The Big Bang

[Xenophon]

I don't know if I have posted about this before. But in light of the fact that they have new "evidence" that supports the big bang theory, I thought I would bring it up.

I think that the Big Bang theory is a load of bullshit. Seriously, it doesn't make any sense to me. As far as I understand, the idea is that everything, all the energy in the universe was created in an instant 108 billion years ago. Somehow there was a blip in the system, and bang, there is everything. And since that time we have just been following the laws of thermodynamics, which mysteriously fell asleep for an instant 108 billion years ago.

To me, it takes just as much faith to believe this as it would to believe that there is some old man in the sky who one day decided that he was going to create the world, (or the universe).

I obviously don't know the specifics of how they say inflation worked, I am just arguing that the idea, regardless of the justifications that people have come up with in it's defense, is stupid. Just as stupid as the Creation story from the bible.

(I'm not not a Creationist, so please don't take this post as somehow an argument in favour of Creationism. I don't think that we should be limited to believe in one or the other. I think that is sort of like being limited to being either a Democrat or a Republican.)

[ApeTheDog]

I don't doubt that there is more to the big bang theory than is known, and possibly can ever be known.

What it is, though, is simply all we know. It's possible something caused the big bang - one theory I heard about in supernova's "string theory" series of tv shows was that dimensions (imagine them as waving sheets) bumping into one another would release an incredibly amount of energy in both those universes. The big bang would have been one of those things.

You make the assumption that before the big bang there was nothing - that it all just miraculously happened. That's not what the theory is meanth as. The theory just chronicles everything we know happened - that's all. It doesn't fill in any details we don't know anything about - but that doesn't mean there is nothing there.

Imagine a hunter that goes: "when you shoot a bear, blood comes out of it" - he doesn't know anything else, but he's certain of this. It would be stupid to say that his theory is false, just because at the time he says it, and you hear it, you don't yet know how blood is made, how it is transported throughout the system - basically why it happened.

Likewise, I think it would be stupid to claim the big bang theory is wrong... it is proven after all - just because we don't know more about it. We've observed it, it's a fact - that's all we can go on. There are bound to be millions of things we don't know yet, such as what caused it, but to disprove the theory because those facts aren't known yet wouldn't be correct. What we know right now has been proven to be correct.

[Xenophon]

However, the big bang is not something that is directly observable. It is an extrapolation of certain circumstances that we observe in the universe to 108 billion years in the past. The two major circumstances that I have heard about, are the fact that all the galaxies we can observe are moving away from each other, with a speed that is proportional to distance, and that there is a background radiation throughout the observable universe that appears to have no source.

I agree that it would be stupid to dispute these observable facts, but I don't think that it is stupid to dispute what conclusions are drawn from them. I would say there is a much greater chance that our understanding of the fundamental nature of reality is incomplete, and these observable phenomenons have some other explanation. In a way I think that the Big Bang is an excuse for people to think that we know a lot more about the universe than we actually do know.

[Lee]

I don't really understand your objection, the big bang is a scientific theory, like all scientific theories it may be shown wrong oneday, besides... the big bang does not purport to explain the first cause, it simply tries to explain what happened next (at least to my knowledge).

[Magajy]

I agree that it would be stupid to dispute these observable facts, but I don't think that it is stupid to dispute what conclusions are drawn from them.

Fair and square. Come up with some other theory and throw it up for scrutiny. Disputing the bing bang with no alternative isn't taking us anywhere.

[joft]

I just assume it's cyclic, from being recursively bent into itself; something that bends all the way in one direction and then flips (but in x dimensions) (and it's a weird ass shape)

it's fun to think about and make shit up

[Kilby]

Does anybody know how the story really goes
Or do we all just hum along
Sell your soul and sign an autograph
Big bang baby, it's a crash, crash, crash

I wanna die, but I gotta laugh
Orange crush mama is a laugh, laugh, laugh

Spin me up, spin me, spin me out
Station to station send me up and out
Is that what life and love is all about
I think I think so

STP "Big Bang Baby"

[Xenophon]

Ok, here's a theory: There is some sort of background energy that exists in space (whatever that is). And given enough space, there is a slight probability that a matter and anti-matter pair will create themselves, and since they are in deep space, they don't end up annihilating each other. Because of gravity or something else, the matter pair is attracted to other matter, and the anti-matter is attracted to other anti-matter. In this way, eventually we get large gatherings of matter, that eventually create galaxies, and solar systems, etc.

This would explain why things are moving away from each other, because matter is constantly being created between them, and they are actually diffusing.

Obviously I'm not a physicist, so this idea could be completely bogus, but it makes more sense to me than the big bang.

[joft]

why? where would the first matter come from?

[Xenophon]

Heh.. has anybody heard "Big Bizang" by MC Hawking?

In the beginning there was nothing, not even time.
No planets, no stars, no hip-hop, no rhyme.
But then there was a bang like the sound of my gat.
The universe began, and that shit was phat.

The universe began as a singularity.
Nobody knows what when on then key.
Then for ten million trillion trillion trillionths of a second
The state of the universe cannot be reckoned.

The fundamental forces wer unified.
We've no theory to describe it, though I've tried.
Then the forces split and the universe was born.
It was hotter than a priest watching kiddie porn.

Protons, neutrons, and electrons came to pass.
As photons collided changing energy to mass.
Three minutes go by, hence its down one billion.
Down from one hundred billion trillion trillion.

This reduced heat allowed a new event.
The formation of heavier elements.
Still it was millions of years before the first star glowed.
If your down with the bang, sing along here we go.

It was a big pow pi-zow bang-a-dang diggy diggy.
Boom diggy boom ka-boom the big bizang.

A big pow pi-zow bang-a-dang diggy diggy.
Boom diggy boom ka-boom the big bizang.

Great song.. I should find a way to host it for you guys.

[Xenophon]

why? where would the first matter come from?

It was just created from space. But there is no real need for a beginning with this theory. It is just the nature of the universe that matter is constantly being created.

[distraction tactics]

I'm not sure where you're getting the '108 billion years' figure - scientists believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

The Big Bang, while being very fantastical is also horribly misunderstood. The actual 'bang' itself doesn't refer to anything earlier than 10^-43 seconds into the creation of the universe - the unit of Planck time (we can't split time into any smaller segments than that).

Honestly, I think you should just read a book or two.


Ok, here's a theory: There is some sort of background energy that exists in space (whatever that is). And given enough space, there is a slight probability that a matter and anti-matter pair will create themselves, and since they are in deep space, they don't end up annihilating each other. Because of gravity or something else, the matter pair is attracted to other matter, and the anti-matter is attracted to other anti-matter. In this way, eventually we get large gatherings of matter, that eventually create galaxies, and solar systems, etc.

What is the point is this 'whatever that is' energy? Where did it come from? What effect does 'deep space' have that a fundamental part of physics and logic - opposites cancelling each other out - can be ignored?


Obviously I'm not a physicist, so this idea could be completely bogus, but it makes more sense to me than the big bang.

I guess that's what really matters.

[Xenophon]

I read an article yesterday in wired or something. And I remembered the number wrong. I'm not particularily concerned with the numbers involved actually. I'm saying that the over-arching idea doesn't make sense, not the specifics. Anyways, the argument that the big bang theory doesn't cover anythign before the first planck unit of time is sort of fishy to me. What I get from that is: Well, we can come up with a scenario that makes sense all the way up to this tiny instant after the big bang, and before that. Well, according to our theory we can't possibly know anything before that, so... well anything could have happened. That seems like a cop-out to me.

