Experiential verse theoretical science

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

Jim_Baur

Guest
Is experiential science and theoretical sciences different or just how different are they?

I am most curious about the theoretical science(s) for the beginning of the universe.

If they are different, how should the lay person evaluate their work?

THANKS!
 
I’ve noticed that this is your 2nd post today about science and the origin of the universe, so I figure it must be something you’ve been pondering about a lot lately.

Experimental science is people carrying out experiments to obtain results. These results help us to learn about the laws of physics and the natural world. Since we cannot actually do an experiment with astronomical things, especially the big bang, we use the theories that are widely accepted in the scientific community and laws of physics to create models to give us the best theory as to the origin of the universe. In other words, theoretical science depends on the results of experimental science.

I’d be lying if I said that this isn’t something that I’ve pondered a lot, especially lately. I’ve been watching videos from scientists on theories and whatnot, but when it comes down to it all I accept that we can’t know what exactly happened and I shouldn’t expect to ever find out the answer until I die.
 
Jerbear

Your last point, I think that is an accurate description of the situation.

Humans cannot discern if God always “created” or whether He began it at a certain time.

We just do not have enough information.

Also, we cannot get to the essence of any of the laws of nature.

THANKS!
 
Is experiential science and theoretical sciences different or just how different are they?
The first one is about experience and the second one is about logical and philosophical framework to explain the experience.
I am most curious about the theoretical science(s) for the beginning of the universe.

If they are different, how should the lay person evaluate their work?

THANKS!
It is simply based on experience of current state matter. The theory is well established in most part except quantum gravity and it is believed that the same theory is applicable to initial state of universe. You can read this for a further simple explanation.
 
hildegaard

THANKS!!!

I asked abut Buddhism and the different kinds of science for the reason of understanding philosophy better.

I am of the school of thought that human reasoning cannot demonstrate the eternity of the creation nor disprove a creation. I follow St.Thomas Aquinas and his teachings, as Vatican II recommended.

Science cannot prove being came into existence.

Science cannot prove being always existed.

I was politely gaining evidence for that position.

In my judgment, we cannot because we do not know the nature of the natural physical laws.

I believe in the creeds of the Church!

Etc,etc, etc…
 
Experimental science is people carrying out experiments to obtain results. These results help us to learn about the laws of physics and the natural world. Since we cannot actually do an experiment with astronomical things, especially the big bang, we use the theories that are widely accepted in the scientific community and laws of physics to create models to give us the best theory as to the origin of the universe. In other words, theoretical science depends on the results of experimental science.
Actually, science is based not only on experiments, but also on observation, and especially observations that are repeatable and lend themselves to so much consistency that they become laws.

At first the BIg Bang was based on a purely mathematical formula by George Lemaitre. His formula was a correction of Einstein’s math used in the theory of relativity. Lemaitre’s math predicted an expanding universe, rather than a steady-state universe. It was only after observations began to confirm the prediction that the Big Bang really took off. One of the first observations was that, looking through the best telecopes, it could be seen that the galaxies are all moving away from each other, somewhat as the sparks of a fireworks move away from each other as they are exploded. Extrapolating backward through time, it was a logical deduction that the universe began as a tiny singularity. So while you cannot recreate the Big Bang as an experiment, you can observe not only that there was a Big Bang, but that the Big Bang is still going on as space stretches and we fly through it into God knows where. 😉
 
A summary of the development of the big bang theory is an interesting interplay of theoretical and experimental/observational science. The red dates are the theoretical contributions, all others are exp/obs. :

SUMMARY
1814 – Joseph Fraunhofer invented the spectroscope and discovered dark lines in the sun’s spectrum

1859 – Gustav Kirchhoff and Robert Bunsen found that the frequencies of the dark spectral lines found in sunlight corresponded to the frequencies of bright lines produced when chemical elements are activated to glow in the laboratory. When a spectroscope is attached to a telescope astronomers are able to tell what stars are made of.

1912 – Henrietta Leavett discovered a method for determining the distance to stars called Cepheid variables

1914 – Vesto Slipher announced that characteristic spectral lines observed in the light from nebulae were not at frequencies one would expect; instead they were shift toward the red side of the spectrum.

1915 – Einstein introduced the General Theory of Relativity. When Einstein solved the equation for the universe he found the solution predicted an expanding universe. In order to conform to the existing paradigm that held that the universe was static, he introduced a constant, since referred to as the cosmological constant.

