Before The Big Bang

Mozza
Posts: 3
Joined: 2008-01-20
User is offlineOffline
Before The Big Bang

Where can I read theories about what happened/existed prior to the Big Bang ans also any about what caused the Big Bang?

 


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Look for brane cosmology,

Look for brane cosmology, ekpyrotic model, cyclic model, chaotic inflation and multiverse theory.

This video should interest you also.

PS : If you don't know anything abou the big bang... read about it before getting into these very speculative theories. 

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I've written and talked

I've written and talked extensively on this. You can download show 9 (Fishdon'twalk), for free on our homepage where whe get into this fairly in depth.

You can also read my essay that led up to that show:

First of all, I want to give David Mills credit for inspiring me to think along these lines, years ago. In college, I understood the concepts of thermodymanics and applied them every day, but it was David's book "Atheist Universe" that got me thinking and helped me to put it all together in a philosophical sense, and it was my knowledge of thermo and fascination with cosmology that let me put my own flavor on the the thing.

David's argument is great, but I've attempted to take it a step futhur. 

Anyways, many of you have seen it before, but here goes:

There was never literally nothing. That would violate the first law of thermodynamics and overturn all of physics as we understand it. Somthing NEVER comes from literally nothing.

It is theists who insist upon a creation ex nihlo, from literally nothing. Are you now positing that God didn't create the universe from nothing, that He didn't simply say "Let there be Light" and make it so, or that God Himself must have had a creator? No, I think not.

The theist position IS one of creation ex nihlo - it MUST be, an atheist wouldn't be caught dead believing something that foolish.
What baffles me, is that you've actually answered your own question here, and are simply too thick to realize it. You've simply projected your own problems onto the atheist, which is sadly typical.

Atheists are very well aware of the first law of thermodynamics, and it is this very concept that makes what theists propose, a creation ex nihlo, ridiculous.

Creation ex nihlo is a classic failure of human perception.

No painting comes to exist without a painter, no building is built without an architect, etc. Seems logical enough, but do these people create from literally nothing or is it more accurate to say they assemble existing materials? For no painter starts with nothing - they start with blank canvass and paint. No builder starts with nothing, they start with brick, mortar and blueprints. Something never comes from literally nothing.

Looking at things from the perspective of a First Cause argument, which theists are quite fond of, for something to exercise influence on the universe this causal agent must have already existed. Something nonexistent can't serve as a causal agent; thus causality must assume existence. Theists arguing for a creation of the universe ex nihlo, however have their logic backward - that existence assumes causation.

What the atheist can offer is a scientific explanation that meshes with conventional logic.

If we take matter-energy to be eternal, uncaused - as our best science seems to suggest (see the first law again), then existence is simply axiomatic. The universe just is, and the Big Bang becomes more or less a transitional event. The universe as we know it began with the Big Bang, but the matter-energy was always there, it must have been - to say otherwise turns all of physics as we understand it on its head.

We know that matter-energy is conserved - always, in every instance we have ever observed or theorized about. It is but a simple and very reasonable extrapolation to then say that matter-energy has always been, and it is empirically evident. There is no need to postulate a creator or a creation ex nihlo.

Not only does science point to existence being axiomatic, but simple logic does as well, because "nothing" is an incoherent concept. "Nothing" is not lack, not empty, not the void, not darkness, not the absence of anything, because the absence of anything would still be something. So again, the concept of creation from literally nothing makes no sense, because "nothing" quite literally cannot exist.

In the end, the theist is reduced to demanding to know why there is something rather than nothing, but this too begs the question, because it presumes that nothing or non-existence ought to be the natural state of things. This is like presuming the sky is supposed to be green and then citing the fact that it is blue as evidence for a Creator.

A scientist does not ask "why is there something rather than nothing", but rather "why SHOULDN'T there be something rather than nothing". There isn't anything about the universe that suggests it shouldn't be here and be exactly as we observe it be.

All of that aside, current quantum theories may in fact have room for our universe coming from what would be perceptually (not literally) nothing. Such theories include the universe arising from a quantum vacuum fluctuation that propagated itself, proposed by Ed Tyron in the early 1970s and a variation upon this proposed by Alex Vilenkin in the 80s that was dubbed quantum tunneling.

