Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,551 Year: 4,808/9,624 Month: 156/427 Week: 69/85 Day: 6/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 60 of 305 (664231)
05-30-2012 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by zaius137
05-30-2012 1:05 AM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
Every single one of your objections is false:
Microwave anisotropy lacks predicted Quadrupoles
The issue over the quadrupole moment is how large it is (the measurements have large errors and there are data analysis issues) and what exactly it implies about the long term development of the universe and early development of matter. However it has nothing to do with the occurrence of the Big Bang, since the Cosmic Microwave Background, in which the quadrupole anomaly exists is a prediction of the Big Bang.
Flatness problem
Again nothing to do with the Big Bang itself, rather why do certain parameters have values that result in a flat universe. It's still a flat Big Bang universe though, as the parameters are the parameters of the Big Bang model.
Where is all the Antimatter?
Explained a while ago now. It is due to CP violation, symmetry relating matter and antimatter. The laws of physics do treat matter and antimatter differently. Currently however that would leave us with a galaxy worth of matter rather than the vast amount of matter we see today. So we know there are probably particle physics effects which increase this asymmetry. A major issue of course, but one for particle physics and not the Big Bang.
BB Inflation near or exceeding speed of light
The expansion of space has no speed, this is a nonsensical objection. It is best to think of the expansion of space as the creation of new empty space, so for every meter cubed, a new micrometer cubed is produced. This can cause the whole universe to inflate in size "faster than light", but nothing is actually moving.
The Higgs Boson is missing, mass cannot be imparted to matter by the Standard model in particle physics.
It's silly to say it is missing when the experiments to detect it have just begun. If if it is missing isn't this a particle physics issue and not cosmological? You can't list everything physicists don't know as somehow being evidence against the Big Bang.
Metals and heavy elements are far too abundant in early universe
Galaxy evolution does not match predictions.
I don't know what you have been reading, but those are two of the best matches between experiment and theory that the Big Bang possesses.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not directly observable
Again, how is this a problem. We've detected dark matter indirectly by measuring how much it distorts spacetime and the measurements match the theory exactly. Dark Energy is not a thing, but only a name for a non-zero cosmological constant. This is not an issue for the Big Bang, the Big Bang can have a non-zero cosmological constant.
Anyway I'm not going to go through your whole list. If you choose to respond to this, please use papers citing evidence against the claims above, not an opinion piece in the Detroit Metro or something similar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by zaius137, posted 05-30-2012 1:05 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by zaius137, posted 05-31-2012 1:30 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 305 (664380)
05-31-2012 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by zaius137
05-31-2012 1:30 PM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
Actually, the Higgs mechanism plays a major if not primary roll in the current understanding of formation of mass in BB theory.
That's not remotely true. The Higgs mechanism has no role to play in the formation of mass in the Big Bang theory. It explains how the Electroweak Force became the Electromagnetic and Weak Nuclear Forces. It certainly does not play a primary role in the Big Bang theory as the Higgs was first proposed decades after the Big Bang model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by zaius137, posted 05-31-2012 1:30 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by zaius137, posted 06-03-2012 12:16 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 86 of 305 (664642)
06-03-2012 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by zaius137
06-03-2012 12:16 AM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
zaius137 writes:
The Higgs field is essential to the Big Bang and if it missing, (it is a myth) then the Standard Model for particle physics will certainly be downgraded or it will collapse altogether. You have no idea of the repercussions of the missing Higgs.
Actually I do. Currently we know that something generates an electroweak charge in empty space that essentially splits the electroweak force in two (into the weak force and the electromagnetic force). The Higgs is nothing more than the simplest mechanism for doing this. So, if it isn't found, we begin looking at the other mechanisms. Nothing will happen to the Big Bang model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by zaius137, posted 06-03-2012 12:16 AM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by foreveryoung, posted 06-03-2012 9:30 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 98 of 305 (664735)
06-04-2012 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by foreveryoung
06-03-2012 9:30 PM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
What if there is no such thing as an electroweak force?, only electromagnetic forces and weak nuclear forces?
I don't need to wonder about this as it has been experimentally refuted. There is an electroweak force. There are different predictions between a theory where the two forces are separate and theories where they come from one force. The second type of theories match experiment, the first don't. Also electroweak contributions to the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) have been observed.
