|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang Found | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
frako writes:
Yes, but such things (and the high order multipoles recently seen in CMBR polarization) only tell us things about this universe. I don't see how they tell us anything about the presence or absence of other universes. kbertsche writes:
Gravity waves and statistically unlikely circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background, come to mind. is this what you are after? But my question is, What sort of experimental, observable evidence can possibly exist for a multiverse or for other universes?"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
I don't see how they tell us anything about the presence or absence of other universes. The circular patterns in the background radiation for example indicate that our universe hit something 4 times, like 4 dents in a car.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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. No, that it is not a statement of causation. You have described the reason why an alpha particle can leave the nucleus. But the state you describe exists at all times. Why does the decay particle leave. I am still waiting on the meaning of "logically prior", that does not use temporal language or quotes. A causation description for radioactive decay is not something Heisenberg or Bohr would have accepted. Heisenberg:
quote: ABE: To be clear, some physicists would accept your description of causation. But if in fact, the intrinsic nature of something is enough to be a cause, then it is enough for whatever is the pre-cursor for the universe, and I know that is not what you are arguing. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Nonsense. The nucleus decays because it is intrinsically unstable, because a lower potential energy state exists which it can reach by quantum tunneling. Using that as an analogy for the production of universes, if there are conditions under which universes can appear, then they just appear. No cause is needed other than the possibility that it can happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Sorry, the phrase did not need quotation marks. I should have simply used italics instead of quotes. (Quotes are quicker and easier for me to type than italics.) And to be more accurate, I should have said "ontologically" rather than "logically". Thus, "X can be ontologically prior to Y without necessarily being temporally prior to Y." Better? kbertsche writes:
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. but can still be "logically prior" to it. The phrases logically prior and logical priority are frequently used in philosophy and theology, as you would learn from a Google search. I did not invent them. According to the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy by Proudfoot and Lacey:
Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy writes:
Priority. Various types of priority should be distinguished. ... Metaphysical priority is sometimes assimilated to logical priority, and sometimes to ontological priority. A is said to be ontologically prior to B if A in no way depends on B for its existence, but B does depend on A for it's existence, or, to put it another way, A is ontologically prior to B if A's existence is a necessary condition of B's existence, but not vice versa. ... "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 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
And for the third time now, I have pointed to an event which is the cause of the radioactive decay:
No, that it is not a statement of causation. You have described the reason why an alpha particle can leave the nucleus. But the state you describe exists at all times. Why does the decay particle leave.kbertsche writes:
For an unstable nucleus, you apparently don't want to accept its creation in an unstable state as the cause of its eventual decay, presumably because the time interval can be very long. 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. For the Big Bang, you don't want to accept that it has a cause, because the time interval for any ontologically prior cause must be zero. It appears that you reject causation if the time interval between cause and effect is too long (billions of years), and you reject causation if the time interval is too short (zero). Do you have a suggested, NoNukes-approved time intverval over which causation is valid? Maybe 1 millisecond to 1 second? And do you have a good, logical argument for why causation must have such a restricted time interval between cause and effect? Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
For the Big Bang, you don't want to accept that it has a cause, because the time interval for any ontologically prior cause must be zero. Not quite. Under the proposed theory, the time interval is not zero. There is no time at all in which a cause could act. Time does not exist, and causation implicitly requires an effect and time. If you want to talk about an exception for the required opportunity to act, then I am going to require that we consider an exception for the entire requirement for cause, because you are not then talking about an argument based on experience. Your argument is then theological. And by the way, substituting 'ontologically' for 'logically' is not much help. It is the 'prior' you keep using that basically reveals your argument to be empty. Ontologically just reminds me that yours is not really a philosophic argument. But let's be clear. What I reject is not causation, because it is not proven that time was created in the Big Bang. That is a theory that may turn out to be wrong. What I reject is an argument that begins with, and relies on the premise that everything must have a cause. The idea that time began at the Big Bang then is simply an example that allows us to reject your premise as necessarily true. It may well be even in a time replete universe that things can spring into existence without cause, simply because the intrinsic quality of matter, energy, and their arrangement allows it. At one point we devoted an entire thread here to whether the net energy of the universe was zero, because a poster wanted to refute the idea that the universe could have been created by a quantum fluctuation without any cause.
