some chemical reactions that we use every day.

The concepts around statistical modeling of stochastic processes have actually been around for a rather long time.

Is the point that one day you think we WILL be able to predict accurately when a given radioactive atom will decay?
Click to expand...

"Man will never fly"

"Man will never land on the Moon"

My point is that part of science is being able to measure things. That what appears to be random isn't necessarily so.
 
Cypress said:
Let's just say it was unusual that our solar system formed out of a nebula that was relatively enriched in heavy elements, making life here possible.
Click to expand...

Sure. I imagine that we can say that.

Nevertheless, I'm reminded of a crack from The Sopranos.

"I hear that you're study astronomy in school; your dad told me that you were taking up space."
 
Doc Dutch said:
Anything that can be predicted isn't random. :)
Click to expand...

We know the weak nuclear force causes radioactive decay, and we can stoichiastically predict with precision how a collection of neutrons will decay to protons in a closed system of any particular radioactive isotope. It's never been clear to me how scientifically meaningful it is to worry about our lack of predictive ability for one single neutron.
 
Cypress said:
We know the weak nuclear force causes radioactive decay, and we can stoichiastically predict with precision how a collection of neutrons will decay to protons in a closed system of any particular radioactive isotope. It's never been clear to me how scientifically meaningful it is to worry about our lack of predictive ability for one single neutron.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The point being that it's not certain that it's unknowable as was suggested earlier. We only know we can't do it now.

The entire science of meteorology is based upon what our ancestors considered largely random events. While it's not exactly precise yet, it's getting a lot better.

Part of the global warming controversy is predicting what will happen. Exactly what will happen. I believe that eventually such predictions can be nailed down with near certainty.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed. The point being that it's not certain that it's unknowable as was suggested earlier. We only know we can't do it now.

The entire science of meteorology is based upon what our ancestors considered largely random events. While it's not exactly precise yet, it's getting a lot better.
Click to expand...

Weather is better described by chaos theory, rather than true randomness. Chaotic systems have some underlying order and deterministic elements.
 
Cypress said:
Weather is better described by chaos theory, rather than true randomness. Chaotic systems have some underlying order and deterministic elements.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The more we learn, the better our computers, the better the predictability.
 
Cypress said:
Weather is better described by chaos theory, rather than true randomness. Chaotic systems have some underlying order and deterministic elements.
Click to expand...

But you will note that weather is still modeled using probabilities.

Yes there may be some degree of determinancy at some level of everything but there is a possibility for many things that we may never know what the underlying structure actually is. That's why probabilities and statistics are so useful in modeling physical systems.

You simply DON'T NEED to know the deterministic factors if you model the ensemble.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed. The more we learn, the better our computers, the better the predictability.
Click to expand...

There's an obvious limit to that. At some point you cannot have enough "bits" to calculate the motions and/or features of every component of a system.

Think of the compute power needed to model every molecule in a molar volume of a gas. One mole of gas and you have 6,02*10^23 molecules of gas. If you want a challenge try calculating the exact speed and path for every molecule in 22.4L of that gas (that's a molar volume at STP).

At some point the "possible" is not really possible. It's theoretically calculable but realistically isn't going to happen. Nor does it need to.
 
Cypress said:
We know the weak nuclear force causes radioactive decay, and we can stoichiastically predict with precision how a collection of neutrons will decay to protons in a closed system of any particular radioactive isotope.
Click to expand...

That's not all of radioactive decay. Yes beta decay in which a proton-->neutron + electron and the electron goes flying off a the beta particle. But there are obviously other forms of decay.

It's never been clear to me how scientifically meaningful it is to worry about our lack of predictive ability for one single neutron.
Click to expand...

Because one neutron cannot be predicted. The best you can do is predict the half-life of a large number of them.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
There's an obvious limit to that. At some point you cannot have enough "bits" to calculate the motions and/or features of every component of a system.

Think of the compute power needed to model every molecule in a molar volume of a gas. One mole of gas and you have 6,02*10^23 molecules of gas. If you want a challenge try calculating the exact speed and path for every molecule in 22.4L of that gas (that's a molar volume at STP).

At some point the "possible" is not really possible. It's theoretically calculable but realistically isn't going to happen. Nor does it need to.
Click to expand...

"Man will never fly" - Anon

When Apollo 1 burned on the pad, in the investigation and testimony that followed, it was said the cause of the fire was "a failure of imagination".

It's one thing to say "We can't do that now". It's a failure of imagination to say, "We'll never be able to do that".
 
Perry Phimosis said:
That's not all of radioactive decay. Yes beta decay in which a proton-->neutron + electron and the electron goes flying off a the beta particle. But there are obviously other forms of decay.



Because one neutron cannot be predicted. The best you can do is predict the half-life of a large number of them.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm not remembering physics 101 correctly, all radioactive decay is mediated by the weak force.

Yes, I know that we lack predictive ability for the decay of one individual proton. What I've never been clear on is why there is any scientific importance to understanding the behavior of an individual neutron, when we understand that system stoichiastically perfectly well
 
Perry Phimosis said:
But you will note that weather is still modeled using probabilities.

Yes there may be some degree of determinancy at some level of everything but there is a possibility for many things that we may never know what the underlying structure actually is. That's why probabilities and statistics are so useful in modeling physical systems.

You simply DON'T NEED to know the deterministic factors if you model the ensemble.
Click to expand...

My understanding of Chaos theory is that chaotic systems behave deterministically in theory, but it is beyond our capability to do anything but model it probabilistically.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if these unthinking natural laws will spontaneously trigger the formation of a new universe under certain circumstances, then obviously it is the "certain circumstances" which are the cause, not the natural laws......that should be obvious.....it is the catalyst which is the key......
Click to expand...


Talking about catalysts is just a fancy way of saying we have no idea how it all happened. Catalyst in this context is so nebulous as to be practically useless.

The physical forces did not appear at the instant of inflation. They supposedly froze out of the grand unified force in the first nanoseconds of the inflation.

For all I know the grand unified force is eternal. Or maybe not. As far as I know there is no guarantee that the universe couldn't have existed eternally at the Planck scale of space and time, before begining it's inflationary phase at 13.7 billion years before present.
 
Cypress said:
My understanding of Chaos theory is that chaotic systems behave deterministically in theory, but it is beyond our capability to do anything but model it probabilistically.
Click to expand...

Not an expert, but I agree with that; all matter follows the natural laws of the Universe. Atoms were set in motion after the Big Bang and have been bouncing around according to Natural Law ever since. The main variable is how lifeforms alter those motions. Mankind builds dams and uses kinetic weapons to alter the course of asteroids.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top