|
| Thread: The Big Bang: did it happen or not? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted January 11, 2009 01:26 PM |
|
|
There are some (mind you not all..I try not to generalize) who treat science as a type of religion. They no longer question certain things, but take it that it MUST be true. When something doesn't fit their beliefs..they adapt it to fit into their belief and might as well call Science their god. Since their version of science is a jealous god, there can be no other, and they go to great lengths trying to disprove all other religions.
Then there are the normal people of the scientific community. Who realize that science can't explain everything, and that there are things we do not know yet. This does not mean we don't try to learn what we don't know, but we are smart enough to realize that what we do know is .000000000000000001% (or less) then what their is to know currently.
Just as an ant can't stand on a single grain of sand and know everything about the entire galaxy..we can not sit on our little planet and fool ourselves into thinking we know about the entire universe. That is just folly and ego.
We can theorize, and make observations, and even figure out how a few things work. When something new comes along (and in a place as large as the universe it could take awhile before nothing new comes along..) we have to adjust our view. The old addage is 'Learn something new every day'. Not hard to do in this wonderful place we call the universe.
Science is not perfect, it is an evolving process that is not infallible. We currently think one thing, in 100 years we may think something totally different. Which is ok.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2009 05:46 PM |
|
|
A distinction must be made between the scientific method itself and what is obtained through it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 11, 2009 06:12 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:18, 11 Jan 2009.
|
Quote:
There are some (mind you not all..I try not to generalize) who treat science as a type of religion. They no longer question certain things, but take it that it MUST be true. When something doesn't fit their beliefs..they adapt it to fit into their belief and might as well call Science their god. Since their version of science is a jealous god, there can be no other, and they go to great lengths trying to disprove all other religions.
Yeah Einstein (I guess sarcastically) said: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
Quote:
Who realize that science can't explain everything, and that there are things we do not know yet. This does not mean we don't try to learn what we don't know, but we are smart enough to realize that what we do know is .000000000000000001% (or less) then what their is to know currently.
Actually the truly honest ones know that science and the scientific method is just a tool, and a tool doesn't 'explain' anything at all (in the philosophical sense, not in the predictive sense (which can be wrong mind you, but at least it may be improved through errors  )).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2009 09:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Err, no. There are big IFs involved: IF we assume certain things and IF we interpret observations in a certain way THEN there MUST BE mass and energy that somehow isn't observable for us.
So how do you explain the phenomena without dark matter or energy? Or how should they be interpreted?
Even the prerequsites are contested. Redshift is problematic. Inflation of the universe is problematic. There is no observation of a curving - it looks like the universe is full Euclidic. Graviation is contested as well. Theory of gravity has changed a lot. It might even be shielded (there are those who say it's possible) which would doom Einstein.
Renormalization is a highly doubtful process. Reality won't divide by infinities.
And so on.
People actually don't know that much for certain.
What I say is, that science actually entered the ring with the intention to make statements about the observable. Science is an empirical discipline. To try and postulate the existence of something that is BY DEFAULT unobservable, means betraying science - you could have just left it with god. Which means, it becomes as "scientific" as religion with that.
So you need a different theory and a different model at that point. One that's based on scientific principles.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2009 10:04 PM |
|
|
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
Dark matter and normal matter have been wrenched apart by the tremendous collision of two large clusters of galaxies. The discovery, using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes, gives direct evidence for the existence of dark matter.
"This is the most energetic cosmic event, besides the Big Bang, which we know about," said team member Maxim Markevitch of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.
These observations provide the strongest evidence yet that most of the matter in the universe is dark. Despite considerable evidence for dark matter, some scientists have proposed alternative theories for gravity where it is stronger on intergalactic scales than predicted by Newton and Einstein, removing the need for dark matter. However, such theories cannot explain the observed effects of this collision.
---
What you say is interesting, but there seems to be evidence for dark matter and energy. It is not like they were invented, like you originally stated.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2009 10:28 PM |
|
|
No, that's no EVIDENCE. That's a CONCLUSION.