What would happen to the big bang theory then?
If there was no electroweak force, the Big Bang would be pretty much the same but with a slightly different CMB. This CMB has not been observed, but the CMB for an electroweak force has been.
For that matter, what would happen to the big bang theory if dark matter and dark energy were myths as well?
The theory would give somewhat different predictions. Those predictions have been falsified and Dark Matter has been observed. Dark Energy is not a "thing" in the same sense as Dark Matter, but again it gives you a slightly different Big Bang, CMB and galaxy evolution. All of which have been observed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by foreveryoung, posted 06-03-2012 9:30 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 117 of 305 (665181)
06-09-2012 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by zaius137
06-08-2012 7:43 PM


Re: W and Z
Actually the total physics of the electroweak epoch is now in question since the Higgs Boson has not been discovered.
One of the people I work with has been working on one of the alternatives to the Higgs boson (known as Technicolor). In this model all of this electroweak epoch physics works out the same.
This is because the Higgs is only a proposal for what provided the electroweak charge in empty space that split the force into two seperate forces (electromagnetic and weak nuclear). However as far as the physics of the electroweak epoch goes, what did it doesn't matter what provided the charge. All the different ideas of what provided that charge (Higgs, Technicolor, e.t.c.) give you the same physics in the electroweak era, particularly as far as the Big Bang is concerned.
There is no debate on this. If you write down a quantum field theory to describe the electroweak force, the parts of it that relate to the electroweak epoch are unaffected by the mechanism of what eventually split the force in two.
You see particle physics is about to be re-written. The BB is in very serious trouble. Now for God created to become the dominate view.
Just a footnote, those W and Z bosons are not observed as particles.
They are simply assumed to mediate reactions observed in bubble chambers
This is completely false. The quantum field theories which contain W and Z particles give very precise predictions for angles of emission, momenta and energies of particles that come out of the bubble chambers. This predictions match what is seen incredibly well.
An example:
In the graph here, the vertical axis represents the number of electron pairs which rebound of each other and into a detector at the Tevatron. The horizontal axis is the energy (basically from their speed) of the electron pair.
The blue line is the prediction of the Electroweak quantum field theory. The red dots with errors bars are the number actually detected at the Tevatron. Notice not only do the predictions and experiment match, but the theory predicts a spike at the Z-boson mass, around 90 GeV, which we see here. We see the same spike in several other such graphs (for other pairs of particles).
We do not simply look at bubble chamber graphs and assume we see a Z-boson. We see exactly what the electroweak theory predicts and every single graph which is predicted to have the Z-boson spike displays exactly that spike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by zaius137, posted 06-08-2012 7:43 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 12:26 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 132 of 305 (665272)
06-11-2012 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by zaius137
06-10-2012 12:26 PM


Re: W and Z
I agree the Quantum field theory has made amazing predictions such as the discovery of the Higgs Boson, its exact mass and particle interactions.
Let me be very explicit about this:
The electroweak theory has two compoenents:
1. The electroweak force that interacts with matter, because matter carries an electroweak charge. The basic electroweak force consists of the three A bosons and the single B boson interacting with various matter (fermion) particles.
At some point in the universes history the electroweak force separated into the elecromagnetic force and the weak force. The bosons were than the two W-bosons, the Z-boson and the photon.
2. The mechanism for what separated the force. There are several proposed mechanisms. The Higgs is just the simplest mechanism and in fact a lot of physicists do not think it is correct. Even if something like the Higgs is discovered at the LHC, there will be years of analysis to find out if it is the basic Higgs or some of the more complicated versions that have been proposed. The basic idea is that some field (whose particles must have no spin, that's practically the only thing we know for certain), settled down, that is went to zero energy. However, unlike most fields, even at zero energy it still had its charge "switched on", this lead to empty space constantly having an electroweak charge, which separated the electroweak force.
Now, only the physics in 1. is relevant to the Big Bang and all of this physics has been matched to experiment. We are currently debating 2., however no matter what is going on, 1. works out the exact same.
You will never catch me criticizing Einstein’s field equations because they seem to work regardless of how bad the theoretical framework is that utilize them, namely Big Bang and the Quantum field theory.
Quantum field theory does not use Einstein's field equations.
An after the fact theory can always be shown to hold some transient truth but a real predictive theory holds consistently to reality.
