|
Author
|
Topic: The Big Bang is NOT Scientific
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
Message 91 of 301 (297471)
03-22-2006 11:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by cavediver
03-22-2006 8:26 PM
|
|
Virtual particle pairs are merely rumblings in the quantum fields. It is the quantum fields that are the real objects and they are always there... they are the ocean and the particle pair are a couple of induced waves. Hawking radiation was, I thought, the exception to this rule? Such radiation represented, I thought, the "realization" of one of a virtual particle pair after the other tumbles into the event horizon of a black hole. I'm the first to admit, though, that my knowledge of these physical concepts is a little fast and loose. I was wrong to have presented what I did as thought I was an authority.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by cavediver, posted 03-22-2006 8:26 PM | | cavediver has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 92 by cavediver, posted 03-23-2006 4:49 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 92 of 301 (297489)
03-23-2006 4:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by crashfrog
03-22-2006 11:45 PM
|
|
Hawking radiation was, I thought, the exception to this rule? Such radiation represented, I thought, the "realization" of one of a virtual particle pair after the other tumbles into the event horizon of a black hole. Sorry, I wasn't quite clear in my analogy. All particles, virtual or not, are waves on the ocean of the quantum fields. Think of the virtual particles as the undulations on an almost flat sea. There are no discernable waves coming and going, just this unceasing vertical motion. A real particle is an observable distinguishable wave moving across the water, interacting with these undulations. Hawking Radiation can be described by the virtual pair picture but it misses much and the whole thing only really works when you consider the quantum fields in the viinity of the horizon. It comes down to the fact that what constitutes an observable wave (particle) on the quantum field is observer dependent. It really muddies the water of what is matter and what is not.
my knowledge of these physical concepts is a little fast and loose Understood. What you presented I have seen many times on good cosmological TV documentaries, and read in numerous books. It's the comsologists' fault, not yours 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 03-22-2006 11:45 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2006 9:40 AM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 93 of 301 (297517)
03-23-2006 9:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by cavediver
03-22-2006 8:26 PM
|
|
quote:
I get nervous when it is used around "something from nothing" arguments with the Big Bang.
I've also never liked it when people actually use it to explain the origin of the universe. Quantum fluctuations is a phenomenon that happens within the universe; it always seemed to me to be a bit dodgy to use it as an explanation for how the universe came to be, or why the universe exists, or whatever the correct question is. Sort of like expecting that the actor who is playing a carpenter in a play actually built the stage on which he is acting.
"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure." -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by cavediver, posted 03-22-2006 8:26 PM | | cavediver has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 95 by cavediver, posted 03-23-2006 9:38 AM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 5.4
|
|
|
Message 94 of 301 (297523)
03-23-2006 9:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 90 by Buzsaw
03-22-2006 11:07 PM
|
|
Hi Buz, You and I have already gone around and around on this topic. Give someone else a chance. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 90 by Buzsaw, posted 03-22-2006 11:07 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 97 by Buzsaw, posted 03-24-2006 12:29 AM | | Percy has replied |
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
Exactly. That said, in quantum cosmology we do consider some fairly wacky things that get close to this. But at this stage we are treating the action/Lagrangian as more fundemental than the resulting universes. Hawking was big into this in the eighties.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by Chiroptera, posted 03-23-2006 9:15 AM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 96 of 301 (297530)
03-23-2006 9:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by cavediver
03-23-2006 4:49 AM
|
|
It's the comsologists' fault, not yours Nice of you to say, but my ignorance is always my responsibility.  Great series of posts, btw.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by cavediver, posted 03-23-2006 4:49 AM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 97 of 301 (297696)
03-24-2006 12:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 94 by Percy
03-23-2006 9:29 AM
|
|
Application Of Alternative Viewpoint
Percy writes: You and I have already gone around and around on this topic. Give someone else a chance. But Percy, this is a new thread which I am applying my on topic comment to. Isn't it appropriate to apply the counter viewpoint where applicable, or do you think your viewpoint should be applied to this thread exclusively? My purpose in repeating my views was to apply them to this specific topic just as yours evidently was (abe: in repeating your views.) My purpose as an IDist, obviously was to lend support to my skepticism of the theory of the BB as per topic. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-24-2006 12:35 AM
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by Percy, posted 03-23-2006 9:29 AM | | Percy has replied |
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 98 of 301 (297736)
03-24-2006 5:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by Buzsaw
03-24-2006 12:29 AM
|
|
