|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang Found | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8546 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Further, the presence of matter and energy is what creates space-time. I'm not sure whether energy allow can be said to do this, but where there is energy, there can be matter. I don't mean to muddy the waters (well, yes, I guess I do since I'm here) since you and 1.61803 have a very interesting discussion starting here. But, my understanding of GR is that the equivalence of matter and energy is total. Mass is energy and energy is mass, just different manifestations of the same thing. Like water v ice. So the presence of energy can create space-time without its alter-ego. Additionally, photons may have a rest mass of zero but I've never met a photon that wasn't on its way somewhere in a pretty big hurry. Even as small as they are they do pack a massive wallop when on the go, which is always. Sorry to digress.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I'm not a physicist either, but it seems to me the BICEPS2 results support the "Big Bang" theory and therefore support for the theory that the universe had a beginning, thus leading to support for a creator, rather than a spontaneous formation of the universe. I have never understood this argument. Why does having a beginning point to a supernatural creator? Clouds have a beginning, and yet they form naturally. Rainbows have a beginning, yet they form naturally. Everything in nature that we see which has a beginning has a known or at least proposed natural process that produces it. So please explain why this argument makes any sense.
It does not seem logical that there would be a spontaneous formation out of nothing w/o some moving force. 1. It could be a spontaneous formation out of something. 2. The moving force does not need to be a supernatural deity. 3. You could just be wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
What requirements are there to earn a PhD in the sciences? For the biological sciences . . . First two years are split between lab work and course work. Last two years are mostly lab work with some TA'ing. At the end of 4 years you should have at least 3 peer reviewed publications based on the research you have done, and will be expected to defend those papers in front of a review panel of several PhD's in your field of work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So the presence of energy can create space-time without its alter-ego. But, my understanding of GR is that the equivalence of matter and energy is total. Mass is energy and energy is mass, just different manifestations of the same thing. Like water v ice. Well, you cannot just add salt and water to your ice cream freezer. You need the ice. Similarly, there are times when you want matter, and energy just won't do. Nonetheless, your statement is likely true.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Do you know if the fundalmental forces existed in the absence of spacetime? No, I don't know about that. But your original question assumed that they did.
Does scientist know if gravity exists in a region that contains neither energy or matter? A gravitational field contains energy, so I guess the answer is either no, or that your question has no real meaning.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2959 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thanks Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2959 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
1.61803 writes:
shadow71 writes:Prior to the big bang, when time did not exist, were there laws of nature The fundalmental forces that manifest reality would not be able to influence a vaccum. So in order for there to be something there must first be spacetime. Prior to the existance of the universe there was no strong force, because there were no atoms. There was no gravity because gravity requires spacetime and matter..There was no weak force either. Nor electromagnatism. So in essence the answer seems to be prior to the big bang the forces that drive our cosmos did not exist.I say that tentatively. If 1.61803 is correct how could there be a spontaneous formation out of nothing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I am not really a big news junkie so I am sure that there is lots of stuff that I miss but there is something wrong when the greatest discovery in the history of science comes and goes with barely a whimper in the world's press. What makes this such a great discovery? Surely there are more important things that have been discovered. In fact, I could care less, and cannot imagine this discovery having any impact on me, or anyone really, whatsoever.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8546 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
What makes this such a great discovery? Not much except having taken one giant leap toward our understanding of the origins of the universe. Got a long way to go yet, but this is one huge step.
Surely there are more important things that have been discovered. Oh, yes, very much so. Higgs comes mind. Penicillin. My discovery of girls in the sixth grade. Yah, there are bigger ones, no doubt. But you celebrate your victories when you can.
In fact, I could care less, and ... Well then, if you're at a point where you could care less then you do now, at least you have some interest. You can go ahead and care even less now, or not care at all, if you want to. You're not required to have any curiosity about the formation of the universe. I'll carry your share of the collective curiosity. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
If 1.61803 is correct how could there be a spontaneous formation out of nothing? I've already given perfect ratio reason to think he might be wrong.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Taq writes:
I think the point is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence which is outside itself. The cause for the clouds' beginning must be outside of the cloud. The cause for the rainbow must transcend the rainbow itself. If the entire universe (all of nature) began to exist, the cause for this must transcend the universe, i.e. it must be super-natural. I have never understood this argument. Why does having a beginning point to a supernatural creator? Clouds have a beginning, and yet they form naturally. Rainbows have a beginning, yet they form naturally. Everything in nature that we see which has a beginning has a known or at least proposed natural process that produces it. So please explain why this argument makes any sense."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
shadow71 writes:
There can't be, if by "nothing" you truly mean nothing: no mass-energy, no spacetime, no laws of nature. If 1.61803 is correct how could there be a spontaneous formation out of nothing? Particles can spontaneously pop out of the "vacuum", but the physicist's "vacuum" is very different from the philospher's "nothing"."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
I think the point is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence which is outside itself. Then so would whatever supernatural being you've chosen to be the creator of this particular universe.
If the entire universe (all of nature) began to exist, the cause for this must transcend the universe, i.e. it must be super-natural. Not at all. It could be we are part of a multiverse system. Supernatural has never ever ever ever ever been the answer to any question that we've solved. Why now? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
but the physicist's "vacuum" is very different from the philospher's "nothing". The philosophers "nothing" has no meaning, so that would quite a difference. Unless you can provide an actual definition of nothing in the philosophers sense that doesn't become circular i.e. "the absense of anything" of something like that? How would a philosopher even begin to grasp the true meaning of nothingness? Seems like physicist are the only ones qualified to explain it. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
In fact, I could care less, and cannot imagine this discovery having any impact on me, or anyone really, whatsoever. Maybe you should go back to your coloring books then. - Oni
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024