Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Ben Dhyan]

I can acknowledge this as apart of religious/philosophical understand, but the subject of the thread is science, which you are sidestepping and neglecting consideration in the above. Please address this as per the subject of the thread.

This is my thread Sir so I will comment as I feel relevant and appropriate!

And besides, explaining the difference between belief and understanding to folk who apparently do not know is relevant to science.as well as religion. Do you understand all the science you believe to be true or only some of it?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What I'm actually trying to do here is point out that we have a theory which although we know cannot be the final answer (because we need to have a theory that combines it with QFT), is very well tested, and so is far superior to guessing, intuition, or faith.

Yes - if there is a direct contradiction, but things we don't understand do not always mean that the underlying theory is wrong. In addition, the cosmological model is distinct from GR (even though it relies on it as a theoretical basis). Dark matter, for example, is pretty well established as actual matter - we can even map where it is - so it doesn't represent a challenge to the underlying theories (well, not GR anyway, it does challenge the standard model).
Dark energy may be more of a problem but again we are into the intersection of GR and QFT because we actually would expect something like dark energy from QFT but it's orders of magnitude different from what we observe.

Wrt to your last statement about dark energy in the intersection of GR and QFT, what precisely is it in QFT that may be comparable to dark energy? And what is 'orders of magnitude different from what we observe'?

 

[shunyadragon]

This is my thread Sir so I will comment as I feel relevant and appropriate!

And besides, explaining the difference between belief and understanding to folk who apparently do not know is relevant to science.as well as religion. Do you understand all the science you believe to be true or only some of it?

The matter is not some nor all of it, because science is an evolving body of descriptive knowledge that changes with time as new knowledge is confirmed by scientific methods.. As far as the nature of our physical existence, science relies on Methodological Naturalism, and the objective verifiable evidence for the falsification of theories and hypothesis.

The knowledge of science is what I support.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The matter is not some nor all of it, because science is an evolving body of descriptive knowledge that changes with time as new knowledge is confirmed by scientific methods.. As far as the nature of our physical existence, science relies on Methodological Naturalism, and the objective verifiable evidence for the falsification of theories and hypothesis.

The knowledge of science is what I support.

You didn't answer my question directly, but I get the impression you do not understand all the science you believe to be true. You do understand some science to be true, yes?

 

[shunyadragon]

You didn't answer my question directly, but I get the impression you do not understand all the science you believe to be true. You do understand some science to be true, yes?

You did not ask the question in terms of science. I answered it in terms of science.

Science does not work with scientific knowledge as specifically true nor false. It deals with the evolving knowledge of science based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You did not ask the question in terms of science. I answered it in terms of science.

Science does not work with scientific knowledge as specifically true nor false. It deals with the evolving knowledge of science based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis.

The question is not about true or false, it is about belief and understanding, but you are free to have the opinion you have so I will respect that. However I would have thought the truth or not of some scientific theory would play a part in science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The question is not about true or false, it is about belief and understanding, but you are free to have the opinion you have so I will respect that. However I would have thought the truth or not of some scientific theory would play a part in science.

The "truth" of a theory is determined by testing it. There is no way to prove it. But one can show it to be wrong. The science that you oppose has been heavily tested and has not failed yet.

 

[shunyadragon]

The question is not about true or false, it is about belief and understanding, but you are free to have the opinion you have so I will respect that. However I would have thought the truth or not of some scientific theory would play a part in science.

Well, no theories are not true nor false. Theories are not proven true they are falsified and may change over time, ie The knowledge of the Theory of Gravity evolves, and it is not true nor false, because it is not totally resolved with Quantum Mechanics and the other theories of the nature of our physical existence..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The "truth" of a theory is determined by testing it. There is no way to prove it. But one can show it to be wrong. The science that you oppose has been heavily tested and has not failed yet.

So how do you test the truth or not that there was, is, and always will be, timeless container which is not the source of the big bang but in which the big bang manifested the universe in which we exist?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, no theories are not true nor false. Theories are not proven true they are falsified and may change over time, ie The knowledge of the Theory of Gravity evolves, and it is not true nor false, because it is not totally resolved with Quantum Mechanics and the other theories of the nature of our physical existence..

So as it relates to the big bang universe, present understanding is not complete and it is still a work in progress. Sure, everyone knows that I'm sure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So how do you test the truth or not that there was, is, and always will be, timeless container which is not the source of the big bang but in which the big bang manifested the universe in which we exist?

One cannot know the absolute truth. There is no way to find it. All that we can do is to find better and better models that explain all of the data better and better.

Your "quest for the truth" will only lead you to answers that are even more wrong than any of the models that we have today.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

One cannot know the absolute truth. There is no way to find it. All that we can do is to find better and better models that explain all of the data better and better.

Your "quest for the truth" will only lead you to answers that are even more wrong than any of the models that we have today.

