Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles
Title: Another ‘settled science’ topic is not so settled after all – Big Bang theory questioned
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/ ... ll-big-bang-theory-questioned/
Published: Feb 11, 2015
Author: Anthony Watts
Post Date: 2015-02-11 08:10:44 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 19911
Comments: 58
We’ve all heard of the claim of “settled science” when it comes to global warming/climate change, and we’ve all heard of the “Big Bang Theory”, and I’m not just talking about the popular TV show. The scientific theory goes all the way back to 1927. This is an artist’s concept of the metric expansion of space, where space (including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe) is represented at each time by the circular sections. Note on the left the dramatic expansion (not to scale) occurring in the inflationary epoch, and at the center the expansion acceleration. The scheme is decorated with WMAP images on the left and with the representation of stars at the appropriate level of development. Credit: NASA The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the birth of the universe. It states that at some moment all of space was contained in a single point from which the Universe has been expanding ever since. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the Universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe going forward from that point on. (Source: Wikipedia) Now, it seems there’s a challenge to this ‘settled’ science, and a new quantum equation predicts the universe has no beginning. (Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once. The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a “Big Bang” did the universe officially begin. Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity. “The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org. Read more at: phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation- universe.html#jCp
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 34.
#3. To: A K A Stone (#0)
(Edited)
Nothing has existed forever because time,by definition,begins at a certain instant,and nothing existed before time began. Time is measurable,so it has to have a starting point. This is more of an observation on how the human mind works than a scientific certainty. Humans love to define and measure things. It's what makes humans different from other sentient animals like welfare creatures that only concern themselves with "now". Having said that,isn't the whole focus of this discussion "inside science",where a bunch of autistic geniuses are arguing over (for lack of a more appropriate term) "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin."? It can neither be proven or shown to be false . Like other "religions" it is a theory that you either accept,reject,or say "who cares?" and move on.
What is the definition of time? Time can be measured? Really? Are we not, rather, measuring some physical phenonmenon, placing a numerical scale alongside of it, and calling the dance of this physical object in from of our arbitrarily drawn scale the "passage" of "time". When a bicycle wheel with a card stuck in it clicks, is that time? Is our heart beating out time? Or is our heart just beating, and call the count sequence "time". The latter. You're right: this is indeed an observation about how the human mind works. We cannot "measure time". Rather, we can arbitrarily define the sequence of a mechanical process as "time". We can SAY we're measuring something other than the cyclical nature of the mechanical process, but that's just us asserting it. The hands of the clock are never pushed along by "time". Time doesn't actually EXIST. It's a description of a relationship of a physical thing to a physical thing, like "pi" or "i" or "e".
Now you are going to get all "hippy-dippy mystical" on me? Even morons understand the concept of time. Time can be measured? Really? Yes,really. There was "then",and then there is "now". Time is the period between the two. We cannot "measure time". HorseHillary. We can,and we do. Maybe you can explain your concept for why you are neither late nor early to your cult leader when you show up at church on Tuesday for Mass? Rather, we can arbitrarily define the sequence of a mechanical process as "time". The mechanical process you are talking about is a tool/measuring stick,not the process.
To the contrary: I am being very precise. You are not measuring time. You are counting heartbeats, or whatever, between one thing and another. That is sequence. You are labelling sequence "time", and then treating that as a "real thing". It is not "time" driving your heartbeat, or the clock, or any other thing. Time is a mathematical relationship between things, like pi. The relationship between time and a mechanical sequence is the relationship between pi and a pie. A pie is a real thing. Pi doesn't exist in the real world as a thing: it's a relationship. Same thing with time. A force hits you and has an impact. It's a real thing that is there. Same thing with matter. Space, though, is just the empty distance between the two things. It is not, itself, a "thing". It's the absence of a thing. Time is the relationship of things to the sequence of a thing chosen to be the yardstick. It's like space - there's nothing THERE "driving" anything. Entropy and friction are what mechanically wears things out. "Time" doesn't actually DO anything (because it doesn't exist).
Explain that to a Scuba diver running out of air.
The scuba diver is not being affected by time. He is being affected by the lack of air.
His air isn't regulated by the time he spends breathing it?
No, because he "spends" nothing. There is no bank of time with a deciining balance sheet that he trades for other things. There is a process - a whole series of processes, sequences and cycles, that are the biological reactions that sustain life. They require oxygen. When they have completed a given process, they require more oxygen. What drives the air depletion is the "fire" of biochemical reactions. "Time" is not driving anything. Time is a meter stick we could draw to divide up the processes into units of sequence, but it's the process of chemistry that gives rise to the need. What is being used up is not time. Air is being used up, and it's being used up by a process, which uses up the available oxygen in the air. There's no "time" pressing anything forward. Time is what you decide to use as the yardstick to measure the depletion of the air. It's a reference, but neither a force nor an entity.
No, because he "spends" nothing. There is no bank of time with a deciining balance sheet that he trades for other things. Isn't that just a 3 dollar way of saying "He doesn't need oxygen if he just quits breathing"?
There are no replies to Comment # 34. End Trace Mode for Comment # 34.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe universe may have existed forever.....
#9. To: sneakypete (#3)
Nothing has existed forever because time,by definition,begins at a certain instant,and nothing existed before time began. Time is measurable,so it has to have a starting point. This is more of an observation on how the human mind works than a scientific certainty.
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
What is the definition of time?
#14. To: sneakypete (#12)
Now you are going to get all "hippy-dippy mystical" on me? Even morons understand the concept of time.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
"Time" doesn't actually DO anything (because it doesn't exist).
#27. To: sneakypete (#23)
Explain that to a Scuba diver running out of air.
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
The scuba diver is not being affected by time. He is being affected by the lack of air.
#31. To: sneakypete (#29)
His air isn't regulated by the time he spends breathing it?
#34. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
His air isn't regulated by the time he spends breathing it?
Replies to Comment # 34.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]