Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[YoursTrue]

Why do you consider that to be the core of the question?

The question scientists are concerned about is not this. They are concerned about the laws that govern the universe and how those laws apply (if they do) to the formation of the universe. And, in that question, the mass distribution is crucial to understanding the dynamics. And that may well have bearing on how the universe got started.

The question of whether there is a personality involved in the formation of the universe is simply not one that is considered. Why not? because no possible evidence would resolve that question one way or the other. As such, it is simply not a scientific question.

How do you feel about this? (Statement by BRIAN COX, A BRITISH PHYSICIST AND UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER PROFESSOR)
"We know that 13.8 billion years ago, this space that I’m standing in now, and the space you’re standing in now, and all the space out to the edge of the observable universe, containing two trillion galaxies, was very hot and veer dense and has been expanding ever since."
So is his statement true? or not true?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you feel about this? (Statement by BRIAN COX, A BRITISH PHYSICIST AND UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER PROFESSOR)
"We know that 13.8 billion years ago, this space that I’m standing in now, and the space you’re standing in now, and all the space out to the edge of the observable universe, containing two trillion galaxies, was very hot and veer dense and has been expanding ever since."
So is his statement true? or not true?

Since it can be verified I would have to say true. Why would you think otherwise? You cannot verify it but you refuse to even begin to try to understand the basics of science.

What you could be looking into is how do they verify this?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you consider that to be the core of the question?

The question scientists are concerned about is not this. They are concerned about the laws that govern the universe and how those laws apply (if they do) to the formation of the universe. And, in that question, the mass distribution is crucial to understanding the dynamics. And that may well have bearing on how the universe got started.

The question of whether there is a personality involved in the formation of the universe is simply not one that is considered. Why not? because no possible evidence would resolve that question one way or the other. As such, it is simply not a scientific question.

Personality or not is something not to be considered right now by me. However, I read that Stephen Hawking said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
OK, so he believed something (like the universe) "creates itself" from -- nothing. That's what I read he said. And the universe "created itself" because of the law of gravity, he said. So I guess he might have figured (haven't read his thought about this) that gravity created itself also?

 

[YoursTrue]

Since it can be verified I would have to say true. Why would you think otherwise? You cannot verify it but you refuse to even begin to try to understand the basics of science.

What you could be looking into is how do they verify this?

lol, verified? The 13+ billion year figure is verified? You know that? Verified by -- what or how?

 

[Polymath257]

How do you feel about this? (Statement by BRIAN COX, A BRITISH PHYSICIST AND UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER PROFESSOR)
"We know that 13.8 billion years ago, this space that I’m standing in now, and the space you’re standing in now, and all the space out to the edge of the observable universe, containing two trillion galaxies, was very hot and veer dense and has been expanding ever since."
So is his statement true? or not true?

It is generally correct. My main caution is that writing 13.8 billion isn't quite accurate enough to make sure of hitting the 'hot phase', which lasted fewer than a hundred million years (and so is below the level of accuracy implied). So to be more accurate, I would probably say 'We know that *about* 13.8 billion years ago....'

With that caveat, it is true and demonstrable.

 

[Polymath257]

lol, verified? The 13+ billion year figure is verified? You know that? Verified by -- what or how?

yes, that the current expansion phase of the universe is around 13.8 billion years old has been verified by many different lines of evidence. That the observable universe today was once much hotter and denser and has been expanding for that 13.8 billion years has also been verified.

What, if anything, happened before that is anyone's guess.

 

[Polymath257]

Personality or not is something not to be considered right now by me. However, I read that Stephen Hawking said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
OK, so he believed something (like the universe) "creates itself" from -- nothing. That's what I read he said. And the universe "created itself" because of the law of gravity, he said. So I guess he might have figured (haven't read his thought about this) that gravity created itself also?

His view was that, given gravity and what we know about quantum mechanics, a universe of the sort that we see: expanding with galaxies, etc, is inevitable. But in that system, quantum gravity existed prior to matter and the universe. even Hawking would admit that this was speculative.

 

[YoursTrue]

His view was that, given gravity and what we know about quantum mechanics, a universe of the sort that we see: expanding with galaxies, etc, is inevitable. But in thatOK system, quantum gravity existed prior to matter and the universe. even Hawking would admit that this was speculative.

OK. So speculation is ok, it's not like assumption, is that correct? Gravity, in his mind, and I do feel sorry for him since he had such a debilitating malady, was a law but that's only a term in his mind, because I guess he does not think there is a law-giver. or law-maker. Nevertheless, it is astonishing that he admits gravity had to be there.

 

[YoursTrue]

yes, that the current expansion phase of the universe is around 13.8 billion years old has been verified by many different lines of evidence. That the observableNo universe today was once much hotter and denser and has been expanding for that 13.8 billion years has also been verified.

What, if anything, happened before that is anyone's guess.

Now I really appreciate your efforts to justify what 13+ billion years has been estimated to be, but any lines of thought leading to that number that you can remember, or link to with evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Personality or not is something not to be considered right now by me. However, I read that Stephen Hawking said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
OK, so he believed something (like the universe) "creates itself" from -- nothing. That's what I read he said. And the universe "created itself" because of the law of gravity, he said. So I guess he might have figured (haven't read his thought about this) that gravity created itself also?

It is possible. That does not mean that that was necessarily the way that it happened.

