Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
28 online now:
AZPaul3, ringo (2 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang is NOT Scientific
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 301 (300742)
04-03-2006 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by sidelined
04-03-2006 12:52 AM


Re: Problems
sidelined writes:

If the universe had no beginning is this not the same as saying that it never began?

Hi Sidelined. I would certainly say so. The statement you are responding to is simply my interpretation of what SG seemed to be saying in his post which orginated this part of the discussion.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by sidelined, posted 04-03-2006 12:52 AM sidelined has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 301 (300743)
04-03-2006 9:39 PM


Stirring It Up
Wow! You introduce some logic or common sense into a science discussion and it's like chunking a pick into an anthill. :D


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Modulous, posted 04-04-2006 2:59 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 228 of 301 (300746)
04-03-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Buzsaw
04-03-2006 9:28 PM


Re: Problems
Nwr, it appears that you either don't want to or cannot present a forthright answer.

Actually, I gave a forthright answer. You didn't recognize it as such.

I am trying to explain that the problem is with the question.

Your question had to do with time.

100 years ago, we measured time in terms of the rotation of the earth. What would time have meant when there was no universe and there was no earth to rotate?

Currently we measure time with the caesium atomic clock. What can time have meant when there was no universe and there was no caesium?

Einstein pointed out the relativity of time. You can have events A and B, and observers X and Y. X sees event A as occurring before event B, while Y sees event B as occurring before event A. This is not just an observation error. There is no answer to the question of which event came first. The order of events is inherently observer dependent.

If the order of events depends on which observer in our universe saw the events, then how can you talk of the order of events that are not part of our universe?

That's the difficulty with your question. Our concept of time cannot be stretched so as to make it applicable to the type of question you were trying to ask.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Buzsaw, posted 04-03-2006 9:28 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Buzsaw, posted 04-04-2006 12:01 AM nwr has responded

ptman
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 301 (300748)
04-03-2006 10:04 PM


Undefined
Hello folks, here is my take on the quandry.

I think what Justin and others are trying to say is that the equations that govern the Universe are undefined beyond a certain point. Time and the three dimensions that we see are a continuous function only so far. As a result, at the point of discontinuity and beyond that point, the equations that we have are no longer valid and what is on the other side could be almost anything or nothing.

The other way to look at it that I have heard that may be a little more visual is to compact dimensions such that the four dimensions of space and time that we know of are a single surface. All points in our universe are somewhere on that surface. But you can now imagine a point that is not on that surface (not in our spacetime), that point cannot be described in any coordinate system that belongs to the surface (spacetime/universe)and so is neither greater or lesser or before or after or anything.

I don't know which of these comes closer to what Physicists/Cosmologists think and would be happy for any correction but this is how I understand "the other side of the big bang"


Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Buzsaw, posted 04-04-2006 12:13 AM ptman has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 301 (300762)
04-04-2006 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by nwr
04-03-2006 9:59 PM


Re: Problems
nwr writes:

the problem is with the question.

I was simply interpreting SG's words and ask if you agreed with the interpretation, so the only question I asked pertained to my interpretation of SG's statement. Maybe you need to go back and mentally digest the sequence of messages. It get a bit confusing.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by nwr, posted 04-03-2006 9:59 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by nwr, posted 04-04-2006 12:15 AM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 301 (300763)
04-04-2006 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by ptman
04-03-2006 10:04 PM


Re: Undefined
Mmmm.......that appears to this logical thinking ole fart that the 4 dimensional surface is the top of the table and you're slipping the unexplainable under the table, kind of like what folks don't like to account to the IRS for they slip under the table. ;)

Abe: Btw, Ptman, I forgot to greet you. Welcome and thanks for joining the discussion.

This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-04-2006 12:16 AM


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ptman, posted 04-03-2006 10:04 PM ptman has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 232 of 301 (300764)
04-04-2006 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Buzsaw
04-04-2006 12:01 AM


Re: Problems
I was simply interpreting SG's words and ask if you agreed with the interpretation, so the only question I asked pertained to my interpretation of SG's statement.

You asked me to refute your interpretation (in Message 209). That's different from asking whether I agreed.

This was your interpretation:

buzsaw interpretation of SG. writes:

1. The universe had no origin/never ever originated/had no beginnng.

This is what Son Goku actually said:

Son Goku writes:

All we're saying is that words like "before" and "after" don't apply to the universe. There is no universal past and future.
Our discussion are about the extreme relativity of time.
The Big Bang is often viewed as a high energy environment, but nobody claims it is the origin of the universe.

To be clear, no I don't agree with your interpretation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Buzsaw, posted 04-04-2006 12:01 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Buzsaw, posted 04-04-2006 12:34 AM nwr has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 301 (300765)
04-04-2006 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by nwr
04-04-2006 12:15 AM


Re: Problems
nwr writes:

This is what Son Goku actually said:

Son Goku writes:
All we're saying is that words like "before" and "after" don't apply to the universe. There is no universal past and future.
Our discussion are about the extreme relativity of time.
The Big Bang is often viewed as a high energy environment, but nobody claims it is the origin of the universe.