One of the most lucid theories going at the moment is proposed by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, and is often dubbed the "no boundary proposal". Their view provides a description of the universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it - pretty much what I've laid out above. For Hawking, this description is timeless, for as one looks at earlier and earlier times, they find that the universe is not eternal, but has no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of Planck time (10-43 seconds), our classical understanding of space-time is reduced to quantum soup. In Hawking's exact words:

"The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary. The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE." - A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.

We don't know exactly how the Big Bang happened, and nobody was there to record it - but that does not me we do not have evidece for it.

Personally, I'm currently a fan of Lee Smolin's theory of fecund universes. This is a multiverse threory that essentially says that each black hole is the nexus of a new universe. We see many of the same events and properties in black holes that we believe were present at the big bang. It really is a fascinating theory, as it employs a form of natural selection in it - i.e. universes that have a proclivity to produce black holes and that don't collapse in upon themselves are selected for, and thuse spawn similar universes.

Now, I admit, that's some wild stuff, and it needs to be fleshed out, but I have a feeling Lee's on to something here.

And no, my feeling and your feeling about God are NOT the same. We have evidence for black holes, we have no evidence for the supernatural or deities. ANY natural proposal, no matter how far fetched, will ALWAYS be more probable than a supernatural explanation. Simply because we actually have evidence for the natural world.

We have empirical evidence like cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This CMB was predicted as a result of Big Bang theory, it is a remnant of the very young and VERY hot infant universe and was first observed in 1965 by radio-astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who shared the Noble for their discovery.

Then there is the fact that galaxies are moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called Hubble's Law, named after Edwin Hubble who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

Then there's a little thing called Olber's Paradox, which is why the night sky isn't filled totally with starlight and as bright as the sun. The only plausible explanations for this are that distant stars are red-shifted into obscurity because they are traveling away from us at enormous speeds, or that the light from very distant stars hasn't reached us yet. Both explanations support the inflationary Big Bang model of the universe.

Then there's the homogeneity and isotropy of the observed universe - gobs of data showing that our location in the universe is not special or central and that the universe looks the same in all directions; more support for the Big Bang.

And there's time dilation in supernovae light curves! This was a direct prediction of the inflationary Big Bang model and has been directly observed several times.

We trust such data on the basis of scientific peer review. This is an indisputed way to check the facts and observations of scientific findings. One person says they found X, so another researcher attempts to repeat their experiments or collect the same data. When they find the same same things, that's pretty solid evidence for the experiment, and support for the principle.

In terms of fossils or geological observations, we do the same thing. Independent researchers look for the same things. If they find them in predicted geological strata or at predicted distances from earth at predicted intensities, it is evidence for the finding.

And before you bring up the argument from the law of entropy (because I can smell that smack from a mile away), let me smack you down before you humiliate yourself. The law of entropy has NOTHING to do with the existence of the universe in its present state. It does not prevent planet or star formation or evolution. Only the ignorant maintain such.

The Big Bang most certainly does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, nor does evolution (I never get tired of hearing that one). Theists and creationists would do themselves a gigantic favor to stop pontificating on subjects they clearly have no understanding of.

First of all, entropy is not a measure of order or disorder, per se, nor does it stipulate that ordered systems are not possible, even for a closed system.

Let me assure you that what follows is greatly simplified, but I wanted to take a look at the actual energy states of the universe, pre and post Big Bang.

The total mass-energy of the universe is constant (1st law of thermodynamics). Entropy is simply the spread in the distribution of energy over quantum states (from a quantum standpoint) or phase space (from a classical standpoint) over time. In more basic terms, entropy is a measure of the "quality" of heat or available energy. It is essentially the thermodynamic principle that gives us equilibrium and states that systems tend to move toward equilibrium - i.e. a hot or cold object tends to reach the temperature of the environment it is in. (Note that while in general systems move toward equilibrium, it is still possible to move away from equilibrium at points within the system where there are energy gradients).

The only cosmological implication I can think of that results directly from the 2nd Law is the theory of the "heat death" of our universe - that once our universe reaches equilibrium it will be cold, dark and desolate (if there is not enough dark matter in the universe to halt its expansion and quantum fluctuations don't become large players, that is).