As for your argument against "my" theory. I am saying that if there is enough space, then maybe it would be possible for those opposites to create each other, and not immediately annihilate each other. And if there is nothing else around, then they could happily go on their way. We could never observe something like this happening on earth, as we are very firmly set in the realm of matter. anti-matter just doesn't stand a chance around here.

I am not a physicist, but I am working on a graduate degree in engineering, and so I have a very good understanding of the very real limitations that scientists work with. One thing that is constant with all Scientists is their need for funding. This has a huge effect on what research it is possible to do, and people's honesty regarding what their research has told them. There is immense pressure to be published in peer-reviewed journals and thus people have to make it sounds like they have much more definitive results than they actually do, and these results have to be in line with the commonly accepted view of the time, or else they won't be published.

[Xenophon]

What is the point is this 'whatever that is' energy? Where did it come from? What effect does 'deep space' have that a fundamental part of physics and logic - opposites cancelling each other out - can be ignored?

I don't see why it is so much more logical that everything came into existance an instant before the big bang, rather than it constantly coming into existance.

[Nadiar]

One thing that I have never understood, is that if all of the mass of the universe were packed into a single object, that object would have more than enough mass to create a black hole (perhaps what you might term a super back hole). So the question is, how does something like that explode? I'm sure someone has a scientific answer, its just my specialty.

Quantum mechanics says that the black hole could radiate some fairly exotic radiation, and eventually die, becoming something other than a black hole. But... that wouldn't make it explode.

So the alternative, is you had this massive ball of energy that exploded, and as it exploded, it began creating matter. In which case... how the hell did that happen?

[abathur]

But, if you have enough time, anything happens! Duhr!

[domokun]

One thing that I have never understood, is that if all of the mass of the universe were packed into a single object, that object would have more than enough mass to create a black hole (perhaps what you might term a super back hole). So the question is, how does something like that explode? I'm sure someone has a scientific answer, its just my specialty.

Quantum mechanics says that the black hole could radiate some fairly exotic radiation, and eventually die, becoming something other than a black hole. But... that wouldn't make it explode.

So the alternative, is you had this massive ball of energy that exploded, and as it exploded, it began creating matter. In which case... how the hell did that happen?
the Big Bang happened everywhere. Due to infinite density, space-time was distorted infinitely. Thats why BB radiation is the same everywhere.

[Google Monster]

The main thing in physics that supports the big bang theory is what Hubble discovered. That the universe is expanding which is known as red shifting. So with this knowledge one must come up with the best possible explantion to support this discovery. Which has eventually lead to the belief that the whole universe must have been at one point closer together in a singularity.

As for anti-matter attracting other anti-matter, this would not happen because two particles of the same charge will result in a repulsion rather than attraction.

[distraction tactics]

I read an article yesterday in wired or something. And I remembered the number wrong. I'm not particularily concerned with the numbers involved actually. I'm saying that the over-arching idea doesn't make sense, not the specifics.

If you're not concerned with the specifics or 'numbers involved'... It's like watching someone drive by in a car and saying, "Duhhh, that doesn't make sense..."

...and by that, I mean to say the indictment involved isn't whether or not a car works.


Anyways, the argument that the big bang theory doesn't cover anythign before the first planck unit of time is sort of fishy to me. What I get from that is: Well, we can come up with a scenario that makes sense all the way up to this tiny instant after the big bang, and before that. Well, according to our theory we can't possibly know anything before that, so... well anything could have happened. That seems like a cop-out to me.

We can measure the rate of change over a second. We can measure the rate of change over a millisecond. We can't measure the rate of change of anything less than the Planck unit of time anymore than we can break the speed of light. Until we can, we will never know what happened within the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe. Understand?


As for your argument against "my" theory. I am saying that if there is enough space, then maybe it would be possible for those opposites to create each other, and not immediately annihilate each other. And if there is nothing else around, then they could happily go on their way. We could never observe something like this happening on earth, as we are very firmly set in the realm of matter. anti-matter just doesn't stand a chance around here.

What do you mean by 'enough space'? Are you not familiar with how large the universe actually is? If you want a cup of water to spontaneously combust, pouring it into a 5-gallon pail is not going to get any results. Quantum fluctuation is happening everywhere all the time, but it doesn't work in the way you wish it did.


I don't see why it is so much more logical that everything came into existance an instant before the big bang, rather than it constantly coming into existance.

My only advice to you is to crack a book before you form an opinion on something.


One thing that I have never understood, is that if all of the mass of the universe were packed into a single object, that object would have more than enough mass to create a black hole (perhaps what you might term a super back hole). So the question is, how does something like that explode? I'm sure someone has a scientific answer, its just my specialty.

That's what scientists don't know - by all rights the universe should have never expanded, and that's where inflation theory comes in. What they do know is that present conditions of space-time allowing for the formation of black holes do not mirror the nature of the universe prior to 10^-43 seconds.


Quantum mechanics says that the black hole could radiate some fairly exotic radiation, and eventually die, becoming something other than a black hole. But... that wouldn't make it explode.

Hawking radiation... Interestingly enough, many scientists are having second thoughts - there was an interesting article in Scientific American about it a few months ago.

[domokun]

probe_looks_back_to_less_than_a_second_after_big_bang (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/17/probe_looks_back_to_less_than_a_second_after_big_bang/)

[Xenophon]

If you're not concerned with the specifics or 'numbers involved'... It's like watching someone drive by in a car and saying, "Duhhh, that doesn't make sense..."

...and by that, I mean to say the indictment involved isn't whether or not a car works.
No, this is like if someone came to me, and told me that they had an engine that worked at exactly the Carnot efficiency for heat engine cycles. I would say that even though this is mathematically possible, it is never going to happen physically. It might be possible to mathematically proove that there has to be a certain amount of innefficiency in an engine, but that would ultimately not be particularily interesting because I am not making a mathematical statement.


We can measure the rate of change over a second. We can measure the rate of change over a millisecond. We can't measure the rate of change of anything less than the Planck unit of time anymore than we can break the speed of light. Until we can, we will never know what happened within the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe. Understand?
Semantically, measurement is a very messy process, and we never actually measure the rate of change of something. We measure something, and calculate it's rate of change from that measurement. Maybe it's the engineer in me, but after years and years of math courses telling me what could happen, I have realized that what can happen mathematically, rarely actually corresponds with what does happen.

However, this is a moot point. I'm not arguing whether we can measure something faster than the planck unit of time. I'm not even arguing whether it is possible to know what happened billions of years ago. I'm arguing that there is something wrong with the qualitative assumptions that are the basic premise for the mathematics involved with the big bang theory. Arguing against that point with mathematics is a Red Herring.


What do you mean by 'enough space'? Are you not familiar with how large the universe actually is? If you want a cup of water to spontaneously combust, pouring it into a 5-gallon pail is not going to get any results. Quantum fluctuation is happening everywhere all the time, but it doesn't work in the way you wish it did.
Of course I'm not familliar with how large the universe actually is. In fact, I would say that nobody is. I think that you are vastly overestimating humanities understanding of the universe. As I said, I can't argue about the specifics of quantum fluctuations, and though I'm sure you understand how they work perfectly, obviously these specifics are not source of my discomfort with the big bang theory.

