Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[ratiocinator]

Of course I did. When some truth is lacking in cosmological models, believers of convensus dogmatism cannot even descide what other truths there can be posted by alternative thinkers, as they themselves don´t know the entire truth.

So the point did go way over your head, then. One simply doesn't need to know 'the truth' in order to effectively refute nonsense.

Science works by attempting to falsify theories and hypotheses - this can easily be done without recourse to some absolute truth. We can never know that we have arrived at the truth, even if we do. You cannot prove scientific theories, only disprove them.

 

[gnostic]

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.

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.

@ben d

In regarding to understanding of the nature or the world or the universe, religions relied on belief.

Science, on the other hand, relied on testing the explanatory / logic / predictive models (models as in hypotheses or existing scientific theories).

These testing as I have said before come from observations of the evidence. The observations also provide data.

There are two possible outcome after testing and analyzing all the available evidence and data: tested evidence will either (A) refute a model or (B) verify the model.

Only tested scientific theories are accepted as science, after it passed all three standards of natural or physical sciences: Falsifiability, Scientific Method and Peer Review.

As @Subduction Zone pointed out...

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.

...natural sciences and physical sciences are in the business of seeking “absolute truth”.

Like both SZ, @shunyadragon and @ratiocinator have all pointed out to you, Science is all about testing the models that provide best understanding we have about the physical or natural phenomena, through testings, and that can only happen with evidence as mean of verification.

I will repeat again, science isn’t about “Absolute Truth”, but what are probable, based on understanding the evidence and data observed or collected.

If you want to discuss absolute truth, then try some unhelpful religions or philosophies.

 

[gnostic]

You just took a fork to a gun fight and stuck yourself in the eye.

LOL

I have never come across the fork being used in this saying before.

 

[Polymath257]

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'?

Dark energy is, in essence, an energy density for the vacuum. QFT gives a natural way to obtain such an energy density: as the ground state energy of the particle fluctuations that QFT predicts.

Unfortunately, when a naive calculation is done, the predicted value of the vacuum energy density is many orders of magnitude off (either 60 or 120, depending on how you interpret it).

Now, it is quite possible, even likely, that this naive calculation is just wrong and that there are cancellations that occur, but we do not know that because we don't have a tested theory of quantum gravity.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Which theory do you think predicts that?

 

[Polymath257]

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?

The vacuum energy is the same as the cosmological constant, which is measured by the rate that the universal expansion is accelerating. It also has effects on the background radiation that can be detected.

The zero point energy is usually calculated, very naively, by simply adding the contributions of each known fundamental particle. The uncertainty principle gives a rate of spontaneous formation/annihilation, which gives the average energy density from each type of particle. Then, those contributions are added to get the prediction.

But, since this has to be done in the context of quantum gravity (it is, after all, the gravitational contribution of those quantum fluctuations), we *know* the naive calculation is wrong, but we don't know what the correct one would look like.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What limitations?

The definition is mathematical and is of space-time, not time. You simply cannot separate the two in GR.

And you didn't really address the point. I have no idea how the notion of space-time may change if/when we get a unified theory that combines GR and QFT but I have no preferences, I just want to understand. I don't get the whole wanting the universe to conform to your preferences thing. Why would you want one answer rather than another?

Well ok, let us start with time as a measurement, see if we can agree on what is being measured. It is not a preference, it is what it is.

What is a clock measuring when you say one hour has passed on your watch?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Which theory do you think predicts that?

One that ratiocinator explained.to me that there exists a timeless container of the bb which is not the source because there is no source of the bb due to there not being any time yet. That the timeless container is eternal, it is not endless time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The vacuum energy is the same as the cosmological constant, which is measured by the rate that the universal expansion is accelerating. It also has effects on the background radiation that can be detected.

The zero point energy is usually calculated, very naively, by simply adding the contributions of each known fundamental particle. The uncertainty principle gives a rate of spontaneous formation/annihilation, which gives the average energy density from each type of particle. Then, those contributions are added to get the prediction.