Physicists have "weighed the universe" Any guesses on what the total "weight" of the universe is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now I really appreciate your efforts to justify what 13+ billion years has been estimated to be, but any lines of thought leading to that number that you can remember, or link to with evidence?

He could. What good would that do? Scientific evidence places a burden of proof upon those that deny it. How would you refute it?

 

[YoursTrue]

It is possible. That does not mean that that was necessarily the way that it happened.

Physicists have "weighed the universe" Any guesses on what the total "weight" of the universe is?

lol, not from me.
Oh, you think someone could give reasons why it is said that 13+ billion years is right but you can't at the moment. ok...

 

[Left Coast]

lol, not from me.
Oh, you think someone could give reasons why it is said that 13+ billion years is right but you can't at the moment. ok...

One of the ways I'm aware of has to do with the speed of light. You understand that light has a finite, consistent, measurable speed, yes?

Again YT, you would really benefit from basic science classes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

lol, not from me.
Oh, you think someone could give reasons why it is said that 13+ billion years is right but you can't at the moment. ok...

Why do you think that I can't? It is not that hard. Though it would take a while to explain it to you. You might look up the concept in astronomy of a "standard candle".

 

[Polymath257]

OK. So speculation is ok, it's not like assumption, is that correct? Gravity, in his mind, and I do feel sorry for him since he had such a debilitating malady, was a law but that's only a term in his mind, because I guess he does not think there is a law-giver. or law-maker. Nevertheless, it is astonishing that he admits gravity had to be there.

One of Hawking's main subjects of study was gravity. That was true his whole life.

Yes, to some extent what he said is speculation. But it is speculation based on the best descriptions of gravity and the quantum world that we have.

When talking about origin questions thing can get tricky because time is part of our universe. So there was no 'before the universe' in that sense (there might have been a 'before the Big Bang', depending on how quantum gravity works, but still no 'before the universe'). In Hawking's work, the laws of physics were always a foundation for discussion. Whether those laws 'came from' anything or anywhere is not discussed. But, it should be pointed out that the notion that the physical laws 'came from' somewhere is problematic in and of itself.

As for a law-giver, physical laws and legal laws are not the same sort of thing. Laws of society require law givers because they are writtenby and for people. Physical laws do not, because they are ultimately simply descriptions of how things work. If things have properties, then there will be 'physical laws'.

 

[Polymath257]

Now I really appreciate your efforts to justify what 13+ billion years has been estimated to be, but any lines of thought leading to that number that you can remember, or link to with evidence?

Sure, the overall expansion as shown by the red shifts. That this fits into the independent description given by general relativity. The cosmic background radiation, including the specifics of its fluctuations.

When the observed parameters (like rate of expansion and abundances of light elements) are put into the models we have from general relativity, we can determine when the current expansion was at the stage of nucleosynthesis. And that was about 13.8 billion years ago.

If you go back 50 years to when I was a kid, the age was known to be somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years. The data at the time just wasn't good enough to get more accurate than that. Now, with the detailed study of the CMBR, we have much more accurate data and can give a much more accurate figure.

If you want more detail, you will need to study some general relativity, in particular the Friedman Walker solution to the equations of gravity. You will then have to learn a bit of thermodynamics to understand how temperature and entropy enter into these topics. Then, some nuclear physics to understand about the light elements and the reactions required for them to form. I can go on, but the data is conclusive that about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe as a whole was hot and dense and has been expanding since.

 

[Polymath257]

lol, not from me.
Oh, you think someone could give reasons why it is said that 13+ billion years is right but you can't at the moment. ok...

Do you want 13+ billion? Or 13.72 billion? Or is 10+ billion good enough? Or do you want to know it is 15- billion? Or is it good enough to know that it is much ore than 20,000 years?

How much accuracy do you want and how much are you willing to learn to understand how to interpret the data?

It's easy to show the universe is at least 10 billion years old. That is simply a matter of looking at the current expansion rate and exrapolating backwards. To get a more refined estimate, you need to look at the specifics of the red shofts and how they change with distance. Of course, part of this is learning exactly how to measure distances in cosmology.

Anyway, here's the wikipedia article. Feel free to ask questions.

Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[gnostic]

Just watching a show on cable about astronomy and exploration of space and the possibility scientists say of life out there. (It's so stupid...) So they say they see no signs of life out there, and then wonder if there is life like ours. Imagine that. Life like ours somewhere out there maybe. So it just hasn't "evolved" yet, I suppose. Or maybe these evolved beings look like? a horror being?

I am afraid that’s the way I think this way about the OP.

 

[Astrophile]

lol, verified? The 13+ billion year figure is verified? You know that? Verified by -- what or how?

The 13+-billion year age comes from measurement of the Hubble constant (the ratio of the recession velocity of the galaxies to their distance) and from analysis of the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background. If you want to learn more, I can recommend John Gribbin's books 13.8: the quest to find the true age of the universe and the theory of everything (Icon Books Ltd., 2015) and The Birth of Time (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1999), and Kitty Ferguson's book Measuring the Universe (Headline Book Publishing, 1999).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As someone who worked in radio/radar systems all their life, I personally have never dismissed 'tired light' as an explanation for the apparent cosmological redshift rather than expansion from the moment I came accross it, my intuition rarely is wrong. For those who say that astronomy and BB science can't be wrong, I say they are like any religious cult in this respect, an expanding universe is a part of the dogma.

Tired Light Denies the Big Bang