Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 166 of 301 (723407)
04-01-2014 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by NoNukes
03-31-2014 10:08 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
NoNukes writes:
When a U-238 nuclei decays after having existed for 4.5 billion years, what is the cause for the decay and what is the cause for the existence of the brand new Th-234 nuclei? What caused the nearby, identical U238 atom to decay billions of years ago, while this one did not?
The immediate cause for any nuclear decay is the intrinsic instability of its nucleus. A prior cause is the creation of the nucleus in the first place.
Don't confuse "predictability" with "causation". We can't predict when any individual nucleus will decay, but this doesn't mean that there is no cause for its decay.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 03-31-2014 10:08 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2014 2:09 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 167 of 301 (723409)
04-01-2014 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by vimesey
04-01-2014 5:38 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
vimesey writes:
In an environment where every physical law of our universe seems not to apply, what is it that leads to your conviction that the law of causation continues to apply ?
Would you call "the law of causation" a "physical law"? I think it's more of a philosophical/logical necessity than it is a physical law. Are you trying to say that since the laws of physics break down at the Planck scale, that the laws of logic do, also? What about the laws of mathematics?
I don't think there is any warrant for making the laws of metaphysics dependent on the laws of physics.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by vimesey, posted 04-01-2014 5:38 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-01-2014 11:10 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 170 by vimesey, posted 04-01-2014 11:10 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 168 of 301 (723410)
04-01-2014 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by NoNukes
04-01-2014 9:42 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
NoNukes writes:
These two statements are completely inconsistent. If there is no time, then what is the relationship between cause and effect. There is no sense in which we can say that the effect comes before the cause if there is no time. It seems to me that possible ways to resolve that issue is for the to universe either have no cause or to be self-caused.
Causation is fundamentally a logical concept, not a temporal concept. IF time began at the Big Bang, the cause for our present universe cannot be temporally prior to the Big Bang (obviously), but can still be "logically prior" to it.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2014 9:42 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2014 2:01 PM kbertsche has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(5)
Message 169 of 301 (723411)
04-01-2014 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by kbertsche
04-01-2014 10:45 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Would you call "the law of causation" a "physical law"? I think it's more of a philosophical/logical necessity than it is a physical law. Are you trying to say that since the laws of physics break down at the Planck scale, that the laws of logic do, also? What about the laws of mathematics?
All of those things happen within the universe. We have no reason to expect them to have to happen to the universe as a whole.
I don't think there is any warrant for making the laws of metaphysics dependent on the laws of physics.
There's no such thing as "laws" of metaphysics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 10:45 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 170 of 301 (723412)
04-01-2014 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by kbertsche
04-01-2014 10:45 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
But this is precisely my point. If the very laws of physics themselves break down and cease to apply prior to Planck time = 1, then what chance do those constructs have, which we loosely term the laws of logic ?
Logic is a series of constructs based on day to day human experience. It already breaks down at the quantum level of physical science - the double slit experiment, for example, defies "logic". Why should the human, logical construct which we call the law of causation (actually, it would be better to call it the law of causality) have any necessity at the very start of our universe, if physical laws themselves don't apply then ? Human experience, on which logic is based, stands no chance of being relevant at that point.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 10:45 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 171 of 301 (723413)
04-01-2014 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by onifre
04-01-2014 8:42 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Oni writes:
kbertsche writes:
Can there EVER be any direct scientific evidence of a multiverse? If not, is the multiverse even a scientific theory?
Man never thought he could fly.
It is a hypothesis. As with everything in science, data and testable results - and of course time - will tell if they work.
My question was more fundamental and philosophical. Since we can observe only our present universe, how can we ever hope to get any direct evidence of other universes or of the multiverse? Perhaps we can get some very indirect evidence and hints. But can we ever get direct evidence, like we now have for cosmic inflation? I am very skeptical. I suspect this will remain an intriguing hypothesis.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by onifre, posted 04-01-2014 8:42 AM onifre has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Taq, posted 04-01-2014 11:32 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 175 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2014 2:19 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 176 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-01-2014 2:56 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 172 of 301 (723414)
04-01-2014 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by kbertsche
04-01-2014 11:16 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
My question was more fundamental and philosophical. Since we can observe only our present universe, how can we ever hope to get any direct evidence of other universes or of the multiverse?
We use the scientific method to reconstruct the past using evidence we find in the present. In fact, it is done all of the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 11:16 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 301 (723433)
04-01-2014 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by kbertsche
04-01-2014 10:52 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
but can still be "logically prior" to it.
What does "logically prior to it mean"? That is just double talk. Express the meaning of that phrase in terms that do not need quotation marks.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 10:52 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by kbertsche, posted 04-02-2014 12:43 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 301 (723434)
04-01-2014 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by kbertsche
04-01-2014 10:36 AM


Double talk..
The immediate cause for any nuclear decay is the intrinsic instability of its nucleus. A prior cause is the creation of the nucleus in the first place.
That appears to be an argument. I am going to show that it is not.
First when you say "intrinsic" that is another way of saying that no actual cause is needed. Let us ask the same question regarding the Th234 atom which beta decays to Pa234.
The Th234 atom was not primitively created, yet it decays unpredictably and without any impetus. That is because whenever Th234 nuclei are produced, be it from radioactive decay or via fusion in the sun, they all have the same intrinsic property.
And let's be clear about the "double talk" "Intrinsic Stability" is not a cause, it is a description of the state of the nuclei. It means only that the nuclei is going to decay at some point. The probability of it decaying at any instant is determined by the nuclear arrangement of particles in the nucleus. But the actual decay itself is uncaused. No external event triggers it.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 10:36 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 5:57 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 175 of 301 (723435)
04-01-2014 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by kbertsche
04-01-2014 11:16 AM