When you have a theory that proves that something extremely ridiculous will happen. Usually this means that there is something wrong with the theory, not that something extremely ridiculous did actually happen.


My only advice to you is to crack a book before you form an opinion on something.
Like I could go and read the Elegant Universe and then form an opinion on super-string theory. And then I would realize that the super-string theory is strictly a mathematical exercise with no empirical evidence to back it up. And as soon as it made a prediction as wierd as the big bang is, I would not believe it either.


That's what scientists don't know - by all rights the universe should have never expanded, and that's where inflation theory comes in. What they do know is that present conditions of space-time allowing for the formation of black holes do not mirror the nature of the universe prior to 10^-43 seconds.
This doesn't seem at all fishy to you???? It's like they are not willing to admit that they don't perfectly understand the universe for the past 13.7 billion years. However, since our understanding doesn't explain why things are how they are, we are going to push all of the shit that we don't understand into the 10^-43 seconds at the beginning of the universe.

[deus ex machina]

the unit of Planck time (we can't split time into any smaller segments than that).


Seriously?! That's a philosophical question I never understood, and has always intrigued me (i.e. like Zeno's paradox). I never knew that was what Planck time was. Very cool, now I have something to research all day!

Not to highjack the thread, but this falls into line with something I have always wondered about. If you could cut time down into the smallest possible unit, then following basic assumptions of science (like determinism) it seems feasible that you could accurately predict the state of movement that a system will take into the next slice of time, and so forth. Could you do this with thoughts? Is everything determined precisely before it occurs following my current physical state?

Shit I need to take some physics classes. I really don't know much in this area, and the concept of time really fucking intrigues me.

[Xenophon]

Seriously?! That's a philosophical question I never understood, and has always intrigued me (i.e. like Zeno's paradox). I never knew that was what Planck time was. Very cool, now I have something to research all day!

Not to highjack the thread, but this falls into line with something I have always wondered about. If you could cut time down into the smallest possible unit, then following basic assumptions of science (like determinism) it seems feasible that you could accurately predict the state of movement that a system will take into the next slice of time, and so forth. Could you do this with thoughts? Is everything determined precisely before it occurs following my current physical state?

Shit I need to take some physics classes. I really don't know much in this area, and the concept of time really fucking intrigues me.

Well, that is pretty much exactly what we do in systems engineering (what I am doing my graduate degree in). We create a mathematical model of a system and by knowing the complete state of the system at any time, we can theoretically predict where the system came from and where it is going. This is all well and good theoretically, but practically speaking it is impossible to create a model accurate enough that you could actually predict what will happen. To actually control a physical system we need be constantly measuring some output, and fixing our model values based on that information.

We work with both continuous systems and discrete systems. And the planck time, I guess tells us that a continuous system becomes discrete system if we magnify it enough. However, the planck unit of time is so ridiculously small it isn't really of much practical value.

As for the question of determinism. It may be that we live in a deterministic universe, but I would use the concept of observability from systems theory to say: While the universe may be deterministic if we know its total state at any point in time, it is theoretically impossible to determine the exact state of the universe at a certain instant, as it has unobservable subjective modes which cannot be measured in the objective world.

[deus ex machina]

Well, that is pretty much exactly what we do in systems engineering (what I am doing my graduate degree in). We create a mathematical model of a system and by knowing the complete state of the system at any time, we can theoretically predict where the system came from and where it is going. This is all well and good theoretically, but practically speaking it is impossible to create a model accurate enough that you could actually predict what will happen. To actually control a physical system we need be constantly measuring some output, and fixing our model values based on that information.

Now that sounds like a fascinating field! Does this field do any work with AI yet?


We work with both continuous systems and discrete systems. And the planck time, I guess tells us that a continuous system becomes discrete system if we magnify it enough. However, the planck unit of time is so ridiculously small it isn't really of much practical value.

Would you mind elaborating on this just a bit. I understand what discrete and continous scales are, but not in this context. What would be an example of a continuous system you work with in systems engineering?


As for the question of determinism. It may be that we live in a deterministic universe, but I would use the concept of observability from systems theory to say: While the universe may be deterministic if we know its total state at any point in time, it is theoretically impossible to determine the exact state of the universe at a certain instant, as it has unobservable subjective modes which cannot be measured in the objective world.

I'm going to have to look more into this, and that definetely sounds valid. I have to find out more aobut this conept of "observability" before I really accept such a view, but it makes sense from what you say. I'm really thrilled to hear about this field. I'll have to get some kind of introductory text that goes over the basic concepts, but I really feel like there are a lot of philosophical issues that can be raised and answered using this field.

[Xenophon]

Now that sounds like a fascinating field! Does this field do any work with AI yet?
In general there isn't a lot of AI work in control systems, as general AI algorithms are just too complicated for the needs of a systems engineering. There are different things like adaptive/learning control systems. Fuzzy logic and Neural Networks are being used more and more in control systems nowadays. However, they are still fairly theoretical. Most control systems in use today use much more classical methods of state-space analysis and frequency response.


Would you mind elaborating on this just a bit. I understand what discrete and continous scales are, but not in this context. What would be an example of a continuous system you work with in systems engineering?
Generally anything that involves motion is a continuous system. For example say I want to characterize a falling rock. I can't just look at its position to characterize the state of the system at any time. I have to know its position and all the derivatives of position (velocity, acceleration, jerk, etc.) What makes this system continuous is the fact that there can be no discrete jumps in the state, the rock cannot instantly change from one position to another, and in the same way velocity cannot instantly change from one value to another, it must accelerate. Of course, it would be silly to try to work with ALL the derivatives of position, so we generally approximate the system by modelling position and velocity with acceleration being the input to the system.

Instead of being characterized by derivatives, a discrete system is characterized by differences. At one instant, we have a certain amount of something, and at the next interval we have a different amount. Anything done with a digital computer must be my definition discrete, due to the fact that they must store things in binary and they run on a clock. There are other discrete systems like population dynamics and stock market dynamics where we are working with whole numbers that are changing in jumps rather than continuously.


I'm going to have to look more into this, and that definetely sounds valid. I have to find out more aobut this conept of "observability" before I really accept such a view, but it makes sense from what you say. I'm really thrilled to hear about this field. I'll have to get some kind of introductory text that goes over the basic concepts, but I really feel like there are a lot of philosophical issues that can be raised and answered using this field.
The concept of observability is actually a fairly complex algebraic property of system models. You probably won't have much luck just trying to research it. That being said, I am taking certain liberties with the concept. Observability is actually something that can technically only be applied to a mathematical model. However, I am using the qualitative nature of what observability implies about a system and applying it to my view of reality. So, if you actually go up to a systems engineer and say what I just did about reality being unobservable because of the subjective state, they will probably think you are crazy.

[distraction tactics]

No, this is like if someone came to me, and told me that they had an engine that worked at exactly the Carnot efficiency for heat engine cycles. I would say that even though this is mathematically possible, it is never going to happen physically. It might be possible to mathematically proove that there has to be a certain amount of innefficiency in an engine, but that would ultimately not be particularily interesting because I am not making a mathematical statement.

This is the best thing you've said yet, and I agree. The next step would be to start discussing the 'specifics', but you're reticent to do so.


