Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 136 of 305 (665370)
06-12-2012 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Son Goku
06-11-2012 4:41 AM


Re: W and Z
Son Goku thanks again for another stimulating post.
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.
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). 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. Now you can claim that the missing Higgs is fixable by Ad-hoc remedies but that only adds to an ever growing patchwork theory.
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.
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.
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
Quantum field theory does not use Einstein's field equations.
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.
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".
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), this is quite a contrasts of your idea that quantum field theory really contains those exact predictions. 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).
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.
I agree a proposal means nothing on its own. So what would that make the proposal for Loop Quantum Gravity?
Promised simplicity? Who promised this?
What inconveniences do you mean?
The Standard Model has departed from parsimony and continues to do so with empirical evidence (my opinion). The inconveniences may be listed as follows:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/.../370/1961/818.full
What unification are you talking about?
T.O.E.
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 do you mean? I don't see how the Higgs is a train wreck.
No more funding for particle physics
Edited by zaius137, : Summit graph
Edited by zaius137, : bad grammar..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Son Goku, posted 06-11-2012 4:41 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Son Goku, posted 06-12-2012 2:22 PM zaius137 has 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

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 138 of 305 (665477)
06-13-2012 8:32 PM


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? What if distant redshifts that are now being interpreted as current expansion are actually relativistic remnants of a past expansion as explained by Carmeli? Or maybe Hubble redshift is actually because of Plasma redshift effects.
quote:
Universe expansion, at cosmological distances, has consequences that fail to obey a few key principles of our domestic physics; CONSERVATION of energy and CONSERVATION of mass caused by high relative velocity; CONSERVATION of momentum; CONSERVATION of gravitational potential energy.
EzineArticles.com - Page not found

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Panda, posted 06-13-2012 9:03 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2012 10:02 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 06-14-2012 10:51 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 150 by Son Goku, posted 06-14-2012 5:52 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 139 of 305 (665479)
06-13-2012 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Son Goku
06-12-2012 2:22 PM


Re: W and Z
Son,
If you want to elaborate on the following please proceed
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.
As for the train wreck, the example is the common use of hyperbole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Son Goku, posted 06-12-2012 2:22 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Son Goku, posted 06-14-2012 4:52 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 140 of 305 (665480)
06-13-2012 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by zaius137
06-13-2012 8:32 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
quote:
Universe expansion, at cosmological distances, has consequences that fail to obey a few key principles of our domestic physics; CONSERVATION of energy and CONSERVATION of mass caused by high relative velocity; CONSERVATION of momentum; CONSERVATION of gravitational potential energy.
EzineArticles.com - Page not found
And Craig Hanks also thinks that the moon has no rotation...

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by zaius137, posted 06-13-2012 8:32 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(7)
Message 141 of 305 (665481)
06-13-2012 10:02 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 ...
... but for some reason this has gone unnoticed by physicists. What a good thing they have cranks on the internet to set them straight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by zaius137, posted 06-13-2012 8:32 PM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2012 6:59 AM Dr Adequate has not 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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(11)
Message 143 of 305 (665495)
06-14-2012 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2012 10:02 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
To expand on my point.
Whenever anyone comes to you explaining that the world's top scientists are wrong about something --- the Big Bang, evolution, continental drift, whatever --- on the grounds that it contradicts something that everyone learned in science class in high school ... then they are always wrong. Because the best physicists in the world know everything that you learned about physics in high school. The best biologists in the world know everything that you learned about biology in high school. The best chemists in the world ... well, I needn't belabor the point.
Things like evolution or the Big Bang could in principle be overturned by some new observation. But they can't conceivably be overturned by appeal to some scientific principle that everyone knows and is taught in their teenage years, because if they really contradicted such a principle then actual scientists would already know that, having been taught that principle when they were teenagers; it wouldn't fall to a layman to point it out.
Here's a famous example. An editorial in the New York Times attacked Professor Goddard for not understanding that rockets wouldn't work in outer space:
That Professor Goddard with his "chair" in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action and reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to reactto say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.
It did not occur to this writer that Goddard, with his professorial chair and the endorsement of the Smithsonian, did in fact know things that were taught in high schools. But of course he did. How could he not? His idea of sending rockets into space might have failed, it might have been wrong, he might have blundered. But is it even humanly possible that the physics professor might have blundered by not knowing Newton's laws of motion, which we all learned in high school? And if he did make such a colossal blunder, would it fall to a journalist working for the New York Times to be the first person to discover his mistake, rather than one of Goddard's scientific peers?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2012 10:02 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Dogmafood, posted 06-14-2012 7:24 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 144 of 305 (665496)
06-14-2012 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Dr Adequate
06-14-2012 6:59 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Things like evolution or the Big Bang could in principle be overturned by some new observation. But they can't conceivably be overturned by appeal to some scientific principle that everyone knows and is taught in their teenage years, because if they really contradicted such a principle then actual scientists would already know that, having been taught that principle when they were teenagers; it wouldn't fall to a layman to point it out.
What about when stuff like this happens?
quote:
A 16-year-old Indian origin schoolboy in Germany has managed to crack puzzles that baffled the world of maths for more than 350 years, it was reported in London Saturday.
Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2012 6:59 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 06-14-2012 7:30 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2012 7:49 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied
 Message 147 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2012 9:58 AM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 149 by Son Goku, posted 06-14-2012 5:48 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 145 of 305 (665498)
06-14-2012 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dogmafood
06-14-2012 7:24 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Well, there's a difference between cracking a few puzzles and overturning scientific theories that rest on decades of consonant observations and experiments. Math puzzles are puzzling, usually, because they're not something you can solve by experimentation and observation.
Still, though, it's cool when stuff like that happens. Although I suspect it's not a matter of what this kid was taught, but a function of his brain being particularly adapted to advanced mathematics.

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 146 of 305 (665499)
06-14-2012 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dogmafood
06-14-2012 7:24 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
The claim seems to be overstated. There's no doubt that the work is impressive for a 16 year old but apparently the problem was not unsolved. details

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 147 of 305 (665503)
06-14-2012 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dogmafood
06-14-2012 7:24 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Well, what about it?
This smart kid figured something out. Hooray!
What he did not do is on a purely theoretical basis refute the most basic concepts in physics just by writing some words. What he actually did was assume that physicists were absolutely right and figure out the consequences of that assumption.
If you think I'm putting him down then you've misunderstood my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dogmafood, posted 06-14-2012 7:24 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Dogmafood, posted 06-14-2012 11:33 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 148 of 305 (665504)
06-14-2012 10:51 AM
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...
quote and link to quackery omitted.
"Seems" to whom to violate basic conservation laws? Does it seem that way to you? Are you adopting the "science" promoted at the link you provided? If so, perhaps it would be ontopic and worthwhile to spend some effort debunking it.
Otherwise, the author of this paper is a fool. If it turns out that you actually hold views in common with Craig Hanks, and I note that your list of things wrong with the big bang theory includes the expansion of space exceeding the velocity of light, then perhaps it would be on topic to discuss the rather obvious problems with this crank's work.
Cosmology cranks are a dime a dozen. Craig D. Hanks, in particular is not a physicist. He's just someone whose understanding of physics is not particularly good, but nontheless deigns to hold an opinon on the subject.
As best as I can understand Hanks goofy musing, his claim that conservation of energy is broken is based on the fact that energy calculations made in different frames of reference are not consistent. But this is exactly as it should be.
He also has the mistaken impression that the expansion of space is a real velocity. So do you, apparently.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024