Intro to Big Bang and Infinity Concepts - Comments

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around concepts related to the Big Bang and infinity, exploring theoretical implications, definitions, and interpretations within cosmology. Participants engage with the nature of the Big Bang, its relation to singularities, and the implications of different cosmological models.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the Big Bang can be viewed as an event, while others argue that a singularity does not belong to spacetime, leading to confusion.
  • There is a proposal that the universe's temporally finite nature is specific to the Big Bang model, which is considered incomplete due to the presence of a singularity.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about whether time existed before the singularity, suggesting that the Big Bang model should be framed more cautiously.
  • Others introduce alternative theories, such as eternal inflation, which propose that time may extend infinitely into the past.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the phases of cosmology, distinguishing between the Big Bang Singularity, the Inflationary Period, and the time described by the Big Bang Theory.
  • Participants discuss the importance of precise terminology, such as differentiating between "the Big Bang" and "the Big Bang Singularity" to avoid confusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of the Big Bang, the implications of singularities, and the definitions of cosmological phases. The discussion remains unresolved, with differing interpretations and uncertainties present.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying definitions of key terms, unresolved questions about the nature of singularities, and the dependence on specific cosmological models. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations and assumptions that are not universally accepted.

  • #61
CultQuantum said:
Well how are we supposed to learn?
By studying what the current best fit models that are the result of many experts dedicating their professional life to a subject have arrived at rather than making up your own and arguing ”probably the thousands of people that worked on this never had this one particular thought of mine”.

Learning is not done by making up your own speculative theory. Until you know what the current models actually state and why that is a good description of nature, you are just going to speculate wildly in all kinds of directions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Space news on Phys.org
  • #62
CultQuantum said:
how are we supposed to learn?
Not by personal speculation. And certainly not by hijacking a thread that isn't yours.

CultQuantum said:
What can I do but laugh at this response.
What can you do? You can earn yourself a thread ban, which you just did.

I strongly suggest that you take some time to learn what our current Big Bang model actually says. You appear to have some serious misunderstandings.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #63
CultQuantum said:
What can I do but laugh at this response.
First of all, your attitude here is not a very good one if you are trying to learn. You are alienating the very people who possesses the knowledge that you seek.

CultQuantum said:
Current models, Is that required belief? Because correct me if I am wrong but nobody knows for certain that's why they're ahem "models"
You are wrong. They are the current models because they are what best fits the observational data. They are typically very good fits to the data with a small amount of anomalies that call for further investigation. Therefore, if you are to have any chance whatsoever to understand what is going on you need to learn why the current models are in place, the observations they describe at high accuracy. You are not required to believe anything. You are required to know and understand how the theory works and why. Note that you will only achieve this from years of studying the professional literature, not by reading popularized accounts.

Your personal speculation here is made even worse by being unmeasurable when you stipulate that maybe something exists that isn’t perceivable or measurable. That is an unscientific statement.

Learning indeed involves interaction and guidance. Not wild personal speculation.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
672
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K