Semantically, measurement is a very messy process, and we never actually measure the rate of change of something. We measure something, and calculate it's rate of change from that measurement. Maybe it's the engineer in me, but after years and years of math courses telling me what could happen, I have realized that what can happen mathematically, rarely actually corresponds with what does happen.

Yeah, and we don't actually 'see' the objects or recorded measurements either. Done yet? This semantic nitpicking lends no credence to your notions of cosmology.


However, this is a moot point. I'm not arguing whether we can measure something faster than the planck unit of time. I'm not even arguing whether it is possible to know what happened billions of years ago. I'm arguing that there is something wrong with the qualitative assumptions that are the basic premise for the mathematics involved with the big bang theory. Arguing against that point with mathematics is a Red Herring.

Either debate the specific quantities for your 'qualitative assumptions' - you or I can easily rip them out of a book or some website - or take this thread to 'Religion and Philosophy' where it really belongs with all the other intellectual effluvium. The issues you raise are pure opinion pieces.


Of course I'm not familliar with how large the universe actually is.


Oh... just so you're aware next time, it's large. /Jon Stewart


I think that you are vastly overestimating humanities understanding of the universe.

Not at all, but I may be vastly underestimating your understanding of the universe, and I keep hoping you'll prove me wrong.


As I said, I can't argue about the specifics of quantum fluctuations, and though I'm sure you understand how they work perfectly, obviously these specifics are not source of my discomfort with the big bang theory.

Oh, perfectly! Was there ever any doubt? After all, I'm just here to brag about actually cracking open a $10 book to find out what the theory states. No one else has such an ability, and that's why I'm so special.


When you have a theory that proves that something extremely ridiculous will happen. Usually this means that there is something wrong with the theory, not that something extremely ridiculous did actually happen.

Look, buddy - 'extremely ridiculous' is a subjective, value-laden statement, concerned only with personal taste. It is not objective, and it is not scientific. What's 'extremely ridiculous' and 'entirely plausible' says nothing critical about the theory itself, only the bias and/or ignorance of those who said it.


Like I could go and read the Elegant Universe and then form an opinion on super-string theory. And then I would realize that the super-string theory is strictly a mathematical exercise with no empirical evidence to back it up. And as soon as it made a prediction as wierd as the big bang is, I would not believe it either.


The intent is not belief, but rather to garner a working knowledge of the present theory. It's painfully obvious you don't.


This doesn't seem at all fishy to you???? It's like they are not willing to admit that they don't perfectly understand the universe for the past 13.7 billion years.

Inflation theory seems suspect to me personally because I don't understand it beyond broad terms. It could very well be true, but my belief has no bearing on that - nor do I necessarily believe inflation theory to be true. It inhabits the large grey area of my mind stamped 'could be true'. It 'sounds plausible', it's trying to find an explanation in non-supernatural terms, and as time goes on the present theory will either be strengthened, or weakened and then discarded.

There is a half decent model describing the formation of atoms, stars and galaxies from a source of primordial green pea soup (kidding about the green peas). In the relationship between coffee beans and brewed coffee, scientists have a good idea of how the universe evolved from those first few moments.


However, since our understanding doesn't explain why things are how they are, we are going to push all of the shit that we don't understand into the 10^-43 seconds at the beginning of the universe.

I hope you're being facetious.

[Dom]

...

Ok, I can't help much because I don't remember it, however when I studied Cosomology I recalled being shocked at the level of assumptions made, based on extrapolation from potentially faulty measurement or simply educated guess work.

What offened me wasn't the assuption but the fact that these theories get taught in emphatic terms, despite there being huge grey areas in the maths and the theory.

I even challenged my lecturer, who conceeded that there was such a level of assumption that one couldn't state these theories as correct or atleast not with reasonable certainty.

He used the analogy of a line of best fit on the graph, and said that we may be way off, but that this was the closest we had. He then asked me whether I saw the value in persuing the field, despite it being flawed or whether I'd suggest abandoing it as we are relient on having to make potentialy errornous assumptions.

I conceeded at this point, but the fact remains that there are large worrying assumption in cosmology...

Not that I can remember then, the only thing i remember is the exchange I had with the lecturer and all the glares from the other students who worshiped at the altar of science.

[distraction tactics]

Ok, I can't help much because I don't remember it, however when I studied Cosomology I recalled being shocked at the level of assumptions made, based on extrapolation from potentially faulty measurement or simply educated guess work.

What offened me wasn't the assuption but the fact that these theories get taught in emphatic terms, despite there being huge grey areas in the maths and the theory.

I even challenged my lecturer, who conceeded that there was such a level of assumption that one couldn't state these theories as correct or atleast not with reasonable certainty.

He used the analogy of a line of best fit on the graph, and said that we may be way off, but that this was the closest we had. He then asked me whether I saw the value in persuing the field, despite it being flawed or whether I'd suggest abandoing it as we are relient on having to make potentialy errornous assumptions.

I conceeded at this point, but the fact remains that there are large worrying assumption in cosmology...

Not that I can remember then, the only thing i remember is the exchange I had with the lecturer and all the glares from the other students who worshiped at the altar of science.

Scientific theories and their teaching is not like the truth-selling we've come to expect from religion. Get over it.

"This is the theory", not "this theory is true".

People have their personal biases, this is both true and unfortunate. However, I'd bet that more often than not the reluctance from scientists and educators to hear out criticism is because it's so lackluster, illogical and emotion-laden.

Take the OP, for example - "I think that the Big Bang theory is a load of bullshit. Seriously, it doesn't make any sense to me. ...I obviously don't know the specifics of how they say inflation worked, I am just arguing that the idea, regardless of the justifications that people have come up with in it's defense, is stupid." Concisely, "I don't understand, I don't like it, and don't try convincing me otherwise with facts because I don't want to understand."

This is not a profound criticism, nor is it even workable to approach the failings of the Big Bang theory. It says absolutely nothing.

Because people suck at reading, I will state again that I don't 'believe in' the Big Bang theory, but I'm going to stand behind it here in this thread at least until one of you dopes actually puts a whit of effort into your inane ramblings and comes up with a half decent criticism.

And Moridin, that's not necessarily a personal attack directed at you.

[Dom]

Scientific theories and their teaching is not like the truth-selling we've come to expect from religion. Get over it.

"This is the theory", not "this theory is true".

People have their personal biases, this is both true and unfortunate. However, I'd bet that more often than not the reluctance from scientists and educators to hear out criticism is because it's so lackluster, illogical and emotion-laden.

Take the OP, for example - "I think that the Big Bang theory is a load of bullshit. Seriously, it doesn't make any sense to me. ...I obviously don't know the specifics of how they say inflation worked, I am just arguing that the idea, regardless of the justifications that people have come up with in it's defense, is stupid." Concisely, "I don't understand, I don't like it, and don't try convincing me otherwise with facts because I don't want to understand."

This is not a profound criticism, nor is it even workable to approach the failings of the Big Bang theory. It says absolutely nothing.

Because people suck at reading, I will state again that I don't 'believe in' the Big Bang theory, but I'm going to stand behind it here in this thread at least until one of you dopes actually puts a whit of effort into your inane ramblings and comes up with a half decent criticism.

And Moridin, that's not necessarily a personal attack directed at you.

Thanks for the caveat at the end there I was starting to wonder, as I thought my post didn't warrant such a rant,

Ok I didn't read the OP I read the last post... my bad, I'm at work/have little time.

