The Big Bang Theory

[Ani_Ibi]

freesoulhope:

Have you noticed that, we speak of the big bang giving birth to time space and matter, yet the universe is expanding; but in to what?

The universe is everything. There is nothing beyond the universe. Therefore there is nothing to expand into.

However, I hear ya. I think this has to do with the no-boundary condition of the universe. It is simply that the size – among other things – of the universe is undefined. it is fuzzy.

Now I did propose some mind-candy at the end of my previous post on the notion that entropy increases in our emergent universe (and this would mean that space increases) in order to have a no-entropy primordial slime but one with increasing order and information. The primordial slime is the realm of Membranes from which our universe emerged.

This notion would mean that physics does not break.

freesoulhope:

Why do scientists avoid this phenoemon?

They don’t avoid it. Some of it they can explain. Some of it they can’t – yet. You do realize that we have not come to the end of physics yet. There are theories missing. When we get them all we will have the Grand Unified Theory, thusfar no more than a castle in the sky.

But this is best handled on a new thread. Otherwise we’ll derail this one. And this one is too interesting.

 

[jman507]

Germs are only a theory?? Poor Semmelweiss. He eventually went insane trying to convince the surgeons to wash their hands before doing surgery, especially when just coming from the morgue. His contemporaries thought it was not only just a theory but a rather dumb one at that. Tiny invisible creatures infecting our patients? Give us a break!

It’s a very useful theory, but it doesn’t explain all illnesses, why other microbes don’t make us sick, nor why one ‘germ’ might make one sick and not another. It’s a great model, but thank goodness medicine did not stop the research there.

On a different note, it really doesn’t matter much to me if the Big Bang happened or if it is wrong. Some people once thought the world was flat, I’m sure they thought they made some keen observations about the world, but we had others who hypothesis other ideas and methods of observations become more sophisticated, much less have been at the right place and right time to make a critical observation. Others may one day laugh at our theories, but we did what we could. If that is the case, I doubt they’d have been able to get to that point without our trail and error. As far as I’m concerned, Big Bang seems to have a lot of evidence, but if its wrong, bring out the evidence and I’ll enjoy the latest turn, though I’ll be waiting to see if that gets proved wrong or refined.

I guess for keeping theology to the theologians and science to the scientist, that doesn’t quite sit well with me. Theology seems a very broad subject encompassing many things in our life. Science is very precise of a subject. Filters out a lot. It stresses a few givens and a lot of reason. For that it’s useful and practical. Theology does have a relationship to reason, and science plays a part. Science tends to filter out theology in order to do what it does. I see theologians able to say how science should play in the context of life. Science should be able to say, this is what the data indicates to say. You cannot say otherwise, but you can try to put it in a sort of context.

As for me, if the science seems to contradict the Bible, I’ll say 1) I don’t have enough complete evidence from science to say what is, but that I never saw as the point. I seek the Truth, I don’t see science as the Truth, but it is apart of the Truth that I seek. 2) I do not stand by my interpretation of the Bible as the Truth. I seek the Truth, the Bible cannot express the Truth in complete context, but it helps my search for the Truth. I doubt I’ll ever be able to completely understand the Truth, but the search is worth it. I’ll go merrily on my way pondering the mystery of the contradictions. How wonderful is our God! How I love my life! I thank God for giving it to me. It’s beatiful.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

john doran:

heindrik lorentz, for example, produced a fully workable theory of relativity that includes the aether…

Interesting.
john doran:

and not only is there dark matter to worry about these days, but also dark energy; the amount we don’t understand about our universe is enough to make one’s head spin.

I don’t see why there can’t be aether if there is dark matter. Moreover I remember the headline in Time magazine when those Canadian guys came up with dark matter. Something about discovering God in the microwave? (OK… microwave background!)

In any case, many folks get stuck on the right and wrong of things. There are other means and ends to science (as a branch of philosophy). One is considering what something does and if it is useful.