Indirect evidence... not that canard again..
how can we ever hope to get any direct evidence of other universes or of the multiverse?
A common creationist tactic is to disparage indirect evidence. The only direct evidence is eye witness testimony. Every other piece of evidence is indirect. We know that the sun is made up of helium and hydrogen through indirect evidence, we understand that the earth's core is dense only indirectly. When we measure the voltage of electricity at an electrical socket, our measurement using the deflection of an electrical meter or a digit readout indirectly tells us the voltage present.
The evidence we are discussing in this thread is indirect evidence and not direct evidence of inflation.
I am very skeptical. I suspect this will remain an intriguing hypothesis.
I am skeptical too. I am skeptical that string theory will ever amount to much of anything. But my skepticism is not based on not appreciating indirect evidence.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 11:16 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 176 of 301 (723441)
04-01-2014 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by kbertsche
04-01-2014 11:16 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
My question was more fundamental and philosophical. Since we can observe only our present universe, how can we ever hope to get any direct evidence of other universes or of the multiverse? Perhaps we can get some very indirect evidence and hints. But can we ever get direct evidence, like we now have for cosmic inflation? I am very skeptical. I suspect this will remain an intriguing hypothesis.
Well, this is how science works. If a theory works every time we can test it, we should believe that it's valid in those cases where we can't. This is the principle of science: the entire scientific method can and must be built up from that premise.
So if the Inflationary Hypothesis should now be considered the Inflationary Theory, or (if we are still unconvinced) if it should one day be so considered, and if the Inflationary Theory implies the existence of many universes --- then we should either believe in many universes or we should ditch the scientific method and go find something else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 11:16 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 3:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 177 of 301 (723449)
04-01-2014 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Dr Adequate
04-01-2014 2:56 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Dr. A writes:
kbertsche writes:
My question was more fundamental and philosophical. Since we can observe only our present universe, how can we ever hope to get any direct evidence of other universes or of the multiverse? Perhaps we can get some very indirect evidence and hints. But can we ever get direct evidence, like we now have for cosmic inflation? I am very skeptical. I suspect this will remain an intriguing hypothesis.
Well, this is how science works. If a theory works every time we can test it, we should believe that it's valid in those cases where we can't. This is the principle of science: the entire scientific method can and must be built up from that premise.
So if the Inflationary Hypothesis should now be considered the Inflationary Theory, or (if we are still unconvinced) if it should one day be so considered, and if the Inflationary Theory implies the existence of many universes --- then we should either believe in many universes or we should ditch the scientific method and go find something else.
Yes, of course this is how science works.
But my question is, What sort of experimental, observable evidence can possibly exist for a multiverse or for other universes? Can anyone here give any specific examples, not just general statements about how science is done? What sort of specific evidence for a multiverse could possibly rise to the level of the recent BICEP2 evidence for inflation? (which according to the PIs is "direct" evidence for inflation, but according to NoNukes is "indirect")
As soon as the BICEP2 data is independently confirmed, I would call "inflation" a theory. But do current inflation theories require, or even imply, a multiverse? I don't believe Guth's original theory did, but perhaps the modifications done by Linde and others have changed this?

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-01-2014 2:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-01-2014 4:28 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 179 by frako, posted 04-01-2014 5:46 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 178 of 301 (723450)
04-01-2014 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by kbertsche
04-01-2014 3:44 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
But my question is, What sort of experimental, observable evidence can possibly exist for a multiverse or for other universes?
In terms of observing them directly. None --- that's exactly what make them other universes.
But do current inflation theories require, or even imply, a multiverse?
Apparently. If you're going to ask me why, I'm not a cosmologist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 3:44 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 179 of 301 (723454)
04-01-2014 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by kbertsche
04-01-2014 3:44 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
But my question is, What sort of experimental, observable evidence can possibly exist for a multiverse or for other universes?
Gravity waves and statistically unlikely circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background, come to mind. is this what you are after?

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 3:44 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 6:02 PM frako has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 180 of 301 (723455)
04-01-2014 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by NoNukes
04-01-2014 2:09 PM


Re: Double talk..
NoNukes writes:
kbertsche writes:
Double talk..
The immediate cause for any nuclear decay is the intrinsic instability of its nucleus. A prior cause is the creation of the nucleus in the first place.
And let's be clear about the "double talk" "Intrinsic Stability" is not a cause, it is a description of the state of the nuclei. It means only that the nuclei is going to decay at some point. The probability of it decaying at any instant is determined by the nuclear arrangement of particles in the nucleus. But the actual decay itself is uncaused. No external event triggers it.
Nonsense. The nucleus decays because it is intrinsically unstable, because a lower potential energy state exists which it can reach by quantum tunneling. Most physicists would be comfortable with either of these statements of causation. But if you insist on having an event as the cause, there certainly is an external event that triggers the nuclear decay; the creation of the unstable nucleus itself. When the unstable nucleus is created, we can be sure that it will eventually decay. The fact that the decay is a probabilistic event does not mean that it is an uncaused event. "Causation" and "predictability" are two distinctly different concepts (though they are often conflated and confused by non-physicists).

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2014 2:09 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2014 9:36 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 184 by Taq, posted 04-01-2014 11:54 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024