Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#39555 08/17/11 01:58 AM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Ethan Siegel in his blog Starts With A Bang has a post that tells where we all came from. And it is that we came from nothing. Read the link for the full story.

Disclaimer - I don't know that he is completely right about how the universe started. But I thought it might be of interest to some of our members and guests because of some discussions we have had on here. So I don't fully endorse his opinion.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Yes it is all reasonable for a standard model view.

I have a few problems.

He presents the expanding universe model as an animation but cheats did you notice it :-) It's not symmetrical or 3D.
In the tyre tube model the inside walls would hit!

Why he presents it in that way is then he doesnt have to talk about the edges of the universe :-)

The model he uses is the cyclical model so he starts with an empty universe has a crumpy universe and then goes back to a empty universe. That is but one version of many options which he doesn't discuss its a Penrose view of Big Bang.

There is no discussion of what is driving the inflation and why it would reverse to become a big crunch.

All pretty pedestrian by current standards I am sure Brian Greene and others would paint a different story :-0

Last edited by Orac; 08/17/11 05:07 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
We've been in 'nothing' territory in a previous thread, and I'm afraid it's a hobbyhorse of mine.

I wonder what motivates Siegal (among others) to use the word 'nothing' to describe not only the existence of something we call a spacetime continuum but, moreover, one that contains causative energy/information*. Siegel states that he's not discussing a "philosophical nothingness", but a "scientific definition of nothing", although it's a different scientific definition of "nothing" from that of S. Hawkings. As one of the article commentors wrote, "That's a pretty something-y kind of nothing".

* Siegal says that according to his idea, "We started from literally nothing". Literally? Hardly. It doesn't say we started from literally nothing, it says we started from a pre-existing spacetime continuum containing vacuum energy.

--

Orac, although it's not very clear, I don't think he's saying that there should be a Big Crunch, but instead that our universe will ultimately expand into a state that would be indistinguishable from that which produced it.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
I have just gone through it. I think it is the definition of empty spacetime that he brings as his point. With out any matter or any thing, the spacetime (if there is one - may be it is still just space and time)can be flat. But, why should it have the freedom to expand or contract? Say, a minimum amount arbitrariness will always be there, and we can agree with that. If he has postulated that the energy content of empty nothing is infinite (he has not done it explicitely), then the model can be good; then energy and matter does come from somewhere, and the title becomes irrelevant. Energy and matter coming out of no where is simply metaphysical.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Ahh yes I see that now so it's like the reverse of big crunch.

I have one obvious huge issue the inertia of the galaxies !!!!!!!

In the big crunch you know the galaxies inflate out the expansion slows the stops reverses and then it all heads in for a crunch.

The reverse way around he has it like compressing a rubber ball or inflatable tube the universe is according to theory then springing back to size at the moment. The problem I have is the galaxies would want to keep sailing on with there inertia.

So I would say if you want this theory it should be more like a springy theory about a nominal size of the universe sometimes the universe would be slightly squashed and sometime it would be slightly streched hard to see how it couldnt be like that to be stable.

Interesting problem is it means the universe had to be born at the middle size and then got squashed or stretched to start the oscillation we are supposedly seeing.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
The way I read the article is:

(1) There's a spacetime continuum containing only vacuum energy/virtual particles.

(2) A quantum event in that continuum gives birth to a new continuum via expansion from a singularity.

(3) Cosmic evolution then proceeds according to the standard cosmological model.

(4) Ultimately, entropy reaches maximum: protons have decayed*, black holes have evaporated. Subatomic particles are separated by distances approaching infinity - only a quantum vacuum remains within a given light cone (and perhaps a single 'real' particle).

(5) goto (2)

*no evidence proton decay yet


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
It begins to look as though we can have scientific nothing, that is really something, in the same way that we can have mathematical infinities that are not realloy infinite. No wonder "hitch-hikers" like myself become confused.

BTW. Can anyone explain why Siegel regards curved spacetime as something, but un-curved spacetime as nothing? Bend nothing and it becomes something? Wish I could do that!


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
LOL at least your only confused Bill S poor Socratus will be devastated his infinity and zero have been destroyed :-)

I think we all had various problems with it there are lots of inconsistancies.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 4
S
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 4
If space, time, and matter originated in a Big Bang singularity, then, in essence, it all came from absolutely nothing. Although I think it reasonable for everything to derive from absolute nothingness, BB theory assumes instantaneous existence of all matter/no (or some arbitrary 'little') space and then an evolution of rules of physics which I don't think we can be qualified to identify from where we exist.