Einstein, as you point out, did not get stuck on the right and wrong of the Aether – at least not as stuck as he got on the right and wrong of the Uncertainty Principle. He just took an end run around the Aether.

I started a thought-cracker on this subject here:
Philosophy: Genuine tragedies

Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights. ~Georg Hegel

The history of physics is certainly a story with its own tragic chapters.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

no - dark matter is matter that is dark in the sense that we have yet to observe it; it is supposed to constitute most of the matter in the universe.

the reason we believe that it exists is simply because, for any given volume of space in the universe, there has to be enough mass for gravity to keep all of the stuff in that volume from flying apart; as it turns out, there’s just nowhere nearly enough visible matter to account for the relatively slow velocities of the objects in the universe. thus, there must be “dark matter”.

we just haven’t found it yet.

Yeah, I’m too tired and it’s too late for me to look it up and give yall a link but here is what I remember in simple terms:

Let’s assume the Big Bang happened. There are three possible outcomes (sort of like Goldilocks and the three bears):

1. 
   *]The universe could expand and then big gravity could cause it to collapse again.
   *]The universe could expand and then medium size gravity could cause it to slow down to status.
   *]The universe could expand and then small gravity could cause it to keep on going until it stopped working altogether.
   Scientists calculated the mass of the universe. Mass > gravity.
   
   Observations of red shift did not support those calculations of the universe’s mass. Therefore those calculations were wrong.
   
   Something else had to account for those red shifts. Those red shifts posited a ‘thick soup’ early universe which allowed the universe to hold together and not “fly apart” as a poster put it.
   
   Then scientists observed evidence of what they called “dark matter” – the ingredient in the “thick soup” which allowed the universe to hold together. I believe the evidence was in the observations of the microwave background – done by Canadian team at Nortel – a few decades ago. But I could be wrong.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mr. Ruggerio:

Religion not rational

I don’t believe anyone said this. So it is a strawman. But in any case, you made the claim, so please give us a link to the post in which you found “religion not rationale.” That way we can get the context and follow your line of thinking.
Mr. Ruggerio:

but science is [rational].

Again I don’t believe anyone said this. So it too is a strawman. But in any case, you made the claim, so please give us a link to the post in which you found but “science is [rational].” That way we can get the context and follow your line of thinking.
Mr. Ruggerio:

…I think religion’s got the edge on science here.

Faith can never conflict with reason (JP2)

 

[john_doran]

Then scientists observed evidence of what they called “dark matter” – the ingredient in the “thick soup” which allowed the universe to hold together. I believe the evidence was in the observations of the microwave background – done by Canadian team at Nortel – a few decades ago. But I could be wrong.

as far as i know, no one has “observed” dark matter - the only observations have been of perturbations in the cosmic microwave background which imply something doing the perturbing.

are you perhaps talking about the observation of the CMB itself in the 60’s by a couple of guys (penzias and wilson) working at bell labs?

 

[heisenburg]

Not following you. Can you flesh this out a bit more so that I can follow what you are saying?

I can try…

Basically, if Brane theory is correct, if we created a universe in a lab, the universe would expand, creating its own space as it expands. It may very well have its own rules. When I say it is expanding and creating its own space, that does NOT mean it is displacing space in our universe. Our universe will go on unharmed, and the new universe will begin expanding, and growing in the space it creates for itself. From the new universes POV, it may one day be billions of light years across, but from our perspective, it would never be bigger than in infinitely small point.

You also mentioned how God plays into all of this. I agree god does NOT play with dice. even though we would be the ‘creators’ of the new universe if you will, God is still the ultimate creator because he would have to allow for its creation. It would exist as God sees fit, and guided as God sees fit, and one day, they may have their own need for a Savior.

