Misconceptions about the Big Bang.

[Odin2005]

Maybe I'm just too much of a nit-picker, but I get annoyed when the Big Bang is called the "beginning of time" and/or "the beginning of the Universe", such statements are as of now unjustified assumptions and seem to me based on Judeo-Christian cultural prejudices. All we can say is that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics break down at Planck Scale distances and densities and so we simply cannot model what happened before that until we get a quantinized theory of gravity. Some superstring theorists have postulated an eternal oscillating universe consisting of two gravitationally bound 3-dimensional membranes, one of them being our visible universe, that collide and bounce off each other every few trillion years, the collision being the Big Bang.

[Oregone]

1. Is quantum physics essentially about making up language...

to confuse the shit out of people who ask too many questions? It shuts me right up.

[flyingfysh]

4. No. To really talk about quantum physics,

you need heavy-duty mathematics and years of study to understand the issues. It is definitely NOT "made up".

[Oregone]

5. I disagree...

I really think they sit around a table playing drinking games, slurring out "concept" words just to fuck with people like me. I can't prove it, but its a valid theory.

[Odin2005]

7. *facepalm* n/t

[silverweb]

28. ...

:spray:

I love it!

When I was in high school an aeon or so ago, my friends and I would sit around speculating about stuff like this. One idea tossed out (my favorite) was that our universe might actually be the equivalent of a bug jar in some other adolescent being's closet. Having had innumberable bug jars of my own, it made perfect sense to me.

Theorists' drinking games and concept words "just to fuck with people" sounds like the grown-up scientists' version of what we used to do. :D

[floridablue]

2. Damn I am so glad we finally have that resolved.

I was beginning to think it would never happen.

[dbonds]

3. There is always the Electric Universe theory that has other theories

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374

[Odin2005]

8. That stuff is ridiculous woo woo pseudoscience.

[dbonds]

12. Learned to disregard people that use Woo Woo

It might not be a proven theory, might just be another perspective in the string vs quantum battle. But it does explain some things that quantum doesn't. Not be a proponent or a critic, just saying it is another model of the universe that doesn't need the quantum theories that were being complained about.

[Random_Australian]

32. No, it isn't actually another perspective at all. Do you know why?

Because it is meaningless.

Furthermore, the claim from the author that it explains stuff quantum mech doesn't comes from the author.... only. Not anyone who actually understands quantum mech and it's implications.

A model of the universe needs to be useful. For instance, giving a close approximation using a much simpler set of ideas would be good.... however, the 'approximations' (ie. ad hoc bullshit) of the electric universe are neither close nor computationally useful.

Any model of the universe that doesn't need quantum is, well, wrong. Quantum mech is the single most experimentally tested and used set of results of all time. You don't go around claiming that it is inaccurate without some serious freaking results.

Please note: the author used vague claims about well-known phenomena (eg comets). Not actual experiment.

All in all, it is very pretty sounding but entirely useless.

[laconicsax]

30. The Electric Universe theory is my all-time favorite!

http://www.holoscience.com /

Big Bang? Never happened, the universe is not expanding, red shift is just an illusion created by the electric universe.
Nuclear Fusion in stars? Nope, stars are made of lightning.
Rocky planets? Discarded cores from dwarf stars and gas giants.
Craters? Lightning bolts did it.
Lightning in the atmosphere? Comes from outer space.
Gravity? Newton couldn't have been more wrong--it's an electrostatic force. (Does that allow for the 'expanding earth' theory?)

[Ikonoklast]

6. The Big Bang only delineates the current iteration *our* physical universe.

I wonder if each oscillation results in the same dimensions manifesting themselves each time, or if there are (assuming this is a relatively stable universe) unstable universes created with, say, six of the eleven dimensions trying to exist simultaneously and re-collapse almost instantly.

[GreenPartyVoter]

29. I think of it that way, too

[.... callchet ....]

9. It is inconceivable to saddle the human mid with the explanation of the Universe.

Or anything else that challenges the limit of mind processing data. It is scholastic elitism to solve a problem. Trying to solve a problem indicates a solution. There is no solution. Stop solving ? No way. If a glass jar is knocked off a table, it is possible to predict the pattern of the particles. It could be exactly predicted because each part of the jar will have certain forces that will determine the trajectory and depositing of the particles. Well at the same time this happens, each part of the fracturing jar will have an effect on the universe. Each part will alter the magnetic pull and field about it and about which it reacts. So we can figure out where the parts will go, but not even begin to figure out the whole picture of what else is happening. The jar is solving the universe problem, everything else is what we don't have a clue about, but relegate to unimportant because the forces seem negligible. But they are there. Just the same way the earth acts on and is acted on. Quantum has no meaning if there are no boundaries. IT has to assume a finite point to work. We can't solve diving by zero so we quit trying to solve it. I am sure there is a physical reality that represents diving by zero, but it exceeds our capabilities to find it and comprehend it. I have a niece that was published on binary star eclipses. Her work is just a small infinitesimal part space.