I have to disagree about the Truth Selling of Science vs Religion or atleast ask for a greater appreciation, the way Science is taught at all levels is as though it were truth absolute and inarguable. That is my experience not my opinion (ok it is my opinion but it's based on my experience etc). Querries, such as my challenge, are not welcome and are regarded with annoyance rather than a mature response to reassure someones concerns.

I agree, the OP is hardly a helpful or intelligent denunciation of the big bang theory. My post was merely in agreement that there is more uncertainty, with regards to what we are told are 'facts' than many people readily understand.

On a conceptual level, I have issue with the big bang on the principal that I don't understand why it would have happend, if all matter/energy started in a signle singularity that then explode/expanded (the big bang) then I find myself asking why did it go bang?? Not that anyone could really guess.

At this point someone will probably say it's irrelavent, because it is self evident that it did go bang, but then that arguement is circular as it assumes an acceptance that the Big Bang is how the universe got here.........

As for the religous implications, to calm religous peoples fears, I'd argue Who did it is more important than How? and leave it like that.

[NoahFence]

Saying "The big bang is how the universe got here" is like saying "birth is how I got here." It leaves out a bit that happened before that. Sadly, there seems at this point no way of looking with a telescope at a point before photons existed.

I've heard the theory of the multidimensional membranes colliding and causing the BB, but that just shoves the problem back a step...how did the multidimensional membranes come into being? Or for that matter, the medium through which they moved to have a collision?

[Xenophon]

Scientific theories and their teaching is not like the truth-selling we've come to expect from religion. Get over it.

"This is the theory", not "this theory is true".

People have their personal biases, this is both true and unfortunate. However, I'd bet that more often than not the reluctance from scientists and educators to hear out criticism is because it's so lackluster, illogical and emotion-laden.

Take the OP, for example - "I think that the Big Bang theory is a load of bullshit. Seriously, it doesn't make any sense to me. ...I obviously don't know the specifics of how they say inflation worked, I am just arguing that the idea, regardless of the justifications that people have come up with in it's defense, is stupid." Concisely, "I don't understand, I don't like it, and don't try convincing me otherwise with facts because I don't want to understand."

This is not a profound criticism, nor is it even workable to approach the failings of the Big Bang theory. It says absolutely nothing.

Because people suck at reading, I will state again that I don't 'believe in' the Big Bang theory, but I'm going to stand behind it here in this thread at least until one of you dopes actually puts a whit of effort into your inane ramblings and comes up with a half decent criticism.

It hurts a little that you think that this is motivated by me not wanting to understand the theory of the Big Bang. If you knew me, you would know that trying to understand things is what I am all about. Anyways, I am learning about myself from this conversation, so I will continue even though I'm not sure you are getting anything from it.

When I am doing engineering research, I rely on two things: Previous work done in the field, which form the basic assumptions and framework for my work. And common sense/intuition, (in other words a qualitative reason). Neither of these is useful without the other. When I come up with a new idea through my inuition, I have to check it with the previous literature that is available. And when I come up with a new idea by manipulating certain equations, I have to think about what I have done in physical terms at the end, to see if my theoretical results make sense physically. In either case, if the other one doesn't confirm my findings, there was almost certainly a problem in the method involved in the first place. Sometimes the source of error is my incompetence in doing the scientific work involved, however it is much more common that the source of the error is an invalid assumption in the initial hypothesis.

I am also wary of pretending to know more than I do in any field of knowledge. I can't count the number of times I have gotten into discussions with undergraduate engineers who have just finished their first few courses in control systems, and they are sure they have it all figured out, when they really don't have a clue. I know that I still don't have it figured out, even though I have been narrowly focussed on studying the field for the past 3 years, and generally for longer. When someone thinks they can have a reasonable understanding about the scientific theories involved with the Big Bang from reading a few pop science books, it sets off alarm bells in my head.

So, knowing that it would take me years to achieve an adequate knowledge of the scientific theory involved with the big bang, I have no choice but to approach it from the common sense side. My argument against the Big Bang theory is that the general concepts presented in defense of the theory are not compelling enough to make up for what I see as a complete lack of intuitive sense in the theory. It provides no reasons, only theoretical extrapolation for billions of years. When a scientific theory provides no reasons, doesn't make intuitive sense, and features an extremely vague scientific framework, my natural inclination is the think that there is something wrong with the scientific framework, not with common sense.

In much the same way, I don't think that I could win a theological debate about the existance of god with someone who has studied theology and philosophy for many years. But, I don't think many people here would argue with me if I said there wasn't much common sense involved with believing in god.

As for common sense being subjective. Well, that is true, so I can never convince someone that the idea of the Big Bang doesn't make common sense. However, I have found that really solid science that makes a lot of sense generally deals with universals, not exceptions. This is the complete opposite of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is one freaking HUGE exception, so huge that it in fact it is the theoretical source of EVERYTHING.


I hope you're being facetious.
Not at all.

[Xenophon]

Saying "The big bang is how the universe got here" is like saying "birth is how I got here." It leaves out a bit that happened before that. Sadly, there seems at this point no way of looking with a telescope at a point before photons existed.

I've heard the theory of the multidimensional membranes colliding and causing the BB, but that just shoves the problem back a step...how did the multidimensional membranes come into being? Or for that matter, the medium through which they moved to have a collision?

I think that this perceived "problem" is the only reason why people are willing to adopt the Big Bang theory. Because we are born and die, we intuitively want everything to be born and to die.

[NoahFence]

Actually I've looked pretty closely at steady state models and they just don't wash, IMO. The only theory I've seen that really nails all the evidence effectively is the Big Bang. Everything we've seen suggests the universe is expanding, cooling, and wearing down, and frankly that doesn't sound like a harmonic constant flow to me.

Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm pigeonholed into a perception issue. My mortality is irrelevant to the nature of the universe. I agree the concept of "origins" becomes sticky when you're talking about periods before time existed, if "before time" has any real meaning. But I still think the question of origin translates into whatever frame existed before "all this".

Even if a constant-renewal steady-state universe is indeed the case, I still question its origins. Given the complexity of the universe it wouldn't surprise me to find that the origin of such a thing actually occurs in the future, or something weird like that. But frankly, I'm skeptical of any theory which proposes "It was always like this and always will be". It just seems awfully simplistic to me, and it seems that every time scientists have made that assumption, it's been wrong.

[Lysergication]

Some things are just counter intuitive. Are you familiar with the Quantum Theory at all? If you are then you should know that the microscopic world does not function according to the logical rules that hold true in the macroscopic reality. Causality itself comes into question.

To me, it takes just as much faith to believe this as it would to believe that there is some old man in the sky who one day decided that he was going to create the world, (or the universe).

Faith is a necessity for science contrary to popular belief. Theories become outdated and replaced, which is why one can never say that a current theory is absolute truth. You don't have to accept it, but you have to evaluate it given all the data that you have at your disposal. And right now you don't have enough of it to make a conclusion, one way or another.

I obviously don't know the specifics of how they say inflation worked, I am just arguing that the idea, regardless of the justifications that people have come up with in it's defense, is stupid. Just as stupid as the Creation story from the bible.

There are many ideas that don't make sense. Research the EPR paradox, or quantum nonlacility and you will find some experimentally verified results that simply do not make sense to a human brain, yet they are undeniable.