Their first mistake is to assume that matter was constant throughout space and time and that it, for some reason, alone must have existed (why should they allow evolution of all other physical laws except for matter?)in a 'beginning'(or in most vernacular, 'creation'). The discovery that the Universe was expanding at a CONSTANT rate, BB theory assumes a beginning from a 'singularity' with size sufficient to fit matter. Although they added an 'inflationary' theory to claim that it originally ACCELERATED from this singularity, I find that they are severely fantasizing due to improper interpretations of astronomical observations. Instead of assuming that observations interpreted certainly as X assures strange physical laws Y prior, they should be assuming they've made a mistake on their interpretation, X, and assume normal physical laws as we are capable of knowing them.

For instance, why is it assumed to sensible to judge that the Universe has a fixed and estimated quantity of matter based on our sole observations from Earth? Is not what we are capable of witnessing limited by even the physical laws and conditions we certainly know? And if all matter can manifest itself instantaneously at a singularity, why is it not more reasonable to assume that matter could continuously form everywhere from nothing at all times?

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: SWMayers
For instance, why is it assumed to sensible to judge that the Universe has a fixed and estimated quantity of matter based on our sole observations from Earth? Is not what we are capable of witnessing limited by even the physical laws and conditions we certainly know? And if all matter can manifest itself instantaneously at a singularity, why is it not more reasonable to assume that matter could continuously form everywhere from nothing at all times?


The idea that matter is continuously forming from nothing is a key point of the Steady State Universe (SSU) which I mentioned in a reply on the Earth Expansion thread.

Look here at Wiki for a discussion of the Steady State Universe.

As mentioned in the Wiki article the idea has been pretty much discredited, because the Big Bang Theory explains the observations so much better than the SSU. In fact the SSU proponents basically gave up the fight when the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) was discovered in the 1960s. The CMB had been postulated based on theoretical studies of the Big Bang and its discovery was a major impetus towards acceptance of the Big Bang.

As to assuming that physical laws are different in other parts of the universe, why should we? There have been no observations that are incompatible with the assumption that the physical laws we observe are not the same elsewhere, so there is no reason to assume that they are different.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 4
S
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 4
Originally Posted By: Bill
The idea that matter is continuously forming from nothing is a key point of the Steady State Universe (SSU) which I mentioned in a reply on the Earth Expansion thread.

Look here at Wiki for a discussion of the Steady State Universe.

As mentioned in the Wiki article the idea has been pretty much discredited, because the Big Bang Theory explains the observations so much better than the SSU. In fact the SSU proponents basically gave up the fight when the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) was discovered in the 1960s. The CMB had been postulated based on theoretical studies of the Big Bang and its discovery was a major impetus towards acceptance of the Big Bang.


I recognize this already but disagree with the interpretations of the CMB personally. The CMB is assumed to represent heat generated from the initial energy from the big bang they expected. But the phenomena must exist in many alternate scenarios. In my view, it is likely the even more distant galaxies energy from further off in the background we are witnessing. Due to its distance, we cannot witness waves in its regular wave lengths but only remnants of those past the gamma spectrum that have stretched significantly slow enough. I would predict as much and more.

Originally Posted By: Bill
As to assuming that physical laws are different in other parts of the universe, why should we? There have been no observations that are incompatible with the assumption that the physical laws we observe are not the same elsewhere, so there is no reason to assume that they are different.


I don't know what you interpreted as me saying here or what you are saying. Big Bang theory assumes an evolution of its physical laws through time. That is what I was referring to. For example, they believe that the forces were all one force and evolved into four distinct ones through time; they believe that the rate of expansion accelerated rapidly at first and then slowed down to its apparent velocity. I find this incredulous thinking. But then again, even physicists can't seem to escape religious, cultural, or social mindsets of the time. If they induce something that seems incredulous, they should step back and question how they are interpreting their observations instead of assuming that their interpretations of their observations are infallible. The reality is is that these physicists admire this outcome emotionally for religious, social, or whatever reasons and easily accept it.