[Odin2005]

19. Quit babbling inchoherently.

Need a shrink?

[.... callchet ....]

23. I get that a lot. !

Usually bringing someones game down, or so they think. Comment comes from a self professed ( usually papered scholar ) extremely conservative minded professional protective of their position unwilling to think ot of the box. . It is impossible for me to comprehend how a person can subscribe to a theory and then defend it unquestionably like an axiom. My guess is that the position on lotto tickets is that the odds are to great to make winning feasible although it is possible, while defending theories on the universe of which the odds of being correct are about 50 to 50 according to peers. If you read my entire post, give it some time, :)

[Random_Australian]

33. 1) Why are you sure there is a physical reality that represents dividing by zero?

2) Do you think there is a physical reality that represents dividing a number by cheese sandwhich?

3) Why do you think quantum needs boundaries? .... actually, it's explicitly formulated "over all space" ie everywhere. We use approximation methods with boundaries, sure, if we don't need an exact answer..... but that is part of the approximation, not QM.

[.... callchet ....]

10. And there is nothing more political than science and theory.

Like fine wines and an aficionado.

[.... callchet ....]

13. I have never run into so many astrophysicists

on a science discussion before.

[Duppers]

25. like another person on this thread, you're so full of it

Science is about facts; nothing political about it.

And agreeing with Odin: there's no 'beginning' to time.
But there is a beginning to this version of our physical universe and it's called the 'big bang.'

[.... callchet ....]

26. Science is about facts,

and there are multiple theories about everything. So the facts support multiple theories. New discoveries are always being made that seem to support new theories and discount old theories. Is paleontology a science also ? Granted it is a gathering of facts and then different bodies get together to formulate a postulate. That is the political part. The theory with the most supporters is acknowledged as an axiom , until the next body challenges it. Then billions of dollars have to be justified. Just like NASA is subject to politics. Of course I thought this was accepted as fact. Sorry to have started a political controversy on a political sight. No more will be said.

[Random_Australian]

34. Uh, what? Read much science lit? Pretty much everything gets laid down

(given a little time, of course - there is no magic way of determining everything at a glance) pretty freaking solidly. This is the whole point of asking for predictions from hypotheses - it kills the untrue, and quick.

There are a few cases were there is freak-all data to work with, true..... but really, there are only a few tenable positions even in those cases. Each does their best to destroy all the others via any fair means, of course. This allows only the true to become sucessful.

[jimshoes]

11. Speaking of things that go bang,

There was a thread posted earlier of a picture taken from Hubble of the remnants of a supernova many thousands of years ago. Follow the link to the stereoscopic images. Simply mind blowing. You can actually see the ball (shell) formed by the hot gasses glowing as they expand through space.
edit
Here is the link
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x49083

[.... callchet ....]

16. What did you mean when you said

"remnants of a supernova many thousands of years ago" ? What you saw a picture of probalby happend a billion years ago. I can't figure out how things of such a magnitude can't have an effect on us. The scary thing is that light traveles so fast and the physical properties of what happened may be on its way to destroy us. Like looking at a gun that is far away and it fires a shot that is going to kill you. ou can see the flash in an instant, but it takes the bullet some time to get to you.

[jimshoes]

20. This is from the article

This supernova remnant has an estimated age of about 40,000 years - meaning light from the massive stellar explosion first reached Earth 40,000 years ago. But this expanding remnant is not the only aftermath. The cosmic catastrophe also left behind a spinning neutron star or pulsar, all that remains of the original star's core.
I'm not an astrophysiscist but I like Astronomy. I can't explain much about it though.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. Isn't it awesome? The more we find out, the more I feel there's a supernatural aspect to things nt

[.... callchet ....]

17. I hope you are not kidding and going to make fun of me,

but if what you are saying is what I think, then I agree with you. If you are kidding oh well, but I believe that all science points to a god. All science asks for a beginning point, and God would be that point, directly supporting a belief in the existence God.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

18. I'm not being cynical. Science does not threaten my beliefs, it reinforces them....

it's all more amazing than I had previously thought. Do you know what I mean?

[.... callchet ....]

21. Absolutely.

I have a very active logical and analytical mind. I extrapolate and resolve questions all day every day. Not for work just my on going thinking. I

subject myself to ridicule often in my search for answers. Here is an example of my explanation for talent. Talent is not explainable. Talent has

resolved many issues of which there may have never been an answer during our lifetime. Jokingly I para phrase conversation between God and ST. Peter.

