mymistake Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 MM, I believe contemporary physics has a reasonably coherent story to tell until we get to Planck time scales that are around 10 to the -43 seconds. However, grand unification of the forces has not been firmly established, so perhaps it is more reasonable to say that we have a reasonable robust model that works up to the electroweak and possible the strong force separation at around 10 to the -30 seconds or so. I am not a cosmologist, so I am certainly open to being corrected, but I am pretty comfortable in stating that our current models are very good up until we start pushing up into the strong force to gravitational force unification. In any event, we have good models that go back to an exceptionally small fraction of a second. Thank you so much. I will be interested in seeing how cosmology works this problem out. It's exciting to watch the progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Looks like the RogueScholar did all the hard work, MM. . . . Btw, even though I've read about this stuff, the notion that the human mind can make such precise calculations... we have good models that go back to an exceptionally small fraction of a second [after the Big Bang] ...still blows my mind! Especially when you consider just how far back in time these calculations are good for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Calendar Utterly ****king amazing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 End, how does this in anyway validate Christianity? If this turns out to be correct it only shows how science constantly improves itself with each and every discovery. The same cannot be said for any religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsathoggua Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Well, this is quite fascinating. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. Love the turtle pic, by the way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhim Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 I'll make the following offer to End3: if he can compare and contrast the Copenhagen and Bohmian interpretations of quantum mechanics, I'll give him a gold star and consider retracting my claim that he is a dumbass. Speaking of asses, I didn't pull these terms out of my ass. The article you cited refers to the use of the Bohmian interpretation in understanding the early universe. If you don't know what that is, then maybe you shouldn't try to overturn years of research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 http://www.space.com/28681-theory-no-big-bang.html This is just another in a long line of criticisms of the Big Bang model. My guess is roughly a half dozen serious mainstream criticisms well published in a single year, and maybe hundreds of lesser known major mainstream criticisms or alternative theory formally proposed. This model is farther away from a Christian beginning because they propose a universe without a beginning or creation. I agree with their criticism of mainstream interpretations of QM, and agree that Bohemian mechanics makes more sense, but believe that only the De Broglie model involving local hidden variables, is entirely logical. I also am in general agreement with their proposal of a background hidden field at galactic scales which they called a superfluid made up of particulates. Such a superfluid could be the new aether, a particulate field which they gave possible examples of. My own model proposes that the Zero Point Field is the hidden variable and missing component that can explain observational anomalies in both quantum physics and the physics at galactic scales So generally IMO they have some valuable ideas with a kinship to some of my own ideas . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Actually, the universe may not exist at all, not in the sense that a 'universe' was created by the Big Bang. Space inflated as the Big Bang. The universe is the result of the inflation. The Big Bang is a model of what we see, given the time we are in to see it. From our point of view looking at the known universe, we see an inflation arising from a big bang. The 'universe' was not an empty bag that waited for a big bang to fill it. The known 'universe' could not have existed until the big bang or whatever caused the inflationary event to occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burny Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 End, why are you excited about this? Even if there was no beginning...Evolution still counts and is proven. If it's not, why didn't this powerful 'force' allow cave men to have microwave ovens in their caves? It would have made their lives so much easier. Why didn't 'he' give a better teeth? Then we wouldn't have been eaten alive by other animals back in the day where we really had to protect ourselves. Why do some animals have better sight? Why can't we swim under water for hours? A million of these little things would help our survival so much better. It' seems he didn't really give a shit about our protection at all?. This 'god' that had no beginning was still very stupid with 'his' plan for mankind. ''He'' still made us to evolve and go through terrible suffering to make us into what we are today....over millions and millions of years..... I would have made things 'nice' for everyone in an instant, if I had the power of 'The beginning''. I'm rambling and probably off topic....I have no excitement about it M. My reason for posting is it's always somewhat startling to me to see when science comes out with something that challenges the previous "truth". In this case its a large contrast. "Wow, do you remember when we thought the Earth was riding on a turtle"? "Yeah, I can remember when we thought the Universe was 13.8 billion year old". "Ha ha ha, have a great day Charlie". Yes, science is brave enough to come out with new truths when it discovers them. Unlike xtianity which ignores new truths about the Bible and Jesus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 http://www.space.com/28681-theory-no-big-bang.html This is just another in a long line of criticisms of the Big Bang model. My guess is roughly a half dozen serious mainstream criticisms well published in a single year, and maybe hundreds of lesser known major mainstream criticisms or alternative theory formally proposed. This model is farther away from a Christian beginning because they propose a universe without a beginning or creation. I agree with their criticism of mainstream interpretations of QM, and agree that Bohemian mechanics makes more sense, but believe that only the De Broglie model involving local hidden variables, is entirely logical. I also am in general agreement with their proposal of a background hidden field at galactic scales which they called a superfluid made up of particulates. Such a superfluid could be the new aether, a particulate field which they gave possible examples of. My own model proposes that the Zero Point Field is the hidden variable and missing component that can explain observational anomalies in both quantum physics and the physics at galactic scales So generally IMO they have some valuable ideas with a kinship to some of my own ideas . Something for Pantheory. http://bohemianmechanics.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 http://www.space.com/28681-theory-no-big-bang.html This is just another in a long line of criticisms of the Big Bang model. My guess is roughly a half dozen serious mainstream criticisms well published in a single year, and maybe hundreds of lesser known major mainstream criticisms or alternative theory formally proposed. This model is farther away from a Christian beginning because they propose a universe without a beginning or creation. I agree with their criticism of mainstream interpretations of QM, and agree that Bohemian mechanics makes more sense, but believe that only the De Broglie model involving local hidden variables, is entirely logical. I also am in general agreement with their proposal of a background hidden field at galactic scales which they called a superfluid made up of particulates. Such a superfluid could be the new aether, a particulate field which they gave possible examples of. My own model proposes that the Zero Point Field is the hidden variable and missing component that can explain observational anomalies in both quantum physics and the physics at galactic scales So generally IMO they have some valuable ideas with a kinship to some of my own ideas . Something for Pantheory. http://bohemianmechanics.com/ Cool name. Will try to find recordings of the band to see if I like 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 This may be a hangover from my life as a Christian, but why is there such a debate over how we came to be? I understand the study of human history, as we are creatures of habit who can learn from the mistakes of our predecessors. What I don't get is why we should have such a desire to determine where we came from. We're here. We've been here for a long while. From all the evidence, we'll be here a while longer. Big Bang or no, what does it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 This may be a hangover from my life as a Christian, but why is there such a debate over how we came to be? I understand the study of human history, as we are creatures of habit who can learn from the mistakes of our predecessors. What I don't get is why we should have such a desire to determine where we came from. We're here. We've been here for a long while. From all the evidence, we'll be here a while longer. Big Bang or no, what does it matter? Big-picture questions of how the universe began, how it all works, how life began, how humans evolved, etc. are of great interest to most people. I think its a part of human intelligence to consider such questions and answers. Most religious people do not have to deal with such questions or answers since they believe they know. Once a person becomes a non-believer these questions often arise again, because then the answers are not that obvious or necessarily simple. Having little interest in such things could be a religious hangover, as you suggest, it could be that you are not that interested in the related science, the related subjects seem impractical, maybe present scientific explanations do not seem that logical or interesting. Only you can answer these questions Many people devote their lives to such questions thinking that the passion for answers runs deep for most others. Certainly such questions are of greater interest for societies less religiously inclined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts