Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[alsome]

Oh well again.
All of this chatter results in a discussion of 'time', which didn't exist before the supposed "B B" event ? Where did 'time' start ? I sometimes wonder how many singularities where there before that time?
Oh--no time before the expansion.....really ?

I still have to insist that there was no Big Bang !

And 'time' exists in memory only, until 'it' gets here ! And swoosh...gone, a memory, there's no 'now' !

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not convinced either. However I do now understand the hypothesis and it has its followers. In any event, we are all expressions of the cosmos whatever the truth concerning what has gone before, so at our deepest level, we are the cosmos. It is awesome to meditate on that, we are all that is!

 

[Native]

Oh--no time before the expansion.....really ?
I still have to insist that there was no Big Bang !

MeeToo It´s all a science fiction invention based on wrong cosmological perceptions and false measurement methods.

 

[ratiocinator]

All of this chatter results in a discussion of 'time', which didn't exist before the supposed "B B" event ?

We don't know, actually. What we do know (from evidence) is that time is not an absolute background that Newton thought it was.

Where did 'time' start ? I sometimes wonder how many singularities where there before that time?
Oh--no time before the expansion.....really ?

As I keep on explaining, a singularity is something that happens to the mathematics - it is highly unlikely to correspond to an actual thing. It's much more likely that it indicates the the relevant theory is not applicable to that time and that we need a theory that combines general relativity with quantum field theory.

I still have to insist that there was no Big Bang !

Based on what? You don't seem to have any grasp of what the theory you are so keen to reject, actually says.

I'm not convinced either. However I do now understand the hypothesis and it has its followers.

Followers? You mean people who believe the evidence?

 

[Native]

Followers? You mean people who believe the evidence?

You confuse "theoretical assumptions" and "circumstantial observations" for "evidence" and all this have unfortunately all too many followers.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Followers? You mean people who believe the evidence?

Sure, with due respect you are a follower of the belief system that was taught to you. You would not pass any exam unless you provide the answers that support the hypothesis. Once you buy into such a belief system, you can not 'see' outside of it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Sure, with due respect you are a follower of the belief system that was taught to you. You would not pass any exam unless you provide the answers that support the hypothesis. Once you buy into such a belief system, you can not 'see' outside of it.

It seem as if some religious people simply can't understand that there are other ways to arrive at a belief that are entirely different from faith and religion and just assume that sciences like cosmology are like religion - they simply aren't.

When I was young, it was at the end of the period in which there was still a debate between the BB and the "steady state" models. Gradually the evidence accumulated to support the BB until the steady state model was eventually abandoned. That's how science works - it follows the evidence. The evidence for the BB is now comprehensive enough that it's unlikely to be substantially revised but it's still possible if compelling new evidence is presented.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You confuse "theoretical assumptions" and "circumstantial observations" for "evidence" and all this have unfortunately all too many followers.

No scientific evidence is well defined. Your post tells us that you do not understand the concept. It really is not that hard of an idea to learn.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
You confuse "theoretical assumptions" and "circumstantial observations" for "evidence" and all this have unfortunately all too many followers.

No scientific evidence is well defined.

Which was excactly what i claimed

 

[Subduction Zone]

Native said: ↑
You confuse "theoretical assumptions" and "circumstantial observations" for "evidence" and all this have unfortunately all too many followers.

Which was excactly what i claimed

No, the problem is that you do not understand what evidence is. Your claim about others is false.

 

[alsome]

Like a Catholic Bishop with a poor telescope.

It's still about the math !

Way to much chalk.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It seem as if some religious people simply can't understand that there are other ways to arrive at a belief that are entirely different from faith and religion and just assume that sciences like cosmology are like religion - they simply aren't.

When I was young, it was at the end of the period in which there was still a debate between the BB and the "steady state" models. Gradually the evidence accumulated to support the BB until the steady state model was eventually abandoned. That's how science works - it follows the evidence. The evidence for the BB is now comprehensive enough that it's unlikely to be substantially revised but it's still possible if compelling new evidence is presented.

I love science, like I love religion, but in the pure sense of the meaning of these words, not human dictates as to what is the correct belief.