The theory goes that once the universe reaches maximum entropy that there will be no more free energy to sustain motion or life and the temperature of the universe would be around absolute zero. It is important to realize what "heat death" means here - we are talking about maximum entropy for a given state and temperature. It is very possible and indeed many theorize that before the universe began its current expansion that it was also at "heat death" - albeit at a different, state and temperature. We are not necessarily talking about temperature, but free energy - the amount of work that can be extracted from a system
If the system is at maximum entropy it is at equilibrium for that particular state by definition. Change the state (temperature, pressure, volume, etc) and you move away from equilibrium.

Now for some math and thermodynamics, brace yourselves:
Free energy is the amount of work that a system can do - you can think of it as the amount of useful energy in the system; energy that can cause motion, or heat things up. There are two kinds of free energy - Helmholtz and Gibbs.

Gibbs free energy is defined as:

G = H - TS

where G is the Gibb's energy, H is enthalpy*, T is temperature and S entropy.

Any natural process will occur spontaneously if and only if the associated change in G for the system is negative. This means that, a system reaches equilibrium when the associated change in G for the system is zero (ΔG = zero), and no spontaneous process will occur if the change in G is positive (ΔG > 0).

*-enthalpy is heat content.

Helmholtz free energy is defined as:

A = U-TS

where A is the Helmholtz energy, U is the internal energy of the system, T is the temperature and S is entropy.

The total work performed on a system at constant temperature in a reversible process is equal to the change in Helmholtz free energy.

Now, let's do some math.

(In the below <= and >= will be greater than or equal too and less than or equal to. dX will be the partial derivative of the property X.)

The second law states that in a closed system, equilibrium is reached when entropy is maximized:

dS >= dQ/dT

Now, let's examine "heat death". Let's say for simplicity?s sake that prior to the universe expanding, it was at a constant temperature and volume.

A little algebra allows us to write the 2nd law as:

dQ - TdS = 0

One can combine the 1st and 2nd laws in a well known equation (I'll derive this if you are really interested, but it should be well known to people in engineering and physics fields):

dU = TdS - pdV

substituting in the Helmholtz equation:

dA = dQ - TdS - pdV - SdT

If the universe were at constant temperature and volume (say prior to the big bang) we get:

dA(T,V) = dQ - TdS <= 0

So at constant T and V the Helmholtz free energy will seek a minimum - this means that for a spontaneous process to occur the net change in free energy must be zero (equilibrium) or decrease (not yet at equilibrium). Alternatively, one could expand the system and reduce the temperature - and this is what we think happened and is happening now.

So now we have an expanding, cooling system. Similarly we can substitute the Gibb's equation and get:

dG(T,P) = dQ - TdS <=0

This means that as our universe cools and expands to a constant temperature the Gibbs energy seeks a minimum. For a spontaneous process to occur the change in Gibbs energy must be negative (if not yet at equilibrium) or zero (if at equilibrium).

In the two cases I've described - two states of the universe, there would be no free energy available to do work and the system would be essentially static.

That the universe will reach another state of heat death depends on whether or not there is enough dark matter-energy in the universe to halt its expansion. Why the universe began to expand in the first place is a bit of a mystery, but ample empirical evidence tells us that this expansion did indeed occur.

As far as earth goes, it is not a closed system. We have constant input energy from the sun.

If the objection from the second law via entropy were valid for evolution or the Big Bang, it would ALSO have to be valid for a mother's womb. The same principles apply, as a mother's womb is also an open system.

Please understand a scientific concept before trying to use it in an argumentative fashion. Educate yourself.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   the Big Bang , ? an

   the Big Bang , ?

a little atomic speck occurrence we are part of ....

THINK REALLY BIG  

NO <   way   bigger ......

BIGGER YET


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  .... Smaller too

  ....way Smaller   too


WhiteManRunning
WhiteManRunning's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Check out The Cosmic

Check out The Cosmic Landscape by Leonard Susskind(one of the fathers of string theory). Its his attempt to explain the "extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly, well designed for our own existence."  (taken from the introduction) It also explains how and why the big bang occured. It should answer all of your questions.

"I may be going to hell in a rocketship, but at least I get to ride in a rocketship. You have to climb those damn stairs. " - Katie Volker


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
WhiteManRunning

WhiteManRunning wrote:
Check out The Cosmic Landscape by Leonard Susskind(one of the fathers of string theory). Its his attempt to explain the "extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly, well designed for our own existence." (taken from the introduction) It also explains how and why the big bang occured. It should answer all of your questions.

