Posts: 23917
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
150
RE: beginning of The Universe theories
August 10, 2013 at 1:08 am
(This post was last modified: August 10, 2013 at 1:10 am by Whateverist.)
Sorry to leave you hanging. I quit coming back to this thread when it became clear that the OP wasn't coming back. Just another shit-and-run bible-belter it would seem.
(August 7, 2013 at 8:38 pm)Terr Wrote: The Big Bang theory simply describes an expanding, cooling universe. As has been demonstrated to be the case.
It sayes NOTHING about what what caused it, or the state before (if there was one). Without evidence this would be utterly un-scientific. However there are a number of competeing hypotheses, time and evidence will tell.
I completely agree with you that to make broad sweeping statements about there being no space and no time before the big bang is extremely loose scientific speculation and many have been guilty. Frankly I don't know that we will ever find a way to peer beyond the singularity event of which we are a part. It may be unique and final and involve everything coming from nothing, but I find that highly unlikely. I assume that there are preconditions for a singularity event and that there have been and will be more than one. That, of course, is not a scientific theory. It is pure speculation on a par with, but no better than, that of those who believe in everything from nothing but only once.
(August 7, 2013 at 9:36 pm)Terr Wrote: (August 7, 2013 at 9:01 pm)ManMachine Wrote: I think you've understated the 'unscientific' argument. Karl Popper spent a large part of his academic life trying to establish demarcation.
I wouldn't like to mislead the OP. The only generally accepted requirement for scientific theory is that it is falsifiable. Even that has problems, I could put forward the theory that the spots on the Sun indicate it will explode in a thousand years, it's falsifiable in principle but not by you or anyone else alive today.
MM
Fair comment, but without some observational evidence my view is that you are would be presenting a hypotheses, not a fully fledged theory.
Agreed. Leastwise if it represents a sincere effort to fit the best available data that wasn't obvious and in fact the tone was flippant, so probably not. Hypothesis at best, non sequitur more likely.
Now, no more sulking!
Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: beginning of The Universe theories
August 10, 2013 at 11:11 pm
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Posts: 69246
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
258
RE: beginning of The Universe theories
August 11, 2013 at 12:23 am
(August 9, 2013 at 4:45 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Who throws the first rock? 
No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle.
Posts: 23917
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
150
RE: beginning of The Universe theories
August 11, 2013 at 2:55 am
(This post was last modified: August 11, 2013 at 2:56 am by Whateverist.)
Posts: 13900
Threads: 263
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: beginning of The Universe theories
August 11, 2013 at 6:55 am
(August 11, 2013 at 12:23 am)Minimalist Wrote: (August 9, 2013 at 4:45 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Who throws the first rock?
No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle.
Even and I want to make this clear..even if they do say Jehovah.
The life of brian surely the finest movie ever made.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: beginning of The Universe theories
August 11, 2013 at 7:20 pm
(This post was last modified: August 11, 2013 at 7:24 pm by ManMachine.)
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Posts: 7180
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: beginning of The Universe theories
August 11, 2013 at 8:04 pm
(August 11, 2013 at 7:20 pm)ManMachine Wrote: Just remember, to make an omelette you need to break a few eggs.
Unless it's a quantum omelette. 
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 102
Threads: 8
Joined: May 20, 2013
Reputation:
2
RE: beginning of The Universe theories
August 11, 2013 at 8:10 pm
(August 10, 2013 at 11:11 pm)ManMachine Wrote: (August 10, 2013 at 1:08 am)whateverist Wrote: Sorry to leave you hanging. I quit coming back to this thread when it became clear that the OP wasn't coming back. Just another shit-and-run bible-belter it would seem.
I completely agree with you that to make broad sweeping statements about there being no space and no time before the big bang is extremely loose scientific speculation and many have been guilty. Frankly I don't know that we will ever find a way to peer beyond the singularity event of which we are a part. It may be unique and final and involve everything coming from nothing, but I find that highly unlikely. I assume that there are preconditions for a singularity event and that there have been and will be more than one. That, of course, is not a scientific theory. It is pure speculation on a par with, but no better than, that of those who believe in everything from nothing but only once.
I've posted on this before. The Theory of Something from nothing is as sound as any other. It's mainly predicated on two widely accepted principles, one being the underlying symmetries in all Physical Constants (Noether's Theorem) - which also works for Quantum Theory as well. The other is Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, largely built on the work by Nobel Physicist Yoichiro Nambu.
What's interesting and perhaps more telling is that a number of different fields of study are converging on the same conclusion, and we all know what this usually indicates.
Dr Stephan Dürr's work on the Standard Model (in particular the mass of hydrogen nuclei), Yoichiro Nambu's Broken Symmetry (which rather interestingly brings along with it The Laws of conservation of Energy, Momentum and even quantum spin among others), Igor Sokolov, John Nees and Gerard Mourou's work with high-energy electron beams, Victor Stenger, Stephen Hawking, Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, etc.
Something from nothing is an established feature of the Quantum Vacuum, I accept this does not mean it's the right Theory for Universe Origins but with so much work pointing in this direction it's becoming harder to ignore. As you rightly pointed out we do not know the mechanics of the early Universe, but then that can be said of any Early Universe Theory, the unusual feature about the Something from Nothing Theory is the weight of convergence from across the fields of Physics.
The theory of something from nothing is not 'extremely loose scientific speculation', it is built on solid mathematical reasoning and experimental evidence. Observations by Maldacena, Ryu and Takayanagi and a rather elegant paper from Brian Swingle in 2009, Mark Van Raamsdonk has proposed that quantum entanglement is the fundamental ingredient underlying spacetime geometry. This, in turn, has led to further work from Juan Maldacena and Lenny Susskind.
As I've said all along, it is extremely difficult to get the Something from Nothing Theory across to people because of how difficult it is to explain in simple terms. Oversimplified it reads like metaphysics in Disneyland, but the alternative is to exclude those who don't have a working understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity.
There is no easy way to explain these concepts without seeming to be flippant and somewhat cavalier with Relativity, when neither is the case.
MM
I do agree, the theory as is, is sound. I think it's the human langauge of "nothing" and "beginning" that are inadequate. Sorry if I came across otherwise.
I'd appreciate a link to those threads if you have them easily to hand. Trying to do me some learning, I'm out of school a long time.
Posts: 98
Threads: 0
Joined: August 9, 2013
Reputation:
0
RE: beginning of The Universe theories
August 20, 2013 at 11:11 am
(August 1, 2013 at 5:12 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Quote:i have read some about this theory and I can't find where the cause of it is explained
You are assuming that causation existed at the beginning, when the laws of nature didn't exist, including the dimensions of time and space. As such, I see no reason to make that assumption.
Assumption of most types should be used very carefully when attempting to explain anything through science. Hypothesis, debate, and rhetoric explain things best as we see them. How they really are in the end we may find to be a very different thing. For now though it is a joy to discover the unknown and seek the hidden and dark corners of our universe as we currently see it for answers to all those questions that are the most fun yet painful for our people.
|