(NWR) To be clear, no I don't agree with your interpretation.

SG also said, "We've already learned from General and Special Relativity that there is no such things as a universal "before", upon which all observers agree."

Now, NWR, factoring all of the above, specifically what is the problem with my interpretation of his conglomerate statements?

Edit to fix error

This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-04-2006 12:36 AM


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by nwr, posted 04-04-2006 12:15 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by nwr, posted 04-04-2006 5:05 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 359 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 234 of 301 (300774)
04-04-2006 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Buzsaw
04-03-2006 9:39 PM


Re: Stirring It Up
Wow! You introduce some logic or common sense into a science discussion and it's like chunking a pick into an anthill

Which is why what we think is logic and common sense was thrown out as a model for explaining these kind of concepts over a century ago. A more reliable 'logic' was used - mathematics. Trying to explain advanced mathematical concepts using English is doomed to failure (heck its quite difficult to explain simple mathematical concepts in english (OK folks we are going to divide the circle into sections each -0.2m2)).

I'd like to see things that make sense to our limited minds thrown out and instead mathematics get used.

After all, it is almost common sense to me to consider the universe as a 4-d object that has no beginning, just different points. To me talking about the universe origanating at the big bang makes as much sense as talking about the creation of the earth starting at the south pole.

As such, I'd keenly like to see a thread (perhaps feat. cavediver and yourself) actually discuss the physics and maths of the concepts as opposed to bashing out analogies and seeming logic. I'd like to see a rock solid GR thread, and I'm not terrified of the maths (I'm a little nervous about them though :))


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Buzsaw, posted 04-03-2006 9:39 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by cavediver, posted 04-04-2006 4:57 AM Modulous has responded
 Message 237 by Son Goku, posted 04-04-2006 8:37 AM Modulous has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1898 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 235 of 301 (300781)
04-04-2006 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Modulous
04-04-2006 2:59 AM


Re: Stirring It Up
After all, it is almost common sense to me to consider the universe as a 4-d object that has no beginning, just different points. To me talking about the universe origanating at the big bang makes as much sense as talking about the creation of the earth starting at the south pole.

Half-way there :)

Although this classical Big Bang model is quite possibly (even quite likely) NOT the real picture, it is very important to understand the validity of this picture before trying to move further into theoretical cosmology. The concepts it teaches are exceptionally important. And it is just so damn aesthetic that it could just be true ;)

I'd keenly like to see a thread (perhaps feat. cavediver and yourself) actually discuss the physics and maths of the concepts as opposed to bashing out analogies and seeming logic

The maths is a pain primarily becasue of the typesetting. Anyone know of an easy way of getting equations written down here?

Also, why should anyone accept the maths? If all the evidence of Special Relativity and General Relativity is not enough to convince someone that these theories may just be telling us something about the nature of space and time, then why should the maths of these theories do any better?

I appreciate that you may just be saying "I would like to see some maths" :)

I'd like to see a rock solid GR thread, and I'm not terrified of the maths

Yoda: Heh, you will be, you will be...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Modulous, posted 04-04-2006 2:59 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Modulous, posted 04-04-2006 8:54 AM cavediver has responded
 Message 241 by Chiroptera, posted 04-04-2006 9:31 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1150
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 236 of 301 (300800)
04-04-2006 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Buzsaw
04-03-2006 9:25 PM


Re: Problems
Hi Son Goku: So as I read and understand your statements, we can conclude from it the following to be what you are saying:

Alright:
1. The universe had no origin/never ever originated/had no beginnng.

I'm saying the universe is a 4 manifold, with distance and time as just another field in it.
Whether it is the end result of some process, I do not know. However that process would certainly not be explainable with a human conception of time. Particularly limited words like "before" and "after".

2. So there was no "before." the universe.

Whose before are talking about, what way is this observer moving............e.t.c.
and even then I would say no there is no "before" the Universe because the word has no meaning on the scale we're discussing.

3. Regarding the universe, there is no past and there is no future. There is only the immeasurable present.

No. My whole point is that our language just doesn't apply at this scale.
I originally had a paragraph length response to this which contained the word "already". However I eventually abandoned the paragraph because the word made no sense in context, even though it would appear to at first glance or to the untrained eye.

As nwr said:

Our concept of time cannot be stretched so as to make it applicable to the type of question you were trying to ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Buzsaw, posted 04-03-2006 9:25 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Chiroptera, posted 04-04-2006 8:37 AM Son Goku has responded

Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1150
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 237 of 301 (300805)
04-04-2006 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Modulous
04-04-2006 2:59 AM


Re: Stirring It Up
As such, I'd keenly like to see a thread (perhaps feat. cavediver and yourself) actually discuss the physics and maths of the concepts as opposed to bashing out analogies and seeming logic. I'd like to see a rock solid GR thread, and I'm not terrified of the maths (I'm a little nervous about them though )

Now that'd be a thread to behold. Hopefully we could start to leave the swamplands of analogy behind.