Re: Application Of Alternative Viewpoint
Hi Buzz,
My purpose as an IDist, obviously was to lend support to my skepticism of the theory of the BB as per topic. Why would ID be skeptical of the BB? It has to be the most pro-theistic/deistic/creationist scientific theory we have. The main reson it was so resisted to begin with is because of perceived divine overtones.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by Buzsaw, posted 03-24-2006 12:29 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 03-24-2006 9:20 PM | | cavediver has replied |
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 99 of 301 (297737)
03-24-2006 6:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 90 by Buzsaw
03-22-2006 11:07 PM
|
|
As per TDL 1, I don't see how they can become non-existent and I'm not convinced they do. Particle physics including virtual particles is one of the most rock-solid areas of science. What is not rock-solid are the layman and popular descriptions used to describe this science, and it is these decsriptions that lead to confusion. Particles do not become non-existant... they simply change form. Although it can appear that an electron and a positron can appear from nothing, all that has actually happend is that two photons have turned into an electron and a positron. Likewise when they "disappear", the two photons reappear. The problem is that most descriptions don't mention the photons other than as vague "energy". Even this description doesn't quite do justice to the situation because the particles (electrons, positrons, photons) are not fundemental entities in this universe. They are more like waves and disturbances on the sea. The real entity is the sea itself, which we call the quantum field (fields actually as there are more than one). Hope this helps a little. This message has been edited by cavediver, 03-24-2006 06:20 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 90 by Buzsaw, posted 03-22-2006 11:07 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 106 by Buzsaw, posted 03-24-2006 10:13 PM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 5.4
|
|
|
Message 100 of 301 (297752)
03-24-2006 7:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by Buzsaw
03-24-2006 12:29 AM
|
|
Re: Application Of Alternative Viewpoint
[This message is actually from Buzsaw. --Admin] Percy writes: Buz, we've done this before. I could never hope to match Sylas, and even he gave up on discussing this topic with you. See thread What's the Fabric of space made out of? to refresh your memory. Thanks for the link, Percy. I just reviewed the entire fabric of space thread, notebooking some significant statements on both sides of the debate. From my perspective of the review, the thread was very informative to all due to the questions and points I raised, especially to any laymen reading it. Isn't this what forums are for? I didn't see it as Sylas giving up discussing the topic perse. I see it as the topic running it's course. Like all threads there comes a time when we all gave up debating our counterparts. That thread pertained to the definition of space. This thread has a lot to do with how the properties of space or lack of same apply to the BB topic. Thus my response to your statements relative to the topic question. Imo, the only argument anyone has that the BB is not scientific as per the topic is that space is static. If this can't be done by anyone, there's no argument here in this thread. To debunk the BB as scientific it must be shown that it is such things as particles and other matter in space that reposition by moving out from one another causing the increase in distance between them rather than space itself expanding. After reviewing our debate in the other thread, I was unable to find anything empirically refuting space as being static and boundless. Sylas's definition of space pretty much boiled down to the only property being geometry of measurements between points. To this I countered to the effect that points are pointless without something existing in space to measure.
space fabric thread writes: 100 Sylas we just don?t know whether space is finite or infinite. 184 buzAccording to the definition of geometry, Sylas, geometry is not a property of space, so your answer to my question is wrong. In an unbounded total space vacuum, there would be no binding properties, no gravity or other forces, and nothing to measure geometrically. Thus, my ongoing contention that there are no properties to space/vacuum to measure or cause expansion. Only when something is introduced into unbounded space/vacuum can anything be observed. Therefore it is only matter, particles and forces, et al which occupy space that can be observed or perceived as expanding, curving or any other activity. Geometry is an examiner or calculator of space/vacuum relative to that which has been introduced into space so as to occupy space. 187: Percy Space *does* have a geometry. This is from http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm: Like time and matter-energy, it is not possible to define space in terms of simpler physical entities. Space simply exists. It can be defined only in terms of its properties. Those properties are what we call geometry. Two of these properties are the concept of point and the shortest distance between two points. 191: buz This, from your link: Those properties are what we call geometry. Two of these properties are the concept of point and the shortest distance between two points. In order to specify points and distances, it is necessary to use material objects. (italics mine) There are no points in space until something is introduced into space. Therefore the points, imo, should not be regarded as properties, i.e. consistency/makeup of space itself, but a means of geometric measurement of things in space. 