Big Bang

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
How is it that the Big Band could have happened if there were no humans there to observe it?

How is it that the String Theory is correct if we cannot observe it?

How is it that Pluto existed before 1930?
 
I think I see where you’re going with this.
Some things are not contingent on our observation.
 
If all was in a superstate of all possibilities before observation. Was only the possibility of our observation from one of the possible superstates enough to collapse the possibilities to only the one containing the first human observer? I’m thinking we have to really be not just possibly be and thus this idea collapses on itself.
 
How is it that the Big Band could have happened if there were no humans there to observe it?

How is it that the String Theory is correct if we cannot observe it?

How is it that Pluto existed before 1930?
Because God was there to observe it.

Because the universe is not contingent upon human observation, and string theory may or may not be correct.

The same way the rest of the universe existed before 1930.
 
Artie Shaw is my favorite! 😃
Hi Boomerang’
I was just listening to Artie Shaw with Helen Forest singing “They Say” and “All the Things You Are” at www.songlyrics.com when I read your post. I know this is straying from the OP, but the theme of this forum is God and all the proof I need of His existence is the magnificent combination of romance and good music.
Yppop
 
The Big Bang was a theory first presented by a priest/scientist – Father George LaMaitre, in the early twentieth century. Many scientists, including Einstein, were very upset by this theory. Up until this time, scientists like to believe that the world was eternal, with no need of a Creator. If the Big Bang was true, then that meant that the universe had a beginning.

This theory was quickly verified to be true. The strongest evidence was found by the Hubble telescope – which showed that the stars were dispersing. This mean the universe was expanding. And if the the universe was expanding, then that means that sometime in the past the universe was condensed into a tiny spec – until the bang happened.
 
Hi Boomerang’
I was just listening to Artie Shaw with Helen Forest singing “They Say” and “All the Things You Are” at www.songlyrics.com when I read your post. I know this is straying from the OP, but the theme of this forum is God and all the proof I need of His existence is the magnificent combination of romance and good music.
Yppop
My sentiments exactly! 😉
 
How is it that the Big Band could have happened if there were no humans there to observe it?

How is it that the String Theory is correct if we cannot observe it?

How is it that Pluto existed before 1930?
This can indeed seem a bit counterintuitive, if string theory says that reality is dependent upon the presence of an observer, and there was no one there to observe the Big Bang, nor were there any observations of Pluto before 1930 how could these things have existed?

If you are familiar with the double slit experiment then you know that a particle will go through both slits at the same time, unless we put some device in place to detect which slit the particle went through. At which time the particle will no longer go through both slits, but will instead go through either one slit or the other. It would appear as though the act of observing the path of the particle has altered its behavior. But in reality it’s not actually the observer that altered the particle’s path, but rather it’s the information about the particle’s path that altered its behavior. As long as the information about which path the particle took is available to the observer, then that is enough to alter its behavior. Let’s say for example that we set up our detector to display a 1 if the particle went through slit “A” or to display a 2 if the particle went through slit “B”. In such a scenario we don’t actually have to look at the device’s display, in order to alter the particle’s behavior. The mere fact that the information is available to us is sufficient. If the information is available in some form, then that is enough to alter the particle’s behavior. It’s only when you have absolutely no way of determining which path the particle took, that the particle will take every available path. It doesn’t matter if you simply decide not to look, or whether you don’t have the technology to access the information, as long as the information is available to you, then that is enough to alter the particle’s behavior.

So in the case of Pluto before 1930, the information about Pluto’s existence was available to us before 1930. (In the form of photons reflected off of its surface) Although we hadn’t yet detected those photons, the information was still available to us. So Pluto still existed even before we actually saw it. It’s not so much about what you see, it’s about what you could conceivably see. It’s all about what information is available to you. If the information is available to you concerning which path the particle took, then the particle will take only one path. The particle, like Pluto will exist.

The second thing that you have to keep in mind is that this information is not time dependent. This is one of the stranger things about quantum mechanics, in that it doesn’t matter when this information becomes available to you. It doesn’t matter if the information about which path the particle took becomes available to you now, or a billion years from now, the simple fact that it will someday be available to you is all it takes to alter the particle’s behavior. So again it’s all about the information that’s available to you, and it doesn’t matter when this information becomes available to you. So when you look through the Hubble telescope at galaxies millions of light years away, it doesn’t matter that we were not around too see them all those years ago. The fact that we are seeing them now, means that they existed back then. The observation is not time dependent. It doesn’t have to occur at the same time as the event.

The third thing that you have to keep in mind is the idea of temporal consistency. Which simply means that how things are today must be consistent with how they were in the past. If you parked a red car in your garage tonight, barring some natural occurence, it will still be a red car in the morning. What this essentially means is that what something looks like today will provide you with information about what that thing looked like in the past, and again it is the information that is key. If the information about how something looked in the past is available to you, then that is enough to alter that things past behavior. So the Big Bang really existed because the information about its existence is available to us today. Knowing how something is today, tells you how it was in the past, and that is enough to force the past into existence.

The key to understanding the strange effects of quantum physics is to always keep in mind what information is available to you, either now or in the future. In the double slit experiment if we do nothing to record which path the particle took, then that information is lost forever, and the particle is free to take every path. The instant we introduce any means of knowing which path the particle took, it’s behavior will be altered.

If you can know how something was in the past, then that’s how it actually was.
 