And given enough space, there is a slight probability that a matter and anti-matter pair will create themselves, and since they are in deep space, they don't end up annihilating each other.

The conditions under which matter as we know it can come into existance are such that a scenario like the Big Bang is necessary.

We will never be able to answer this question, and it has been asked by almost everyone throughout history even before the Big Bang theory was created. No matter what new theory might arise there will still be the fundamental question of "Where did it come from?"

This is a good read if you are curious about such matters. While it is not directly related to the big bang it still has some interesting ideas.
http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/plenum/plenum_3.html

[Sackanaka]

while I like thinking about stuff like knowing the unknown (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=1262), I just had to say


I just assume it's cyclic, from being recursively bent into itself; something that bends all the way in one direction and then flips (but in x dimensions) (and it's a weird ass shape)

it's fun to think about and make shit up

damn, I wonder if people do statistics on odds of multiple people coming up with the same ideas, and how would they measure 'type' or 'complexity' of an idea? cuz a smaller number would be flattering, if cliquey. :D

[wildcat]

I don't doubt that there is more to the big bang theory than is known, and possibly can ever be known.

What it is, though, is simply all we know. It's possible something caused the big bang - one theory I heard about in supernova's "string theory" series of tv shows was that dimensions (imagine them as waving sheets) bumping into one another would release an incredibly amount of energy in both those universes. The big bang would have been one of those things.

You make the assumption that before the big bang there was nothing - that it all just miraculously happened. That's not what the theory is meanth as. The theory just chronicles everything we know happened - that's all. It doesn't fill in any details we don't know anything about - but that doesn't mean there is nothing there.

Imagine a hunter that goes: "when you shoot a bear, blood comes out of it" - he doesn't know anything else, but he's certain of this. It would be stupid to say that his theory is false, just because at the time he says it, and you hear it, you don't yet know how blood is made, how it is transported throughout the system - basically why it happened.

Likewise, I think it would be stupid to claim the big bang theory is wrong... it is proven after all - just because we don't know more about it. We've observed it, it's a fact - that's all we can go on. There are bound to be millions of things we don't know yet, such as what caused it, but to disprove the theory because those facts aren't known yet wouldn't be correct. What we know right now has been proven to be correct.
It is illogical to claim there is a "before" or "an outside" of spacetime. There is no time beyond time. There is no space beyond space. There is no beyond. What is, is. What is not, is not.
Spacetime is all there is. Spacetime is all there ever was.
We cannot reach actual Big Bang. We can approach it. But it is never there.
Why?
Spacetime is all there is.
Metaphysics is not a science.

[Edmond Zedo]

At least read some articles or books on astronomy or space physics before you say it's bullshit. There is a lot more evidence than "The universe is expanding." We can look into the past since light doesn't travel that fast on a very large scale, compare slices of time, and notice many things. They all point to the singularity.

[lbloom]

I rely on my intuition a lot too. The thing about intuition is that it accesses all the data that are there in your subconscious really quickly, so that you "know" the right answer before you can justify or explain it.

If you haven't enough background in a field, your intuition isn't worth jack. I see this in my work every day - my "intuition" seems to sharpen up and be right increasingly often the more advanced courses I take and the more I read, to the point that I'm prepared to commit to ideas in meetings before I can justify them. I certainly relied on my intuition in my undergrad days too, but I was off the mark sometimes and found things counter-intuitive then that I don't now.

So you have to feed your intuition first before you demand that it produces trustworthy ideas. Therein methinks it's different from instinct. You still to mull over it in peace with your Ti before you can make an argument you can hang your hat on.

My two cents. This, too, is a theory. :)

[wildcat]

At least read some articles or books on astronomy or space physics before you say it's bullshit. There is a lot more evidence than "The universe is expanding." We can look into the past since light doesn't travel that fast on a very large scale, compare slices of time, and notice many things. They all point to the singularity.
Singularity is useful as a model. Whether it is ontologically there is a question of philosophy. Ontology is outside the field of physics.
Singularity appears to be there but we cannot reach it for the said reason.
The universe is finite and has no edge.

[Edmond Zedo]

Singularity is useful as a model. Whether it is ontologically there is a question of philosophy. Ontology is outside the field of physics.
Singularity appears to be there but we cannot reach it for the said reason.
The universe is finite and has no edge.
It's sure not there anymore! I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say singularity. It's what was there before the big bang.

[Xenophon]

I definately agree that intuition grows with knowledge in a field. However, I have never heard of any explanation of the big bang that does not seem extremely circumstantial. An expanding universe only implies singularity in the case where matter cannot be created or detroyed. Now, I agree that there is a lot of sense to this idea. As a mechanical engineering student, I spent years in classes where the laws of thermodynamics were the basis for everything that I learned. However, I find it easier to believe that the laws of thermodynamics are somehow incomplete, rather than believe that they were competely correct up until we get to the big bang.

The other thing about my intuitive problem with the Big Bang, is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the mathematics, or the physical justifications that have been given. Therefore, it doesn't really matter that I don't understand the mathematics and physics that back it up. And in fact, I am being sort of modest here, as when I was finished undergrad I wanted to be a fusion engineer, so I read the Feynman lectures and most of Shankar's Principles of Quantum Mechanics. I was sort of lost at the time, but I now realize that most of the math is just advanced linear algebra which I have become fairly good at in grad school. Since the quantum world as far as we know is stochastic in nature, I do not find it hard to believe that given a vast emptiness, there is a very slight chance that a very tiny amount of matter will create itself.

As for singularity being useful as a model, I don't really understand why. The big bang theory does not predict anything that is remotely useful for anything. Inflation theory has no repurcussions on anything other than inflation theory. Knowing the origin of the universe will not help us develop a fusion power plant, or colonize mars. It is some incredibly remote theory that it is basically an end in itself.

As for looking back in time, I was under the impression from what I read that observations of extremely distance galaxies did not actually confirm the big bang theory particularily well, for example this article:

http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/370.htm?&debut=16

The funny thing that I find about that, is that they never mention that this work could possibly end up questioning the big bang theory, it just makes for a "profound rethinking of the theories of the formation and evolution of galaxies".

[Edmond Zedo]

Damn. Would it be a good idea to question the laws of gravity now that we can send probes out of the Solar system?

You seem to want to be really ignorant, and it's annoying. If you think a very strong scientific theory is bunk, you could at least do a little research before burdening the world. What the hell do YOU think put the universe into its present state?

As to usefulness, well, don't you appreciate knowledge, like the rest of the INTPs? We could get really objective and say nothing has use, since entropy will just ruin everything, so just sit in your chair until you die of dehydration. The desire you'll feel for water is much like the desire for knowledge--An evolutionary leftover from the time before we understood that we're hopeless.

[wildcat]

It's sure not there anymore! I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say singularity. It's what was there before the big bang.
Singularity is useful as a model.
Spacetime is all there is. There is no before and there is no beyond.
What was before is within spacetime only. When you say there was a something before spacetime you are illogical and you state that there can be time before time. Time has no border. Space has no border. Spacetime has no border. The universe is finite and has no edge.

Spacetime includes the past. The past is there. the past is in the past.

Ontology is outside the field of physics. We cannot reach singularity.

[Johnny]

I think wildcat has a point, though I wouldn't argue it in exactly the same way.

I think that there is and should be the consideration of humanity's own limitations, of our own intellectual and experiential limitations.