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: SWMayers
Big Bang theory assumes an evolution of its physical laws through time. That is what I was referring to. For example, they believe that the forces were all one force and evolved into four distinct ones through time;


Scientists believe that the forces are still all the same, it is just that they respond differently at different energies. Immediately after the Big Bang the energies were such that all the forces acted the same. Then as the energies dropped, because the universe was expanding, they started dropping out, until now they all appear to be different. Orac could give a better explanation about that than I can.

Originally Posted By: SWMayers
If they induce something that seems incredulous, they should step back and question how they are interpreting their observations instead of assuming that their interpretations of their observations are infallible.

One of the things about scientists is that they don't just jump to conclusions and then assume that their conclusions are infallible. When somebody comes up with a new idea, such as the Big Bang, it goes through a long process of debate. The Big Bang Theory came out of Hubble's measurements of the speed of distant galaxies in the 1920s. The Steady State Universe was proposed by physicists in 1948 to counter the Big Bang Theory. And the Big Bang Theory was mostly accepted in the 1960s, but there were still people looking for other explanations of the observations. It wouldn't surprise me too much if there are still a few people (by which I mean real scientists, not crackpots) who are still looking for an alternate explanation. It is just that so far all the observations match the theory to a high degree of fidelity, so it is the generally accepted theory.

Bill Gll


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Saying we think any science result is infallible is just ridiculous we are always skeptical of eveything as scientists.

I study, teach and scientifically challenge the big bang not because it is guaranteed correct but because it is our best understanding at the moment.

I also teach Newtonian physics yet I can prove to you that it blatantly wrong F=MA only at very small speeds and accelerations.

If I could only teach that science that was abolutely correct I could teach nothing because there is no single fact that is absolute and guaranteed correct.

The big bang represents the most consistant story that agrees with all the observations and that is why we teach it.

I personally don't believe it, my problem with it is QM. I have come to believe QM is far more fundemental than SR/GR and that changes everything at the big bang.

I am not alone in this belief what we see is QM sets up "proper time" not the GR/SR distorted time you and I see. We have no proof and we are setting out experiments to test this (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-clock-quantum-mechanics-relativity.html). These are very expenisve experiments to set up so we must show others why we believe these things and of coarse what we suggest must be compatable with all current observations.

So saying science believes the big bang is infallible is just plain wrong there are many of us challenging it but I can not show you one observation that is inconsistant with it but I am trying to create an observation that is inconsistant with it.

Our version of the big bang under QM is well interesting because you don't come from nothing but you do come from something outside the physical universe.

Last edited by Orac; 10/20/11 07:22 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
The following joke about putting atheist down will only be funny if you believe that the Genesis story is literally true.

Who here believe the Genesis story, literally?

Here is the Genesis story in brief: In the beginning, God created everything, including the dust of the earth out of which HE created Adam and Eve, our first ancestors.

THE JOKE
An atheists club made up of Scientists challenged your God to a contest as follows: The club secretary wrote God's office and said: "Our experts in genetics, cellular biochemistry and the like now know how to make people out of earth. And they can do it in much less than six days. We challenge you to beat our experts."

God agreed to take on the challenge. Then, before a large public gathering he'd invited to witness the contest, he ordered his angels to put a load of earth on a platform for all to see.

As some of the scientist's helpers moved with a barrow to pick up the amount of earth needed, God commanded them to stop. Then he said: "Before I created Adam and Eve, I first had to create the whole earth, out of nothing. Now you have to do the same. Otherwise, I win." smile







G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 4
S
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 4
I apologize if I came across sounding too cynical about science or scientists. I only meant to be rhetorical to emphasize that I have a hard time believing that the MAJORITY view still supports something for which in my own scientific and philosophic mind has sufficient obvious holes in it and more simpler alternatives that my own imagination can easily conjure up. I'm still trying to resolve, for instance, how the prediction of CMB and its discovery properly and UNIQUELY justifies the Big Bang. To properly claim, for instance, that this represents heat from the early Universe they would have to prove definitively that their are NO OTHER existence beyond some certain point universe and that there is no such thing as higher wavelengths that matter can give off beyond which we are capable of measuring. Contrary, I constantly hear of a literal fixed guesstimate of matter from the scientific establishment.