"Well designed"?

WTF? We are as a species stuck on a rock where the species will most likely die out, unless we can figure out a way to coninize Mars, but there is no way we are getting out of the solar system.

Not to mention meteors and comets could and probibly will at some point, wipe out the species. And that doesnt include energy waves from colapsing and exploding stars.

If it were well desigend we'd be able to travel across the universe and we wouldnt be surrounded by all the potentially harmfull objects in the universe that WILL inevetiably kill the planet.

Being stuck in a long period of calm from a human perspective does not take into account the VIOLENT tottallity of the universe's history. It is NOT well designed. It kaotic and violent.

This statement is a cause of emotionalism of a mistaking "awe" for design. The person is simply amazed at the enormity of potential and kenetic energy in motion and at rest in the universe.  

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
The correct  scientific

The correct  scientific answer to what happened 'before' the big bang is we don't know but have several theories.

 

The religious answer is 'its all magic' and lets not worry about it and just worship the magician.

 

Personally I prefer the I don't know lets try to find out method


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
mrjonno wrote: The correct

mrjonno wrote:

The correct scientific answer to what happened 'before' the big bang is we don't know but have several theories.

When you say theories here do you mean the same thing you mean when you say theory of evolution?  Don't scientists call it a hypothesis until they have factual data to back them up? Please correct me if am being stupid. 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote: mrjonno

Magus wrote:
mrjonno wrote:

The correct scientific answer to what happened 'before' the big bang is we don't know but have several theories.

When you say theories here do you mean the same thing you mean when you say theory of evolution? Don't scientists call it a hypothesis until they have factual data to back them up? Please correct me if am being stupid.

 

It could be upgraded to Theory, if it has a mathematical basis.

 

For example, String Theory is mathematically based. General relativity was mathematically based until experimently confirmed. 


WhiteManRunning
WhiteManRunning's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
To Brian37, I think I just

To Brian37, I think I just worded my post badly. Susskind wrote that book to explain all of the things I mentioned WITHOUT using any kind of god or creator. He also thinks that a lot of people mistake "awe" for design, and he's trying to provide a scientific explanation of why everything (gravity, electromagnetic forces, cosmological constant, etc...) adds up perfectly.

"I may be going to hell in a rocketship, but at least I get to ride in a rocketship. You have to climb those damn stairs. " - Katie Volker


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
my use of the word theory

my use of the word theory was a non-scientific use.

 

I suspect when we get to the stage of being able to create mini-universes we can get some solid facts (particle accelerators etc)


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
my use of the word theory

[Edit: Double Post]


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
WhiteManRunning wrote: To

WhiteManRunning wrote:
To Brian37, I think I just worded my post badly. Susskind wrote that book to explain all of the things I mentioned WITHOUT using any kind of god or creator. He also thinks that a lot of people mistake "awe" for design, and he's trying to provide a scientific explanation of why everything (gravity, electromagnetic forces, cosmological constant, etc...) adds up perfectly.

And dont missunderstand what I said.

I get nervious when anthropromorphic words are used, especially by atheists, because theists will latch onto that word and go "AH HA!"

"disign" as a word to a theists imply's hocus pocus. I have never heard an atheist use it, but I'd hazard to guess in this context it merely means natural law(without cognition) repeats a patern.

I just get a lip twitch when I see scientists do this. It is why Christians missunderstand the quotes of Einstien as being a Jesus fan when at best he could only be called a diest(and that is debatable)(if one wanted to make that argument).

I admit that I dont know everything about the unverise. I also admit that there are massive amounts of potential and kenetic energy in the universe that give me a sense of "WOW".

So in making those admissions, it is important to scientific method and scientists, while recoginzing that reaction, not to play into the hands of fiction lovers by using the same words they do.

Even as something simple as the word, "natural" is disputable between atheists and theists.

"Natural" unfortunatly to the ignorant and dogmatic, means only that wich makes one feel good or has a good result.

"Natural" to the scientist is anything that is observable, tesable and falsifiable. Cancer is natural, even though no human would want to suffer from it. IT HAPPENS is what makes it natural, not the fact that we dont like it. 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
mrjonno wrote: my use of

mrjonno wrote:

my use of the word theory was a non-scientific use.