Hold on, you said "the "truth" of a theory is determined by testing it." I then ask you how to test the bb theory according to ratiocinator's understanding and you now say we can't know the truth. Ok then, how can we test it to show if it is wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hold on, you said "the "truth" of a theory is determined by testing it." I then ask you how to test the bb theory according to ratiocinator's understanding and you now say we can't know the truth. Ok then, how can we test it to show if it is wrong?

And I used that word because you used it. Drop it. Your concept of "truth" is self defeating.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And I used that word because you used it. Drop it. Your concept of "truth" is self defeating.

Ok back to the referenced bb theory, can it be tested or can't it? What's it worth if it can't be falsified?

 

[ratiocinator]

Wrt to your last statement about dark energy in the intersection of GR and QFT, what precisely is it in QFT that may be comparable to dark energy? And what is 'orders of magnitude different from what we observe'?

QFT is quantum field theory. As for the connection to dark energy, here's a bit from wiki:

According to quantum field theory (QFT) which underlies modern particle physics, empty space is defined by the vacuum state which is a collection of quantum fields. All these quantum fields exhibit fluctuations in their ground state (lowest energy density) arising from the zero-point energy present everywhere in space. These zero-point fluctuations should act as a contribution to the cosmological constant Λ, but when calculations are performed these fluctuations give rise to an enormous vacuum energy. The discrepancy between theorized vacuum energy from quantum field theory and observed vacuum energy from cosmology is a source of major contention, with the values predicted exceeding observation by some 120 orders of magnitude, a discrepancy that has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics". This issue is called the cosmological constant problem and it is one of the greatest mysteries in science with many physicists believing that "the vacuum holds the key to a full understanding of nature".​

 

[ratiocinator]

I then ask you how to test the bb theory according to ratiocinator's understanding and you now say we can't know the truth.

Firstly it isn't my understanding; it isn't even something I'm particularly arguing for, but it is something that is based on a well tested theory and shows that a finite past doesn't necessarily lead to "something from nothing".

The idea is about the nature of time or space-time. To date, the best theory we have in that regard is GR which leads directly the the conclusion and has been extensively tested. We can never know that any theory in science is true, theories can only be proved to be false.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Interesting indeed. How is this observation explained? What is the difference between "galaxies which assumingly has "dark matter" and which has not? Which other attempts to corrections were tried?

The observation is explained by there being no accumulation of dark matter in those galaxies. it really is as simple as that.

I don´t think so. You have to explain WHY "dark matter" is connected to SOME and NOT other galaxies.

Generally speaking, the galaxies without dark matter are smaller and more diffuse (which is expected if they don't have dark matter)

"Dark matter" is initially "rotation depended" and not "size depended" so you can´t use such an argument.

The fact that such galaxies exist at all shows that a change in the theory of gravity isn't enough to explain away dark matter.

Well then just get rid of the convensus gravity theory if it isn´t good enough to explain such a formation. In fact the theory should have been abandoned when contradicted by the galactic rotation curve almost a century ago.

 

[Native]

Like I said, you are ignorant about the subject. You only know one piece of evidence for dark matter.

Yes, I do only know one piece of dark matter, namely the original assumed use of term. But now, all kinds of cosmological realms are connected to "dark matter" because "standard scientists" adds this imaginary stuff to numerous observations which they can´t explain.

Native said:
Well then: How does your "dark matter evidence" in galaxies influence the different celestial orbital motions in the Solar System?

It has almost no effect. It would be immeasurably small. Why would it?

Do you really mean that the "enormeous strong dark matter", which theoretically hold ALL STARS in the orbital positions in galaxies, don´t affect the galactic star system which we call the Solar System? Where have you deposited your logical reasoning?

Again your question indicates that you do not understand this topic at all.

Again your illogical answer reveals your own lack of understanding.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

QFT is quantum field theory. As for the connection to dark energy, here's a bit from wiki:

According to quantum field theory (QFT) which underlies modern particle physics, empty space is defined by the vacuum state which is a collection of quantum fields. All these quantum fields exhibit fluctuations in their ground state (lowest energy density) arising from the zero-point energy present everywhere in space. These zero-point fluctuations should act as a contribution to the cosmological constant Λ, but when calculations are performed these fluctuations give rise to an enormous vacuum energy. The discrepancy between theorized vacuum energy from quantum field theory and observed vacuum energy from cosmology is a source of major contention, with the values predicted exceeding observation by some 120 orders of magnitude, a discrepancy that has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics". This issue is called the cosmological constant problem and it is one of the greatest mysteries in science with many physicists believing that "the vacuum holds the key to a full understanding of nature".​

Thanks for that ratiocinator. Is this 120 orders of magnitude discrepancy based on a QFT vacuum zero point energy cut off wavelength at Planck length? I ask this as I have read of some estimates of zero point energy as being near or actually infinite. If it is not too much trouble, do you know how zpe is measured or calculated and how is the observed vacuum energy from cosmology measured.or calculated?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Well said and explained indeed, ben d

Not explained anything, actually a conflicting incoherent word salad.

If philosophical explanations are "incoherent word salad" in you mind, I just feel sorry for you.