|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang Found | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
What makes this such a great discovery?
Well it and the Higgs are probably the two most important discoveries in physics in the last forty years. The two most important discoveries in physics nearly a half century would rank pretty high on the list of scientific importance. Surely there are more important things that have been discovered. The discovery of the Higgs essentially shows us that what we thought about particles is correct. This shows us which of the ideas for the evolution of the early universe is correct. We now have direct experimental evidence of how the universe behaved up to 10^(-35) seconds after it was born.
Surely there are more important things that have been discovered.
Yes, certainly. However I think, as a scientific achievement, knowing essentially the whole history of the early universe is fairly significant.
In fact, I could care less, and cannot imagine this discovery having any impact on me, or anyone really, whatsoever.
Probably not, but so what? Does that affect its scientific importance?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes: I've already given perfect ratio reason to think he might be wrong. Yes NoNukes, wrong about gravity but the questions still remainsand I believe is the salient point. Did the laws of nature exist before nature?Strong force Weak force EM Gravity I say I don't think so. What do you think? "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre writes:
Agreed; if God began to exist, there must be a cause for this. Of course, if God is eternal with no beginning, then no such cause is necessary.
kbertsche writes:
Then so would whatever supernatural being you've chosen to be the creator of this particular universe. I think the point is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence which is outside itself. onifre writes:
You apparently didn't read my statement carefully enough. I defined "universe" as "all of nature". Whatever caused nature to begin to exist must transcend nature. This, by definition, is super-nature (supernatural). kbertsche writes:
Not at all. It could be we are part of a multiverse system. If the entire universe (all of nature) began to exist, the cause for this must transcend the universe, i.e. it must be super-natural. Supernatural has never ever ever ever ever been the answer to any question that we've solved. Why now? Your hypothesized multiverse is either a part of nature or it is itself supernatural. Either way, if it began to exist, it also needs a transcendent cause for its existence. {ABE: in my usage above, "nature" = "natural world". If you find my comments confusing, please try replacing "nature" with "natural world".} Edited by kbertsche, : ABE"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Either way, if it began to exist, it also needs a transcendent cause for its existence. Right. Just as sunlight and water vapor transcend rainbows.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Either way, if it began to exist, it also needs a transcendent cause for its existence. Unless it is eternal just as you propose for your god. The multiverse, all natural, all the time, might be eternal with no beginning and with universe upon universe by the billions bubbling into existence then fading away. Supposition is such an open box.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
es NoNukes, wrong about gravity but the questions still remains and I believe is the salient point. Did the laws of nature exist before nature? Does your question have any meaning at all? I can grant that your question might have implications if in fact your question makes sense. The laws of nature are not external and human like. They are not marionette strings pulling at the substance of the universe. Instead the laws of nature are a descriptive of how the universe operates or how it does not operate. Perhaps it has always been the case that when two masses are present, they will appear to attract each other as GR describes. Or it may be that under certain conditions opposite charges have always attracted. That can be true regardless of whether there have always been a pair of masses or charges. What would it mean to ask if the law of gravity existed when there was only one, or no particles, and no energy? And further, did those hypothetical conditions ever exist?
I say I don't think so. What do you think? I think what you (and kbertsche and shadow71) are doing is envisioning an answer that you feel comfortable and asking 'have you stopped beating your wife yet' questions in support of what you have already decided. You at least are not claiming that people who don't see it your way are shallow minded non-thinkers.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
I think the point is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence which is outside itself. How do you go from "outside itself" to "supernatural deity"?