You brought up an interesting point about laws of physics here and laws of physics there, and how they can be different, is it within god… etc…Basically, my own thoughts on this are as follows. The Laws of Physics still apply, even at the Multiverse level, my personal thoughts, and nothing more, are that there are some super laws that govern all branes everywhere. When a universe is created it inherits some percentage of those super laws, but not all, however, all laws in every universe fit within the laws of the super laws. Again, it gets back to the laws of physics cant be broken, just our understanding of it.

You also asked for a few definitions…

Hypothesis - An idea that happens to fit the facts, but has no experimental evidence behind it. this would be like saying someone has an idea

Theory - A hypothesis that has been rigorously tested over and over and can be used to explain items in nature. For most laypeople, this would equate to something being a fact. There is a chance it could be wrong, but only a slim chance

Fact - Any respectable scientist will never say something is fact. Its like saying a ship is unsinkable. As soon as you say a theory is fact, someone always seems to come along and give exceptions to your fact…

Anyway… hope that helps

In Christ

 

[Ani_Ibi]

john doran:

as far as i know, no one has “observed” dark matter - the only observations have been of perturbations in the cosmic microwave background which imply something doing the perturbing.

Fair enough. I use ‘observation’ loosely because so much these days cannot be directly observed but do allow advances in theory.
john doran:

are you perhaps talking about the observation of the CMB itself in the 60’s by a couple of guys (penzias and wilson) working at bell labs?

Probably. I haven’t had a chance yet to verify it on Google. I remember it was a team of Canadians and ‘Bell Northern’ came to mind but I opted for ‘Nortel.’ My mistake.

Was it as long ago as the 60’s? I thought it might have been the late 80’s.

 

[john_doran]

Probably. I haven’t had a chance yet to verify it on Google. I remember it was a team of Canadians and ‘Bell Northern’ came to mind but I opted for ‘Nortel.’ My mistake.

Was it as long ago as the 60’s? I thought it might have been the late 80’s.

the original (and accidental) discovery of the CMB was in '63; i’m not sure what else might have happened in the late 80’s at bell northern/nortel.

let us know if you find the reference…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

heisenburg:

You brought up an interesting point about laws of physics here and laws of physics there, and how they can be different, is it within god… etc…

I brought this up as a starting point. But I ended by making the case for a physics which does not break.

I know I posted a lot and much of it was pretty dense. I couldn’t get around that. Earlier on, you were in the same position and asked posters to read what you had posted carefully. Now I am where you were and would ask the same favour. Thank you.

heisenburg:

Basically, my own thoughts on this are as follows. The Laws of Physics still apply, even at the Multiverse level

Yes.

heisenburg:

my personal thoughts, and nothing more, are that there are some super laws that govern all branes everywhere.

May not even be the need for superlaws. Just an improved understanding of how our laws work in the Multiverse.

heisenburg:

When a universe is created it inherits some percentage of those super laws, but not all, however, all laws in every universe fit within the laws of the super laws. Again, it gets back to the laws of physics cant be broken, just our understanding of it.

OK. We’re on the same page.

You also asked for a few definitions…

heisenburg:

Hypothesis - An idea that happens to fit the facts, but has no experimental evidence behind it. this would be like saying someone has an idea

And those facts are ‘observed.’ We can’t observe beyond the Big Bang. Yet. But we are observing the effects of the Big Bang and trying to theorize from there. So I made the distinction between Hypothesis and Problem.

heisenburg:

Theory - A hypothesis that has been rigorously tested over and over and can be used to explain items in nature. For most laypeople, this would equate to something being a fact. There is a chance it could be wrong, but only a slim chance

And that fact would have to have been ‘observed.’ See my comment on Hypothesis above.

heisenburg:

Fact - Any respectable scientist will never say something is fact. Its like saying a ship is unsinkable. As soon as you say a theory is fact, someone always seems to come along and give exceptions to your fact…

heisenburg:

Anyway… hope that helps

Thank you.

