The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

Hi Eta. Would you care to comment on Message 106 item 2 also?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

I'll give it a shot, although cavediver is better qualified to answer than I am.First, neutrinos aren't "attached" to electrons. They're just a similar type of particle. The biggest difference is that electrons have an electromagnetic charge, whereas neutrinos do not. This is why neutrinos so rarely interact with other matter, passing right through the Earth most of the time.Your idea of space sort of sounds like the "luminiferous ether" that was popular at the end of the 19th century. It was known at the time that light behaved like a wave; common sense held that for waves to exist there must be a medium through which they propagate. Ocean waves propagate through water, after all, and sound waves propagate through air. Therefore a medium that permeates space was postulated, through which light propagates, and was coined the "luminiferous ether".Attempts to measure this ether failed, however, the most famous being the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that light moves at the same speed in all directions, even while the Earth itself was rotating on its axis and revolving around the Sun. Therefore something was flawed with the notion of a fixed ether, since a rotating and revolving Earth could hardly be stationary relative to the ether.The Theory of Relativity pretty much did away with the idea of an ether. In fact, it did away with the notion of movement through space entirely. Instead, movement is only defined by a change of position relative to something else. Saying that a single object is "moving through space" is meaningless; movement only has meaning in reference to other objects.This message has been edited by Posit, 03-31-2006 01:14 AM

This is, I think, incorrect. Neutrinos rarely interact because they have no EM charge and also don't react to the weak force. Neutrons have no EM charge too but they penetrate matter only a very small distance.ABEThe above is wrong. Neutrinos do feel the weak force. I don't know why they have such a small collesion cross section.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-31-2006 01:29 AM

It's because neutrons interact via the strong force, and neutrinos do not. Neutrons are also way more massive.

Ok, but I was waiting on the time to devote an entire thread to this. Fairly well. I agree with all of this.We'll start with your idea of empty space and try to make it a bit more formal. You say it can't expand. Fine, I don't know what that means: this space has no such thing as distance or direction. The major thing that makes it a "space" rather than "nothing" is that it is effectively an infinite collection of non-intersecting points, with the property that it doesn't matter how close you pick two points, you will always find more points between. Just like the Real number line. In fact a line makes a great intro to this, as this is what you are talking about in one dimension.Ok, so we have an empty space which cannot curve or expand as these concepts make no sense. The space is effectively a mathematical SET of points with some special properties.We can now start adding "fields"... sets of numbers associated with the point of the space. The first field we chose is the metric field, which is the set of numbers that gives a sense of distance and direction between neighbouring points. The metric gives "shape" to the space, and if the metric changes, the shape of the space changes. Next we add some quantum fields. Let's take a field of photons. The numbers of this field effectively tell you how many "photons" there are at any particular point in our space. Then we add an electron field. Same idea. Back to the ocean analogy, these numbers say how high the sea is at any particular point, and in certain circumstances we perceive the rolling waves on this ocean (changing values of the field) as real particles.Hopefully you get the idea... the distance or metric is a field added to the base space, just like the particle quantum fields.Now so far, we have an absolute mess. These fields can be whatever they want. It's like God's cooking pot. What we need is some order... some laws. General Relativity is the law that governs the distance field. It says what configurations of the distance (metric) field are allowed and which are not allowed. Qunatum Field Theory (and Quantum Electrodynamics in particular here) tells us what configurations are allowed for our photon and electron fields.Because both the distances and the quantum fields are just numbers added on top of a base-space, the theories should be similar. And they are: GR and QFT are very very similar despite being developed from opposite ends of the universe (the very large and the very small). This alone is testament to the validity of the picture.Saying that space can curve and expand is simply saying that the metric field can change its values (as dictated by GR). Saying that we se eletrons and photons is simply saying that the quantum fields can change their values (as dictated by QFT). The underlying base-space has no such concepts...