If the entire universe (all of nature) began to exist, the cause for this must transcend the universe, i.e. it must be super-natural. No, it would simply become part of nature. At one time, the Earth and it's immediate surroundings were considered the entire extent of the natural world. Does this mean that the Andromeda galaxy is supernatural? No. If there is a process that creates universes that is as impersonal and non-sentient as the process that produces clouds, why wouldn't we call that a natural process?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Either way, if it began to exist, it also needs a transcendent cause for its existence. Why can't that transcendent cause be a non-sentient process like the transcendent cause of rainbows or clouds?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi NoNukes,
Does your question have any meaning at all? I can grant that your question might have implications if in fact your question makes sense. I believe the universe is self caused.That probably is a misnomer because a "cause" indicates a causer. yadda yadda.... So I will state it another way. The Universe exist because the Big Bang happened some 13 billion years ago. It could of been another universe bumping into another, or a spontaneous quantum fluctiation. blah blah blah... All we know is it happened. There was no univese and now bingo..here we are. Now does any of this sound unreasonable? NoNukes writes:
Precisely, a possible emergent property of energy/matter is that it will behave accordingly. I get that. I am down with that concept. The laws of nature are not external and human like. They are not marionette strings pulling at the substance of the universe. Instead the laws of nature are a descriptive of how the universe operates or how it does not operate. Perhaps it has always been the case that when two masses are present, they will appear to attract each other as GR describes I am, and possibly wrong, but think everything is directed by the fundalmental forces that exist. Correct me if this is wrong. Scientist at the present time speculate that the majority of mass in the universe is possibly dark matter and dark energy. They are trying to see how it behaves how it 'interacts' or why it doesn't. How inflation occured, or if it did. Now it seems to me if we do not even know the nature of most of the shit in our cosmos or how the unverse expanded faster the c (inflation). It is not a unreasonable question to ask if it is possible we are getting our marching orders from somewhere else? Alternate universe? Parallel universe? etc.. Is there a free lunch in the universe?I know, I know do these questions even mean anything! "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It is not a unreasonable question to ask if it is possible we are getting our marching orders from somewhere else? Of course it is not unreasonable to ask. But what I am seeing is people saying scientists are stupid because they don't ask the questions answered in Genesis when they slide pucks on an air table. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I believe the universe is self caused. That probably is a misnomer because a "cause" indicates a causer. yadda yadda.... No. It doesn't. Perhaps that's the entire subject in nutshell. Germs cause you to get sick. You don't really need to assume an evil spirit is behind you getting a cold sore.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Of course, if God is eternal with no beginning, then no such cause is necessary. Great, now let's keep that in mind when we talk about a multiverse system.
I defined "universe" as "all of nature". Yes, I got that. The universe is 4D spacetime i.e. all of nature, all of reality.
Whatever caused nature to begin to exist must transcend nature. This, by definition, is super-nature (supernatural). Not at all. It just means it is not governed by the laws of our 4D spacetime.
Your hypothesized multiverse is either a part of nature or it is itself supernatural. Either way, if it began to exist, it also needs a transcendent cause for its existence. Since it is not governed by our 4D spacetime, things like time and beginning and end are irrelevant. So a multiverse doesn't begin to exist or anything relating to the functions of time. It can itself be eternal. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Taq writes:
"Outside nature" is "super-nature", by definition. kbertsche writes:
How do you go from "outside itself" to "supernatural deity"? I think the point is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence which is outside itself.Whether or not this is a "deity" depends on one's definition of "deity". Many would agree that a "deity" is eternal and uncaused (though this wouldn't apply to minor Greek and Roman deities). Taq writes:
No, you're not making sense. If nature had a beginning, it needs a cause which is outside itself, i.e. super-nature. (The idea that something is self-caused is a logical impossibility.)
kbertsche writes:
No, it would simply become part of nature. If the entire universe (all of nature) began to exist, the cause for this must transcend the universe, i.e. it must be super-natural.Taq writes:
I disagree. If "nature" is defined to be the earth, then this cause is "super-nature" by definition.
At one time, the Earth and it's immediate surroundings were considered the entire extent of the natural world. Does this mean that the Andromeda galaxy is supernatural? No. Taq writes:
I only see two possibilities: If there is a process that creates universes that is as impersonal and non-sentient as the process that produces clouds, why wouldn't we call that a natural process?1) nature (including the process that you propose) had a beginning to its existence, in which case it needs a super-natural cause 2) nature (including the process that you propose) is eternal, with no beginning, in which case it has effectively become a god (an impersonal god in this case, similar to Spinoza's and Einstein's) Can you think of any other options? {ABE: in my usage above, "nature" = "natural world". If you find my comments confusing, please try replacing "nature" with "natural world".} Edited by kbertsche, : ABE"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
1) nature (including the process that you propose) had a beginning to its existence, in which case it needs a super-natural cause As far as we know, beginnings requiring causes is something that happens within the universe. There's no reason to extrapolate that to the whole universe, itself. With time also having an emergence, the universe may just be wrapping back up into itself in the past direction, which could be a "beginning" without a cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 185 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Don't forget conference presentations with peers who have been in your field for 40 years.
:yikes:The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024