The big bang and quantum physics

I never understood this whole big bang thing. It seems pretty unscientific to me. Yet here physicists postulate all these exotic phases and matter and plasma and crap that supposedly took place during the big bang and act like they know that for sure. I think astrophysics has kind of gone berserk as well. These guys read a few radio waves and suddenly proclaim “we know everything about the universe now!” when they haven’t been off their minute little spec of a planet. I don’t mind if people come up with theories, but damn, treat them like theories, not facts.

All this crap about phases of the big bang is very unscientific. There is no data from the big bang except for the “cosmic microwave background”. They act so certain that has info about the big bang from “cold and hot spots”, but all it is is some microwaves on the rim of the area that their telescopes can pick up. Even speculating on that at all seems a little backwards and unscientific to me. Science is supposed to revolve around empirical data, not a bunch of guessing. I suspect these guys just do that so they have something to show for the millions of dollars poured into their research.

To top it all off, these big bang guys really need to learn some deductive reasoning skills, ESPECIALLY the quantum physicists. They know that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet here they are postulating wild theories about how the universe “was created”. HELLO!? If matter and energy cannot be created, then neither can the universe! Why do they insist on the need for the universe to have a starting point anyway? Can’t it be infinite? In fact, they say it is infinite in space. Well space and time are inseparable, hence the term “space-time continuum”. So if it is infinite in space, it is also infinite in time as well. That means no beginnings guys. That is fine if they want to believe in the big bang, but then they need to recant the matter and energy cannot be created thing, and space is infinite. You can’t have it both ways.

I know the universe is expanding, but so what? I postulate that it will contract some time in the distant future as well. I think it is an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. The universe is so big there HAS to be other forces at work which these guys are not detecting with their little radio telescopes orbiting a little blue spec in a remote part of the milky way. Guess what black matter is? Those guys scratching their heads, that is what it is! I think they need to change the curriculum so that these guys take more philosophy in their studies. That just MIGHT teach them to quit jumping to conclusions so quickly. Who knows.

I suppose that theory will stand till something more definitive raises it’s ugly head. There must have been a lot of data they used to get them to that thinking. I haven’t seen any (if little) dissention about their hypothesis. Physicists have been looking at this phenomena for a long time I’m sure.

It does take some imagining to think that all the matter of the universe at 10^-46 was the size of a hydrogen atom, where quarks are thought to be rubbing against one another and travelling millions of miles just seconds after the expansion begun.

Plus they are able to track the expansion of all that matter with the red/blue shift measuring how those heavenly bodies are moving away from a central point.

Certainly with all of those devices, computers and educated people with hundreds of millions of dollars of funding they could form some viable postulation.

The only dissenting theory I have heard against big bang is the “steady stream” theory, which has long been abandoned. It wasn’t very good either though, since it requires a steady stream of matter to be constantly streaming forth from god knows what. Again, it requires the creation of matter. Bad theory. A good theory would be one that followed the proven laws of the universe. The problem is, physicists hate to use the word “unknown”. I am not a scientist, but I dabble in science via means of the philosophic method. Hell, philosophy used to for all intensive purposes BE science before science was around. Aristotle’s model for the universe was the accepted model for centuries on end thanks to the Catholic church. At the time, it was a really useful model (though don’t get me wrong I hate Catholicism, and Aristotle was just a victim in that regard). But then science came around, and philosophy took a back seat to science. But I think that science is reaching its boundaries in some areas and it is time for philosophy to step back up. At some point, when there is so little data available, it becomes fruitless to use science, and intuition/logic has to kick in instead.

Regarding their calculations on the mass prior to the big bang, that really makes me laugh my ass off. It is really just math games they are playing. But those games are about as meaningful as a game of sudoku on your computer. This is the problem. They have telescopes, and machines for spectroanalysis, etc. But the resulting calculations are only as accurate as the ratio of data they have collected in regards to the entire set. In other words, there is SOOOOOOOO much data out there in space that even if they could get off the planet and set up stations all over the solar system, the amount of data they would achieve would be so small in comparison to the amount of data out there to be collected that I could not even type enough zeroes after the decimal point if I had all night to express how small of percentage of the total data out there that is. It is more then just a scientific law, it is common sense that the more complete a set of data is, the more accurate the resulting calculations will be. Even 1% is not very good. But this amount of data they have to work with is infinitely smaller then 1% of the complete data set needed to accurately extrapolate anything meaningful about the universe. It is garbage in, garbage out. It seems like the amount of data they have collected is SO abundant (since the complete data set we are talking about is the whole entire universe) that even the minute little insignificant portions they have collected is incredibly overwhelming to them. But it still is not nearly enough to make any real scientific conclusions regarding the macrocosm.

