0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
(In fact the Higgs field was cited as the means to the 'from nothing we come and to nothing we will go' theories of the big bang in the late 80's.)What are we to make of the theoretical non zero vacuum state expectation?Problem to me is, at this stage, particle physics seems to be leading either to the creation ex-nihilo idea or the possibility infinite regression. Are we therefore looking to cyclic universes or other dimensions?To answer Joshua Brown's post is hard because the illogical submission of something from nothing doesn't seem to have anything concrete to challenge it yet other than events which at the moment are regarded as acausal.Regards,Eddie
Hi Socratus,In the context of Joshua's question we are talking here of theoretical infinity, a mathematical concept of never ending series. Theoretical physics has thrown up infinities all of the time in it's quest to formulate the unified force which it believes existed at the instant of the big bang. Scientists deal with what they term 'absurd infinities' by placing them on either sides of their equations thus cancelling them out.If the big bang was not created from nothing then it must have been created from something. Then you have to ask what came before that and so on. If you wish to avoid finally settling on a stage which came from nothing you are forced into infinite causality.This is the choice, nothing or infinity, your statements apply to both concepts."To be or not to be? That is the question.To be and not to be, that is the answer."/Marjorie Orr/
Hi Socratus,Yes; scientists work in guages which are mostly balanced totalities. Yet history has taught that the boundaries of these totalities need to be continually extended. As you say, they cannot work with a concept like 'infinity'.I think the reason is that science is primarily a process of thinking of an idea to explain how things are and then observing if that idea correctly describes what is in the experienced world. In ordinary circumstances you cannot experience infinity.The big bang theory fits what science observes...at the moment.... but this, ofcourse, does not mean it is an absolute truth. It still needs testing till something else comes along, if it does.I'm interested in your vision;"Infinity is vacuum in the state of; T=OKbut I don't understand it.Would you be willing to explain it in more detail to people who are not too bright, like me.Regards,Eddie.
Take a look herehttp://www.physorg.com/news141317146.html
Comment by Rick.Well you know there are some serious problems with the standard model.
Re: Birkeman, "All of science is theory - that is how it functions." This statement reflects a truly limited understanding of established scientific understanding and methodology. Sound theories are grounded upon science that is verifiable, and predictable, as well as accord with, primarily, and constitute laws and principles, derived from observation, and logical deduction; the very essences of scientific 'truth'. Must we not distinguish between hard science; well established, and verifiable, and soft science, (theory and speculation}, that dilutes rational thought. Merely restating, or varying an idea or concept, does not expand or validate the concept. True understanding is a function of direct insight, and knowledge. Such understanding is not necessarily amenable to ordinary perception. A greater, larger, and more disciplined perception is absolutely necessary to perceive the obvious truth herein.
Joshua Brown asked the Naked Scientists:HelloI have a question I can't get my head around.If the galaxy and all that exists was created by the big bang, then what created the big bang? Surely there was nothing in existence before the big bang took place, and nothing in existence for the big bang to take place in the first place, simply because nothing existed. So how then did it take place if there was nothing before it? What was existence before the big bang?What I'm getting at, basically, is how did something come from nothing? (maybe I don't understand the concept correctly?)What do you think?
Re: Birkeman, "a greater, larger, and more disciplined perception is absolutely necessary to perceive the obvious truth herein," applies specifically to your spectacular statement that all science is theory. If you are suggesting, but not specifically, or otherwise indicating that "all" science is essentially provisional, than, without realizing it, we are actually in accord.
But to proffer that all science is theory, without qualification, is manifestly wrong. Your distinction between a formal theory, and the 'casual' understanding, employed in common parlance, does not justify, or elucidate your usage, in any logical, or scientific sense. Therefore, please explain, without your inappropriate or helpful insults, exactly why, "all of science is theory," and how such theory functions as science.
I offer a few examples to make the argument that all science is not theory. Constructing bridges, skyscrapers, cars, airplanes, rockets, cell phones, and so forth, require concrete scientific understanding, not theory. At the point it is possible to construct anything, based upon theory, it is no longer theory, but demonstrated fact. At the point it is possible to verify and demonstrate all of the relevant elements, or constituents that scientifically characterize a theory, it is no longer a theory, but fact. The best example is perhaps the ancient theory that the earth was flat, and harbored edges. Exploration and scientific observation proved otherwise. Therefore the theory was replaced with fact. There are many such examples. This fact of science is hopefully obvious, and requires no further explanation.
"My Two Cents":I believe that somewhere out there is A even bigger universe except instead of galaxies floating in A sea of dark matter;there is A multitude of dimensions floating in A sea of gravity...And sometime in our distant past one of these dimensions bumped into ours causing A exchange of materials that exploded into our dimension sending matter into A antimatter environment;BAM THE BIG BANG!!! "Just an opinion."The truth is that nobody knows the answer too this question and probably never will. Study the facts adopt A hypothesis that you feel most comfortable with and that is the answer; or until someone proves other wise.(If the universe had never spawned life too look to the stars and wonder? Would it really exist???)TECHFACTOR:OUT
I agree with that assessment;but A Vacuum to where? TECHFACTOR:confused
I am sorry for my English (it is not very well), but I have heard that it is not correctly to ask what happend before Big Bang, because it is not define time in that "period", because with Big Bang space and time together were created, it is just like to ask what like is on the temperature at minuse 274 or minus 300 degree Celsius
(I am on first year of faculty of physical electronics,where I can't learn strings ),and I want to learn theory of superstrings, so could someone tell me what math(areas like vectors, tensors...) is needed to be known for understanding of this theory?
Has anyone seen this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7440217.stmThe scientists concerned think there may be a detetable signature in the CMBR from before the Big Bang.
There were a lot of estimates of the CMBR temperature ranging from 0.75K (Walther Nernst, 1938) to 50K (George Gamow, 1946). After Wilson & Penzias discovered the CMBR in 1965, scientists quickly grabbed their sliderules and re-worked their calculations.