Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
22 online now:
Tanypteryx (1 member, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,614 Year: 16,650/19,786 Month: 775/2,598 Week: 21/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4503
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 106 of 301 (723205)
03-27-2014 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by NoNukes
03-27-2014 1:58 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Further, the presence of matter and energy is what creates space-time. I'm not sure whether energy allow can be said to do this, but where there is energy, there can be matter.

I don't mean to muddy the waters (well, yes, I guess I do since I'm here) since you and 1.61803 have a very interesting discussion starting here.

But, my understanding of GR is that the equivalence of matter and energy is total. Mass is energy and energy is mass, just different manifestations of the same thing. Like water v ice. So the presence of energy can create space-time without its alter-ego. Additionally, photons may have a rest mass of zero but I've never met a photon that wasn't on its way somewhere in a pretty big hurry. Even as small as they are they do pack a massive wallop when on the go, which is always.

Sorry to digress.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2014 1:58 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2014 5:38 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7999
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 107 of 301 (723208)
03-27-2014 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by shadow71
03-24-2014 12:36 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
I'm not a physicist either, but it seems to me the BICEPS2 results support the "Big Bang" theory and therefore support for the theory that the universe had a beginning, thus leading to support for a creator, rather than a spontaneous formation of the universe.

I have never understood this argument.

Why does having a beginning point to a supernatural creator? Clouds have a beginning, and yet they form naturally. Rainbows have a beginning, yet they form naturally. Everything in nature that we see which has a beginning has a known or at least proposed natural process that produces it.

So please explain why this argument makes any sense.

It does not seem logical that there would be a spontaneous formation out of nothing w/o some moving force.

1. It could be a spontaneous formation out of something.

2. The moving force does not need to be a supernatural deity.

3. You could just be wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 12:36 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by shadow71, posted 03-27-2014 7:03 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 116 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2014 11:47 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7999
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 108 of 301 (723210)
03-27-2014 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by shadow71
03-27-2014 12:43 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
What requirements are there to earn a PhD in the sciences?

For the biological sciences . . .

First two years are split between lab work and course work. Last two years are mostly lab work with some TA'ing. At the end of 4 years you should have at least 3 peer reviewed publications based on the research you have done, and will be expected to defend those papers in front of a review panel of several PhD's in your field of work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by shadow71, posted 03-27-2014 12:43 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by shadow71, posted 03-27-2014 6:54 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 301 (723212)
03-27-2014 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by AZPaul3
03-27-2014 4:28 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
So the presence of energy can create space-time without its alter-ego.

But, my understanding of GR is that the equivalence of matter and energy is total. Mass is energy and energy is mass, just different manifestations of the same thing. Like water v ice.

Well, you cannot just add salt and water to your ice cream freezer. You need the ice. Similarly, there are times when you want matter, and energy just won't do.

Nonetheless, your statement is likely true.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by AZPaul3, posted 03-27-2014 4:28 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 301 (723214)
03-27-2014 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by 1.61803
03-27-2014 2:10 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Do you know if the fundalmental forces existed in the absence of spacetime?

No, I don't know about that. But your original question assumed that they did.

Does scientist know if gravity exists in a region that contains neither energy or matter?

A gravitational field contains energy, so I guess the answer is either no, or that your question has no real meaning.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by 1.61803, posted 03-27-2014 2:10 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1188 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 111 of 301 (723216)
03-27-2014 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Taq
03-27-2014 5:24 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Thanks Taq
This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Taq, posted 03-27-2014 5:24 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1188 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 112 of 301 (723217)
03-27-2014 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Taq
03-27-2014 5:15 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
1.61803 writes:

shadow71 writes:
Prior to the big bang, when time did not exist, were there laws of nature

The fundalmental forces that manifest reality would not be able to influence a vaccum. So in order for there to be something there must first be spacetime. Prior to the existance of the universe there was no strong force, because there were no atoms. There was no gravity because gravity requires spacetime and matter..
There was no weak force either. Nor electromagnatism.

So in essence the answer seems to be prior to the big bang the forces that drive our cosmos did not exist.
I say that tentatively.

If 1.61803 is correct how could there be a spontaneous formation out of nothing?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Taq, posted 03-27-2014 5:15 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2014 11:36 PM shadow71 has not yet responded
 Message 117 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2014 11:55 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 301 (723229)
03-27-2014 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ProtoTypical
03-19-2014 9:15 AM


I am not really a big news junkie so I am sure that there is lots of stuff that I miss but there is something wrong when the greatest discovery in the history of science comes and goes with barely a whimper in the world's press.