But, since this has to be done in the context of quantum gravity (it is, after all, the gravitational contribution of those quantum fluctuations), we *know* the naive calculation is wrong, but we don't know what the correct one would look like.

Ok, so is the vacuum energy dark energy?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

@ben d

In regarding to understanding of the nature or the world or the universe, religions relied on belief.

Science, on the other hand, relied on testing the explanatory / logic / predictive models (models as in hypotheses or existing scientific theories).

These testing as I have said before come from observations of the evidence. The observations also provide data.

There are two possible outcome after testing and analyzing all the available evidence and data: tested evidence will either (A) refute a model or (B) verify the model.

Only tested scientific theories are accepted as science, after it passed all three standards of natural or physical sciences: Falsifiability, Scientific Method and Peer Review.

As @Subduction Zone pointed out...



...natural sciences and physical sciences are in the business of seeking “absolute truth”.

Like both SZ, @shunyadragon and @ratiocinator have all pointed out to you, Science is all about testing the models that provide best understanding we have about the physical or natural phenomena, through testings, and that can only happen with evidence as mean of verification.

I will repeat again, science isn’t about “Absolute Truth”, but what are probable, based on understanding the evidence and data observed or collected.

If you want to discuss absolute truth, then try some unhelpful religions or philosophies.

So once again I ask you to be succinct, your post is a ramble, what precisely is the issue with what I've said that you disagree with. So try again and quote my words precisely and then address your direct concerns, one at a time.

 

[gnostic]

So once again I ask you to be succinct, your post is a ramble, what precisely is the issue with what I've said that you disagree with. So try again and quote my words precisely and then address your direct concerns, one at a time.

You are just being evasive.

I have been quite clear on my points.

You are just repeatedly using the succinct as distraction.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are just being evasive.

I have been quite clear on my points.

You are just repeatedly using the succinct as distraction.

Gnostic, I am not being evasive, I need a clear understanding of the precise issue it is you are raising before I can address it. Try me, quote my precise words and then tell me what it is you do not understand as concisely as you can.

Btw, being Christmas and all, not much activity here. If you want to discuss your understanding of time, I would be happy to take you up on it. I feel most people including many scientists believe in time without ever understanding what it.is. What is your understanding of time, what do you think it is?

 

[ratiocinator]

It is not a preference, it is what it is.

But you cannot possibly know what it is unless you have a proper theory supported by evidence.

What is a clock measuring when you say one hour has passed on your watch?

It's a kind of distance through the space-time manifold.

One that ratiocinator explained.to me that there exists a timeless container of the bb which is not the source because there is no source of the bb due to there not being any time yet. That the timeless container is eternal, it is not endless time.

I'm starting to regret using the word 'container' but I was running out of analogies to try to shake you out of your stubborn notion of Newtonian time. The space-time is a four-dimensional object and time is a direction through it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But you cannot possibly know what it is unless you have a proper theory supported by evidence.


It's a kind of distance through the space-time manifold.


I'm starting to regret using the word 'container' but I was running out of analogies to try to shake you out of your stubborn notion of Newtonian time. The space-time is a four-dimensional object and time is a direction through it.

Ratiocinator, I do have a proper theory of time that is supported by evidence, however I have an open mind and am prepared to reflect on it if someone is able to show my understanding is in error. We shall see.

You say the watch measures the distance through the space-time manifold, I would say it counted the number of the watches' internal cycles required to equate in time with the Babylonian established time duration of 1/24 day. Do you have any problems with my explanation?

Ok, I will let you sort that out with Polymath.

 

[ratiocinator]

Ratiocinator, I do have a proper theory of time that is supported by evidence, however I have an open mind and am prepared to reflect on it if someone is able to show my understanding is in error.

A proper theory would have to involve mathematics and make predictions that can be tested and could potentially falsify it. I have seen nothing like that from you, just vague, hand-waving, intuition based assertions.