When I look at our list of scientific achievements, I don't really see discoveries. I see affirmations.

Not a bad thing to me, just interesting.



"The world is flat."
"No, idiot! The universe is flat."

[Edmond Zedo]

Singularity is useful as a model.
Spacetime is all there is. There is no before and there is no beyond.
What was before is within spacetime only. When you say there was a something before spacetime you are illogical and you state that there can be time before time. Time has no border. Space has no border. Spacetime has no border. The universe is finite and has no edge.

Spacetime includes the past. The past is there. the past is in the past.

Ontology is outside the field of physics. We cannot reach singularity.
Now I know you misunderstood, and still do.

In my posts here, singularity=infinitely or nearly infinitely dense point containing all matter in the universe, and possibly space & time too.

[wildcat]

I think wildcat has a point, though I wouldn't argue it in exactly the same way.

I think that there is and should be the consideration of humanity's own limitations, of our own intellectual and experiential limitations.

When I look at our list of scientific achievements, I don't really see discoveries. I see affirmations.

Not a bad thing to me, just interesting.



"The world is flat."
"No, idiot! The universe is flat."
There is no disagreement, Johnny. What you said was exactly what I wanted to say.

[Dr. Haight]

This thread makes me feel stupid.

[Johnny]

There is no disagreement, Johnny. What you said was exactly what I wanted to say.

that's no fun

[Melody]

lol. what if this 'bing bag' was the center of an atom composed of our neighborhood of the universe

such that our galaxies are but 'subatomic' particles

such that these atoms form entities at higher levels, and so on

imo, if the big bang happened, it didnt just happen to happen round our hood, but in countless other places cross existence

[Xenophon]

Damn. Would it be a good idea to question the laws of gravity now that we can send probes out of the Solar system?
Oh, definately. However, I don't think that the Big Bang theory is of any practical use in that sense. The Big Bang theory is an extrapolation of our current knowledge of the universe, ad infinitum. The only prediction that I have ever heard from the Big Bang is the presence of background radiation in the universe. While this is sort of nice, in my mind it doesn't justify the massive leap of faith (dt chewed me out for saying this before, but I maintain that it is) needed to believe that all matter in the universe had its origin in singularity.


You seem to want to be really ignorant, and it's annoying. If you think a very strong scientific theory is bunk, you could at least do a little research before burdening the world. What the hell do YOU think put the universe into its present state?
Since when is questioning a scientific theory the same as wanting to be ignorant? On the contrary, people have been saying it over and over again, scientific theories are made to be disproven. Since I am not in a position to disprove the Big Bang, I have to evaluate whether I think it's justifications are reasonable enough for me to use it as an assumption in any learning/work that I want to do in which it has an effect. As to that, I think that most scientists would agree that they would never use a result derived from the big bang theory as an assumption in further work.


As to usefulness, well, don't you appreciate knowledge, like the rest of the INTPs? We could get really objective and say nothing has use, since entropy will just ruin everything, so just sit in your chair until you die of dehydration. The desire you'll feel for water is much like the desire for knowledge--An evolutionary leftover from the time before we understood that we're hopeless.
If I didn't appreciate knowledge, why would I have started this thread? That is what we are talking about. What constitutes a theory that is worth being adopted into a comprehensive framework of the universe. For me, it has to be something that I would use as an assumption to support further understanding beyond it.

[Edmond Zedo]

As to that, I think that most scientists would agree that they would never use a result derived from the big bang theory as an assumption in further work.
They do it, big time, all the time. If you want to argue that, I suppose I'll have to dig up evidence, but I won't yet. You just keep me posted.

[wildcat]

that's no fun
Try P.G. Wodehouse. I suggest Damsel in Distress for a start. Bill the Conqueror is not bad either.

[wildcat]

Now I know you misunderstood, and still do.

In my posts here, singularity=infinitely or nearly infinitely dense point containing all matter in the universe, and possibly space & time too.
OK I play your game. This infinitely dense point containing all matter comes out of a nothing. What is the time span between its initiation and the time it explodes?

You say it contained all space. If it was infinitely dense it did not contain any space at all.

[Johnny]

Try P.G. Wodehouse. I suggest Damsel in Distress for a start. Bill the Conqueror is not bad either.

Thanks, wildcat, for the recommendations. This writer appears to have enjoyed making many references which I would find rather esoteric:
http://wodehouse-bible.freeservers.com/

[wildcat]

Thanks, wildcat, for the recommendations. This writer appears to have enjoyed making many references which I would find rather esoteric:
http://wodehouse-bible.freeservers.com/
You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
jk:)

[Edmond Zedo]

OK I play your game. This infinitely dense point containing all matter comes out of a nothing. What is the time span between its initiation and the time it explodes?

You say it contained all space. If it was infinitely dense it did not contain any space at all.
Of course I realize that. They say "infinitely dense," and iirc the modern theory is that this singularity contained all matter & space as we know it. Time didn't exist "before" the big bang. Further conclusions are conjecture, such as answering "Where did the singularity come from?"

[Edmond Zedo]

Excerpts from The Mind of God by Paul Davis:
The night sky is dark because we can see only a finite distance into space (about 15bil light years), this being the maximum distance from which light has been able to travel to Earth since the beginning.

Nor is there a difficulty about the universe collapsing under its own weight. Because the galaxies are flying apart, they avoid falling together, at least for a while.

(re: entropy) The fact that the universe has not yet so died--that is, it is still in a state of less-than-maximum entropy--implies that it cannot have endured for all eternity.

(re: big bang) Some popular accounts give the impression that it was the explosion of a concentrated lump of matter located at some particular place in the pre-existing void. This is badly misleading. The big bang theory is based on Einstein's gen. theory of rel. One of the main features of gen rel. is that the affairs of matter cannot be separated from the affairs of space & time...If one imagines "running the cosmic movie backward," ...then galactic material gets squeezed more and more until a state of enormous density is reached. One might wonder whether there is any limit to the degree of compression as we pass back to the moment of explosion.

It is easy to see that there can be no simple limit. Suppose that there were a state of maximum compression. This would imply the existence of some sort of outward force to overcome the enormous gravity, otherwise gravity would win, and the material would be still more compressed. Furthermore, this outward force would have to be truly enormous, because the inward force of gravity rises without limit as the compression rises. [speed of sound can't be faster than light, therefore matter can't be infinitely stiff as a result of compression since speed of sound increases with stiffness, therefore gravity>stiffness, therefore infinite density]

[Roger penrose & Stephen Hawking proved the singularity is inevitable as long as gravity remains an attractive force under these conditions]

...Envisage space as swelling or stretching. That is, the galaxies move apart because the space between them expands. Conversely, in the past, space was shrunken. If we consider the moment of infinite compression, space was infinitely shrunk...it must literally disappear...time must disappear too [gen. rel.]. Because all are laws of physics are formulated in terms of space and time, these laws cannot apply beyond the point at which space and time cease to exist. Hence the laws of physics must break down at the singularity. (emphasis added)

[Johnny]

You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
jk:)

But of course :)


and I get away with it

[wildcat]

But of course :)


and I get away with it
...but he persevered heroically, and so far had not been found wanting...

[Johnny]

...but he persevered heroically, and so far had not been found wanting...