 

I suspect when we get to the stage of being able to create mini-universes we can get some solid facts (particle accelerators etc)

mrjonno wrote:

The correct scientific answer to what happened 'before' the big bang is we don't know but have several theories.

Don't hate me Sad 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
A scientific theory doesn't

A scientific theory doesn't have to be mathematically based or whatever.

For a theory to be considered scientific you first need a model of the world (closely related to the hypothesis):

Here is a model example - The moon is covered with yellow grass that glows in the dark.-

Next it as to be predictive:

- What are we to expect in a world where the moon is covered with yellow grass that glows in the dark ?

1- the moon should glow in the dark (so far so good, the theory holds up)

2- we should find grass on the moon's ground (here's where the theory crumbles)

A scientific theory also as to be falsifiable but well skip over this part (see Karl Popper's falsifiability) PS I don't care if you don't agree with falsifiability

 

So... even if the Yellow Glowing Moon Grass theory is obviously invalid... It is still scientific and no maths were involved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Girl Dancing In Orbit

Girl Dancing In Orbit wrote:

A scientific theory doesn't have to be mathematically based or whatever.

For a theory to be considered scientific you first need a model of the world (closely related to the hypothesis):

Here is a model example - The moon is covered with yellow grass that glows in the dark.-

Next it as to be predictive:

- What are we to expect in a world where the moon is covered with yellow grass that glows in the dark ?

1- the moon should glow in the dark (so far so good, the theory holds up)

2- we should find grass on the moon's ground (here's where the theory crumbles)

A scientific theory also as to be falsifiable but well skip over this part (see Karl Popper's falsifiability) PS I don't care if you don't agree with falsifiability

 

So... even if the Yellow Glowing Moon Grass theory is obviously invalid... It is still scientific and no maths were involved.

 

 

But we can directly observe the moon.

We can't directly observe strings or extra dimensions, so we must rely on mathematical models.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Girl Dancing In Orbit

Girl Dancing In Orbit wrote:

A scientific theory doesn't have to be mathematically based or whatever.

For a theory to be considered scientific you first need a model of the world (closely related to the hypothesis):

Here is a model example - The moon is covered with yellow grass that glows in the dark.-

Next it as to be predictive:

- What are we to expect in a world where the moon is covered with yellow grass that glows in the dark ?

1- the moon should glow in the dark (so far so good, the theory holds up)

2- we should find grass on the moon's ground (here's where the theory crumbles)

A scientific theory also as to be falsifiable but well skip over this part (see Karl Popper's falsifiability) PS I don't care if you don't agree with falsifiability

 

So... even if the Yellow Glowing Moon Grass theory is obviously invalid... It is still scientific and no maths were involved.

 

Thank you, I guess this means I was just being stupid Smiling

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
If we can't someday

If we can't someday directly or indirectly observe these extra dimensions... Then all this is a waist of time... If these dimensions exists, we will have to observe them if we want this theory to stand a chance of survival.

But anyways... My point was just to say that maths as absolutely nothing to do with a theory being scientific or not. Note that I'm not saying that maths are useless.

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Do keep in mind that

Do keep in mind that without the ability to observe DIRECTLY, mathematcal models are extremely valid and insightful ways in which to determine how the universe works, granted, they come with their own flavor of probability as ALL science does.

For example, without mathematical modeling, we'd have NEVER achieved nuclear fission, or an understanding of biology that lets us generate epidemiological scenarios for infectious outbreaks.

It isn't as if the modeling is based on conjecture, it is NOT. The modeling is based on the best evidence we have. In this sense, it IS evidence, and is nearly as good as observation - as all we're really doing is extrapolaing said observation.

There is a larger chance of being  in error in such a case, but to say it is not science or is not valid only screams that one does not know what science is, and what conditional probability means.

Keep in mind very well, that while we may be MATHEMATICALLY be better able to explain gravity than something more convoluted like evolution, we are better able to understand and explain the principles behind biological change than we are of being able to say why massive bodies are attracted to one another.

Hence we have the law of gravity which relates the attraction between to bodies as a function of their masses and distance - we are still very much fleshing out WHY those two bodies are attracted in the first place though. On the obverse, we have a very concrete and lucid explanation for how and why life on earth is as it is and how it changes, but we strugle with the nuances of it.