This message has been edited by Son Goku, 04-04-2006 09:50 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Modulous, posted 04-04-2006 2:59 AM Modulous has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 238 of 301 (300806)
04-04-2006 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Son Goku
04-04-2006 8:25 AM


Re: Problems
quote:
I'm saying the universe is a 4 manifold, with distance and time as just another field in it.

That's interesting. If a successful theory of quantum gravity results in a paradigm shift where another field of mathematics turns out to be more useful, will the fundamental nature of the universe change as well?


"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Son Goku, posted 04-04-2006 8:25 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Son Goku, posted 04-04-2006 9:48 AM Chiroptera has responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 359 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 239 of 301 (300810)
04-04-2006 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by cavediver
04-04-2006 4:57 AM


Re: Stirring It Up
Half-way there

Although this classical Big Bang model is quite possibly (even quite likely) NOT the real picture

You know when you were a kid and you finally got the courage to get into the pool? I'm like that now, I'm perfectly comfortable being half way to the deep end. I have a feeling that going any further is going to involve a lot of work and some near drowning panics. I'd rather sit here and watch the graceful divers do their stuff!

it is very important to understand the validity of this picture before trying to move further into theoretical cosmology

Of course, that said, I'm like a rat. Neophobic and curious about the subject. If you ever have the time, would you be up for a cosmology thread similar to some of the geology ones going about? Slow steps, building things up nice and gently. As opposed to you having to participate in yet another 'the big bang is the sux0r' type thread, you can have a 'glory glory, cosmology!' type thread. It'll be all liberating and stuff.

You want to know what causes my cautious curiosity? Sentences like

The concepts it teaches are exceptionally important. And it is just so damn aesthetic that it could just be true


The maths is a pain primarily becasue of the typesetting. Anyone know of an easy way of getting equations written down here?

I've not looked into it myself (though I might, when I get home tonight), but a friend of mine swears by LATEX. I don't know how practical it is - but there are latex to html programs out there that might do wonders here. I always found it odd that HTML has been around so long but equations have eternally been prohibitively time consuming. Here is a test of latex to html:




x
ó
õ
0 


-

x>

 


(x¢>) dx¢> = 1 +

é
ê

ë



1

2xa>

+ 3w>i


1 + x2 + 2x3

ù
ú

û

1/2




 

    .

A quick look at the insane HTML needed to do that should be enough to convince the world that something must be done...

Also, why should anyone accept the maths? If all the evidence of Special Relativity and General Relativity is not enough to convince someone that these theories may just be telling us something about the nature of space and time, then why should the maths of these theories do any better?

Fair point.

I appreciate that you may just be saying "I would like to see some maths"

Damn your perception, you saw through my transparant attempt to entice you into cosmology-fu. Seriously, I often see yourself, Goku and Eta talking about how the answer lies in the mathematics and that analogies only go so far. I'd kind of like to see some of this, despite the fact that my A-level maths will mean precisely nothing for the level of maths I'd need to fully comprehend it (or perhaps even partially understand it(my missus has a BSc in Physics, though in a different area entirely (accoustics) she had to deal with the start of the obscene maths of the quantum world...). Still, something deep within me would like to see some of the maths, with some discussion (and a nearby guru) - I might not understand it but it would give me a sense of satisifaction to know that somebody out there understands it, and that if I really wanted to I could give a shot at coming to grips with it all.

Yoda: Heh, you will be, you will be...

Scared senseless, truth be told, but its the kind of excited fear of the adrenalin junky :)


I've blathered on far too much in here, I'm kind of bored at work and I just let my fingers fly over the keyboard in a near stream of conscious. To enquisitively paraphrase RAZD:

Enjoy?

This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 04-April-2006 01:59 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by cavediver, posted 04-04-2006 4:57 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by cavediver, posted 04-04-2006 11:07 AM Modulous has not yet responded
 Message 249 by nwr, posted 04-04-2006 5:03 PM Modulous has not yet responded
 Message 252 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 04-04-2006 8:08 PM Modulous has not yet responded
 Message 255 by Chiroptera, posted 04-04-2006 8:59 PM Modulous has not yet responded

1.61803
Member
Posts: 2899
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 240 of 301 (300817)
04-04-2006 9:29 AM


Happy to be here
The "causation"of the universe seems to be one of the last stands of theist that God created the universe. When Hawking announced in his book A brief moment in the 80's (if there was no cause, then what need for a creator?) He simply was talking about just this very subject. Something that is eternal and self existant. self causing and self manifesting can not be said to have a beginning. Saint Thomas Aquinas said the same thing about God 400 years ago.

It does not bother me in the least that our universe may be self existant. It does not keep me awake at night that existance my be a extention of a perpetual state of quantum flux.

I am in awe of the fact that energy has in some mysterious way has become sentient to ponder these questions. That out of caos and entropy comes order and life.
As clever as humans have developed, we still will never be able to know all the answers because we will never be able to remove ourselves from the mosiac that makes up the cosmos. IMO.

Be it divine, intelligent, or natural. I am just happy to be here. :) *edit typo

This message has been edited by 1.61803, 04-04-2006 09:32 AM


Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019