I think deep down inside, these guys realize what I am saying and know it to be true. But if all they ever said was “I don’t know, I don’t have enough data” all the time, then they certainly would not get any funding. People want answers, not more questions. That is why philosophy needs to step up here. Philosophy doesn’t ignore questions. Answering a question only to find more questions is perfectly acceptable to a philosopher. That is because a philosopher doesn’t need any funding to do what s/he does. S/he just does it.

Besides the data sets they have recorded being proportionately miniscule, there is also a question of accuracy as well. Take the red and blue shifts for example. That is all fine and dandy that they can use those to calculate whether something is coming or going. But the problem is, there are a shit ton of particles in space, many of which we likely have not even seen before. Presumably, this would effect the rays of light which travel millions of light years through space to reach us. To assume that the spectrum of the light which has traveled that distance and gone through god knows what on the way is completely accurate seems foolish to me. I think it is accurate enough to determine if something is moving away or moving towards, but to determine the exact speed seems like asking too much to me. There is also no way to verify for sure if the data has been corrupted in such a way or not. Same goes with the radio waves or anything else that has traveled millions of light years across space. Even something so solid and sturdy as a meteorite that travels millions of light years before finally reaching earth is going to be a lot different then when it left.

That is not to say that I don’t think that collecting this data is worthwhile, I do, and I like these scientists. I just wish that the scientists that analyze the data collected would take a more epistemic approach to the whole thing. I think if they asked themselves the question “how do we really know that we know this?” more often, then they would come to the conclusion that they do not really know anything, and that their guesses regarding the macrocosm are about just as good as anyone else’s guesses. Those guesses are only really educated in the since that the individuals making the guesses are highly educated themselves. Now regarding the microcosm, they have something going there. The particle colliders and such provide a MUCH more complete set of data then radio telescopes and the like. I frequently use theories from particle physics as supporting evidence for my philosophies. But none of those theories actually defy the laws of the universe. Again though, there is controversy even there. A lot of people are starting to doubt string and M theory as they are such exotic theories. I still find them to be useful, but not the ultimate either.

See, this is the difficulty with a “philosopher” without any real scientific grounding trying to pass comment on a scientific theory. The fact that you don’t understand “this whole big bang thing” should be an indication to you that you should go out and read a book about it, not an indication that you must simply be too clever for these miseducated scientists, who couldn’t possibly appreciate the difference between a “theory” and a “fact” like those clever philosophers do.

In the first place, physisists do treat the postulations you’re talking about as “theories”, but “theory” - in a scientific context - doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does. These theories aren’t “guesses”, they are a framework based on hard, empirical observations which are capable of explaining and predicting phenomena with an extraordinary degree of precision. The theories about the constitution of the early universe (we’re really talking about the first few seconds here) obviously cannot be empirically verified because the temparatures and pressures of the early universe are simply too great to replicate in a laboratory setting, but the successes of quantum physics in predicting the properties of “theoretical” particles prior to their observation simply cannot be ignored. Quarks, neutrinos, leptons etc. - all these were “discovered” on the back of a napkin, so to speak, before they were ever empirically verified.

It is true that there is not yet any empirical proof for some of the claims made about the nature of the early universe (inflaton fields, the electro-magnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces being undifferentiated, the existence of your “plasma” etc.), however the postulation of such “exotic phases and matter and plasma and crap” isn’t just plucked from thin air: these predictions come from a recognition that we have a set of mathematical theories that describe and predict quantum behaviour with extraordinary precision, that these theories are universal in scope (that is, we are yet to find any part of the universe - which we can presume includes the very early universe - which deviates from the predictions made by these theories) and that these theories - when the appropriate values are represented in them - make certain predictions about the nature of the early universe that we cannot ignore without ignoring the veracity of the theories themselves. If you want to question the veracity of the big bang theory, the burden would then be upon you to explain why we cannot apply the “laws” of quantum theory to the early universe when every other indication is that they are universal in scope and application.