The electroweak theory matches the detection rates at the Tevatron and CERN for over 2,000 different particle interactions across huge range of energies. Every single prediction holds at well over the 95% confidence level. How is this a "transient truth".
It has been proposed that the quantum interactions we observe are mere shadows of a deeper reality.
A proposal means nothing on its own and there are several issues with theories that propose such a "deeper level", like Bell's theorem and the Kochen-Specker theorem.
The current Standard model has long passed the promised simplicity and has become a patchwork of inconveniences.
Promised simplicity? Who promised this?
What inconveniences do you mean?
Do not herald a theory that makes a pseudo prediction about a clean unification prediction and then crashes and burns on a prediction like the Higgs.
What unification are you talking about?
Also for clarity there is the:
1. Electroweak theory as discussed above.
2. Quantum Chromodynamic, the theory of the strong nuclear force.
3. The Standard Model is the combination of 1. and 2. with extra terms to join them together.
The biggest train wreck in scientific history (the Higgs) is simply because the theorists have fallen asleep at the throttle.
What do you mean? I don't see how the Higgs is a train wreck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 12:26 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by zaius137, posted 06-12-2012 1:27 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 134 of 305 (665287)
06-11-2012 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by zaius137
06-11-2012 1:15 PM


Re: Higgs news
The total confidence stands at about 2.1 sigma for a range of 2.4Gev. There is some discussion that scientists will put forth an announcement for the discovery of the Higgs at this confidence level.
Could I have an example of this discussion, because I certainly haven't heard that anybody is going to announce the discovery of the Higgs at 2.1 sigma as the rest of the physics community would never trust such low confidence results. What is being discussed is combining results from different colliders to get 5 sigma "globally". This wouldn't be the best thing to do, it would be better to obtain two separate 5 sigma results, but it's hardly an Earth-shattering collapse of scientific standards.
This is exactly why current science is in the state it is in; the confidence level of 5 sigma should be the standard.
5 sigma is the standard.
Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by zaius137, posted 06-11-2012 1:15 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 137 of 305 (665375)
06-12-2012 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by zaius137
06-12-2012 1:27 PM


Re: W and Z
You are identifying at some point in universe history (Big Bang) there were two W and one Z bosons. The problem is that W and Z bosons are a product of a theory that is only observing an interaction in a bubble chamber (my previous point).
Luckily the theory matches all the tens of thousands of interactions seen in those bubble chambers.
Can you point out what is wrong with a theory being tested in a collider? You haven't explained what is wrong with this kind of testing. Rather, you have simply asserted that it isn't good enough.
If these gage bosons actually exist then that is implying a particle field paradigm. That paradigm is in danger of being overthrown because it is failing the empirical evidence.
That doesn't make any sense. Even if quantum field theory was wrong about the electroweak interaction, it doesn't diminish its success in other areas.
Higgs or some other more complicated versions Oh boy put another candle to that birthday cake. I wish to invoke Occam’s Razor at this point. You are again proposing an all-pervasive field like the Aether remember what road that theory drags us down.
The Higgs and other proposals predict a certain amount of photons will be scattered out from a beam of hadrons. So, there is no need for Occam's razor. You just observe the number of photons and see if the theory is correct. Occam's Razor would only be needed if there was some other simpler idea that matched all the data already gathered concerning hadron scattering and might match the photon output data currently being gatherd by the LHC, but there isn't.
Your comparisons to the Aether are incorrect. The Higgs field is a quantum field, the Aether was a classical fluid. They are not remotely similar.
Son Goku writes:
Now, only the physics in 1. is relevant to the Big Bang and all of this physics has been matched to experiment. We are currently debating 2., however no matter what is going on, 1. works out the exact same.
Remember the tooth fairy A deposed tooth mysteriously disappears from beneath the pillow. Who cares how it happened it works out the exact same
Let me try this again with an analogy. In crystals, the light reflecting properties of the crystal are not affected by the specific atomic structure of the atoms forming the crystal, but the lattice structure of the crystal itself. This is not a case of ignoring what is going on on the atomic level, it's just a statement of fact.
Similarly the exact mechanism that splits the electroweak force does not change the electroweak processes which are relevant to the Big Bang. Of course we are still interested in that mechanism, that is what the LHC is for.
