Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

[Heyo]

Research is progressing? You mean the scientists are at a point of reversing their theory?

It is very unlikely that any theory is reversed nowadays. But they get revised and refined every time new observation have to be fitted into the model. Like Newtonian physics. It isn't wrong per se but it is a special case of Einsteinian physics. And Einsteinian physics is a special case of a model that is still to be found which includes quantum physics.

 

[Heyo]

Yes, so what was taught as truth may not be true.

Yep. Teachers "lie" to pupils all the time. (I.e. they teach a model that is adequate for the pupils' knowledge and age.)
In maths you were first taught that you can't take away something that isn't there. 7 - 9 made no sense to you. Then you were introduced to negative numbers. When learning division, you were taught that sometimes there is rest when dividing. 10 divided by 3 was 3 rest 1. Then you were introduced to fractions. You were taught that "ontology recapitulates phylogeny". If you had take biology in college, you'd been introduced to a more detailed model.

 

[PruePhillip]

I could go further into this concept, but it's kind of like another thread, so I'll forbear for the moment. Have a good one!

They call this the 'initial parameters' or 'constants' issue. On top of the initial variables you get some seriously weird 'one off' events to form who we are - my favorite is the Thea theory of the moons origin - which gave us a large satellite to stablize earth's orbit and the 23.5 degree tilt which gave us the seasons. There's tons of these 'co-incidents.'

 

[wellwisher]

Again, if time *began* at that point, there was nothing there 'before'. Literally nothing because there was no 'before'.

Space-time began at the point or singularity called the primordial atom, not time. In physics space and time are connected. For example, energy, as photons, have both wavelength and frequency. Photons are expressions of distance; space, and time that are connected. Time alone will not product energy, since all you would have is frequency, but no wavelength.

Before space-time joined, space and time were separated and could be expressed, individually. One could move in space apart from time, or move in time apart from space. If we could move in space apart from time, we could be everywhere at the same time. There is no speed of light limit since speed is space/time which are part of space-time. Omnipresence is a classic attribute of God. Omnipresence is consistent with the math where space and time are separated.

For God to create the primordial atom for the BB of the universe, out of what appears to be nothing in space-time, he would simply need to form a junction between a vector of separated space and a separated time, to form what we call space-time. Now energy can appear from what appears to be nothingness.

Some simple proof of separated space and time.

Say I I took a snap shot picture. I essentially stop time in the photo. Even with time stopped in the photo, we can still see space and distances in the photo. It is possible to isolate distance, independent of time. This have been demonstrated since the invention of photography.

Say there was action in the photo, and the shutter speed was slower than the action speed. In this snap shot, time is also stopped, but we will get an affect called motion blur due to the shutter speed being slower than the action speed.

Motion blur will give us the sense of motion, which requires space and time; but with time stopped. The brain can interpret motion, even without time, via uncertainty in distance or space. Separated space and time have a connection to consciousness. The brain can make this appear connected to space-time.

 

[YoursTrue]

They call this the 'initial parameters' or 'constants' issue. On top of the initial variables you get some seriously weird 'one off' events to form who we are - my favorite is the Thea theory of the moons origin - which gave us a large satellite to stablize earth's orbit and the 23.5 degree tilt which gave us the seasons. There's tons of these 'co-incidents.'

Yah. Even before I believed in God via the Bible and holy spirit, I would listen to these ideas and figuratively scratch my head. Sometimes literally.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yep. Teachers "lie" to pupils all the time. (I.e. they teach a model that is adequate for the pupils' knowledge and age.)
In maths you were first taught that you can't take away something that isn't there. 7 - 9 made no sense to you. Then you were introduced to negative numbers. When learning division, you were taught that sometimes there is rest when dividing. 10 divided by 3 was 3 rest 1. Then you were introduced to fractions. You were taught that "ontology recapitulates phylogeny". If you had take biology in college, you'd been introduced to a more detailed model.

It doesn't matter. The 7-9 idea may have made sense with a good teacher to explain it adequately for a young mind. On the other hand, many things need to be explained. We're not mindless. Maybe some people think that the moon thinks.

 

[YoursTrue]

Space-time began at the point or singularity called the primordial atom, not time. In physics space and time are connected. For example, energy, as photons, have both wavelength and frequency. Photons are expressions of distance; space, and time that are connected. Time alone will not product energy, since all you would have is frequency, but no wavelength.

Before space-time joined, space and time were separated and could be expressed, individually. One could move in space apart from time, or move in time apart from space. If we could move in space apart from time, we could be everywhere at the same time. There is no speed of light limit since speed is space/time which are part of space-time. Omnipresence is a classic attribute of God. Omnipresence is consistent with the math where space and time are separated.