You say the watch measures the distance through the space-time manifold, I would say it counted the number of the watches' internal cycles required to equate in time with the Babylonian established time duration of 1/24 day. Do you have any problems with my explanation?

*shrug* The thing is that anything that repeats regularly can be used to measure time - that doesn't help us produce a proper theory. The geometrical theory (GR) is the one that gives precise predictions that match reality. That is the one and only test that science uses. You produce a hypothesis, make predictions, test those predictions (attempt to falsify the hypothesis). If the hypothesis is subject to multiple tests and passes them all, we have a good theory.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A proper theory would have to involve mathematics and make predictions that can be tested and could potentially falsify it. I have seen nothing like that from you, just vague, hand-waving, intuition based assertions.



*shrug* The thing is that anything that repeats regularly can be used to measure time - that doesn't help us produce a proper theory. The geometrical theory (GR) is the one that gives precise predictions that match reality. That is the one and only test that science uses. You produce a hypothesis, make predictions, test those predictions (attempt to falsify the hypothesis). If the hypothesis is subject to multiple tests and passes them all, we have a good theory.

We are only looking at time, maths is not required, perhaps a little arithmetic is sufficient, no predictions are needed, we are just looking at the passing of time..

I am only trying to establish a common understanding of what we are doing when we say we are measuring time. The only theory needed is the understanding that the passing of time equates with the continuation of existence. Once you understand this, all that is needed are some standard finite time periods to use in the measurement of the continuation of existence, such as our culture's seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc.plus the proxy measuring device itself. This can be anything that repeats itself such as sun dials, pendulums, crystals clocks, etc.. and which are calibrated to equate with the standard time periods. As greater accuracy is required we just use more sophisticated timers such as atomic clocks, etc.. Have I missed anything?

 

[ratiocinator]

We are only looking at time, maths is not required, perhaps a little arithmetic is sufficient, no predictions are needed, we are just looking at the passing of time..

Nonsense. A scientific hypothesis or theory must make testable predictions and be falsifiable. Anything else isn't science and amounts to nothing more than empty speculation at best, and personal fantasy at worst.

As I'm sure I've said before (more than once) GR makes numerical predictions that can be and have been tested and found to be accurate. Unless you can produce something that also makes testable predictions, you aren't doing science.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Well. excuse me from arguing from the terrible annoying approach that "science don´t know everything". I just thought that such arguing could get some people to think otherwise in order to know a bit more.

The problem is you are presenting a combative shotgun approach that is confusing and not productive.

It´s not my problem if you´re confused by a "combative shotgun approach" as my intents just are to describe and discuss cosmological problems in large.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
May I remind you that the Newtonian ideas of gravity and celestial motion was contradicted on the galactic scale and abandoned by Einstein? You cannot even refer to galaxies and mention Mr. Newton in the same sentense.

Besides this, you apparently take the "gravitational field in galaxies to be inconstant" as it in your opinion only works constantly in the Solar System which is an integrated part of the galactic rotation.

Get the logical dot´s together before you reply, please.

LOL, time to go back to school. One does not need to completely throw out old models even when there is a new one. Newtonian physics still works on that level.

Go back to your own school. When a theory is contradicted, it must be revised or completely abandoned. This didn´t happend when Newton was contradicted on the galactic scale and that´s why the about 350 years old thoughts of Newton STILL haunts modern cosmology and has lead this completely astray in the Universal voids.

Right now your errors are at the high school level or lower. You need to work on the basics of science.

If my argumentative "errors" are on the high scool level or lower, it mirrors the philosophical level in much of the standing cosmology and it´s "basics of science".

 

[Native]

Nonsense. A scientific hypothesis or theory must make testable predictions and be falsifiable. Anything else isn't science and amounts to nothing more than empty speculation at best, and personal fantasy at worst.

That sounds very much as a description of some standing cosmological models