Nah you were right the first time around LOL

Hence the laws of physics must break down at the singularity

http://carrknowledge.com/images/clip_image001.jpg

[wildcat]

Nah you were right the first time around LOL

Hence the laws of physics must break down at the singularity

http://carrknowledge.com/images/clip_image001.jpg
The laws of physics breaking down = ex nihilo.
Spacetime is a fossil. An odd man out. A remnant of a quantum leap ex nihilo.
Sartre was right.
What is there to see behind inflation?
Nothing.

[Xenophon]

(re: entropy) The fact that the universe has not yet so died--that is, it is still in a state of less-than-maximum entropy--implies that it cannot have endured for all eternity.
I believe that this is the strongest argument for the big bang. If the laws of thermodynamics are completely correct, then the big bang is the only rational explanation. In essence my problem with the big bang theory is also a problem with the second law of thermodynamics. (If I didn't convince you that I was crazy with my attack on the big bang, I'll probably convince you now.) Of course it is silly to attack the laws of thermodynamics, they are probably the most accepted laws/theories in all of science. However, even though I would never try to objectively disprove the second law of thermodynamics, everywhere I look I see evidence that it is somehow incomplete. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that we are constantly travelling in the direction of increased entropy/chaos, however everything I observe in the world is moving towards increasing complexity/order. To me, there is a choice that must be made: Either I have to believe that all the order and patterns that we see developing in the world are a fluke, in spite of the second law of thermodynamics. Or, the Second law of thermodynamics is incomplete in some way, and the process that results in the increasing order we see in the world is inevitable yet unobservable.


...Envisage space as swelling or stretching. That is, the galaxies move apart because the space between them expands. Conversely, in the past, space was shrunken. If we consider the moment of infinite compression, space was infinitely shrunk...it must literally disappear...time must disappear too [gen. rel.]. Because all are laws of physics are formulated in terms of space and time, these laws cannot apply beyond the point at which space and time cease to exist. Hence the laws of physics must break down at the singularity. (emphasis added)
This is why I originally said that I feel the big bang theory is a cop-out. Either the laws of physics as we have the formulated now are incomplete in a major way, or they did not apply during singularity (just another form of incompleteness in my book.)

[Edmond Zedo]

The second law of thermodynamics tells us that we are constantly travelling in the direction of increased entropy/chaos, however everything I observe in the world is moving towards increasing complexity/order. To me, there is a choice that must be made: Either I have to believe that all the order and patterns that we see developing in the world are a fluke, in spite of the second law of thermodynamics.
That's a classic counter-argument, but outdated, false, and easily refuted.

Let me create a complicated analogy. Imagine, if you will, that you're somehow traveling a thousand times slower through time, and you're watching a suicide space probe take off with a man on board who happens to be a sculptor, and has 10m^3 of modeling clay. The rocket engines continuously run, and accelerate the ship further away from the solar system, while the man sculpts penguins and pickup trucks. Over the course of three days, he sculpts 10 sculptures. This is about 10 years to you, and you witness only an increase in speed, and continuous production of sculptures. You decide that this trend will logically continue forever. But you don't realize that the man will die, the rocket will run out of fuel, and begin to very slowly decelerate. Eventually it will effectively stop moving. Just like the universe will (Barring gravitational recollection which is currently considered unlikely).

[Johnny]

...ex nihilo...

Sartre was right.
What is there to see behind inflation?
Nothing.

Beautifully put, wildcat.

I pity the mystics

not too much however as I am selfish

[Xenophon]

That's a classic counter-argument, but outdated, false, and easily refuted.

Let me create a complicated analogy. Imagine, if you will, that you're somehow traveling a thousand times slower through time, and you're watching a suicide space probe take off with a man on board who happens to be a sculptor, and has 10m^3 of modeling clay. The rocket engines continuously run, and accelerate the ship further away from the solar system, while the man sculpts penguins and pickup trucks. Over the course of three days, he sculpts 10 sculptures. This is about 10 years to you, and you witness only an increase in speed, and continuous production of sculptures. You decide that this trend will logically continue forever. But you don't realize that the man will die, the rocket will run out of fuel, and begin to very slowly decelerate. Eventually it will effectively stop moving. Just like the universe will (Barring gravitational recollection which is currently considered unlikely).
Your counter-argument is the sort of argument that I have problems with in science. Basically you are telling me that all the development that I am seeing in the world is an exception. And I am making the illogical conclusion that something that I observe must be a rule and not an exception. And you are right in a way, I have absolutely no proof of anything breaking the laws of thermodynamics, and when something has the tremendous experimental validation that the laws of thermodynamics have, it is futile to try to take them on directly. However, this argument does nothing to help me understand why I am observing increasing order/complexity all around me. You are just telling me that it is possible for it to happen within the given framework.

The problem I have with this logic is that if we assume that this framework (which nobody has ever been able to find an exception to) is complete, then we neccesarily come to the conclusion that the universe started as a singularity, but this singularity cannot possible fit into that framework that proved that it must exist in the first place. I don't think that makes sense.

[Edmond Zedo]

Your counter-argument is the sort of argument that I have problems with in science. Basically you are telling me that all the development that I am seeing in the world is an exception. And I am making the illogical conclusion that something that I observe must be a rule and not an exception. And you are right in a way, I have absolutely no proof of anything breaking the laws of thermodynamics, and when something has the tremendous experimental validation that the laws of thermodynamics have, it is futile to try to take them on directly. However, this argument does nothing to help me understand why I am observing increasing order/complexity all around me. You are just telling me that it is possible for it to happen within the given framework.

The problem I have with this logic is that if we assume that this framework (which nobody has ever been able to find an exception to) is complete, then we neccesarily come to the conclusion that the universe started as a singularity, but this singularity cannot possible fit into that framework that proved that it must exist in the first place. I don't think that makes sense.
You'll just have to study advanced, theoretical physics if you need to understand the mechanics of these situations. After all, physicists didn't come to these conclusions without physics.

[Johnny]

You'll just have to study advanced, theoretical physics if you need to understand the mechanics of these situations. After all, physicists didn't come to these conclusions without physics.

I'm partial to that notion of an oscillating universe, myself...the rise of the phoenix.

It doesn't really support the notion of second chances and Christian rebirth and so on, but it does at least offer that the sculptor's actions may not be so futile in the eyes of others.

Or maybe I'm just soft for dump trucks and penguins I don't know

[Edmond Zedo]

I'm partial to that notion of an oscillating universe, myself...the rise of the phoenix.
I'm partial to "elves and dragons and shit," but I don't let that get in the way of rationality.

[Johnny]

I'm partial to "elves and dragons and shit," but I don't let that get in the way of rationality.

:lol: good one

But alas no I think rather your problem is that you have been bitten by a bug and you are suffering from the effects of its venom.

When you are paralyzed completely, then the bug will feast. Until then, I shall admire your struggle. :devil:

[NoahFence]

NOVA: Theory of Everything (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program_t.html)

They totally posted NOVA on the internet, how awesome is that? Anyway here's the 11th Dimension, String Theory, and Theory of Everything in a handy dandy video format. "What they said."

[Edmond Zedo]

NOVA: Theory of Everything (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program_t.html)

They totally posted NOVA on the internet, how awesome is that? Anyway here's the 11th Dimension, String Theory, and Theory of Everything in a handy dandy video format. "What they said."
I saw that on TV. It was horrible. They dumbed it down so a 7 year old could follow it, and therefore said nothing substantial. Restated the same crap for an hour (or two).