For God to create the primordial atom for the BB of the universe, out of what appears to be nothing in space-time, he would simply need to form a junction between a vector of separated space and a separated time, to form what we call space-time. Now energy can appear from what appears to be nothingness.

Some simple proof of separated space and time.

Say I I took a snap shot picture. I essentially stop time in the photo. Even with time stopped in the photo, we can still see space and distances in the photo. It is possible to isolate distance, independent of time. This have been demonstrated since the invention of photography.

Say there was action in the photo, and the shutter speed was slower than the action speed. In this snap shot, time is also stopped, but we will get an affect called motion blur due to the shutter speed being slower than the action speed.

Motion blur will give us the sense of motion, which requires space and time; but with time stopped. The brain can interpret motion, even without time, via uncertainty in distance or space. Separated space and time have a connection to consciousness. The brain can make this appear connected to space-time.

I'm going to say something here, relevant or not, but I hope you will think it's relevant. When motion pictures were invented it was an astounding moment, in that a person could go from second to second to see what's going on. (As I have often said, there were no motion pictures taken during the so-called "evolution." But that's not the point now.) The point is that motion pictures needed a person to invent them. Thanks for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't matter. The 7-9 idea may have made sense with a good teacher to explain it adequately for a young mind. On the other hand, many things need to be explained. We're not mindless. Maybe some people think that the moon thinks.

The student has to be willing and able to learn. For example it is hard to learn Einstein's relativity if one is unwilling to drop the idea of the concept of simultaneity. The "same time" for one is not going to be what another observes to be the "same time".

And to add on to @Heyo 's earlier posts. Teachers do not lie when they teach a simpler version. Nor is it proper to say that scientists are wrong when they developed an earlier simpler physical law. For example Newton was no "wrong" when he came up with his Universal Law of Gravitation. It would be better to say that it was incomplete. When it was first written we did not know the limitations of that law. In fact we could not know that we were wrong until we learned more. Each new discovery that we make tends to make our science more accurate, but never perfect. But it also eventually leads to new understandings of the universe.

Knowing what we do not know is an important step in acquiring new knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm going to say something here, relevant or not, but I hope you will think it's relevant. When motion pictures were invented it was an astounding moment, in that a person could go from second to second to see what's going on. (As I have often said, there were no motion pictures taken during the so-called "evolution." But that's not the point now.) The point is that motion pictures needed a person to invent them. Thanks for that.

The fossil record is the equivalent of a motion picture when it comes to evolution. It is like a movie where we keep finding individual photos from it. When one puts the photos in order we can "see" evolution.

 

[wellwisher]

I'm going to say something here, relevant or not, but I hope you will think it's relevant. When motion pictures were invented it was an astounding moment, in that a person could go from second to second to see what's going on. (As I have often said, there were no motion pictures taken during the so-called "evolution." But that's not the point now.) The point is that motion pictures needed a person to invent them. Thanks for that.

Interestingly there are gaps between the frames within motion pictures. The frames are similar to quantum jumps in time, with gaps between the jumps. There is missing time.

Each frame will also stop time, and if the shutter speed is slower than the action we can get motion blur or uncertainty in distance that can appear to fill in the quantum gaps in time and stopped time.

Photography and motion picture are used by science to document things. A good definition of time is needed since space-time does not always apply to theory that comes from such evidence. Time can be confused with uncertainty in space.

In the still picture above, we can see motion blur. In this case, the camera was moving with the motorcycle so the shutter speed was faster than the bikes's smaller relative velocity. The background appears to be moving due to the motion blur caused by its relative speed being faster than the shutter speed.

This picture has all the parameters within the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. We cannot know the position and momentum at the same time. We can see the position of the bike, but we cannot infer momentum; speed. The background give us sense of speed and momentum, but the motion blur makes the position uncertain. Photography was know at the time of Heisenberg and nobody saw this parallel.

 

[Alien826]

For instance, on tests in many parts of the United States, there was no question as to whether it was the prevailing concept. You either got the answer right or wrong, based on the current idea. No middle ground, no thought or teaching of maybe...such as: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. You recited the concept as to the current teaching with no possibility of it being wrong. I'm not sure how it's done in other countries.

That's a very fair point. I also remember science being taught as "fact" rather than "the prevailing theory". Unfortunately, that's a convenient way to refer to things, rather than to tack "but all scientific theories are provisional" on to everything. And also if you do that, many will jump to the (equally erroneous) "it's only a theory" idea.