The existence of background radiation - and its uniformity across the observable cosmos - is powerful evidence for the big-bang theory. That this radiation is composed of “some microwaves on the rim of the area that their telescopes can pick up” is true, but I’m not sure what your point is. There are no privilaged positions in the universe, so whether your telescope is on Earth, Jupiter or some planet in a galaxy 10 billion light-years from here makes no difference: the “shape” of the CMBR will appear the same no matter where your telescope is situated. The “hot and cold spots” you mention differ in temperature - over billions of light-years - by mere thousandths of a degree. What aspect of this “empirical data” are you taking issue with exactly?

Firstly, matter and energy can be created, at least on a quantum scale (the scale on which the universe existed at its beginning). The theory of quantum fluctuation predicts that the value of energy in a quantum field can never be precisely and unalterably zero: the values will fluctuate around this number without ever remaining there. Consequentially, we can predict that particles in a vacuum should flash in and out of existence all the time and there is presently a great deal of empirical evidence to support this prediction. Such fluctuations may also be be at the heart of the origin of the universe, but I think this is still presently in the realm of “speculation” rather than theory.

Secondly - and this may seem pedantic, but it really is an important point - the big bang theory actually says nothing about the creation of the universe. All the big bang theory suggests is that at t=0 (t=10^-43 to be precise: the equations at t=0 predict infinities at which point our physics collapse) space was extremely small and its energy very high. As to what preceded this state (to the extent that we can even talk about a prior state: time didn’t exist prior to t=0, so we can no more talk of a time before the big bang than we can talk about a place south of the south pole) the big bang theory can make no verifiable predictions. This in no way detracts from the almost undeniable observation that the big bang (or some extremely similar mechanism) is responsible for the present structure of the universe.

Well space most likely isn’t infinite if that helps you to overcome this hurdle at all: there’s a reason we can’t see any further than 13.7 light years in any direction and it has to do with the expansion of finite space that occurred (and continues to occur) as a consequence of the big bang. This visual barrier would have no reason to exist in a homogenous universe (that is, one which can contain no unique vantage points) that was infinite in space-time.

It’s funny how you admonish physicists for making unsubstantiated claims and then follow it up with this drivel. There is no reason to believe that the universe will contract (all evidence points to the contrary), there is no cause to postulate the existence of “other forces” (superfluous pluralities) without any good reason (Ockham’s Razor) and the homogeneity of the universe (empirically substantiated in a variety of ways, the CMBR among them) tells us that the position of our “little radio telescopes orbiting a little blue spec in a remote part of the milky way” can be no more privileged or disadvantaged than any other in the universe: if certain “forces” aren’t operating in our little pocket of the universe, there’s essentially no possibility of them operating elsewhere. Your “postulations” here aren’t merely “unsubstantiated”, they are quite easily discredited.

No, I’m with Dan Dennett on this one. The students of science don’t need more training in the humanities, the students of the humanities need more training in science. This thread is pretty good evidence for that.

This may be related:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=167276

Everything comes from nothing.
It comes here not as a steady stream but more like a recycling by a fountain pump. A steady stream means that it keeps coming and not going back; a fountain pump takes it back and returns it.
Matter manifests and then disappears in an immovable sea of energy. The immovable sea of energy …

Zolan Fodor who has worked on the “lattice Guage Theory” points out that the calculations confirm that the QCD-driven motion of quarks within nucleons — rather than the mass of the quarks themselves — is responsible for the vast majority of the visible mass in the universe.This theories postulate that matter is a product of masslessness immaterial “sea”.
These 'field or sea" is a nonmaterial medium with fluidity, incompressibility, continuity, homogeneity, mass-less ness, and zero-viscosity."…

  • disclaimer. I’m a home builder not a physicist.

And now, I add
(1)that this “sea” is immovable fluid. It does not move aside like water does when a fish swims in it. If it moved aside then matter would not appear, matter is here because that medium manifests it. You know how ghosts (I dont beleive in them) move through material objects. This is vice versa matter is moving through the medium that is to say the ghost.
(2) motion is an illusion: this “energy field” pops matter in and out of physicality - First in one minutest instant matter are here, static and then it disappears. Then for another minutest instant matter pops back in again, again static, but now a little further down the line.
It is moving as a wave not matter. see- kettering.edu/~drussell/Demo … otion.html

Glad to see somebody finally came and defended these beliefs.

Theories ARE guesses, albeit educated ones. I know that they form “a theoretical model of the universe”. You seem to have missed my point. When trying to determine something like “the beginning of the universe” you need more data then what they currently have. Yes, they have a shitload of data, but it is such a small percentage of the complete set of data that it means nothing. I understand that you can make predictions with mathematics. I know all about particle physics, it is one of my favorites. Thing is, the reason why particle physicists are so successful in their predictions is because the data set collected from the microcosm is a hell of a lot more complete then the data set collected from the macrocosm. It is like night and day.