Am I missing something? What is the implied assumption that the Universe is fixed in quantity by our observation of it? There is an understood limitation to observation due to the speed of light (a horizon). So what is the logic behind the claim, "There are X number of stars in our Universe" that most popular scientists claim, instead of, "We cannot determine whether there are a fixed number of stars or not"?

I don't presume the Steady State Theories as my preference either. Why are Hoyle's particular beliefs always presumed to be the only alternative referred to so heavily?

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Of coarse I would deny that nothing state ever existed Rev ... our basic law QM information can not be created nor destroyed ... matter and your 3D world on the other hand is transient :-)

As you know Rev I am not a religious and was even banned by my political masters from access to it, so I find it rather ironic that QM version of the big bang is far more religious friendly :-)

Last edited by Orac; 10/22/11 03:42 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Coming back to the OP, I find I still have a few unanswered questions.

1. Why does Siegel seem to regard curved spacetime as something, but flat spacetime as something? Isn’t spacetime is something, whether curved or flat?

2. Doesn’t the Casimir effect work precisely because there is something between the plates?

3. “And if you start with enough energy, you can take all of the real matter and antimatter pairs that exist, and create more matter than antimatter, giving us a Universe where we have something, today, rather than nothing.”

If we are starting with “enough energy”, how is this starting with nothing?

4. “we definitely can get something for nothing; quantum field theory not only allows it, it demands it.”

If we start with quantum field theory, isn’t that a theory of something?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
SW, The majority of scientists do support the Big Bang simply because it is the theory that best fits the observations. There are some who do not really believe in it, but they can't come up with a good theory that also fits the observations. As Orac said, he doesn't believe it, but he still teaches it, because it does fit the observations. There are also scientists who disagree with parts of the Big Bang theory. A few months ago in Scientific American there was an article by a scientist who doubts the inflationary theory that is currently considered to be a part of the Big Bang. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Big Bang is the best fit to observations.

As far as popular science quoting the Big Bang as fact, well it is popular science. Journalists writing popular science articles and books tend to latch onto an idea and present it as a fact, rather than explaining the various complications that appear in the actual scientific literature, which is rather hard to comprehend for the average reader.

In fact the Big Bang as it is usually presented is a relatively simple thing. The basis is simple, all the matter in the universe was gathered in a small space, then it started expanding and eventually evolved into the universe as we see it today. In reality there are a lot of fuzzy ideas around the edges and the details are still up for grabs, scientists are hotly fighting over all those details. The extent and amount of matter in the total universe are a couple details that are till under study. Anybody who says that they know is probably just speculating.

But once again, there have been a lot of attempts to explain the expansion of the universe, the SSU was one of them It is most frequently mentioned because it is the best known.

The discovery of the CMB brought most of the arguments against the Big Bang to a close because it so exactly matches what could be expected. It was a huge step towards the almost complete acceptance of the Big Bang just because nobody has come up with another explanation for it that can withstand scientific scrutiny. And believe me it has been heavily scrutinized by the scientific community. Just as all scientific results are scrutinized. There have been almost no scientific theories that have been accepted from the day they were propounded. And in fact no scientific theory is accepted as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Scientists are always looking for a different explanation. After all if somebody could overthrow the Big Bang Theory it would be an automatic Nobel Prize.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Orac, when you say
Originally Posted By: Orac
... As you know Rev I am not a religious...
I assume you mean to say that you are not a religious person--one who belongs to a church or a movement.

I am sure you do not mean to add: therefore, I am a not a moral and ethical person and not to be trusted.

Of course every group has it share of hypocrites; but in my opinion, one can be a religious person--one who is moral and ethical--without having to belong to any one of the organized religions.

In English we can say of anyone, including scientists, who does things strictly and with care: He/she does his/her work "religiously". Therefore, I am proud to say: I try, to the best of my ability, to be religious in all that I say and do.
====================================
BTW, in what way is the QM version of the big bang far more religion-friendly than the steady-state theory of Fred Hoyle? I understand that he even admitted he was wrong.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Sorry Rev some of your discussion go way outside my ability to even relate to I lead a fairly sheltered life based upon my work and have no real experience with religion and religious people.

In some ways the book "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" describes my experiences with religion :-)

Why the QM version of big bang is more religion friendly is because it means we start definitely from outside this physical universe. While we will never be able to test if there is a god it definitely puts the start point beyond our testing and GOD is an equally valid assumption as a cyclical model or a one time model.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5