Evidence is when you can "produce" or "observe" it in a lab. You know, with 96% of the universe supposedly being DARK it should be everywhere. Of course that would mean that it should be HERE as well. That's one important demand: the universe is EQUAL everywhere (there are no special areas).
So, for example here in the Solar System we should have gravitational effects hinting on Dark Matter or Energy. Don't you think, we'd have noticed "strange" gravitational behaviour in the immediate vicinity, if there was such DM/E here?
We should be able to observe its effects HERE, in the IMMEDIATE proximity, not millions and billions of light years away. You know, that light has travelled a billion and more years - it may have been "altered" on its journey - whatever - to produce strange effects.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2009 12:42 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 00:53, 12 Jan 2009.
|
Quote:
Evidence is when you can "produce" or "observe" it in a lab.
By that criteria astronomy is not a science?
A collision of a galaxy CAN'T be reproduced in a lab. But once it happens in reality, we can observe them and gather DATA. You say we should just ignore all astronomical events and not even attempt to understand? Because it seems you have no alternative theory.
Quote:
You know, with 96% of the universe supposedly being DARK it should be everywhere. Of course that would mean that it should be HERE as well. That's one important demand: the universe is EQUAL everywhere (there are no special areas).
So, for example here in the Solar System we should have gravitational effects hinting on Dark Matter or Energy.
But dark matter isn't just far off in the Milky Way or somewhere on the other side of the Universe, though: it's right here at home in our Solar System. In a recent paper submitted to Physical Review D, Ethan Siegel and Xiaoying Xu of the University of Arizona analyzed the distribution of dark matter in our Solar System, and found that the mass of dark matter is 300 times more than that of the galactic halo average, and the density is 16,000 times higher than that of the background dark matter.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 12, 2009 01:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But dark matter isn't just far off in the Milky Way or somewhere on the other side of the Universe, though: it's right here at home in our Solar System. In a recent paper submitted to Physical Review D, Ethan Siegel and Xiaoying Xu of the University of Arizona analyzed the distribution of dark matter in our Solar System, and found that the mass of dark matter is 300 times more than that of the galactic halo average, and the density is 16,000 times higher than that of the background dark matter.
Speculations yet again. You can't measure mass just by the force it attracts -- maybe it uses a different field altogether. With such huge mass won't it be somewhat impossible for anything else ("normal" matter) to move? Since Dark Matter is everywhere...
Also, I don't see any direct evidence, since you can't even observe this "dark" matter.
Probably a new field altogether... why do we have to explain it with 'mass', 'gravity' and all that? Don't start with Occam's Razor, since we either:
1) Add a new type of unknown field
2) Add a new type of unknown "matter" and call it dark matter
Both are needed only because we see 'strange' things (i.e not what our current models predict), but have we wondered that maybe our models are wrong? somehow both seem like "God does it" but that's just me.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2009 02:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Speculations yet again. You can't measure mass just by the force it attracts -- maybe it uses a different field altogether. With such huge mass won't it be somewhat impossible for anything else ("normal" matter) to move? Since Dark Matter is everywhere...
No, dark matter is not as abundant as dark energy. Furthermore, dark energy doesn't interact with strong nuclear force or electromagnetic force. Because it (possibly) is composed of neutralinos.
Quote:
Also, I don't see any direct evidence, since you can't even observe this "dark" matter.
Well there aren't direct evidence to be seen. Dark matter is noticed by its effect. It has mass, that much is almost certain.
Quote:
Probably a new field altogether... why do we have to explain it with 'mass', 'gravity' and all that? Don't start with Occam's Razor, since we either:
1) Add a new type of unknown field
2) Add a new type of unknown "matter" and call it dark matter
Both are needed only because we see 'strange' things (i.e not what our current models predict), but have we wondered that maybe our models are wrong? somehow both seem like "God does it" but that's just me.