Sorry about the mistake, I really cannot explain how I made it given Quantum theory completely lacks any reasonable description of gravity. A Quantum gravity theory remains fantasy.
Indeed, that is true.
Well not every prediction The Higgs is clearly missing. Here is a graph of the prediction curve for the Higgs Boson (it is a bit old but still covers the current predictions)
The set of particle interactions relevant to the Higgs at the LHC have not been fully analysed, so we cannot conclude anything from them yet.
By the way, even if your statement is correct there is only a 95 % confidence level, what is that confidence level? I read it as slightly greater that 2 sigma (not the 5 sigma you admit is acceptable certainty).
All predictions for the electroweak theory, with the exception of a small number concerning the Higgs have been tested at the 5 sigma level.
The photon data has not been analysed yet so we don't know about the Higgs.
How is a theory which has thousands of results secured at over five sigma a "transient truth"?
More importantly, why do you care so much about the Higgs? It has nothing to do with the Big Bang, you do realise you're criticising an area of particle physics that's not really relevant to cosmology.
I agree a proposal means nothing on its own. So what would that make the proposal for Loop Quantum Gravity?
A proposal.
The Standard Model has departed from parsimony and continues to do so with empirical evidence (my opinion). The inconveniences may be listed as follows:
1. What is the origin of particle masses and are they due to a Higgs boson?
2. How does one understand the number of species of matter particles and how do they mix?
3. What is the origin of the difference between matter and antimatter, and is it related to the origin of the matter in the Universe?
4. What is the nature of the astrophysical dark matter?
5. How does one unify the fundamental interactions? How does one quantize gravity?
Server Error
That's just a list of things the standard model doesn't explain. It's not a departure from parsimony.
Son Goku writes:
What unification are you talking about?
T.O.E.
Neither the Standard Model nor the Electroweak theory are T.O.E.s, nor were they ever intended to be.
Son Goku writes:
Also for clarity there is the:
1. Electroweak theory as discussed above.
2. Quantum Chromodynamic, the theory of the strong nuclear force.
3. The Standard Model is the combination of 1. and 2. with extra terms to join them together.
Clear as mud
What is unclear about it? I would be happy to explain.
Son Goku writes:
What do you mean? I don't see how the Higgs is a train wreck.
No more funding for particle physics
You haven't explained why the Higgs is a train wreck. Once again, what do you mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by zaius137, posted 06-12-2012 1:27 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by zaius137, posted 06-13-2012 8:48 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 142 of 305 (665491)
06-14-2012 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by zaius137
06-13-2012 8:48 PM


Re: W and Z
Well, you indicated that it wasn't clear, what parts of it are confusing to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by zaius137, posted 06-13-2012 8:48 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 149 of 305 (665546)
06-14-2012 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dogmafood
06-14-2012 7:24 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
I do not wish to diminish what Shouryya Ray has done, obviously a talented young man, with a strong talent for solving differential equations.
The results he found have been known for a long time and are well within the range of classical analysis.
More to the point however, there are several "unsolved problems" in physics. There's always more you could ask in several sub-areas. These can remain unsolved since the answers are not a pressing issue.
Such small problems, when solved, are not comparable to taking down an entire framework like the Big Bang armed with something any physicist knows inside out, like conservation laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dogmafood, posted 06-14-2012 7:24 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 150 of 305 (665548)
06-14-2012 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by zaius137
06-13-2012 8:32 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
The Big Bang seems to violate the basic conservation laws of physics. Could this indicate that the FRW model is wrong?
The Friedmann—Lematre—Robertson—Walker model does not violate the conservation laws you mentioned. If you know the mathematics this can be checked in a few lines. In fact I could demonstrate that it doesn't violate conservation of momentum in a short enough post if anybody is interested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by zaius137, posted 06-13-2012 8:32 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by zaius137, posted 06-14-2012 6:55 PM Son Goku has replied
 Message 152 by NoNukes, posted 06-14-2012 9:41 PM Son Goku has replied
 Message 156 by zaius137, posted 06-15-2012 7:00 PM Son Goku has seen this message but not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 160 of 305 (665735)
06-16-2012 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by NoNukes
06-14-2012 9:41 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics... Not
Well here goes!