What are your thoughts on my comments on entropy? :bounce:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

the original (and accidental) discovery of the CMB was in '63; i’m not sure what else might have happened in the late 80’s at bell northern/nortel.

let us know if you find the reference…

I have to nip out this afternoon. And have a meeting this evening. Will try to hit the Google button tonight.

 

[heisenburg]

Greetings Ani…

Though I may be misunderstanding you, here is how entropy would work in this case, assuming entropy is part of the super laws

Though it seems you know, for the benefit of our readers, just want to explain what entropy is… A super watered down explanation of entropy is as follows… If Entropy is positive, there is a tendency for the system to ‘go’ towards chaos, if it is 0, no system change, if it is negative, system tends towards order.

So, for starters, Entropy is Dependant on temprature change, which in turn is dependant rate of change of volume as a factor. however, it has to be an accelerating or decelerating volume change. If the universe is expanding at an every increasing rate, then total entropy of the universe is (+)

If the volume is fixed (even if the volume is infinite) or it is expanding at a steady rate, the entropy of the system is zero. (by the way, one of the ‘rules’ is that the net entropy for a closed system is 0)

How does this apply to our question…

Assume for this argument that the ‘Volume’ of the multiverse is static. Just an assumption to show an example, and thus total net entropy will be 0

There is a given amount of entropy in the Multiverse. Don’t know if it is (+),(0),or(-). don’t know enough about it. When a universe is “created” it now has its own private ‘entropy’ system. This new system would still be a part of the multiverses total entropy, but like a sealed container in your closet, it is also its own private system. Depending on how the systems volume changes, effects that private systems entropy. However, when you add up all the entropy of all the various systems/universes/etc in the multiverse, they will total to 0.

In effect, its a conservation of energy problem.

Did I understand your question properly and explain it accordingly?

In Christ

 

[Mr.Ruggerio]

I don’t believe anyone said this. So it is a strawman. But in any case, you made the claim, so please give us a link to the post in which you found “religion not rationale.” That way we can get the context and follow your line of thinking.

Again I don’t believe anyone said this. So it too is a strawman. But in any case, you made the claim, so please give us a link to the post in which you found but “science is [rational].” That way we can get the context and follow your line of thinking.

Faith can never conflict with reason (JP2)

You completely missed my point.

Of course it accepted that faith and reason, as well as science, cannot conflict. That’s straight Thomism. But, rationalism even in science requires acceptance of certain postulates that are to say the least counter-intuitive. Take quantum physics for example.

 

[heisenburg]

Take quantum physics for example

However, though i completely agree that Quantum Mechanics is… um… odd… it is verifiable, and testable. Yes there are aspects about QM that make heads go around like imaginary wave forms and the concept of the cat in the box, BUT… they can be tested…

An electron microscope is a classic example of QM at work. Newtonian Physics says it shouldn’t, but QM says it will, and it does…

Not tearing apart what you are saying, just commenting on just because we cant fully comprehend something in nature doesn’t make it NOT true

Anyway

In Christ

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mr. Ruggerio:

You completely missed my point.

Perhaps because it is a new point?
Mr. Ruggerio:

Of course it accepted that faith and reason, as well as science, cannot conflict. That’s straight Thomism.

Mr. Ruggerio:

But, rationalism even in science requires acceptance of certain postulates that are to say the least counter-intuitive.

Please define rationalism so that we can follow your line of reasoning. And please explain your claim that rationalism requires an acceptance of certain postaulates that are counter-intuitive.
Mr. Ruggerio:

Take quantum physics for example.

What about quantum physics? Listening…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

heisenburg:

Greetings Ani…

Hey, heisenberg!

heisenburg:

Though I may be misunderstanding you, here is how entropy would work in this case, assuming entropy is part of the super laws

Actually, I don’t think entropy has to be part of any superlaws. But continue…

heisenburg:

Though it seems you know, for the benefit of our readers, just want to explain what entropy is… A super watered down explanation of entropy is as follows… If Entropy is positive, there is a tendency for the system to ‘go’ towards chaos, if it is 0, no system change, if it is negative, system tends towards order.

Thanks for this. I was thinking of getting a really simple link for folks who little of entropy and a more detailed link for those who have some experience of entropy.

But your explanation is enough for the discussion at this moment. If we need another one, then we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.

heisenburg:

Assume for this argument that the ‘Volume’ of the multiverse is static. Just an assumption to show an example, and thus total net entropy will be 0

Yes.

heisenburg:

There is a given amount of entropy in the Multiverse. Don’t know if it is (+),(0),or(-). don’t know enough about it.

No need to go there. We have assumed the entropy = 0.

heisenburg:

When a universe is “created” it now has its own private ‘entropy’ system. This new system would still be a part of the multiverses total entropy, but like a sealed container in your closet, it is also its own private system. Depending on how the systems volume changes, effects that private systems entropy.

Yes and no.

Yes, when a universe is created it has its entropy system.

No: But what I am saying is that the collision of the energy membranes in the mother of all universes is going to cause heat. That heat is going to cause entropy. Let us assume that the mother of all universes has an enertia which keeps it at entropy = 0.

(This could be your super law, if you will, unless you have another explanation within current physics. I am a little bit burned out right now.)

This super law of enertia causes the mother of all universes to create a new universe and exiles the entropy from the membrane collision into the new universe.

Something I did not say: there is a payoff for entropy: an increase in local order.

So the mother of all universes would have to both expel entropy and order in order to stay the same. I am not sure about this last ‘necessity.’ What do you have to say about it?

Does the mother of all universes have to stay the same or only stay at zero entropy? Can the mother of all universe increase in order? Increase in information? Or does that increase in order or increase in information have to also be exiled into new universes?

heisenburg:

However, when you add up all the entropy of all the various systems/universes/etc in the multiverse, they will total to 0.

Not sure about this. Certainly if you add up all the entropies of all the various universes and you add those to the local order of either the MOAU or other universes where order increases, then they will all total 0.

heisenburg:

In effect, its a conservation of energy problem.

Yes. Would you do us the honour of explaining conservation of energy? I have to go to a meeting now so can’t get the links. Thank you.

heisenburg:

Did I understand your question properly and explain it accordingly?

You almost understood my question and you did very well in explaining a great deal. Thank you very much.

heisenburg:

In Christ.

Absolutely and always.

 

[Diddi]

Germs are only a theory?? Poor Semmelweiss. He eventually went insane trying to convince the surgeons to wash their hands before doing surgery, especially when just coming from the morgue. His contemporaries thought it was not only just a theory but a rather dumb one at that. Tiny invisible creatures infecting our patients? Give us a break!

Let me try to explain this a little. One of the misconceptions lay people (and some scientists, unfortunately) have (that is perpetuated in too many text books) is that the term theory in science means unproven and the term law means proven. Part of the problem is that both words have many meanings but each word should have only one meaning to a scientist.

Let us look at a dictionary meaning of law, as used in science, and analyze it first. Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a law (as properly used in science) as “a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions.” Notice that the word “phenomena” is the plural of “phenomenon.” We are looking for a relationship between two or more phenomena that is so invariable that there is no exceptions – and thus the best laws are usually written as equations. This is what science properly means by the term “law.” This is what the term “law” means in chemistry and physics.

The gas laws are all equations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws

The laws of thermodynamics are equations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Newton’s Laws of Motion are equations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton’s_laws_of_motion

An overly strict use of this definition however means that Biology can have no laws. Biology is too variable (has too many parameters) for relationships of phenomena to be stated as equations. However, biology has some statements of an order of relation that if stated carefully are good laws. These include Mendel’s Laws of Genetics which are statements about heredity that show the relationships of factors (genes) to inheritance of phenotypes (expressed traits) and some of the modern laws of population ecology. ecology.info/laws-population-ecology.htm

Now lets look at a dictionary definition of the word “theory” (as used in science). Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a “theory” as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.” Theories tend to be descriptions of what is happening, or descriptions of what could be happening when particular phenomena occur, and as such are not written as equations. Theories tend to be more general than laws. As a rule of thumb, theories do not become laws. They are two separate things.