Maybe it is a new field or something else. We are probably very far from "truth" because it is most likely impossible for humans to comprehend. But we CAN try to understand Universe as well as it is for our species. Dark matter can be seen by it's effect. It can be something else too, but you HAVE to have an alternative. You can't just ignore the observations.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted January 12, 2009 02:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But we CAN try to understand Universe as well as it is for our species.
May I remind you that around the time of the first homo sapiens, it was very unlikely to remember what you did last week... Now, we understand nuclear physics...
Just saying that our mental capabilities keep expanding and expanding
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2009 02:12 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
There's a difference between "God did it" and "dark matter did it". "God did it" implies a complex entity - begging the question, "So, what else did God do?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 12, 2009 02:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well there aren't direct evidence to be seen. Dark matter is noticed by its effect. It has mass, that much is almost certain.
Why? Because it attracts things like gravity? Why not a new field or some new method of attraction?
We don't even know much about gravity and we apply it to 'unobservable' matter? (I mean, gravity & mass) Just because it attracts?
By that logic, if we were to see far magnetic fields but couldn't measure them and we did NOT know that magnetic fields existed, we would consider them massive objects (since magnetic forces are much more powerful than gravitational forces) based on their 'effects' which would be clearly wrong.
For me at least, adding a new type of matter with huge mass just to compensate for stretching effects of the Universe (i.e expansion) means somewhere our models are "clearly wrong", but that's just me. No more 'original' or brilliant than saying "a huge alien pulls the Universe with telekinesis"
Quote:
Maybe it is a new field or something else. We are probably very far from "truth" because it is most likely impossible for humans to comprehend. But we CAN try to understand Universe as well as it is for our species. Dark matter can be seen by it's effect. It can be something else too, but you HAVE to have an alternative. You can't just ignore the observations.
I don't have a problem with the observations, which are the 'effects', I have a problem with Dark matter, because to me it seems like a stupid excuse to fill out the holes.
Quote:
There's a difference between "God did it" and "dark matter did it". "God did it" implies a complex entity - begging the question, "So, what else did God do?
No I meant in the way that it's basically meaningless
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2009 07:19 AM |
|
|
Let's just keep to the facts, and the facts are that there's absolutely nothing "wrong" or out of the ordinary in our immediate vicinity. Solar system astronomy has been modelled centuries ago and correct without anyone needing dark matter or dark energy.
Observations happening very far away are far from self-explanative and what is seen has happened millions and billions of years past.
Our universe - or the know matter part of it - consists of equal parts of electrons, neutrons and protons, with neutrons and protons being compound materials. With the elements we have a pretty certain theory and a good idea how they develop within stars. It's a high energy process that leads to a simple relation: the complexer or denser an element is the rarer it is as well, with Hydrogen being the most common element.
If the universe would have been developed in a comparable way - and the big bang is such a way - you'd expect that same: that the compounds would be much rarer than the basic stuff.
That's not the case, though. We know, however, one and only one process that produces, electrons, neutrons and protons in equal portions and that's beta-decay. Neutrons are relatively stable, living a good quarter of an hour. If they don't find a stable connection they will decay to electron and proton.
So, if anything, you'd expect the universe having developed from neutrons and neutrons only, not from a big bang.
Now, there is no DIRECT evidence for the existance of dark matter or energy. What's more, we don't have a conclusive, certified idea what gravitation actually is. Our current model is a kinetic one, if I'm not wrong, but there are still a lot of problems. As I said, observations amount to there being NO curving of space whatsoever - which is a direct contradiction to the theory of relativity and Einstein's interpretation of gravity as a curving of space - there would have to be one IF there was indeed such a lot of matter, dark or otherwise. So at least one seems to be wrong (and maybe even both).
I repeat, it's deeply UNSCIENTIFIC to start witzh an existing model that fits the supposedly observed evidence and then, when there's supposedly evidence that does NOT fit into the model, to fudge reality by "inventing" something that's the cause of it, but in itself not observable. "Our model is correct, it's just that reality makes it difficult for us to observe everything."