The Friedmann—Lematre—Robertson—Walker metric is given as follows:
This formula gives you the distance between any two events in space time, but I need to explain the variables it uses:
is cosmological time. That is, time measured by somebody at rest with respect to the motion of the homogeneous fluid the universe looks like on large scales. Or, in slightly different words, somebody moving at the average speed of the universe. is the difference time difference between two events as measured by this notion of time.
are co-moving coordinates, coordinates that ignore the expansion of the universe.
Imagine if New York was suddenly inflated to be ten times larger, but you gave everything the same address, even though Manhattan is now ten times further away from Brooklyn. The street index would then be a comoving coordinate system. are the differences in the co-moving locations of events.
In the distance formula there is the scale factor , this accounts for the fact that the comoving coordinates don't give you the real distance. tells you how big one unit of comoving coordinate really is, at the time
So, if you take two events and plug their coordinate differences into the formula above you get how far away the events are from each-other in spacetime.
This formula is the metric and describes the expanding universe of the Big Bang model.
So, conservation of momentum.
Conservation of momentum is related to spatial translation invariance.
Spatial invariance:
This means that if I take some physical system and let it evolve in time, let's say it moves from point a to point b. Then if I took the exact same system and started it off at a point c, two meters from a, then it would end up and a point d, two meters from b.
That is the laws of physics wouldn't care about the particular point you choose to start the system at, the end points will be as far away from each-other as the beginning points, but outside that there is no difference.
How could it not? The systems have the same momentum to start with, so the basic trajectory is the exact same. The only way to make the system evolve differently at the two locations is if it gained or lost momentum over time depending on where you placed it. That is, the laws of physics would have to be different in different places. So,
Laws of physics identical in different locations (known as spatial translation symmetry) implies conservation of momentum.
So in order to show the Big Bang model conserves momentum we'd have to show it doesn't care about location in space. So lets me take two terms as an example:
1. Let's say I move everything in space by some amount of comoving units. Well the time difference between two events is unaffected. So is unaffected.
2. I'll just take on of the space terms as they are all the same. is the difference in the x-coordinate between two events. That is: , where is the location of the first event and the second. So if I move everything by units then these locations become: and
The difference between the events is then: So, it's exactly the same as before.
Hence the whole metric notices no difference between moving everything by some amount "a", there is no difference between different points of space as far as it is concerned.
So momentum is conserved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by NoNukes, posted 06-14-2012 9:41 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-25-2012 5:54 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 161 of 305 (665736)
06-16-2012 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by zaius137
06-14-2012 6:55 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Energy is not a relativistically invariant notion, so to use it in general in General Relativity is meaningless. You should instead look at Stress-Energy, the relativistic analogue of energy. This is in fact conserved always.
Edited by Son Goku, : Changed spelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by zaius137, posted 06-14-2012 6:55 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by zaius137, posted 06-19-2012 1:33 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 305 (665890)
06-19-2012 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by zaius137
06-19-2012 1:33 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
zaius137 writes:
Your solution is very Newtonian, let me explain. Newton uses two separate laws, the first and second, to describe the conservation of momentum and energy. Now Einstein’s field equation lumps both identities into one law (energy-momentum 4-vector).
I have to keep communication in mind. A proof of the conservation of four-momentum would be too involved for a forum post as I would first have to prove Noether's theorem.
Energy is not conserved globally in a universe described by FLRW metric. Lack of energy conservation defies the materialistic rationalist view of the universe.
Before I deal with the rest of your post, could you tell me how a "lack of energy conservation defies the materialistic rationalist view of the universe"?
Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by zaius137, posted 06-19-2012 1:33 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by zaius137, posted 06-19-2012 2:24 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 169 of 305 (665894)
06-19-2012 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by vimesey
06-15-2012 8:00 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
We can be patient Trying to translate the sort of maths that is Son Goku's day job into language that people like me can have even a ghost of a chance of understanding must not be at the top of his list of priorities, and I am really grateful to him for doing so when he can.
It's always my pleasure to post this stuff, I hope it's useful for others.
(And there's a big soccer tournament in Europe at the moment, and with Ireland fighting a valiant battle last night against a superb Spanish team, I guess that a Guinness or two might have been consumed)
Indeed and a wee bit of Poitn, I don't even follow football, but my Dad and my wife insisted!
Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by vimesey, posted 06-15-2012 8:00 PM vimesey 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