Is There a Hidden Cause Behind the Big Bang?

  • #101
Pitstopped said:
...many scientists and enthusiasts are much more knowledgeable than me...
Pitstopped said:
... stop trying to sound like you have a clue. Because you don't, no matter how knowledgeable you are about astrophysics, molecular physics, or any other field. Calm it down a little and have a piece of pie (humble.)
"I don't know much, all I know is that all those experts don't know what they're talking about." :rolleyes:

You might want to hold on to that humble pie for yourself...
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #102
I eat humble pie all the time. That is one reason I can say "I don't know."

Since you didn't really comprehend what I said here it is again in another way:

The Experts know what they are talking about when it come to sciences and known laws. But when they try and speculate on the yet unknown and make it sound like what they know makes them understand it any more than anyone else... it is funny to listen to.

MMMM humble pie all around is all I am saying.
 
  • #103
For what it is worth DaveC426913, I agree with almost every thing you have posted here. I think you are one of the posters that don't report to "know it all." You post on what is known, and don't make it sound like you know what is not known.
 
  • #104
RUTA said:
[...]“There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. In particular, one does not think of particles as moving through space-time, or as following along their world-lines. Rather, particles are just in space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once, the complete life history of the particle.” R. Geroch, General Relativity from A to B (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1978) pp. 20-21.

For me this is a clear example of how mathematics dominates today physics sciences.
It is fair to stop try to provide a physical explanation of the notion of time just because in the mathematical theory that best explains today the reality of the Universe, time has almost no special meaning? I am not say that BB Theory (a mathematical theory after all) is wrong I just say it is weird, at least for me.
The exclamation "Eppur si muove" is still very modern today and "nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes" does not seem to talk about what we see in the Universe constantly.

In fact it's about something much deeper, is about philosophical ideas of today. But unfortunately philosophy today is not considered a science even by many scientists (I hope to be wrong). Many have forgotten that philosophy is one that deeply affects how they look on all other sciences.

This is why I consider important to add here an idea that can not be scientific in the classic way. What if the reality around us is an illusion? What if we live on a simulated world? This is very old (maybe before Plato) and complicated debate, and you can read more about it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality" .

In this case the causality in classic meaning can not be used to study the Universe origin. Even the term "origin" became ambiguous because it can be any moment from our reality. Maybe the simulation began 1 billiard years ago (our time), 10 years or 10 seconds ago. We just can't tell.
If you think that the simulated reality is impossible, try to read this paper before: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf" - he is currently the director of The Future of Humanity Institute, director of Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology University of Oxford and a fellow of St Cross College at Oxford University.
If you need more informations about Nick Bostrom you can find a list of main books and articles on http://www.nickbostrom.com/" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105
Pitstopped said:
It is quite interesting to see people who have spent years and countless hours of their life studying one or a number of sciences, and they know nothing more about the beginning and end of time and space than anyone else in the world.

Don't get me wrong, many scientists and enthusiasts are much more knowledgeable than me about any number of things. But... anyone who says they know how space and time started or ends, or tries to explain anything that pertains to it, is full of crap. Yet many sound like they know the mysteries that have stumped every man that has lived.

I think we should strive to solve these questions. But come on... stop trying to sound like you have a clue. Because you don't, no matter how knowledgeable you are about astrophysics, molecular physics, or any other field. Calm it down a little and have a piece of pie (humble.)

I'm not "pretending to have a clue," I'm posting what I know about GR. If you have a different view of GR, post it and we'll discuss our different perspectives.
 
  • #106
Pitstopped said:
... make it sound like what they know makes them understand it any more than anyone else...

It is nothing more than your opinion that they are trying to "make it sound like" anything. iT is an unfalsifiable accusation.
 
  • #107
RUTA said:
My take on this issue is one should keep in mind that GR is a 4-dim theory, i.e., one finds a stress-energy tensor (SET) and spacetime metric (g) that together satisfy Einstein's equations (EE) on the spacetime manifold. Let me explain.

Typically, one assumes a particular SET and then solves for g. In the standard GR cosmology models, the SET one starts with is a perfect fluid which allows the 4-dim spacetime manifold to be sliced into space-like hypersurfaces S of homogeneity and isotropy. The metric g is then split into a spatial part S and proper time T for observers at rest with respect to S. You have your GR cosmology when you solve EE for g on T x S.

Notice that your solution is a 4-dim manifold T x S with a metric g. Nothing is "happening." Nothing is "being created." All that dynamical talk, i.e., 3-dim entities evolving in time, happens when "the universe" is identified with S. At that point, one can tell dynamical stories where the 3-dim entity is the universe S. For example, one can ask what S was like at T = 1 billion years and how did it get to be like it is today, filling in all the details of temperature, energy density, etc, on S as a function of T. But, someone else could choose another 3-dim spatial surface and a tell different story. Granted their "universe" wouldn't be homogeneous and isotropic, but GR doesn't care, its solution stands unaltered. And, there are limits to what one can ask in this dynamical context. For example, one can ask what happened on S immediately before T = 2 seconds and tell a causal story about S(2s) based on S(2s - dT). But, once you get to S(0), there is no earlier S and your causal stories end. As Hawking said, "It's like asking what happens one mile north of the north pole, it's a meaningless question." You've milked the 4-dim GR solution for all the 3+1 dynamical/causal story it has to offer. As far as GR is concerned, the existence of S(0) is no more mysterious than any other event on T x S. You could equally ask, "Whence the event of me touching my nose now?" GR can't answer that either. All GR says is that whatever 4-dim spacetime manifold you choose, the SET and g have to be self-consistent, i.e., they have to satisfy EE. Dynamical stories are, in a very real sense, secondary and irrelevant in this 4-dim view.