Perhaps several lessons should teach the principles of the scientific method before starting on anything else?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a very fair point. I also remember science being taught as "fact" rather than "the prevailing theory". Unfortunately, that's a convenient way to refer to things, rather than to tack "but all scientific theories are provisional" on to everything. And also if you do that, many will jump to the (equally erroneous) "it's only a theory" idea.

Perhaps several lessons should teach the principles of the scientific method before starting on anything else?

The problem is that all "facts" are tentative. People are constantly claiming that something is a fact and that fact is later refuted. A scientific fact is an observation or idea that is not refuted by anything currently known in the sciences:

"

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."

Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | National Center for Science Education

Scientific facts tend to be far more reliable than just about any other facts out there. But scientists know that they need to be ready to drop the fact if it is ever shown to be wrong.

That is why the theory of evolution is also a fact. Could it be shown to be wrong some day? Yes, but it is very very unlikely.

 

[Heyo]

The problem is that all "facts" are tentative. People are constantly claiming that something is a fact and that fact is later refuted. A scientific fact is an observation or idea that is not refuted by anything currently known in the sciences:

"

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."

Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | National Center for Science Education

Scientific facts tend to be far more reliable than just about any other facts out there. But scientists know that they need to be ready to drop the fact if it is ever shown to be wrong.

That is why the theory of evolution is also a fact. Could it be shown to be wrong some day? Yes, but it is very very unlikely.

I disagree. For me, a fact is that what doesn't change, the raw data, the observation. Theories can be modified, the facts stay the same. Fact: on earth, objects fall with an acceleration of 9.81 m/s² when disregarding air drag as has been confirmed by every experiment done on that hypothesis.
Theories: Newtonian and Einsteinian physics.

 

[gnostic]

For example, energy, as photons, have both wavelength and frequency. Photons are expressions of distance; space, and time that are connected. Time alone will not product energy, since all you would have is frequency, but no wavelength.

That’s a little wonky.

I don’t think you quite understand what energy is and what photon is.

Energy is frequently misunderstood, because you have “energy” defined in sciences, and those “energy” that are more loosely described in non-science philosophies, and worse, in religions.

But since you have brought up photons and waves with energy, let leave out religions and philosophies, and stick with physical sciences (excluding Social Sciences, eg psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, political science, etc), as in, staying with physics.

I think we should look at the system, first, before we go explore energy’s connection with a system.

In sciences, we have tendency to define a PHYSICAL SYSTEM with all sorts of observations, meaning these “observations” include MEASUREMENTS, for instances we can measure the spatial dimensions of a physical system, like length, width, height, surface areas, volume, and we can also measure the system’s mass, density and the list go on and on.

But there are also other observations we can make, such as its physical state (eg solid, liquid, gas, plasma), and we can break everything down a large physical system to multiple smaller physical systems, eg molecules, atoms, and even more smaller systems, composite particles like protons and neutrons, elementary particles like quarks, electrons, neutrinos, and yes, photons too.

So yes, you can treat a photon or photons as physical system.

You can treat a molecule, atom or particle as a “system” on its own.

Some of the physical systems I have left out, are fields and waves (EM waves or radiations). Fields and waves can be treated as physical systems too.

Now, whether the systems are large or small (down to quantum level), or that of fields and waves, in physics, there are physical properties of systems that we can observed and measurements that be observed.

One of those measurements and those properties that I have left out, is “energy”.

So what is “energy”?

In physics, energy is a measurement of the ability of a physical system to do “work”.

So essentially energy is like mass, they are both properties of the physical system, and in many case, mass and energy are intrinsically link to each other.

For instance, energy can be stored in the physical object, thus potential energy. Kinetic energy is when the object is doing work.

And when object doing work, some of those energies are loss, energy radiated or energy dissipated what we know as “heat” (radiated energy).

In classical mechanics, these energy and “work” are defined in unit known as “Joule” (J). And in heat, units are in Celsius, Fahrenheit and Kelvin.

While Joule and Kelvin are still being used, in modern physics, electroVolt (eV) is been more commonly used in number of different physics fields, eg particle physics, quantum physics, astrophysics, etc.

Now, while photon has zero rest mass, photon do have energy. Energy is a property that exist in photon.

Since Einstein’s paper on Photoelectric Effect in 1905, light is treated as both wave (EM wave) and particle (photon), hence the wave-particle duality.

The wave-particle duality is Einstein’s important contribution to quantum mechanics.

Anyway, electromagnetic waves and photons should be explored together, so photon should be seen as quanta of electromagnetism. As I said, because photon is massless, the EM field generated the EM forces that keep photons in motions. And since force exist (eg EM force), then there are energy.

I think keep forgetting that energy don’t exist on its own.

Now, this...