Both laws and theories are not proven. They merely represent possible explanations of phenomena that attempt to explain the known data. New data either support the law or theory as it stands or they contradict it. If new data are found that contradict a law or theory, the law or theory can be modified or abandoned. Most often they are modified so that they conform to the new data. This has happened in recent decades as data were collected at superheated temperatures that contradicted the gas laws. There was some speculation that Galileo’s Law of Falling Object would have to be modified at one time because of the possibility that lighter objects might actually fall faster than heavier ones, but I think that attack has past. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has been modified many times. Mendel’s laws have been reduced from four to two by many geneticists in recent years.

With all this in mind, we can say that both the germ theory and the big bang theory are good theories and neither will ever be a law. That’s right, the germ theory, although it is overwhelmingly supported by facts, will not become a law because it does not properly fit the definition of a law. The common textbook statement that some theories, when supported with enough data, become elevated to the status of a law is a misleading simplification.

 

[holly_potter]

even the scientists have to learn that theories aren’t the truth! Scientifically, even if something had lots of evidence to back it up, it may not always be true. (re: evolution). Just like all too many innocent people are sent to prison; it works, but not perfectly. It took my astronomy teacher a long time to admit this, but finally he said to the class, “it’s just a theory! But it’s most likely true.” He also said that he believes his mom loves him, but it’s not a scientific fact. It’s not scientifically proven that God exists, but science needs evidence."

Astronomy class wasn’t a total loss, though. I accept that perhaps the Big Bang theory is true, but like my teacher said, “we don’t know!” where the concentration of matter for the Big Bang came from. Wouldn’t it be funny if science were to eventually prove that God created that Big Bang matter? And perhaps God is that “dark matter”! We can’t see Him, we can’t see dark matter…Just a thought…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

holly_potter:

even the scientists have to learn that theories aren’t the truth!

Is it true? is only one question which philosophy asks.

Here are some others:

Is it real?
Is it useful?
Is it beautiful?
Is it good?
Is it knowable?
Is it understandable?
Is it logical?

 

[JimG]

With all this in mind, we can say that both the germ theory and the big bang theory are good theories and neither will ever be a law. That’s right, the germ theory, although it is overwhelmingly supported by facts, will not become a law because it does not properly fit the definition of a law. The common textbook statement that some theories, when supported with enough data, become elevated to the status of a law is a misleading simplification.

OK, that makes sense. One might say that a theory in the scientific sense has a lot more going for it in the way of underlying support than non-scientists would infer by the use of the word “theory.”

As far as the germ theory is concerned, we’ve made a lot of progress since Semmelweiss, recognizing and naming various types of bacteria, observing their methods of patholgy, and recognizing viruses as a separate entity which can also cause disease.

From a practical standpoint, I doubt that most physicians even think in terms of “germ theory.” They will rather try to identify the disease through standard tests, including bacteriological cultures, and decide on countemeasures. I don’t think that any physician would be put off by theoretical considerations as to whether or not the ‘germ theory’ is an adequate explanation for disease.

As far as the big bang is concerned, evidence for it comes not just from astronomy but a variety of disciplines, all pointing to the same conclusion.

The trouble we run into when intermixing science and religion is that religionists who are not scientists are tempted to judge scientific theories on the basis of theological understandings–understandings of the bible, of philosophical tenets, of belief systems, all of which have no bearing on the validity of any scientific theory as science. And which no scientist could or should try to take into account in formulating or judging a theory, because it is not allowed by the methods of his own discipline.

Conversely, scientists, thinking themselves to be the only rational discipline, often discount philosophical methods of reasoning which are perfectly valid, simply because they are not permitted within the scientific method.