Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The one and only non-creationist in this forum.
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 220 of 558 (680017)
11-17-2012 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Alfred Maddenstein
11-16-2012 9:01 PM


Re: Reasons to be humble
Temperature is a perfectly well defined concept. Do you seriously think people don't know what temperature is?
The statistical mechanical definition is the most general one, why don't you look it up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-16-2012 9:01 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-17-2012 6:58 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 221 of 558 (680018)
11-17-2012 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by ICANT
11-17-2012 1:52 AM


Re: Still garbled.
ICANT writes:
Where did that pretty small thing come from?
Nobody knows as of November 2012. We will probably need a Quantum theory of Gravity to figure it out fully.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by ICANT, posted 11-17-2012 1:52 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by ICANT, posted 11-17-2012 11:36 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 225 of 558 (680025)
11-17-2012 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Alfred Maddenstein
11-17-2012 6:58 AM


Re: Reasons to be humble
Translate that statistical mechanical definition in terms of that pretty small thing of Planck size for the benefit of the stupid moggy, Son.
Okay. The statistical mechanical definition of temperature, I'll stick to the less general one, is basically the average kinetic energy of the particles in the gas.
The earliest point of the universe's history described by the Big Bang theory has the universe as a quark-gluon plasma filled with an electroweak plasma (W-bosons, electrons, e.t.c)
This "thing" was not Planck sized, it was a good few orders of magnitude larger.
Its temperature was then just the average kinetic energy of the particles in the plasma.
What are the mechanics
The motion of the particles.
and stats
The notion of taking averages is statistical.
how do you derive the temperature value
The average kinetic energy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-17-2012 6:58 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-17-2012 12:02 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 227 of 558 (680035)
11-17-2012 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Alfred Maddenstein
11-17-2012 7:21 AM


Re: Still garbled.
Could you please use pronouns like "I" or "you" instead of "the cat".
Dr. Adequate's post is just expressing the basic statement that nobody currently knows how the universe arrived in the early electroweak and guark-gluon plasma state from which it expanded.
However we know it was in that state, as all predictions of the model have been confirmed by observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-17-2012 7:21 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-17-2012 12:16 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 558 (680230)
11-18-2012 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by ICANT
11-17-2012 11:36 AM


Re: Still garbled.
ISAW writes:
This statement says the universe has not existed forever.
Sure, it's Stephen Hawking talking about his personal ideas for what was going on in the Big Bang.
The universe does exist today.
Well, I'm not going to argue with that.
That requires a beginning to exist.
Does it? I'm not really sure if that's a logical necessity.
Can we agree that for the universe to exist at T=0 it either had to exist in some form prior to T=0, or either it had to have a beginning to exist from non-existence?
Or do you have another explanation?
Yes, for the hundredth billionth time, the Big Bang does not have a T = 0 point. It does not say where the universe came from. It just says that "long, long" ago, the universe was in a quark-gluon electroweak plasma and expanded from that state to what we see now. What happened before we don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by ICANT, posted 11-17-2012 11:36 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by ICANT, posted 11-18-2012 11:24 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 558 (680231)
11-18-2012 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Alfred Maddenstein
11-17-2012 12:02 PM


Re: Reasons to be humble
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Son, you jump ahead of the game. The temperature of the putative quark-gluon plasma after the alleged inflation of the original Plank volume had already occurred was not the issue.
The Big Bang theory does not discuss an "original Planck volume". I have nothing to say about an idea not present in the Big Bang theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-17-2012 12:02 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-18-2012 6:44 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 276 of 558 (680320)
11-19-2012 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Alfred Maddenstein
11-18-2012 6:44 PM


Re: Reasons to be humble
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
You need to educate yourself, Son, about the scriptures of your faith.
Scriptures of your faith? It's a mathematical model, I can derive the consequences since I know the mathematics.
The Big Bunk hypothesis has quite a bit to say about the original Planck volume.
No it doesn't. I am well aware of all the details of the Big Bang model, there is no mention of a Planck volume anywhere in the model. I can provide references if you wish.
This period in the history of creation of something from nothing is called Planck epoch in your gospels, if you did not know that.
The Planck epoch is a period in some extensions to the Big Bang model, not in the model itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-18-2012 6:44 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 277 of 558 (680321)
11-19-2012 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by ICANT
11-18-2012 11:24 PM


Stephen Hawking writes:
How can that be his personal ideas when he believes the universe was produced by an instanton?
I don't know "how" things can be Stephen Hawking's personal ideas. The same reasons other concepts are other people's personal ideas I guess.
I thought T=0 was the point that the math became meaningless.
It is, hence that point and the time points near it are not included in the Big Bang model, since they are meaningless.
Now either the universe had existed in some form prior to T=0 or during the time from T=0 and T=0+vvvvst the universe began to exist in and from non-existence.
Yeah, I guess maybe. That's a question for extensions to the Big Bang model. The model itself does not deal with what happened before the electroweak/quark-gluon plasma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by ICANT, posted 11-18-2012 11:24 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 558 (680356)
11-19-2012 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Alfred Maddenstein
11-19-2012 6:17 AM


