[Toehammer]

There is a lot of anger/incredulity in your post, so I have to do a point-by-point response.

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For your jumbled wall of text, it strikes me as odd, I'll go back over it this evening when I have time to address some of it and capsulate a readable reply.



But for this, it strikes me as really odd. We're not even a type 1 civilization. Not even close to a type 1 civilization yet. It's really really odd that you try to counter even this if truly being into science, then speak of star dust as some counter argument. Are we just arguing for arguing sake now? This is mainstream stuff, and it's seriously odd it seemed to go over your head as well.

Not jumbled at all. Who gives a sh*t if we are Type 1, Type 2, Type qr94et? We have never detected any life outside of Earth. That makes us the biggest kid on the block. You probably should say, "we may be small.” The bottom line is we have no friggin idea what the next 100 years will be like, all this oracle-like crystal ball reading about the Type X future is just (science) fiction. It is such an egotistical human belief that we can even comprehend what the world will look like down the road. Hey we could reach Type QRT future even faster than you realize… nobody knows. Show Einstein a modern computer and his brain would shoot out his nose.

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I still don't know what to make of this ... Wat??

When I say quantum, I'm clearly not speaking of the atomic level, not the atom. Have you ever heard of the subatomic? Even in my second paragraph, I mentioned it again with quantum physics. You're trying to convince me that an atom is on the quantum level??? Bro, are you like a time traveler from the 1950's? Einstein only laid the foundation for quantum physics, but his study was on the atomic level.

No, I don’t need to convince you that an atom is at the quantum level. Scientific experiments can speak for me. In fact, molecules are “on the quantum level”. Educate yourself on “macroscopic cat states”. They have done double-slit experiments with bucky-balls: 60 atoms of carbon. Since I don’t do research on quantum optics anymore, I haven’t followed the PhysRevLett/Nature/Science literature on macroscopic cat states closely in the last 10 years or so, but people are constantly breaking the limit. So yes, atoms are quantum. Subatomic, yes, also quantum. Also, Einstein laid the first floor for quantum physics, but Botlzmann/Planck/Faraday/Thomson laid the foundation.

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You say we are made up of star dust, but can you even explain the atom?? Though we know the atom exists, and daaaang the amount of energy contained in just one, but explain to me how the atom is almost all empty space yet matter can be solid? And really, when you start to look into quantum theory, your looking into a whole universe of things within an atom, maybe even around it. You can see that with your human vision??? What do we need CERN for then? hehe. And even CERN is like a plastic toy hand shovel in a sandbox. Shoot I think it was a type two civilization can build a sphere around a star and capture it's energy (Dyson sphere), and there are 5 theorized levels of civilization. We're not even at 1.

Yes, I can explain the atom, in fact very well. Atoms are in fact not hard. They are soft. The hard-sphere approximation, though highly useful, is a crude mathematical tool. You are confusing the words hard and solid. Solid usually refers to a phase of matter where atoms are fixed in 3d space (not necessarily crystalline) such that they can be modeled with a moment of inertia (i.e. the solid can be translated/rotated without deforming the solid, or, rather shifting the spatial arrangement of atoms) . Hard refers essentially to stiffness, or in more layman 1D terms, a spring constant. Even monoatomic gases have non-zero compressibility. This was one of the problems quantum (statistical mechanics) solved.

To make it as simple as possible for you, look at the radial position expectation value of the only electron in a ground state of hydrogen. Now look at hydrogen gas, H2, which has a compressibility. The fact H2 is compressible shows that it is not hard. Even monatomic gases are compressible. There is no such thing as perfectly hard. The empty space and the finite speed of light mediating the electrodynamic interactions between nucleus (positive) and boundary (electron orbitals) cause the atom to be soft.

I don’t know what you mean by whole universe in the atom. But no, I cannot see atoms with my eyes. If again you restrict yourself to only being able to see things with your eyes, well I am lost for words. Science has broadened our senses dramatically. Go use an infrared scope/binoculars.

CERN is a friggin goliath. Yes, compared to a hypothetical Dyson Sphere, it is small scale. Why are we back to this Type XYZ sci-fi stuff again? In hindsight even Dyson wishes his name wasn’t attached to the concept. He took the idea from a 1930s sci-fi novel. If you are having trouble grasping the atom, then you can completely abandon the idea of a Type 1/2/3 civilisation that depends on the trust in quantum mechanics to build these futuristic sci-fi wet dreams.

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And you kinda throw around the word evolution, maybe you didn't understand my meaning of macro-evolution? We've never witnessed macro-evolution, only micro-evolution. They are not the same thing, nor both contained in the word evolution as some generic term. It's all just neo-darwinism, as much as a matter of faith to science as it is to the jehovah witnesses faith (which is facepalm too). But don't say the wrong thing in science circles, you might get excommunicated. Wow, science operates like a modern religion too, or more like a cult.

I don’t know anything really about the direct observations of macro-evolution. As you mention micro-evolution has been observed. I agree with you 100% that a lot of belief in science is faith-based, but that is because humans perform science, and the emphasis/duty placed on scientists to replicate experiments has been disappearing at a scarily rapid pace; this is mostly due to the time that tenure and funding in academia saps away from critical lab time spent working to verify/invalidate other people’s ideas/experiments. I place the blame on the skewing of academia towards a business model, the funding agencies, and the lack of scientific knowledge displayed by the public, and hence their general misunderstanding of high-risk high-reward research.

Yes, you are 100% right that it is dangerous in science to go against the grain and that a cult-like mentality can form. It is not dangerous to say the wrong thing though, as long as you are young in your career. Make as many mistakes as possible as soon as possible. However, every single noble-prize winning physicist I have talked with is most interested in wild ideas, sort of on the fringe. Science is always firmly anchored to experimental fact, so the theory/experience must match up. To push the boundaries of knowledge, science must constantly excommunicate “crazies", only to pull them back in once their mad scientist ways are vindicated by experiment. This is why I believe great scientists are the most creative people, much more so than artists/musicians. The world is so wacky it is much more intriguing than painting or prose.

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh and yes, dark ages. Most certainly. Geez, how can you not recognize that potential. No time in known history were we able to do soooo much damage than we are today. And not just from releasing the energy from atoms, but as well releasing genetic mutations never seen on Earth to this day, all emerging from a lab. Dark Age is an understatement, really. Humanity has lost it's mind.

I think my point about science -> dark ages was misunderstood. All I am trying to say is that neither science nor religion leads to dark ages. People abusing the power of science or religion leads to dark ages. I don’t want to start a gun control argument, but guns have potential to lead to bad things, but only in the wrong human hands. Same thing with science/religion. Humanity may pull the nuclear trigger, and might have poor foresight with what their inventions could inspire in the hands of bad people. But it is better for good people to develop the technology and lead the way than stick their head in the sand, ignore the burgeoning science, and then plead with the crazy evil scientists once the doomsday technology has been fully developed. Yes, sometimes science gets out of control, but it is foolish to think we have lost our mind any more than previous generations. Of course their is potential… there is always potential. As I stated above: "Religion didn't lead us into a dark age, and science never will. That mantle solely rests on the shoulders of good/bad, wise/foolish, and humble/vain humans. Science and religion, though created by humans, cannot impose anything on us unless we allow it.” Cart before the horse man.