I get that is how science is meant to work, and so it goes that many of the present beliefs will probably one day be abandoned. However the reality wrt both religion and science is, if you do not adhere to the prevailing belief of whatever camp you are in, then no sponsorship, no grants, etc., no recognition. Iow, unless you have an independent financial source, you can't feed and house yourself without joining one or other of the prevailing beliefs that provide funding.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair

 

[ratiocinator]

I get that is how science is meant to work, and so it goes that many of the present beliefs will probably one day be abandoned. However the reality wrt both religion and science is, if you do not adhere to the prevailing belief of whatever camp you are in, then no sponsorship, no grants, etc., no recognition. Iow, unless you have an independent financial source, you can't feed and house yourself without joining one or other of the prevailing beliefs that provide funding.

Talking specifically about the field of cosmology, I don't think you quite appreciate how strong the evidence is. The basic BB model (the expansion from a hot dense state about 13.5 billion years ago) is now very well supported by evidence (like evolution is in biology), so, although there might well be some revisions of the details, it's unlikely to be overturned unless there is spectacular new evidence. That sort of thing happens when the evidence gets to a certain point - it's the prevailing view exactly because it is backed up by plentiful evidence.

However, the nearer we get to the actual moment when the equations produce a singularity, the less we know and the more speculative things become. Even to the extent that there is a prevailing view, it is not without its critics, for example, most theorists would support the idea of 'inflation' (a very rapid expansion for a very short time) but, for example, Roger Penrose (who has published papers with Stephen Hawking) is an outspoken critic of the idea.

As I said before, it was the evidence that settled the debate between the BB and the steady state model - nothing else.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Talking specifically about the field of cosmology, I don't think you quite appreciate how strong the evidence is. The basic BB model (the expansion from a hot dense state about 13.5 billion years ago) is now very well supported by evidence (like evolution is in biology), so, although there might well be some revisions of the details, it's unlikely to be overturned unless there is spectacular new evidence. That sort of thing happens when the evidence gets to a certain point - it's the prevailing view exactly because it is backed up by plentiful evidence.

However, the nearer we get to the actual moment when the equations produce a singularity, the less we know and the more speculative things become. Even to the extent that there is a prevailing view, it is not without its critics, for example, most theorists would support the idea of 'inflation' (a very rapid expansion for a very short time) but, for example, Roger Penrose (who has published papers with Stephen Hawking) is an outspoken critic of the idea.

As I said before, it was the evidence that settled the debate between the BB and the steady state model - nothing else.

Perhaps so, but I can't buy into something arising from nothing miracle. Whatever mass exists, from infinite to finite, that mass is an eternal quantity, it can never be added to or subtracted from, created or destroyed. it never had a beginning because that would require a miracle, and science sfaik doesn't do miracles.

 

[ratiocinator]

Perhaps so, but I can't buy into something arising from nothing miracle. Whatever mass exists, from infinite to finite, that mass is an eternal quantity, it can never be added to or subtracted from, created or destroyed. it never had a beginning because that would require a miracle, and science sfaik doesn't do miracles.

Mass isn't something that's conserved; it changes to and from various forms of energy all the time - E=mc^2 and all that. Energy is conserved (at least it is in most situations, if you include mass) but that is a direct consequence of the laws of physics being symmetric under time translation (Noether's theorem), so if the laws changed (or started) at the BB, then energy conservation wouldn't hold either. In fact it's unclear if it does anyway for the universe as a whole because it becomes difficult to define in general relativity. See: Conservation of energy - Wikipedia

As for something from nothing in general, well the picture we get from general relativity is that of a four-dimensional space-time manifold, with time being an observer dependant direction through it, so time would be entirely internal. Hence, even if time is finite in the past direction, then we don't actually get something appearing from nothing because there was never a time at which there was nothing. The manifold as a whole would "just be".

Of course, as I said, the very start is still an unknown, so there are plentiful other hypotheses, some of them with infinite past time, so the question doesn't arise.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Mass isn't something that's conserved; it changes to and from various forms of energy all the time - E=mc^2 and all that. Energy is conserved (at least it is in most situations, if you include mass) but that is a direct consequence of the laws of physics being symmetric under time translation (Noether's theorem), so if the laws changed (or started) at the BB, then energy conservation wouldn't hold either. In fact it's unclear if it does anyway for the universe as a whole because it becomes difficult to define in general relativity. See: Conservation of energy - Wikipedia

As for something from nothing in general, well the picture we get from general relativity is that of a four-dimensional space-time manifold, with time being an observer dependant direction through it, so time would be entirely internal. Hence, even if time is finite in the past direction, then we don't actually get something appearing from nothing because there was never a time at which there was nothing. The manifold as a whole would "just be".