For an unstable nucleus, you apparently don't want to accept its creation in an unstable state as the cause of its eventual decay, presumably because the time interval can be very long. Let me dismiss that presumption as wrong. I used long lived isotopes because I thought the lengthy time period was more likely to get your attention, while short periods could be ignored. But even with short lived isotopes, the time decay is utterly unconnected with the method or fact of creation of the nuclei and the passage of time does not change the state of the nuclei. Unstable nuclei do not age, and yet at some point they emit a nuclei, and at times prior they don't. We can predict statistically when a bunch of them will decay. But no examination of the state tells us that nuclei X is on its death bed. Compare that situation to that of sands in an hour glass. At any given moment When we ask why an individual grain of sand falls to the bottom, we can answer that question based on the state of the sand before the grain fell. Not so with nuclei.
Do you have a suggested, NoNukes-approved time intverval over which causation is valid? Maybe 1 millisecond to 1 second? Lol! Surely not. ROFL! Thanks for reminding me that I have not been as polite and respectful as you deserve. I'll endeavor to do better. I believe I addressed your question above.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 |
A is ontologically prior to B if A's existence is a necessary condition of B's existence, but not vice versa. ... Does it even matter? All of our experience with cause and effect is in a time bearing universe. Those other uses are all lip waving about what people believe, but are not based on reality. You are not going to convince me you are right by telling me what people believe. I need evidence based argument. Or are you going to totally relax the time requirement and allow causes to come after their effects. ABE:
And for the third time now, I have pointed to an event which is the cause of the radioactive decay: Did I ignore that. No. I addressed your question. I'll add another one. Your comment is akin to saying that the cause of death is life. Another reason I find your position unsatisfactory is that all U238 and Th234 atoms were created well after the universe itself was created. But regardless of whether they are created in supernova, by nuclear bombardment in the laboratory, or by decay from yet another nuclide, it appears they all act exactly the same. The cause of the decay is not their creation, except in the silly sense that all events in the universe are impossible without the universe, but is instead associated with the intrinsic structure that a nucleus with a particular arrangement of neutrons and protons always seems to arrange itself in. If I asked you why you love person X and you cited your birth, I would find your answer equally unsatisfying. And if your story involved your ancestry from Adam and Eve, I'd probably laugh at your answer. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
1.61803 writes: I believe the universe is self caused.That probably is a misnomer because a "cause" indicates a causer. yadda yadda.... NoNukes writes: No. It doesn't. Perhaps that's the entire subject in nutshell. Germs cause you to get sick. You don't really need to assume an evil spirit is behind you getting a cold sore. I do not. A virus disrupts my immune system in that case. However we are talking about the Big Bang and what phenomenon was responsible for the big bang to happen.Which caused our universe and hence galaxy and planet and eventually humanity. I indicated that I believe the forces that drive our universe did not precede it. I have no evidence of this other than the assumption that in the absence of spacetime, matter and energy, from whence could such forces arrive or be derived?WE DONT KNOW. If one wants to believe the big bang happened because it is a state of how reality is. Fine. It is still a mystery. Until we know the answer there is room for God in the minds of those who want to believe it."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
indicated that I believe the forces that drive our universe did not precede it. I have no evidence of this other than the assumption that in the absence of spacetime, matter and energy, from whence could such forces arrive or be derived? WE DONT KNOW. I am not sure I understand your response. I only objected to a bit of grammar. You can cause yourself to become an engineer by studying and practicing engineering. There is nothing grammatically wrong with something being self caused.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8562 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