The burden isn’t on me to explain why the laws of quantum theory don’t apply to the early universe since that is not my position, that is theirs. So they are the ones that need to prove that. I believe the laws of quantum physics DO apply to the “early universe” so therefore energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed.
"The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.

The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less."

That is a law of quantum physics. The big bang breaks that law. So it is a physical impossibility.

And there never will be since the event will never be repeated according to them, and there are no experiments which could possibly replicate such a thing. You call that science?

So if I have a telescope in the crab nebula it will be the same? How do you know? Have you been to the crab nebula? I don’t see how a homogenized radiation field concludes a universe that exploded into existence from nothing. Furthermore, all of the hot and cold spots are not the same. They find bigger and bigger ones all the time. The CMB isn’t evidence that points to the creation of a universe from a big bang. That theory was around long before the CMB was discovered. What they did was add that data to the theory and modify it a little bit. Thing is, it is not surprising that there are big chunks of energy floating around in space. The whole universe is made of energy, so you don’t have to be a genius to think that there might be a bunch of energy floating around in clumps. But there doesn’t have to be an explosion to explain that. The whole universe is made out of energy, even space/time itself. Perhaps zero point energy is concentrated in some places more then others so it is released in the form of microwaves. See, I did it. I explained the CMB, and nothing had to blow up, and none of the laws of quantum physics were broken.

You are wrong, and that article is misleading. “That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated”. Notice they said appear. That is because it is not actually violated. No energy is actually created, it just appears to be since it is borrowed from the zero point field. That energy already exists, it is just changing form which is not in violation of the law of conservation of energy. I don’t think the universe has an origin. That is the only thing that makes any sense according to what we know about the universe. Why haven’t these guys thought of this yet?

First of all, the beginning of time means the universe was created. There is no way of getting around that. In order for time to begin, there had to be no existence prior.

That being said, I don’t think time is linear. Call me crazy, but nothing else in the universe is linear, so why should time be any different. Haven’t you noticed? The earth is a sphere, that makes circular (elliptical, whatever) patterns around a giant burning sphere along with a bunch of other spherical planets, spherical moons, spherical astroids. Then all this crap rotates together with a bunch of other circular solar systems full of rotating spheres with circular orbits to form a rotating spiral pattern in a giant circular galaxy which revolves around a huge rotating supermassive sphere of matter in the middle. Even in the microcosm, we have atoms which have spherical nuclei in the middle with electrons making circular patterns around them. Are you starting to see a pattern here? Theoretically space has curvature too (I believe that, why wouldn’t it?). So evidently everything is non-linear except for time according to these guys. Why? What makes time linear? I think time is circular, just like everything else. So it has no beginning or end. It goes on forever. This is a concept called infinity, and for as much as physicists like to use the word they seem to fear it just like the bible beaters and practically everyone else for that matter. What exactly is wrong with infinity. It is like people think because we haven’t always been around, everything else must not have always been around either. So here is an induction to support my theory: All things observed in the universe are non-linear and circular. All things in the universe are circular and non-linear. Time is included in the set “all things in the universe”. Another way to look at it would be: all things observed have curvature. All things have curvature. Time has curvature. As long as the curvature of time is always the same, then it stands to reason that time is circular. Perhaps there was “something similar to the big bang”. It probably happened right after “the big crunch”.

Well that is false. “The edge of the observable universe is now located about 46.5 billion light-years away.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe . 13.7? That is laughable! We would only be able to see about 27 stars if that were true. I am thinking maybe you meant 13.7 billion? But even that is not half of the observable universe. 13.7 billion years DOES happen to be the theoretical age of the galaxy. So if that WERE the age of the universe, then we should only be able to see that far since light can only have traveled for 13.7 billion years.The fact that we can see further is proof that this is false to me.

Secondly, it stands to reason that we would not be able to see an infinite distance unless space were completely flat. If it is curved then it would be like when you are on a boat in the pacific ocean and you can only see roughly 5 or 6 miles in each direction even though there stands nothing in the way of your view. The curvature of the earth prevents you from seeing any further. Space is the same way. 46.5 billion light years is a HUGE distance. Do you know how big of a curve that is? The universe would either have to be infinite or unimaginably large to have a curvature as such.

