|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The problems of big bang theory. What are they? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
But that just pushes back the question. It might explain where our part of the universe, the part that we see, came from, but there is still the question of where the whole shebang came from. As I understand it they predict that the before and after are mirror-images of each other; so time is infinite in both directions analagously to positive and negative numbers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EighteenDelta Inactive Member |
I think the idea is that at t
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
I think the idea is that at t<0 members. Dont feel bad. The singularity is difficult for professional physicists to clarify. The fact that the entire framework of physical laws we are used to breaks down at the singularity is quite an obstacle to comprehension. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Pretty much year, the direction of increasing entropy is reversed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TyberiusMax Member (Idle past 6027 days) Posts: 39 Joined: |
After all arguments of how existence came to be. There has come an answer for how the Big Bang, Banged for scientists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUANTUM PHYSICS Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don't experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally Ex. A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality. End Ex. The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- After all that is said one is convinced that maybe existence did come about spontaneously Here in lies the problem We are in existence. "Thanks for telling us that Einstein" Quantum physics and events that we see occur are obviously happening, in existence. "OK" So that means, The spontaneity of particles that we see appear out of nothing cannot be called actual "pure nothing", because the particles are appearing in an already existent world. How can we say that particles can spontaneously appear out of actual "pure nothing" if in reality we are seeing our supposed "spontaneity" in existence?We cannot. We are bound by existence and therefore it can never be known what created existence since everything we know and don't know, even Quantum Physics, is bound by existence. Edited by TyberiusMax, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Quantum physics and events that we see occur are obviously happening, in existence. You are correct in this. I, too, find it logically problematic that people use phenomena and physical laws that occur in the existing universe to try to explain how the universe came about. Quantum mechanics tells us what happens within the universe. It does not logically follow that these laws will tell us anything about why the universe itself exists. On the other hand, the creationists do the same thing. They talk about the law of conservation of energy, or the "law" that all events need a cause -- but these, too, are merely descriptions of what occurs within the universe -- they, too, may very well be irrelevant in regards to the origin of the universe. So, it remains a distinct possibility (and one that I hold) that the universe simply exists. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TyberiusMax Member (Idle past 6027 days) Posts: 39 Joined: |
So, you believe in a infinite universe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I said nothing about the universe being infinite or finite.
In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TyberiusMax Member (Idle past 6027 days) Posts: 39 Joined: |
What do you mean then by saying the universe "Simply exists"
By saying this, you are implying it had no beginning, am i right? No beginning means infinite?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
No, I am saying that I believe that it exists. That it simply exists. That trying to discuss things like "causes" proposes too many logical/semantic problems to be terribly fruitful, and so simply postulating that the universe exists is the simplest way to avoid these logical/semantics difficulties. At least until someone can introduce concepts that will allow us to discuss things like "origin of the universe" and "cause of the universe" intelligently. As it is, almost any discussion about the origin of the universe becomes, to use a colloquial phrase, "word salad": just strings of words without any clear meaning.
In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TyberiusMax Member (Idle past 6027 days) Posts: 39 Joined: |
So you agree that there is no actual answer to how the universe "happened."
That would mean a person still has a choice and is free to get down to the answer of existence: "I believe the universe is neither finite or infinite. The universe simply exists."or "I believe in a God outside of existence who created me." Either one can be an answer true?Just as you can't yet explain how the universe simply exists, you cannot prove there is no God because you cannot yet prove there is a God. At present moment both believe there idea to be true. its the same as before an experiment.Two people have a hypothesis as to what the answer will be. There WILL be only one answer and it might not be what either thought, but as of now our experiment is not done yet and the two hypotheses stand. Edited by TyberiusMax, : Spelled (hypotheses) wrong
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
"I believe the universe is neither finite or infinite. The universe simply exists." or "I believe in a God outside of existence who created me." I'm sorry but there is simply no connection or relationship between those two statements. You still seem to be making the absolutely stupid assertion that the two are somehow related or that believing one negates the other. That is as absolutely stupid when applied to the existence of the Universe as it is when folk come in here and try to imply that accepting the fact of evolution and belief in God are somehow contradictory. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Yup, you want to believe in a "god" that created the universe, that's fine. Nothing against it. No logical argument can be brought against such a being.
It has nothing, what-so-ever, to do with the kind of personal, intervensionist, god that Christianity (and others) claim exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TyberiusMax Member (Idle past 6027 days) Posts: 39 Joined: |
Well Jar, then you probably didn't see the OR between them
They are two seperate hypotheses which both have no answer yet. Those are the only two possibiltiesIf you can think of another tell me. Edited by TyberiusMax, : accidently called Jar Jack Edited by TyberiusMax, : hypotheses lol its just an "e"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Those are the only two possibilties If you can think of another tell me. Sorry, but that is simply nonsense. They are unrelated. They could both be true, both be false, one true the other false, but only one has any possibility of being answered and that is the former. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024