Re: time and motion
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Well, what I am saying is that such terms as energy, force and so on are abstractions, relations and measures. They are properties and capacities of things that interact. What bigbangism does is the trick of reifying these abstractions to claim that they can exist on their own while the actors that may resist compression could be removed from the scene altogether.
Current theoretical physics does not claim, in any theory, that energy is an object that exists in its own right. It is always the property of some object.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-19-2012 6:17 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-19-2012 12:18 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 558 (680409)
11-19-2012 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Alfred Maddenstein
11-19-2012 12:18 PM


Re: time and motion
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Good, Son, you are starting to talk rationally. Objects exist and their properties is the sum of their relations to and interactions with all other objects. Unlike what you were taught at the seminary.
Actually that's exactly what I was thought in university. It's standard physics, see Goldstein's "Classical Mechanics", 3rd edition or V.I. Arnold's "Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics", 2nd edition.
It's also the case in the Big Bang model see Kolb and Turner "The Early Universe".
Therefore just like I said all the objects in existence could not be compressed so as to require next to no volume. The Universe can neither contract nor expand a single Planck length.
The Big Bang theory does not say everything was compressed into a Planck volume (see Kolb and Turner).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-19-2012 12:18 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 312 of 558 (680611)
11-20-2012 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Alfred Maddenstein
11-20-2012 10:24 AM


Re: time and motion
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
You forgot to tell the judge what it was exactly doing the motions in so-called early universe, Mod. They claim no atoms or particles only fields of energetic soup. That's the essence of that religion: motions move and extensions get extended. Do you reckon the cat is about to swallow that?
Nobody claims that. The temperature was the average kinetic energy of particles in the quark-gluon/electroweak plasma. Perhaps it would be better to criticize the actual theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-20-2012 10:24 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-20-2012 11:35 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 328 of 558 (680692)
11-20-2012 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Alfred Maddenstein
11-20-2012 11:35 AM


Re: time and motion
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
What average kinetic energy particles moving inside Planck length may possibly have?
Look, once again:
The Big Bang does not mention a Planck volume. At the earliest point in the Big Bang model the universe has a finite not size. It is not Planck sized.
Why do you (and ICANT) keep asking questions or making points based around something that is not mentioned in the model at all?
You make a mockery out of the very foundations of quantum physics. Quantum means discrete, indivisible base unit.
Quantum Theories are theories where the physics is described by probability waves, probabilities for a given outcome to occur.
In some circumstances, these theories imply that energy comes in discrete amounts, for example the energy of electrons in an atom. Since these scenarios were the ones originally looked at when Quantum Mechanics was being developed it got its name from this discrete/quantum behaviour of the energy levels.
However this notion of discreteness is not the foundation of the theory, just a consequence in some situations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-20-2012 11:35 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by ICANT, posted 11-20-2012 10:30 PM Son Goku has replied
 Message 344 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-21-2012 12:26 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 359 of 558 (680939)
11-21-2012 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by ICANT
11-20-2012 10:30 PM


Re: time and motion
ICANT writes:
There is before planck time 10-43.
Prior to planck time it is PRESUMED that all 4 fundamental forces were united into one force.
Okay, once again.
In the Big Bang model there is no Planck time. The existence of a Planck time, where gravity begins to behave quantum mechanically, is an extension of the Big Bang theory that a good number of physicists think might be worth trying to develop. There are other ideas.
There are several models where the four forces don't unite into one force, that is also just an proposed extension.
In the conventional Big Bang model none of the stuff you wrote is even mentioned.
It is also PRESUMED that all the matter, energy, space and time expanded outwardly from the original singularity.
No it isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by ICANT, posted 11-20-2012 10:30 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 360 of 558 (680941)
11-21-2012 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by Alfred Maddenstein
11-21-2012 12:26 PM


Re: time and motion
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
I don't know to which exactly sect of bigbangism you personally belong. The orthodoxy mentions Planck epoch and the preceding singularity alright.
Well I just looked through "The Early Universe" Kolb and Turner, the standard graduate text on cosmology and they don't say such a thing. In fact they only mention the Planck Epoch in the final chapter as a possible extension of the Big Bang theory.
I guess you're going to say Kolb and Turner is my Bible/Qu'ran or something aren't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-21-2012 12:26 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 361 of 558 (680942)
11-21-2012 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by ICANT
11-21-2012 3:57 PM


Re: time and motion
Where in the "left-right" and "up-down" directions does the "forward-back" direction exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by ICANT, posted 11-21-2012 3:57 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by ICANT, posted 11-22-2012 12:19 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024