I don’t agree that all evidence points to the contrary. I have a model that explains how the universe expands and contracts. It is like this: Space and time are circular, as is evidenced by the curved nature of all things in the universe. So lets examine this circle of space and time (or sphere if you will). The circle has two halves. The top half is positive in curvature, while the bottom half is negative in curvature. When space is positive in curvature it expands like a balloon. That is the nature of positive curvature. When space is negative in curvature it contracts like a balloon being deflated. So while time and space are moving along the top half of the sphere they will expand, but when they are moving on the bottom half they will contract. It is somewhat like a rollercoaster ride. It goes up and down over and over again. So it is constantly expanding and contracting. I think this is probably one of those missing forces that I was talking about.

Now, about the "there is no cause to postulate the existence of “other forces” part of your statement, I also disagree: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

“In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. Dark matter is postulated to explain the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies and other evidence of “missing mass” in the universe. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter and dark energy account for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe. The observed phenomena which imply the presence of dark matter include the rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark matter also plays a central role in structure formation and galaxy evolution, and has measurable effects on the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than that which interacts with electromagnetic radiation: the remainder is frequently called the “dark matter component,” even though there is a small amount of baryonic dark matter.”

I’m telling you, these guys are scratching their heads! Their problem is they see an effect they don’t understand, and immediately they jump to the conclusion that it is a gravitational effect. “The galaxy cluster Abell 2029 is composed of thousands of galaxies enveloped in a cloud of hot gas, and an amount of dark matter equivalent to more than 10(to the power of 14) suns”. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? 10 to the 14 suns? Seriously, I am laughing my ass off!

So which would you say is less of a stretch, the postulation of 100000000000000 invisible suns in just ONE nebula (you can’t even imagine what it would be for the whole universe), or the postulation of only one additional force which is based on the curvature of space?

Or not.

Your assumption that I know nothing of science and physics was a poor assumption and just shows that maybe some of you science guys need more training in logic and reasoning. If I knew nothing of science and physics, why would I post a thread on it? It is somewhat of a hobby of mine (although I do have many). I am not a student of physics but I do read a book here and a book there. After reading enough books I have come to the conclusion that cosmology in particular is totally full of crap, and then astrophysics, and then less so down the line to particle physics which are pretty on target. But I don’t necessarily blame the scientists in those fields. Science just isn’t that good yet. The macrocosm is a ridiculously large data set to take on. Particle physicists just have a hell of a lot more to work with then astrophysicists and cosmologists. For what they have, they do a pretty decent job. But I just think they need to think things over a little better, and not make theoretical models that break the known laws of the universe. Like that whole “the laws of physics break down close to T=0” thing. That is a most outrageous claim. There is no evidence time has a beginning or began with “the big bang”. There is no evidence that laws of the universe can break down under any circumstances, and there is no way to prove any of that experimentally, mathematically, or otherwise. Quite frankly, that is very unscientific and doesn’t at all fit with any workable model of the universe. How in the hell are you going to be able to say anything for certain about the universe of the natural laws of the universe are only sometimes in effect?

Don’t get me wrong, I am glad that there are scientists out there thinking about this stuff. I know science is based on math, but calculations of these proportions with such enormous chunks of missing data don’t really mean anything. I don’t think astrophysics and cosmology will ever be exact sciences. They belong more in the realm of logical speculation. They should be half science, half logic. Math can only do SO much.

Sounds good to me, I like it! Score one for home builders. Fellow Texan too.

I believe everything is energy, and therefore everything is the same thing. This theory seems to support that rather well. As long as we assert that new energy is not being created in any way, and that all matter is manifesting from the always existent sea of immovable energy then it suits my purposes just fine.

Now I wonder if I can use it to explain the existence of phenomena which are non observable such as thoughts and properties…

Dr Wolff seems to agree.
Professor Milo Wolff - "The application of the wave structure reaches out, on the one hand, to unsuspected fields of cosmology such as the big bang (there was no Big Bang, space has always existed, infinite and eternal), the red shift (is not caused by Doppler shift due to receding Motion, but rather due to decreasing Wave interactions with distance) and the structure of the universe (which is determined by the size of the electron / Spherical Standing Wave within an Infinite Space). "

According to quantum mechanics matter is a product of “space”. That matter is only one of many possibilities that exist there.
So the school bus is a manifestation and it was only a possibility in quantum space. Th school bus and the school children in it did not and does not exist in the past it only appears to you right now right now. So - this seems to say the big bang did not happen.