193 Sylas: There are not even points in space then. A "point" is an abstraction, not a thing, used for convenience to talk about space. All our natural laws and mathematics and so on are abstractions, used to help give a description of how the world works. A "point" is an abstraction, not a thing, used for convenience to talk about space. All our natural laws and mathematics and so on are abstractions, used to help give a description of how the world works. 197 buz: Logically, points are not something that exists apart from matter, energy, et al. They are not properties of space, but math mechanisms existing in the minds of people (people existing in space) so as to calculate geometric problems/measurements pertaining to things which exist in space. Points are geometric mechanisms in men's minds. What expands is geometric measurements of that which is observed, existing in space. These geometric measurements exist only in the minds of men. The geometric calculations existing in the minds of men pertain to that which exists in space/area and is not a property of space. Having posted the above, I'll let the matter rest and resign from this thread unless invited by admin to continue. I may not necessarily have more to add anyhow unless a response is needed on something. This message has been edited by AdminBuzsaw, 03-24-2006 11:06 AM This message has been edited by Percy, 03-24-2006 02:26 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by Buzsaw, posted 03-24-2006 12:29 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 101 of 301 (297759)
03-24-2006 8:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by Buzsaw
03-24-2006 12:29 AM
|
|
Re: Application Of Alternative Viewpoint
I've just read through some (not all) of your exchanges with Sylas and I can appreciate where you are coming from, in regards to your views on "space". I realise now that you'd already gone through the stuff I mentioned above. Too busy at the moment, but if you want to take this deeper (much deeper!), we can discuss it here, or even start a new thread. Hopefully I'll be able to explain some of the thinking and answers behind your questions such as "how can empty space have properties of curvature?" (teaser - it doesn't  ) Warning: this is advanced stuff that goes far beyond any popular account you'll find, and will require me devising analogies on the fly. Let me know if you are interested... [edit test -Admin] This message has been edited by Admin, 03-24-2006 02:17 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by Buzsaw, posted 03-24-2006 12:29 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 109 by Buzsaw, posted 03-24-2006 10:59 PM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 5.4
|
|
|
Message 102 of 301 (297830)
03-24-2006 2:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by Buzsaw
03-24-2006 12:29 AM
|
|
Re: Application Of Alternative Viewpoint
Hi Buz, Instead of replying to me you edited my Message 100 in admin mode. Cavediver has expressed an interest in discussing this with you, so I suggest you reply to him. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by Buzsaw, posted 03-24-2006 12:29 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 103 by Buzsaw, posted 03-24-2006 8:33 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 103 of 301 (297939)
03-24-2006 8:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 102 by Percy
03-24-2006 2:21 PM
|
|
Re: Application Of Alternative Viewpoint
My sincere apologies, Percy, for the messup. I don't know if there's a way to fix it. I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 102 by Percy, posted 03-24-2006 2:21 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 104 of 301 (297946)
03-24-2006 9:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 98 by cavediver
03-24-2006 5:57 AM
|
|
Re: Application Of Alternative Viewpoint
cavediver writes: Why would ID be skeptical of the BB? It has to be the most pro-theistic/deistic/creationist scientific theory we have. The main reson it was so resisted to begin with is because of perceived divine overtones. Hi Cavediver. First, thank you for your fairness attitude and willingness to understand my position. 1. You may not be aware of my personal hypothesis which calls for an eternal universe in which the ID creator has been forever creating things in, destroying things in and managing things in his universe at will to suit his pleasure. It fully satisfies all three TD laws. 2. The BB, of course has the entire universe all scrunched up into a submicroscopic bit of energetic space before the fact. The universe, inclusive of everything existing includes God himself. So before the alleged BB, this god is also scrunched up into his hyper-dense itsy bitsy ball, for there's allegedly no outside of this speck for him to reside in for all of pre-BB eternity and if there were, he'd be out there with nothing around him and nothing to do. It is infinitely demeaning to an infinitely majestic creator, great Jehovah, god of the Bible! How does this fit into Biblical IDism? 3. The BB is counter to intelligent design (ID) as per Biblical scriptures which clearly imply nothing random or naturally selected. 4. Imo, The BB does not explain the order and design we observe nor does it satistisfy the TD laws as well as a more literal rendering of the Genesis account. For more on how this works as per my hypothesis it's in the great debate between Jar and me somewhere in the archives.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 98 by cavediver, posted 03-24-2006 5:57 AM | | cavediver has replied |
|
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: 11-15-2003
|
|
|
Message 105 of 301 (297949)
03-24-2006 9:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 104 by Buzsaw
03-24-2006 9:20 PM
|
|
Your nightmare is back.
Why would you expect it to satisfy TD laws? (I assume you mean Thermodynamics) This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-24-2006 09:30 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 03-24-2006 9:20 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 03-24-2006 10:21 PM | | Eta_Carinae has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2