Erik Dahlberg

Stockholm, Sweden

Someone is shy

Erik hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Erik Dahlberg
Posted about 1 year ago
Allan Adams: The discovery that could rewrite physics
What happened to the details in this talk? Yes, the results are "amazing", that's true. For that reason, a little more time, effort, data, explanation and details could have been devoted to the topic. Ted used to have good talks on Physics. I'm not looking for a full explanation of Inflation theory, but this level is quite frankly boring.
Noface
Erik Dahlberg
Posted almost 3 years ago
Strange questions that humans have not yet found an answer for!
That is an interesting thought. The need for understanding would then supersede the human race and be some kind of fundamental property of the Universe itself. In some sense, I do believe that there is an equilibrium that we are upholding by being. That being said, imho, there is important difference between the view that there is a "reason" that we are here (i.e. "something" put us here with intent for us to fulfill some peculiar plan), on the one hand, and the view that the fundamental properties of the Universe fulfilled the conditions for the possibility for us to evolve, which we happened to do, on the other hand. As you may have guessed, I'm leaning towards the latter. But where will this drive to understand take us? Is it merely an effect of evolution (the ultimate adaptation?) or is there something more to it? Will we even be able to create something more complex than the human body/brain and circumvent "natural evolution"? Perhaps we are only a tool in this natural process of ever-increasing sophistication. It is a staggering thought.
Noface
Erik Dahlberg
Posted almost 3 years ago
Strange questions that humans have not yet found an answer for!
Your claim about a relativistic aether seems plausible. It is interesting. We have gone off topic now, but I do understand what you mean by "materialistic". You are referring to us being limited by our senses, particularly our perception our time, when modeling the World which is perhaps (or, rather, most def) much richer. I agree with this view, although I'm sure sure that a relativistic aether is the ultimate answer. I'm sure that if you present a coherent theory, it will be considered. At least, I really hope so. But what exactly do you mean by "out of time"? How would you, for example, deal with causality out of time? The "spooky action-at-a-distance" is resolved within the framework of general relativity where mass deforms space-time. This is a old controversy from the first part of the last century. There is no force-carrying particle which exceeds the speed of light in general relativity. I withhold that there is nothing magical about it.
Noface
Erik Dahlberg
Posted almost 3 years ago
Strange questions that humans have not yet found an answer for!
Physics is blindly following a path of materialism. Yes you are right. But that is also the whole point of physics - to describe the physical world with a set of models using mathematics. If you must, physics is a belief system like any other. The difference from religion/metaphysics is that physics is well founded in things that we can observe in the physical world. Take away the requirement that a theory should make predictions that could be tested by experiment and you loose the whole foundation (scientific approach) of physics, i.e. you end up in religion. This is not saying that physics should not consider new theories. It's saying that there is a hard line between what is proven scientifically and what is not. When it comes to the fundamental forces, they are indeed explained within the frameworks of general relativity and the Standard Model. Gravity, for example, is an effect of a curved space-time continuum in relativity. Forces in the Standard Model are carried by particles called gauge bosons, gluons and photons. This is most def not the final "model of everything" but it is something that seem to work quite well. I would be hesitant to call it magic.
Noface
Erik Dahlberg
Posted almost 3 years ago
Strange questions that humans have not yet found an answer for!
Thanks for the reply! I believe this is an important point. Feeling is an integrated part pf the human being which should not be forgotten. By "complex" I was not only referring to the intellect, but all aspects of the human being and their interconnections. I'm not all for the subdivision of the human being into different aspects, e.g. emotion, intellect and so on - imho the human being as a whole is more than the sum of her parts. Although it is much trickier to imagine a species with improved feeling capabilities than a species that outsmarts us intellectually. it is not hard to imagine that a more intellectually informed species with larger capabilities of understanding would also outsmart us on the emotional side. As much as we have intellectual flaws, we have emotional flaws. Dozens of examples come to mind - slow ongoing catastrophes like poverty, species extinction, pollution etc. We should have lots of feelings about these things, but aren't we sometimes incapable of feeling when something is too big for us or too far away time- or distance-wise? My original thought was that our strive for technological development is founded in an inherent will to make sense of the World. If we cannot make sense of it ourselves, would we then create ever-more complex species, which in turn would face the same problem. Is it even possible to do that? For example, could we create a species that could think in more than three dimensions? Or is that inherently impossible? Increasing complexity is obviously driven by evolution, but can we take control of the process and design a more complex being?
Noface
Erik Dahlberg
Posted almost 3 years ago
In double slit experiment of Thomas Young, why do electrons (particles) behave like waves when we aren't observing them?
I agree with this view. We most def limit ourselves when trying to extrapolate quantum phenomena to our world. The wave and the particle are only pictures we use, abstractions. I don't believe that the act of observation has anything "magical" to it as in "the object cares about how it's being observed". The choice of viewpoint simply brings certain characteristica into view.
Noface
Erik Dahlberg
Posted almost 3 years ago
Strange questions that humans have not yet found an answer for!
Can mankind create something more complex than man? I'm thinking a more sophisticated being. Could this being in turn create an even more sophisticated being? Where would it end up? God? Is this the final point with our ever accelerating development? Are we so confused by our own existence that we need to create God to make sense of it all?
Noface
Erik Dahlberg
Posted almost 3 years ago
What will be the best renewable source of energy in 2050?
I'd say solar in some form. After all, most energy have their origin in solar. Perhaps if we can use photosynthesis in some clever way. For nuclear, molten salt reactors is promising as a safer alternative. I'm sceptical if we can make cold fusion work before 2050. And hot fusion is coupled with extensive risks.
Noface
Erik Dahlberg
Posted almost 3 years ago
If the universe is expanding - what is it expanding into?
Imho, you are asking what something is that per definition does not exist. Our perception of "being" includes there being a fabric of space and time to "be" in. The Universe is not expanding into anything, but it's structure is changing in a way we perceive as expansion, measured by the red shift of light from far away objects. It's like asking what would happen if there would be no time - nothing would happen since per definition things don't tend to "happen" when there is no time.