They would be observing the progress of civilization on earth and seeing the humans having a rough time doing any work. So I said that GOd said to sSt

peter. Let them invent wire rope and o- rings. Bingo, construction took off like a runaway train. Seriously tho, if it is possible after what I said,

look at birds learning to fly. That is talent. It is inconceivable the amount of motor skills, bone design , aerodynamics of each and every feather to

be designed and placed to relegate that to evolution. Look at football. Do you realize how boring it would be if the quarterback didn't have the

talent to throw a football at a moving target fifty yards away. In music, and medicine and everything. Look at the unusual advacnes that defy expiation

other than talent. Look at the injecting process of a mosquito, of a venom that such a small amount of can cause such discomfort. And has the viscosity

that enables it to be inject by a muscular pump through a proboscis. Follwoing copied "Contrary to popular belief, a mosquito can stab you with its

proboscis without you feeling a thing. It then injects anticoagulant saliva to stop your blood clotting while it feeds, and it is this that carries the

bacteria that cause irritation and pain" copied from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2121-painless-needle-copies-mosquitos-stinger.html.. Evolve

that away.
Chet

[Sarah Ibarruri]

24. Whatever one believes in, there's no doubt that the universe is remarkable nt

[Longhorn Liberal]

27. le sigh...

Science does not ask for a starting. It does not rule one out but will only acknowledge it if the evidence supports.

So...please tell me, since everything has a beginning point...how was god created. Because I really think we should be worshiping the creator of god. And well, surely god's god had a beginning point. And so on, and so on, and so on.

But then I guess god has always existed and shall exist forever and ever into infinity past, present, and beyond. Unlike what we think of as the universe. No, surely that could not have existed forever, but an omnipotent deity who strangely acts and thinks like a human being...HE has always existed.

And for the sarcastically challenged... :sarcasm:

[Xipe Totec]

15. Nice post, Hawkin n/t

[squidbro]

22. Not the absolute beginning

One cannot use quantum mechanics to model the the "macro" world of classical physics. That theory hasn't been worked out yet. It's called the grand unified field theory. Besides, the scientists who refer to the Big Bang aren't using the term to indicate the absolute beginning of the universe. They are diligently attempting to determine whether there is enough unaccounted mass in the universe to eventually lead to a gravitational contraction where the universe falls in upon itself leading to a cycling of the universe. There is an explosion or big bang followed by an expansion of the universe with eventual slowing and contraction under the influence of gravity where the universe falls in on itself leading to a repeat explosion. In such a scenario there would be no absolute beginning. It has been determined that neutrinos do indeed have mass. It is unknown whether there are enough neutrinos as they are extremely difficult to detect and measure, to provide enough mass to eventually lead to an eventual contraction of the universe.

String theory is interesting as far as an interesting thought process goes. However, it doesn't really model the microscopic or macroscopic world well and hence the persistence of quantum mechanics along with Newtonian physics. I can't imagine using string theory in order to model a trip to Mars, much less the moon. Or using string theory to construct electronic circuits. Such a theory would have to be useful in modeling the behavior of the world we see before it gains any validity in modeling the universe. It has only been recently that scientists/physicists have had the tools to determine whether the theory of relativity models the behavior of objects based on the velocity of their travel. It turns out that Einstein's theories are indeed valid. And the theory of relativity works in the realm of quantum as well as classical physics to model the behavior of objects and particles based on their velocity. The theory of relativity allows for an alternate universe which is inverse of ours. Where objects travel much faster than the speed of light where energy is required to slow objects toward the speed of light. It is counterintuitive, but entirely possible.

I simply don't see any Judeo-Christian prejudices when the Big Bang is referred to as the beginning of the universe. It is simply referred to as the beginning as we now understand things.

[Thor_MN]

31. Slightly off topic, but are the physical constants of our universe just right because they have been

observed? I read an article about how "Goldilocks" all the physical are, with a bunch of babel about the universe maybe being created for us. From my admittedly simplistic standpoint, the reason that the Universe fits us so well is that we are. In other words, if it didn't, we wouldn't be here.

If the multiverse view holds any water, there are infinitly many universes that had constants that precluded the formation of particles, gravity too weak to form stars, etc. And infinte universes that were just off the mark so life didn't form. Hell, there would be infinte universes slightly different than ours, and in one of them, Jessica Alba is rubbing my back, while Evangeline Lilly is holding my beer while I type this. Kinda odd, since I normally go for blondes.

The point being, that since there are so many universes, the fact that our suits us is not odd, making the concept of our universe being created to suit us ridiculous. Our universe fits us because we have seen it.

[Random_Australian]

35. Hmmmm, I'll disagree.... somewhat.

We do not what the equations will do. Of course, we know that reality is going to (or probably will) run far away from what the equations predict, but we've no further information.

In other words, the whole 'beginning of time' thing occupies the null position; it is the default and other claims must present evidence before they are justified.

That said, a good scientist always notes their error bars, so if I were telling anyone about it I would say "The Big Bang appears to be the beginning of time and space..... but we don't actually know"

(Why we say this rather than any plain "we don't know" is that we don't know that it won't break down)