IOW we understand HOW gravity works very well, but not WHY it works so much. We understand WHY evolution works, but are still learning HOW it works. This is an obvious and importantant difference. 

One must first understand the differences between theory, law and hypothesis in order gauge such significance. Few people do.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


DeathMunkyGod
atheist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-09-15
User is offlineOffline
KK Particles

Girl Dancing In... wrote:

If we can't someday directly or indirectly observe these extra dimensions... Then all this is a waist of time... If these dimensions exists, we will have to observe them if we want this theory to stand a chance of survival.

But anyways... My point was just to say that maths as absolutely nothing to do with a theory being scientific or not. Note that I'm not saying that maths are useless.

Luckily the existence of particles that could be used to verify not only the exitence of higher dimensions, but also the size and shape of such dimensions, have been predicted by mathematical theoretical physics.  The idea is that they're more massive than standard model particles but in 4 dimensions appear more massive because we are seeing the higher dimensional momenta of the particles as they appear in 4 dimensional spacetime.  Because we can't see the actual higher dimensional momentum, but momentum is related to mass we're going to be scouring the LHC for particles with identical charges to our known standard model particles but higher masses.  If we find them at the energy levels we will be able to probe with the LHC when it comes online we will be able to use the information we gather about them to not only tell us how many extra dimensions they exist in, but the size and shape of those extra dimensions.

And for anyone curious, the particles in question are known as Kaluza-Klein particles.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   BOOM ?

   BOOM ? Math ? Wow,  Really ?  Laughing


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
I gave an oversimplified

I gave an oversimplified and extremely naive description of a scientific theory... I am well aware of that... Of course that a theory have to take into account previous observations, laws and theories and that an hypothesis doesn't come from directly out of the blue. And of course that maths are extraordinary tools for us to model the world.

I absolutely agree : We can't even start dreaming about the possibility of dreaming about maybe thinking of something remotely close to general relativity without maths.

But it doesn't change a single thing.

Mathematics are not what define a scientific theory.

And I did not say that we will not be able to observe what strings theory or QM for that matter have predicted.

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   I love you

   I love you


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
My point was very

My point was very simple.

If you are going to say :

My theory as maths in it. It is therefore scientific.

You are wrong.

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   yes,  beyond rules,

   yes,  beyond rules, beyond imagination, surrender NOW ! Laughing  God ROCKS ! Religion sucks, Math is trying ....  


Mozza
Posts: 3
Joined: 2008-01-20
User is offlineOffline
One of the most lucid

One of the most lucid theories going at the moment is proposed by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, and is often dubbed the "no boundary proposal". Their view provides a description of the universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it - pretty much what I've laid out above. For Hawking, this description is timeless, for as one looks at earlier and earlier times, they find that the universe is not eternal, but has no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of Planck time (10-43 seconds), our classical understanding of space-time is reduced to quantum soup. In Hawking's exact words:

"The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary. The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE." - A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.

 

Can anyone elaborate on this because I am struggling to understand the concept of no eternity coupled with no creation. If the universe is not created and thus has no beginning then surely it must be eternal?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   Ummm .... most

   Ummm .... most interesting you all  ....

I sure do miss Girl Dancing .....  fun vid she sent ....

We are semi organized recycling particles of the god brain, the infinite cosmos some say !

The math can agree !  Our local big bang expansion inflation is merely like a nutrino of the god brain in motion !  We are limited to our reality of only being part of what we are part of or the infinite and therefore are as important as the god whole we try impossibly to capture and know ....  Even the recycling "cyclic universe" theory is nothing more than stuff in motion with the others !  ......  (35 , 42 mins into the vid Girl Dancing sent above)   "Two brains" colliding !  Why not many or infinite brains !?  ....  AM I writing religion now ? !!!

One universe as ours, or many or infinite?  Are we able to detect our opposite , our anti matter self ?  Time is a measurement of the unmeasurable and opposite !???   Does absolute zero cold and heat have an opposite as it  melts into energy into anti stuff, thus far mostly undetected by us ???  

I don't know .....  but I AM still GOD as YOU !

All of science (god research) is  always another question.  The ancient Tao , that first bold verse,  makes me proud and optimistic of our amazing intuition ..... God is the Greatest ! God of abe SUCKS .....