Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

Can you expand on what you mean here please?PE

You have it the wrong way around. It's gravity that is the problem not QM. No it has not. I can 100% guarantee you it has not.

You are saying that QM can account for gravity? Scientific American, September 2004, Was Einstein Right? pg 88From page 91: I'm not sure what the holographic limit is, but it is something in classical physics.

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

I mean that it is our models of gravity that are wrong more likely than QM. We don't have a quantum theory of gravity yet but I think it has to be quantised in the long run.The holographic limit has absolutely nothing to do with classical physics. That is why I knew your statement is wrong. The Bousso result is an argument assuming the holographic universe model is correct and then deriving the principle from the pertubation limit of GR in this framework. This is a huge 'what if'. And it has nothing to do with classical physics. I wouldn't call assuming volumes do not exist and that everything is represented by the area (the holographic principle) classical physics.

It is fun to have you around Eta. It's a shame that people still post about stuff that they don't know anything about.

Perhaps a quantum theory of gravity will be developed, but so far it has not been and people have been working on it for quite a while. And even if our model of gravity is more likely to be wrong that QM, something is still not right with QM. I guess it depends on how you define classical physics, I was regarding relativity as "classical" in the sense that it involves more information - the variables can take on any value - as opposed to quantum physics, where variables can only have certain values and are thus discrete.The context of the quote that I gave was scientists trying to derive a quantum system from a classical system. The quote did not specifically mention the word classical, but the rest of the article makes it clear that is what is being talked about.

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

Could you please do us all a favor by defining your terms next time when you decide to make up your own definitions for the very wildly used terms before engaging in a dialogue such as this one?

---

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Sorry, I'll try to be more precise.

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

General, the predictions made using Quantum Mechanics are valid and accurate and are based on mathmatics that pan out. Probabilties even it not pinned down exact are for all intensive purposes right on. You seem to be suggesting that Quantum Mechanics is flawed. The fact that QM and GR do not reconcile gravity does not mean we should throw 80 odd years of good science out the window. Are you attempting to build a strawman out of a singularity?

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

1.61803,Did Newtonian gravity get thrown out when Einstien created relativity?Are you attempting to build a strawman of my argument?

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

Hi General, Newtonian phyiscs is still taught in Science classes all over the world. Einstien discovered the concept of realtivity he did not 'create' anything. And no I am not attempting to debauch your argument with a strawman. I was merely asking if you by suggesting that Quantum Mechanics is flawed; are willing to throw the big bang theory in the trash heap? I am no physicist nor do I pretend to understand Quantum Mechanics adequately enough to disprove what brilliant scientist past and present are able to show evidence for using this mathmatical tool in addition to other observations.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

I guess we are misunderstanding each other. I am by no means trying to discredit the big bang theory.What I am arguing is that scientists should not accept the idea that the effects observed in quantum mechanics are uncaused for 3 reasons:1. Historically, advocates of spontaneous generation, the idea that something is caused by nothing, have been proven false.2. Quantum mechanics, while able to describe many aspects of our universe, fails to describe other aspects, suggesting there is a more fundamental theory underlying it.3. An uncaused effect makes no sense. Exactly - and in the same way, the discovery that QM is not quite the true picture of reality will not trash everything that has been learned from its study.

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

But scientists should not accept the idea that the effects are caused until we know about the cause.Until then, it is most accurate to say "these effects have no known cause." Of course, at that point, you can hardly offer as axiomatic that "all effects have causes", now can you?

But by definition, effects MUST have a cause! Change requires an agent - without some force acting, nothing can change! I agree. No known cause. Why not? Just because you can't see what is making something work doesn't mean something is not making it work. Again - by definition, there must be a cause!

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

Definition of what? The universality of cause is what is under discussion here. You can't assume it in order to prove it; that's circular.Remember, it's the universe we're talking about here. We don't get to say what the "definitions" are; we're not privy to the axiomatic conditions of the universe. It may very well be the case that some effects have no cause - again, that certainly appears to be the case with QM - or, it may be the case that all effects have causes.But we don't know. There's absolutely no way we can state that "by definition" all effects have causes. Yet this statement is contradicted by observation of certain quantum phenomenon that have no apparent cause.You're engaging in circular reasoning - you conclude that all effects have causes, and then when challanged with a counterexample, you offer your conclusion as evidence that they must, in fact, have an unknown cause.You're using your conclusion to support itself. That's circular reasoning. Ok. But with phenomenon in the universe that we agree have no known cause, there's no way that we can state "all effects have causes". We simply don't know that that's true, and to all appearances, it isn't. Because there's no support for that statement. To all appearances, in fact, that statement is contradicted by observations of quantum behavior. That's hardly a basis to make conclusions. Definition of what?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-20-2004 08:02 PMThis message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-20-2004 08:03 PM