Time alone will not product energy, since all you would have is frequency, but no wavelength.

...this is not quite right.

You need to be reminded that energy is measurement of system’s ability to do work. And work require “forces” of some kinds, either moving on it own, or external forces being applied to the system.

For any system to do the “work”, it require force (eg potential-kinetic energy, EM forces). Forces required “time” - remember that acceleration require both distance and time. So without time, there can be no force, and without force there can be no energy to do the work.

And frequency cannot exist without time. Frequency require both time and wavelength, and electromagnetic wave cannot do without both wavelength and frequency. Without time there can be no frequency.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree. For me, a fact is that what doesn't change, the raw data, the observation. Theories can be modified, the facts stay the same. Fact: on earth, objects fall with an acceleration of 9.81 m/s² when disregarding air drag as has been confirmed by every experiment done on that hypothesis.
Theories: Newtonian and Einsteinian physics.

Sometimes the data does not change as much as our ability to measure it changes. So there were "facts" before about spectrum lines until we found that spectrum lines were often split. The spin of an electron can make a difference. The data was always there, we just could not measure it accurately enough before. So even "facts" of the observed data sort can change as our ability to measure those events improves.

Hydrogen Fine Structure.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Interestingly there are gaps between the frames within motion pictures. The frames are similar to quantum jumps in time, with gaps between the jumps. There is missing time.
Each frame will also stop time, and if the shutter speed is slower than the action we can get motion blur or uncertainty in distance that can appear to fill in the quantum gaps in time and stopped time.
Photography and motion picture are used by science to document things. A good definition of time is needed since space-time does not always apply to theory that comes from such evidence. Time can be confused with uncertainty in space.

Add to that what Buddha said - you are reborn every moment.

 

[Polymath257]

OK? and so? something was there. something ignited it. It simply did not happen or get there by itself. By "natural" means without an intelligent force causing these things. That is my conclusion.

Yes, before the star formed, the gas and dust was there. Gravity drew it together, which heated it, which ignited it.

Now, if you are asking where the gas and dust came from, that is a separate question from where the stars come from.

Currently, the gas and dust come from stuff emitted by previous stars, either during their 'life cycle' or as supernova.

The first stars were formed from the gas (almost no dust) that came out of the hot dense stages of the Big Bang. This gas was mostly hydrogen and helium and the stars formed tens to hundreds of millions of years after the expansion started. The heavier elements that exist today were formed in the interiors of stars that came from this first generation of stars or other stars after them.

Now, hydrogen and helium are very simple in form: hydrogen has one proton and one electron and helium has two of each. Hydrogen can have either 0, 1, or 2 neutrons and helium can have either 1 or 2 neutrons.

The electrons attached to the protons and neutron nuclei when the universe cooled down enough to allow this to happen: about 10,000 years after the initial start of the expansion.

The protons and neutrons came together earlier (in the first few minutes of the expansion), when the temperature was billions of degrees, which allowed for nuclear reactions to happen. This was the time of 'nucleosynthesis'. We can tell a fair amount about this time by the relative amounts of hydrogen and helium in the early universe (when it cooled).

Previous to that, there were neutrons (which can decay into protons and electrons) and previous to that, there was a quark plasma. This is the limit to what we can reasonably model with what we know for certain from particle physics. And it takes us back to a fraction of a second after the expansion started.

 

[Polymath257]

Before the universe there was no energy - or matter, or time, or physics or even mathematics.

More accurately, there was no 'before the universe'. Time didn't even exist for the word 'before' to make sense.

 

[Polymath257]

It is not taught as something that might not be true. Most students will believe the "prevailing" model as if that's how it really happened. Yet again -- my question really is not about the "density," or mass, but about the peach idea. Like what was beyond the peach? Or shall I say what's beyond the exploded peach? OK, I take it back. Why decide it was as small as a peach? OK, let me guess. Because the universe is expanding? Back to the initial question. What's beyond the rims of the peach? Some things are unanswerable and may always be.

"Before the mountains were born
Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land,
From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." (Psalm 80:2)

The 'peach' is just what corresponds to everything we see in the universe today. Outside of that peach was whatever is currently beyond what we can see. It was also very hot and dense during the 'peach' stage. In fact, there is nothing that distinguishes our 'peach' from all other peach sized regions at that time except that we happen to be at the center of what it became.

 

[YoursTrue]

The 'peach' is just what corresponds to everything we see in the universe today. Outside of that peach was whatever is currently beyond what we can see. It was also very hot and dense during the 'peach' stage. In fact, there is nothing that distinguishes our 'peach' from all other peach sized regions at that time except that we happen to be at the center of what it became.

Are you sure that the peach idea is true?