“There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. In particular, one does not think of particles as moving through space-time, or as following along their world-lines. Rather, particles are just in space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once, the complete life history of the particle.” R. Geroch, General Relativity from A to B (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1978) pp. 20-21.

RUTA said:
I'm not "pretending to have a clue," I'm posting what I know about GR. If you have a different view of GR, post it and we'll discuss our different perspectives.

My point as explained by you. Thanks'

You are posting about General Relativity which explains gravity and gravitation. Einstein founded the principle and still couldn't solve the mystery this thread is supposed to be about "cause of origin of universe." You are explaining GR, which you you should be proud to understand, but it does not help you solve the origin of the universe any more than explaining reflectivity and obsorbtion. You proved my point. "The Experts know what they are talking about when it comes to sciences and known laws. But when they try and speculate on the yet unknown and make it sound like what they know makes them understand it any more than anyone else... it is funny to listen to."

You see, I feel expounding on GR would make me feel smart, and could be a great conversation in a GR thread. But it did nothing to help us solve the origin of the universe.
 
  • #108
DaveC426913 said:
It is nothing more than your opinion that they are trying to "make it sound like" anything. iT is an unfalsifiable accusation.

You are exactly right.

It is the same thing many people do here trying to explain scientific principles and laws that do not explain the origin of the universe.

I am just upfront and admit it. I could post about all the physics, dark matter, relativity, cause/effect, cosmology, black holes, thermodynamics, induction, conservation laws, quantum mechanics, radiation, mathematics... I could talk about Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Ohm, Bacon, Lamaitre, Hubble...

Kind of a waste for me to type all that huh? Just like it is to post about them in this thread !
 
  • #109
If our laws 'may' not apply, then you are claiming all our models 'may' be wrong.
Granted this 'may' be true, you cannot learn anything from this. It is pointless to consider.
We have to use what we know and hope to discover what we don't.

Pitstopped said:
You see, I feel expounding on GR would make me feel smart, and could be a great conversation in a GR thread. But it did nothing to help us solve the origin of the universe.

The reason he posted about GR is because I asked about conservation/causality in the early BB.

My argument was that our conservation laws state creation is impossible.
It is valid in my opinion, because both classically and in GR there is conservation.
Applying that, things must have existed before the BB occurred, in whatever state, which eventually expanded as BB has shown.

That is my best guess for the origin of the universe - There is none.
You may not like it, but it is based on our laws.
If one day, we observe something created from nothing, our laws will change, and so will my view.
I'm done with this thread, so take it or leave it. I don't care.
 
  • #110
elegysix finally got it.

About 97% of the posts on this thread have been "junk posts" (like the similarity to junk science?)

They did nothing to find the cause of origin of the universe.
 
  • #111
It is well established that virtual particles are created from 'nothing' in empty space. So, it is just a matter of scale.
 
  • #112
Virtual Particles are real and measurable, I will give you that. But, the fact that they are created from 'nothing' is not proven. Do you think there is nothing in space? Do you think there is 'nothing' in a vacuum?

Space has very very low density and pressure, but it still has some (it is not 0) It is as close to a true vacuum we have. Even interstellar space has hydrogen atoms. Your "empty space" is not empty.

Those virtual particles are created from 'something'. No scientist has ever proved otherwise.
 
  • #113
Pitstopped said:
Virtual Particles are real and measurable, I will give you that.

Really Pitstopped, pick a stance. Either experts don't know what they're talking about or we are all free to voice our opinions (including you, with your admittedly limited opinions). To try to have both is both hypocritical and destructive to discussion. You make it like you have more of a right to an opinion because you know less.

Pitstopped said:
Kind of a waste for me to type all that huh? Just like it is to post about them in this thread !
Why are you here? Put your money where your mouth is and step away.

You won't. I'm just calling attention to the fact that you like the sound of your own voice.
 
Last edited:
  • #114
Oh, now you have taken offense to someone pointing out that the learned man that spouts what he has read and memorized over and over doesn't really amount to squat.

I don't have limited opinions or knowledge, I just know that mine don't come close to explaining the cause of origin of the universe, and neither do yours.

Didn't you even read my post previous? I could post on many theories and sciences, but there is no need in this thread. You can post any opinion you want on this thread. I am just pointing out how funny it is to listen to people post opinions about sciences and theories that they have memorized and think it comes close to explaining the topic of this thread.

I will walk away just to prove your point, and let you "win." Because I can tell you need that in your life.

I would say someone with 13,000+ post likes the sound of their voice quite a bit. I have read several of those posts and it is my opinion you are very smart and logical. I agree with most all you post. Many of the posts I read are on topic and well put. Some though are to hear your voice. I would say you should try the pie though sometimes.

Have fun discussing something you know nothing about, but making it seem like you do on this topic.
 
  • #115
We've got another winner here, huh Dave?
 
  • #116
Pitstopped said:
Oh, now you have taken offense to someone pointing out that the learned man that spouts what he has read and memorized over and over doesn't really amount to squat.

I don't have limited opinions or knowledge, I just know that mine don't come close to explaining the cause of origin of the universe, and neither do yours.
You have no business speaking for anyone but yourself.

This is not how PF rolls, Pitstopped. You want to slag the science community, start your own forum.
 
  • #117
Closed pending decision / action by the mentors.
 
Back
Top