We can now start adding.......[/qs]I'm afraid I can see where this dialog is going, Cavediver - nowhere. "We can now start adding" is where you loose me. I don't see stuff "added" to/existing in space as a property of space, but that which exists in space. Nor do I see geometric points without stuff/something existing in space for the points to represent, stuff/matter/energy being, again, what occupies space.Abe: If all that you mentioned in this message were somehow removed from space, space still would exist, would it not?This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-31-2006 09:59 PM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

The author of this topic, lost-apathy, has long since stopped posting here at EvC....so we need to keep in mind that this topic is currently a bit of a runaway train! Let me read through the posts and comment on points that some of our active members have brought up: Interesting! So the Big Bang doe NOT describe the actual beginning of the universe?? Man! I learn something new when I listen to other people! That is why Cosmological discussions are better suited to the scientific method. Same with all of our ideas. If our ideas had no cause, there would be no way to explain the logic of them. (or the illogic) So we are talking about a superset within which is every single thought, all matter, all anti-matter, every theological, psychological, sociological, anthropological, and...in short...human reality?This message has been edited by Phat, 03-31-2006 10:45 PM

Yet mainline science insists there's no "before," as if they're positive about their claims I'm afraid that's not the attitude of BB advocates here in the science foum debates. I agree with the problem, but imo, it's pseudoscience talk, no more falsifiable than creo Biblical IDism.

We've already learned from General and Special Relativity that there is no such things as a universal "before", upon which all observers agree.Let us say there is a rotating neutron star with two planets.
Let us say there are two events A and B.
On the planet closer to the star A happens five seconds after B, and both events occur in the same location.
On the planet further from the star, A happens before B and at a small angle away from B.Since two observers can disagree on what is "before" and even "in the same place", these words don't operate on a universal scale.And this is still only a discussion of what observers see, not spacetime itself, where the word really doesn't apply. All we're saying is that words like "before" and "after" don't apply to the universe. There is no universal past and future.
Our discussion are about the extreme relativity of time.
The Big Bang is often viewed as a high energy environment, but nobody claims it is the origin of the universe.

Why? If you don't understand something I've said, I'll try to explain it better. What's the problem? Sorry, that's colloquial math speak. I'm describing reality as a bunch of layers: we have your concept of abstract space at the bottom, and on top we have a layer that represents distance and various layers that represent the quantum fields which give rise to what we call particles. Admittedly, it's hard to visualise as we are talking about 3d layers (actually 4d, and quite possibly higher... or even lower but that's a different story), and that's what seems to trap you into this common sense idea of "stuff" existing "in" space. I appreciate that, and that's what I'm trying to move you away from. It's difficult because our everyday experience and senses give us a particular world-view that is very hard to shake. But can you tell me what stuff/matter/energy is? Where does it occupy space, and where does it not? Interesting question. I don't know. From a theological POV I could say yes, as God can have whatever He wants, but scientifically...

Hi Son Goku: So as I read and understand your statements, we can conclude from it the following to be what you are saying:1. The universe had no origin/never ever originated/had no beginnng.
2. So there was no "before." the universe.
3. Regarding the universe, there is no past and there is no future. There is only the immeasurable present.Your quantumist relativist science view rejects one of buzsaw's science view statements which says, the immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

That's probably a misunderstanding of what Son Gokum, cavediver, and others are saying.A better way of saying is that our concept of time is something we use to understand our universe. It is specifically connected to aspects of our universe. Thus it makes no sense to apply it to things outside our universe. In particular, it makes no sense to apply it to a "God's eye view" of our universe, as observed from the outside.It has long been a theological view that God is timeless, that God exists outside of time. Why not just take that literally, and recognize that our concept of time is something that only makes sense inside our universe.

Cavediver, I had a response message about finished and lost it with this new XP version. It's nice in a lot of ways but in the old 98 I could operate with multiple windows which I can't seem to do with this. I have a business appointment out of town so will get back to you.

If that be the case, would you mind refuting my interpretation of his statement to which you are responding, as follows?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

No, I'm claiming there is no before in the Big Bang model. As I have mentioned to you before, there are other possibilities. I am trying to show you why your "problems" with the Big Bang are not valid. That does not imply that I think the the Big Bang actually happened... Which BB advocates? What attitude? So all of the cosmology and relativity departments around the world are just engaged in psuedoscience? Perhaps you should write to them before they waste any more time?