The main thing to ask is, how good is the evidence/observation? Are there other interpretations possible? Are there possible errors? At this stage physics is behaving like an extraordinarily stupid police force in a murder investigation: evidence is interpreted to point into a direction of a dead man doing it, and now the whole police is on the lookout for more evidence of his workings, completely ignoring other roads of research.
Choices are made in science, that are virtually never clear-cut. Take Dirac's relativistic wave equation. The energy-momentun-mass relation is
E>2 = c>2p>2 + m>2c>4 (E=mc>2 is a special case of this)
However, you must pull a positive and a negative root, so if you do, you get a +E and a -E. TWO symmetric solutions, a positive one and a negative one, which inspired Dirac to formulation his theory of the Dirac Sea.
That wasn't accepted, though, by his famous contemporaries. Apparently Heisenberg and others were not "pleased" with the idea of having negative energy available, and 6 years later Heisenber came up with complex mathematics to make the negative solution magically disappear.
You could say that this is one point when real trouble began, because that matematical trick produced all kinds of difficulties, impossibilities, violations of physical laws and other things, that led to such basically ludicrous theories of particles "borrowing" energy (wherefrom?) and so on.
Since then Ockham's razor is constantly violated - not conclusive as such, but a strong hint that something is possible wrong.
Everything we know so far does indeed seem to hint on creation being "economical". You can prove, that for DNS 3 constituent parts wouldn't be enough, while 5 wouldn't be necessary, and 4 are there. We can expect with reasonable certainty that the structure of the universe will be the most "simple" and "economical" that is possible. I don't think that the current physical models are even near that with their 3 dozen particles and their "dark" matter and energy.
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted January 12, 2009 08:14 AM |
|
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 12, 2009 07:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So, if anything, you'd expect the universe having developed from neutrons and neutrons only, not from a big bang.
Actually, only thing need are photons, and supposedly "anti-photons" who can form matter, any matter. Although "anti-photons" don't have any other properties apart from coming in contact with photons -- but that may very well be the case of a special property of the photon (or wave) that we don't know.
Quote:
You could say that this is one point when real trouble began, because that matematical trick produced all kinds of difficulties, impossibilities, violations of physical laws and other things, that led to such basically ludicrous theories of particles "borrowing" energy (wherefrom?) and so on.
As much as a non-reproducible freak I am (aka not everything is reproducible, is what I believe), I still trust math waaay more than "that doesn't sound right" or "that's not intuitive" or "that makes no sense". At least it is honest and not subjective.
Quote:
Since then Ockham's razor is constantly violated
Unless this 'razor' is some kind of commandment for science, I see no problems with violating it (even though I mostly agree with what you said).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2009 07:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
So, if anything, you'd expect the universe having developed from neutrons and neutrons only, not from a big bang.
Actually, only thing need are photons, and supposedly "anti-photons" who can form matter, any matter. Although "anti-photons" don't have any other properties apart from coming in contact with photons -- but that may very well be the case of a special property of the photon (or wave) that we don't know.
Well, that's the question. I was simply stating that the only known process that produces an equal numer of neutrons, protons and electrons, which we have and which builds all mass, is beta decay, so for the creation of our universe you'd need a source of neutrons. The next step would be th determination of the neutron source, of course, and how neutrons are come into being as compounds, respectively.
Quote:
I still trust math waaay more than "that doesn't sound right" or "that's not intuitive" or "that makes no sense". At least it is honest and not subjective.
I take it that means, you disagree with Heisenberg as well: if a you need a square root you get TWO results, and disregarding one as "inelegant" or disqualifying it as "impossible" out of hand dosn't make scientific sense. We'd agree here.
Quote:
Since then Ockham's razor is constantly violated
Unless this 'razor' is some kind of commandment for science, I see no problems with violating it (even though I mostly agree with what you said).
Well, I do. Not in the strictly scientific sense. But as I said, often there are decisions to make which avenue to follow, which theory to cling to and research further, and the Razor is a pretty good beacon. If I had to make a guess and someone would present me a theory with 36 different particles an another would present me one with 2 for matter and another 2, symmetric, for anti-matter, but a symmetrical counterpart as well, so that it were 4 I'd take the theory with 2x2. Frankly having 92 elements made of 3 ingredients, 2 of which are compounds, the next step is clearly that. 36 basic particles, building 3 ingredients for 92 elements just sounds, well, SILLY.
TWO basic particles building 3 ingredients for 92 elements - now that makes sense.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 17, 2009 09:47 AM |
|
|
It looks like people lose interest as soon as things become a bit more difficult.
Maybe a look into the past can help.
Science didn't begin some time in 17th century. 2500 years ago the Greeks found methods based on mathematics to measure Earths circumference, distance to the moon and the sun, size of the sun and so on. "Perfected" by Ptolemäus in the 2. century AD the then extremely complex geocentric model could perfectly predict the positions of the planets. Note, that the idea of a heliocentric cosmos was around since a couple hundred years then, but was forgotten, since not only was it against common sense, it didn't fit with observations: for example, if Earth's position would differ up to 300.000.000 kms within a year, the positions of the fix stars should change (which is the case, but since distances are so great the effect is so minimal they couldn't see it).
The only thing the heliocentric model had going for it was, then, that it was a lot simpler than the quite complex Ptolemaic model with its circles within circles within circles. Which is Ockham's Razor (but note, that at the time both models were not equal: the geocentric model fitted a lot better into everything).
The situation is basically not that much different today, because we are always straining the limits of observation, today as then. The fact that a model fits observation doesn't say that much, actually. For example, then they had basically no idea about gravitation. They simply assumed, the center of the cosmos would pull everything to it, which explained everything they wanted to explain. Disregard of an important element allowed a completely wrong model to make correct predictions.
As long as there is no complete understanding of all phenomena chances are, therefore, that basic assumptions may be dead wrong.
That's true as well for everything gained at the limits of what is observable. Moreover, expected effects are actively beeen searched for, while unexpected are more or less registered accidentally or involuntarily. Even SLIGHT errors may have BIG consequences here.
|
|
Carcity
Supreme Hero
Blind Sage
|
|
posted January 31, 2009 11:33 PM |
|
|
now I havn't read through the thread YET but I can honestly say that I don't believe that big bang created the world. but I don't believe that it was created by god either. cause the say that there was nothing. then for no reason at all nothing exploded and bang we had lots of burning stuff bigger than anything. and is it even possible that such a big explosion can occur? and what was it that caused it? cause I have lived for 13 years and yet I have not seen anything blow up for NO REASON AT ALL!
____________
Why can't you save anybody?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 31, 2009 11:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
cause I have lived for 13 years and yet I have not seen anything blow up for NO REASON AT ALL!
Well that is already a big contradiction -- since for something to have a CAUSE or REASON, it must exist in TIME -- and you 'lived for 13 years' implies some usage of time (well technically, you live in a world with time).
What's wrong with this? Well if you ASSUME that the Big Bang existed, then you know it expanded the ENTIRE space (or rather, space-time continuum). Time is directly related to space, therefore, it expanded time as well.
So I'm not saying that it existed or not, merely pointing out that you don't even know how it is and thus, probably discard it for reasons it doesn't even is
How can you have a cause for something, if you don't have time? Well most certainly it IS possible (at least philosophically) but is not REQUIRED as far as we know -- because we know very little (almost nothing) regarding a time-less dimension.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 01, 2009 12:07 AM |
|
|
Well we could say reality we are in is a denial of the void(as in nothingness). I just think its beyond us, for now. Maybe forever. Who really knows?
____________
|
| |
|
|