I have no evidence of this other than the assumption that in the absence of spacetime, matter and energy, from whence could such forces arrive or be derived? WE DONT KNOW. While your mind is preparing to explode let me throw a little C-4 (with detonator) into your mix. As we have all heard our equations break down just prior to the singularity. How much before the singularity is a matter of some debate but the point is that we have no clue what was happening for some time right after The StartTM. All of the parameters we know to operate everywhere else in the universe cease functioning just that smidgen split-second of time before we can see back to The StartTM. But that time is there. Something is happening in that time. If none of the operating parameters we know to exist in our universe actually operate in that period then what does? We don't know. Our best and brightest have no clue. So, what is all this talk about "Time starts here"? We do not know! We cannot see there. We have nothing but the speculation that time and space began with The StartTM. Can we preclude the possibility that the rules operating in that period, since ours obviously do not, display some exotic form of space-time? No. Some multidimensional form of space-time that pierces the singularity and exists "before" the big bang? May there be something north of the north pole? Your questions on causality would be easily solved if there were such. The cause for our universe may be in there. Speculating this is some kind of supernatural god thingie is preposterous since such concepts we know to be wholly (holy?) human constructs. But, some different sets of operating parameters, some natural rules that include recipes similar to stellar nucleogenesis but for making universes, are worthy speculations. My kingdom for quantum-gravity and a viable theory of everything. Carry this with you. Next time someone browbeats another about how ludicrous it is to ask about "before the big bang", ask yourself, how many additional dimensions would be needed to get north of the north pole? In the speculation above, just one. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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. You'd make a great pathologist. "I have determined the cause of this man's death --- he was born!" Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Dr. A writes:
Perhaps my wording was not the best. But how is nuclear decay fundamentally different (in terms of cause and effect) from any other physical decay process? Fluorescence, for example? In fluorescence, a high-energy photon (often UV) raises a molecular electron to an unstable excited state. It relaxes back to its ground state in a short, random, finite amount of time, releasing a lower energy photon (often visible). This we call "fluorescence". We know the characteristic lifetime of the exicited state, but like nuclear decay, we can't predict EXACTLY when any particular molecule will decay. What is the cause of this fluorescence? Don't we normally say the visible photon emission is caused by the molecule's absorption of the UV photon? An event occurs which raises a physical system to an unstable excited state, from which it will eventually decay. kbertsche writes:
You'd make a great pathologist. "I have determined the cause of this man's death --- he was born!" 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. I don't see how this is fundamentally different (in terms of cause and effect) from radioactive decay. Take C-14, for example. Cosmic rays strike atoms and create spallation products in the upper atmosphere. Some of these spallation products are free neutrons. Some of these neutrons strike N-14, which has a large cross-section for an (n,p) reaction. This converts the N-14 to C-14. What we've done is essentially to put an assemblage of protons and neutrons into an excited state. We have exactly the same number of protons and neutrons before and after the reaction; before we had a free neutron and an N-14 nucleus; afterward we have a free proton and a C-14 nucleus. Like the excited state of the fluorescing molecule, this excited state will eventually decay to a more stable state. I think some folks like to raise the example of radioactive decay because quantum mechanical systems seem complicated and sophisticated, and it is easier to use double-talk to fool people into thinking that quantum mechanical events have no "cause". But how is radioactive decay fundamentally any different from fluorescence or any other relaxation of a physical system? How is "putting the system into an unstable excited state" any worse of a causative explanation for radioactive decay than it is for fluorescence? {ABE: I would view fluorescence (emission of a visible photon) to be "caused" by a combination of 1) the molecule's absorption of a UV photon and 2) the peculiar characteristics of the molecule's energy levels which allow it to relax by emitting a lower energy photon. Similarly, I would view nuclear decay to be "caused" by a combination of 1) the creation of an unstable nucleus and 2) the particular characteristics of this unstable nucleus, which allow its constituents to tunnel through a potential barrier to a lower potential energy state. I see no fundamental difference here in terms of causation.} Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
I think some folks like to raise the example of radioactive decay because quantum mechanical systems seem complicated and sophisticated, and it is easier to use double-talk to fool people into thinking that quantum mechanical events have no "cause"
If I take two identical radioactive nuclei, literally identical in every respect and isolate them in a box where absolutely nothing affects them. One could decay in a millisecond and the other one million years later. Why? What caused that difference in the decay time?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024