Wikipedia has compiled a list of 14 of just the most common interpretations of the experimental results of quantum mechanical measurements:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

Wikipedia concludes:
“No experimental evidence exists that distinguishes among these interpretations. To that extent, the physical theory stands, and is consistent with itself and with reality; difficulties arise only when one attempts to “interpret” the theory. Nevertheless, designing experiments which would test the various interpretations is the subject of active research.”

This is and has been debated and researched among the foremost physicists over the past century. Some theories rely on changes due to observers measurements & others do not. The fact is that “science” really hasn’t understood this and trying to explain it here will be full of as much fact as theoretical guess.

Please, don’t try this at home or here.
 
If I was not around to witness what had occurred before I was born then how could it (the past) have occurred? This is the same question. It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics or cosmology but of memory.

What should be asked is, if the past has occurred how do I know it is not of the present? in other words: The observation is not in the present so how can I know the past occurred?

Time is only successions of past becoming future and future becoming past in “one instant”. As the future becomes present, it is not past but present. And as present becomes what the future is, it is now past. Some may say “no, the past does not become future”. It is then misinterpreted. What is instantly present is neither past nor future, but present. Time itself is purely mathematical. Its a continuum- a line. When you involve memory, you know if you can “recall” certain presents which passed under you own observation.

As far as science and philosophy is concerned, what occurred 10 seconds ago may as well be 10 million years ago. Past and future are not relative under Einstein physics. Only the present moments of each state.

Now, when looking at the oldest galaxy, we are viewing very old photons. As old as they are, they have simply existed through millions of moments of NOW, yet unchanged. The galaxy as it is today however may not even exist any longer. So when we hear thunder, is that to imply that the lightning never occurred because we did not observe it? Of course not. The universe is here- now, which means philosophically, we CANNOT deduce what its past was without the concept of extrinsic memory but we know it had a past because without past, there was no way the current present could be in existence. Scientifically speaking, we can only deduce the past by observing what the present is.

This is why the creation of the cosmos must NECESSARILY have come from a supernatural being. Science cannot be an answer unto itself.
 
I have another set of questions.

First, it is what we do not know that gives us light.

Concerning dark matter and energy, do we know the nature of them?

Are they infinite?

Are they eternal?

Are they necessary?

Are they inanimate?

Are they animate?

Are they physical?

Are they Spiritual?

Are they part spiritual and part physical?

Does the spiritual part rule the physical or the other way?

Did they even exist before 1980?
 
Note that we have witnessed the Big Bang. It was confirmed when scientists observed the residual radiation from it in the 60’s. One of my graduate school friends was on a team that discovered some of it.

Due to the expansion of the universe the radiation has cooled. It now appears as a very cold [about 6 degrees Kelvin, if I remember correctly] black body.

It is observed in all directions, because, when we look out, we look back in time. All lines of sight converge on that singularity.
 
Joe:

I think that we have observed phenomena that some scientists attribute to the Big Bang.

I am not sure, but I think we were about 15,000,000,000 years too late to see the actual event.

It is similar to looking at creation and Christians and Jewish attribute the created world to God.
 
Joe:

I think that we have observed phenomena that some scientists attribute to the Big Bang.

I am not sure, but I think we were about 15,000,000,000 years too late to see the actual event.

It is similar to looking at creation and Christians and Jewish attribute the created world to God.
I think we are observing the original photons from the event. We see events by emitted or reflected photons, and we always see them after the actual event; though usually a much shorter time after the event.
 
It is similar to looking at creation and Christians and Jewish attribute the created world to God.
No, it’s not.

The Big Bang Theory makes specific and testable predictions about the universe that were subsequently confirmed. In other words, the people who proposed the Big Bang Hypothesis – back when it was a lowly hypothesis and not a theory, the highest possible level in science – said, basically, “If the Big Bang Theory is true, there should be background radiation from the initial expansion.”

They made this prediction before it was possible to detect that background radiation. Decades later, we were able to, and guess what? We detected background radiation, in exactly the amount specified by the hypothesis. So the hypothesis graduated to a theory, the highest level possible in science.

When Christians attribute the created world to their god, they’re just attributing, exactly as you say: they’re just asserting that the world was a creation of their god without any evidence to support this claim.
 
Concerning dark matter and energy, do we know the nature of them?
No, hence the adjective “dark” in their name. There are some speculated non-baryonic particles that ‘fit’ the mathematical attributes of dark matter (MACHOs and WIMPs), but there is no confirmation of either postulated particles.
Are they infinite?
No, there is no such thing as a physical infinite.
Are they eternal?
No.
Are they necessary?
Dark energy explains the accelerated expansion, so that is necessary (otherwise our universe would have collapsed before God made our planet). Dark matter can be done away with if you assume higher-order physics is necessary on the cosmological scale.
Are they inanimate?
As particles or energy, they are most certainly inanimate.
Are they animate?
As particles or energy, they are most certainly inanimate.
Are they physical?
Dark energy is not physical because it is energy. Dark matter, assuming it exists, cannot be anything but physical (it is a particle).
Are they Spiritual?
I doubt it.
Are they part spiritual and part physical?
I doubt it.
Does the spiritual part rule the physical or the other way?
I doubt it.
Did they even exist before 1980?
Assuming that dark energy and dark matter models are correct, then absolutely they existed before 1980.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top