1922 – Alexander Friedman found that Einstein made a mathematical mistake; but even with the cosmological constant, the relativity equation predicted an expanding universe.

1924 - Edwin Hubble focused the new 100 inch Mt. Wilson reflecting telescope on the nebulae and was able to resolve individual stars. He found Cepheid variables and used Leavitt’s technique to measure the distance to the nebulae and found them to be outside our Milky Way galaxy. They were separate galaxies; the Universe was much bigger than previously assumed.

1929 – Hubble analyzed the red shifts in the spectral lines from distant galaxies and noticed that the more distant a galaxy from our own, the larger the red shift. This meant that the farther away the receding galaxies were from our galaxy, the higher the velocity of recession. This could only mean that the universe was expanding.

1931 – Father Georges Lemaitre independently recreated the Freidman model, realized that expansion was real and proposed that the universe expanded from an infinitely small object called the ‘primeval atom’.

1948 – George Gamow and his student Ralph Alpher applied classical thermodynamics and nuclear physics to the primeval atom and predicted that the remnants of the expansion would be a background of energy measuring about 5 degrees Kelvin. In addition, this work also predicted the relative abundance of lithium and beryllium by a process of nucleosynthesis.

1964 - Jim Peeples, Robert Dicke, et.al. at Princeton University, apparently without knowledge of Gamow’s prediction, offered their own prediction that there should be a detectable remnant of the big bang; the remnant has since become known as the cosmic background radiation (CBR).

1964 - Two BTL engineers at Holmdel, NJ, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, were troubled by a noise from all parts of the sky while setting up a radio telescope to be used for wireless communication. The Princeton group realized that the remnant that they and Gamow’s group predicted was the signal observed by Penzias and Wilson, thus verifying the big bang theory.

Subsequently the prediction of the distribution of light elements was also verified by observation adding additional validation of the theory,

Also the observed distribution of galaxies in the various stages of evolution provides additional support for the BB theory

The Noble Prize was won by Wilson and Penzias, for their accidental observation.

Yppop
 
The theory is well established in most part except quantum gravity and it is believed that the same theory is applicable to initial state of universe. You can read this for a further simple explanation.
This is exactly right. Our theoretical physics explain a great deal about the universe since shortly after the Big Bang. However, “quantum gravity” is kinda the most fundamental physics, and while theories abound (e.g., string theory, loop quantum gravity), humanity at present does not have the capacity to empirically evaluate those theories.

The Large Hadron Collider is the latest and most powerful instrument intended to test hypotheses that are derived from theoretical physics. However, the empirical evaluation of fundamental physical theory is bound by the amount of energy (and money) that physicists can spend. There are other, somewhat less expensive approaches to understanding the earliest universe (e.g., the recent discovery of gravitational waves that confirmed the inflationary theory of the evolution of the universe). However, each additional discovery that confirms some link in the theoretical chain is harder and more expensive to conduct.

From a strictly materialist (e.g., non-theistic) explanation, we still don’t know how the universe came into being, why it looks like it does, or why physics works. Theories of quantum gravity (i.e., to find a true unified field theory – one that includes gravity in addition to electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force) are an attempt to explain the most fundamental questions in physics. I’m skeptical that we’ll ever truly get there, but you never know…
 
A summary of the development of the big bang theory is an interesting interplay of theoretical and experimental/observational science. The red dates are the theoretical contributions, all others are exp/obs. :

SUMMARY
1814 – Joseph Fraunhofer invented the spectroscope and discovered dark lines in the sun’s spectrum

1859 – Gustav Kirchhoff and Robert Bunsen found that the frequencies of the dark spectral lines found in sunlight corresponded to the frequencies of bright lines produced when chemical elements are activated to glow in the laboratory. When a spectroscope is attached to a telescope astronomers are able to tell what stars are made of.

1912 – Henrietta Leavett discovered a method for determining the distance to stars called Cepheid variables

1914 – Vesto Slipher announced that characteristic spectral lines observed in the light from nebulae were not at frequencies one would expect; instead they were shift toward the red side of the spectrum.

1915 – Einstein introduced the General Theory of Relativity. When Einstein solved the equation for the universe he found the solution predicted an expanding universe. In order to conform to the existing paradigm that held that the universe was static, he introduced a constant, since referred to as the cosmological constant.

1922 – Alexander Friedman found that Einstein made a mathematical mistake; but even with the cosmological constant, the relativity equation predicted an expanding universe.