What makes this such a great discovery?

Surely there are more important things that have been discovered.

In fact, I could care less, and cannot imagine this discovery having any impact on me, or anyone really, whatsoever.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ProtoTypical, posted 03-19-2014 9:15 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by AZPaul3, posted 03-27-2014 10:09 PM Jon has not yet responded
 Message 120 by onifre, posted 03-28-2014 2:09 AM Jon has not yet responded
 Message 121 by Son Goku, posted 03-28-2014 6:06 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4503
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 114 of 301 (723234)
03-27-2014 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Jon
03-27-2014 8:36 PM


What makes this such a great discovery?

Not much except having taken one giant leap toward our understanding of the origins of the universe. Got a long way to go yet, but this is one huge step.

Surely there are more important things that have been discovered.

Oh, yes, very much so. Higgs comes mind. Penicillin. My discovery of girls in the sixth grade. Yah, there are bigger ones, no doubt. But you celebrate your victories when you can.

In fact, I could care less, and ...

Well then, if you're at a point where you could care less then you do now, at least you have some interest. You can go ahead and care even less now, or not care at all, if you want to. You're not required to have any curiosity about the formation of the universe. I'll carry your share of the collective curiosity.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Jon, posted 03-27-2014 8:36 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 301 (723239)
03-27-2014 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by shadow71
03-27-2014 7:03 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
If 1.61803 is correct how could there be a spontaneous formation out of nothing?

I've already given perfect ratio reason to think he might be wrong.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by shadow71, posted 03-27-2014 7:03 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by 1.61803, posted 03-28-2014 10:03 AM NoNukes has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 385 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 116 of 301 (723240)
03-27-2014 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Taq
03-27-2014 5:15 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Taq writes:

I have never understood this argument.

Why does having a beginning point to a supernatural creator? Clouds have a beginning, and yet they form naturally. Rainbows have a beginning, yet they form naturally. Everything in nature that we see which has a beginning has a known or at least proposed natural process that produces it.

So please explain why this argument makes any sense.


I think the point is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence which is outside itself. The cause for the clouds' beginning must be outside of the cloud. The cause for the rainbow must transcend the rainbow itself. 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.

"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Taq, posted 03-27-2014 5:15 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by onifre, posted 03-28-2014 2:01 AM kbertsche has responded
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 03-28-2014 12:26 PM kbertsche has responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 385 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 117 of 301 (723241)
03-27-2014 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by shadow71
03-27-2014 7:03 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
shadow71 writes:

If 1.61803 is correct how could there be a spontaneous formation out of nothing?


There can't be, if by "nothing" you truly mean nothing: no mass-energy, no spacetime, no laws of nature.

Particles can spontaneously pop out of the "vacuum", but the physicist's "vacuum" is very different from the philospher's "nothing".


"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by shadow71, posted 03-27-2014 7:03 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by onifre, posted 03-28-2014 2:06 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(3)
Message 118 of 301 (723244)
03-28-2014 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by kbertsche
03-27-2014 11:47 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
I think the point is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence which is outside itself.

Then so would whatever supernatural being you've chosen to be the creator of this particular universe.

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.

Not at all. It could be we are part of a multiverse system.

Supernatural has never ever ever ever ever been the answer to any question that we've solved. Why now?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2014 11:47 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 10:55 AM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 119 of 301 (723245)
03-28-2014 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by kbertsche
03-27-2014 11:55 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
but the physicist's "vacuum" is very different from the philospher's "nothing".

The philosophers "nothing" has no meaning, so that would quite a difference.

Unless you can provide an actual definition of nothing in the philosophers sense that doesn't become circular i.e. "the absense of anything" of something like that?

How would a philosopher even begin to grasp the true meaning of nothingness? Seems like physicist are the only ones qualified to explain it.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2014 11:55 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(3)
Message 120 of 301 (723246)
03-28-2014 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Jon
03-27-2014 8:36 PM


In fact, I could care less, and cannot imagine this discovery having any impact on me, or anyone really, whatsoever.

Maybe you should go back to your coloring books then.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Jon, posted 03-27-2014 8:36 PM Jon has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019