Of course, as I said, the very start is still an unknown, so there are plentiful other hypotheses, some of them with infinite past time, so the question doesn't arise.

I meant mass as in M=E/C^2. I take note of your further comments in this regard.

So what is your definition of time, I mean what is it really? Can it be observed directly and if so how, can it measured directly if so how?

If science can't categorically rule out a miraculous start, then the theory will not fly in the long term imho. Certainly aspects of so called evidence may be correct, but that does not make the whole correct.

 

[ratiocinator]

So what is your definition of time, I mean what is it really? Can it be observed directly and if so how, can it measured directly if so how?

Current science (general relativity) tells us that we can't separate time from space, they are both aspects of a four-dimensional manifold. What is anything that is regarded as fundamental? All we can hope to do is describe it and we do that mathematically. Of course there are hypotheses that suggest that space-time isn't fundamental, but no tested theories.

If science can't categorically rule out a miraculous start, then the theory will not fly in the long term imho. Certainly aspects of so called evidence may be correct, but that does not make the whole correct.

Not entirely sure what you mean by this. Of course science can't rule out some sort of "miraculous start" but I see no reason whatsoever to think that one is needed or probable. I also don't know what you're referring to as "so called evidence". We have the evidence we have and we have tested the theories involved.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
You confuse "theoretical assumptions" and "circumstantial observations" for "evidence" and all this have unfortunately all too many followers.

No scientific evidence is well defined.

Which was excactly what i claimed

No, the problem is that you do not understand what evidence is. Your claim about others is false.

Of course I understand the scientific methods and its evidences.

Let me give you an "evidence" example:
Astronomical science once assumed that the laws of celestial motion were universal and they took the orbital motions in our Solar System as evidence for this law.

Then cosmological science discovered the orbital motions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy and this observed motion contradicted the assumed law of celestial motion and it´s evidence, but what happend then?

The "scientist" just blurred the obvious and evidential contradiction with the assumptive invention of "dark matter" instead of revising or discarding their assumed law as the scientific method claims if anything should count as real evidence.

So much for your ideas about "evidences" and dark inventions which is more fiction than real science.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Current science (general relativity) tells us that we can't separate time from space, they are both aspects of a four-dimensional manifold. What is anything that is regarded as fundamental? All we can hope to do is describe it and we do that mathematically. Of course there are hypotheses that suggest that space-time isn't fundamental, but no tested theories.

Not entirely sure what you mean by this. Of course science can't rule out some sort of "miraculous start" but I see no reason whatsoever to think that one is needed or probable. I also don't know what you're referring to as "so called evidence". We have the evidence we have and we have tested the theories involved.

With due respect to science, time is merely the persistence of existence, it does not exist as any separate entity. Wiki definition is "Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence..." which is another way of saying the persistence of existence to continue to exist. So called measurement of time duration must always involve a proxy regular periodic motion that can be counted and called "time", whether it be celestial movements, pendulums, electronic oscillations, etc. Time as an entity does not exist, but the persistence of existence is definitely real, so the concept of time is important to scientific understanding by using a proxy. By proxy, I mean some device such as a pendulum clock whose swings are counted in parallel with some observed events that are occurring and 'timed'.

I meant science must rule out a miraculous start, otherwise it is not different from the Genesis "Let there be light!".

 

[ratiocinator]

With due respect to science, time is merely the persistence of existence, it does not exist as any separate entity. Wiki definition is "Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence..." which is another way of saying the persistence of existence to continue to exist.

This vague hand-waving doesn't change the fact that we have an extremely well tested theory of space-time (which is also covered in the wiki article), which describes it as a (pseudo-Riemannian) manifold. Quite apart from all the specific tests that have been done, every time you use a GPS device, you are using both the special and general theories of relativity - the former because it has to compensate for the time dilation due to the relative motion between you and the satellites and the latter because the satellites are in a weaker gravitational field than you are so time goes faster for them (due to space-time 'curvature').

I meant science must rule out a miraculous start, otherwise it is not different from the Genesis "Let there be light!".

This simply doesn't follow at all. Science investigates based on the available evidence, when we don't have enough evidence we have to say we don't know. Nothing whatsoever like making up a story about some god saying "let there be light".