1924 - Edwin Hubble focused the new 100 inch Mt. Wilson reflecting telescope on the nebulae and was able to resolve individual stars. He found Cepheid variables and used Leavitt’s technique to measure the distance to the nebulae and found them to be outside our Milky Way galaxy. They were separate galaxies; the Universe was much bigger than previously assumed.

1929 – Hubble analyzed the red shifts in the spectral lines from distant galaxies and noticed that the more distant a galaxy from our own, the larger the red shift. This meant that the farther away the receding galaxies were from our galaxy, the higher the velocity of recession. This could only mean that the universe was expanding.

1931 – Father Georges Lemaitre independently recreated the Freidman model, realized that expansion was real and proposed that the universe expanded from an infinitely small object called the ‘primeval atom’.

1948 – George Gamow and his student Ralph Alpher applied classical thermodynamics and nuclear physics to the primeval atom and predicted that the remnants of the expansion would be a background of energy measuring about 5 degrees Kelvin. In addition, this work also predicted the relative abundance of lithium and beryllium by a process of nucleosynthesis.

1964 - Jim Peeples, Robert Dicke, et.al. at Princeton University, apparently without knowledge of Gamow’s prediction, offered their own prediction that there should be a detectable remnant of the big bang; the remnant has since become known as the cosmic background radiation (CBR).

1964 - Two BTL engineers at Holmdel, NJ, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, were troubled by a noise from all parts of the sky while setting up a radio telescope to be used for wireless communication. The Princeton group realized that the remnant that they and Gamow’s group predicted was the signal observed by Penzias and Wilson, thus verifying the big bang theory.

Subsequently the prediction of the distribution of light elements was also verified by observation adding additional validation of the theory,

Also the observed distribution of galaxies in the various stages of evolution provides additional support for the BB theory

The Noble Prize was won by Wilson and Penzias, for their accidental observation.

Yppop
…And the anisotropies present in the CMB, verified by three independent satellite missions, define a correlation to the ecliptic and equinoxes of the earth. The correlations are present at the largest scales of the visible universe. The last mission (Planck, March 2013) confirmed these correlations, and all questions as to errors in the reading, etc., are pretty much gone. See here:

medium.com/we-are-in-a-special-place/planck-satellite-confirms-wmap-findings-universe-is-not-copernican-26f88f17a732
 
This is exactly right. Our theoretical physics explain a great deal about the universe since shortly after the Big Bang. However, “quantum gravity” is kinda the most fundamental physics, and while theories abound (e.g., string theory, loop quantum gravity), humanity at present does not have the capacity to empirically evaluate those theories.

The Large Hadron Collider is the latest and most powerful instrument intended to test hypotheses that are derived from theoretical physics. However, the empirical evaluation of fundamental physical theory is bound by the amount of energy (and money) that physicists can spend. There are other, somewhat less expensive approaches to understanding the earliest universe (e.g., the recent discovery of gravitational waves that confirmed the inflationary theory of the evolution of the universe). However, each additional discovery that confirms some link in the theoretical chain is harder and more expensive to conduct.

From a strictly materialist (e.g., non-theistic) explanation, we still don’t know how the universe came into being, why it looks like it does, or why physics works. Theories of quantum gravity (i.e., to find a true unified field theory – one that includes gravity in addition to electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force) are an attempt to explain the most fundamental questions in physics. I’m skeptical that we’ll ever truly get there, but you never know…
Very well said. 👍
 
fnr

In your judgment, do we have enough information and knowledge to demonstrate that being came into being?

THANKS

I know it is almost infinitely complex.
 
fnr

In your judgment, do we have enough information and knowledge to demonstrate that being came into being?

THANKS

I know it is almost infinitely complex.
We have to understand what is quantum gravity since the behavior everything in very small scale is determined mostly by gravity. The big bang or black hole are singularities in out current theories. In reality there is no singularity and the singularity can be resolved in a well treated quantum theory hence we cannot have a correct understanding of big bang and black hole until we know quantum gravity.
 
Please forgive the next question:

Are there more than just two species of gravity?

THANKS!!!

Are there hybrid species?
 
Please forgive the next question:

Are there more than just two species of gravity?

THANKS!!!

Are there hybrid species?
Gravity force is the result of exchange of particle so called graviton. Whether there is one or more graviton types are involved in this process is the question we have an answer when we have quantum theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top