Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The fundamental concepts of physics are all based upon metaphysics

  1. Aug 2, 2005 #1
    The fundamental concepts of physics are all based upon metaphysics. The paradigms only "work" within contrived parameters.

    The lack of a general understanding that the fundamental principals of physics are entirely dependent upon faith . . . that is: Metaphysics (that which requires much faith to understand the logic of its postulates) . . . is largely because:

    The certainty of applied scientific method, concerning said fundamental principles, is strongly implied by academia . . . rather than, academia clearly stating that: The fundamental principles of physics result from theory that is derived from mysterious phenomena that is not currently understandable by any member of post-modern academia

    Usually, these fundamental principles involve orthogonal space; cyclic and linear time; and four forces, sometimes fewer forces, sometimes more, depending upon which authority is being consulted . . . also, the Inverse Square Law should be included; and, unbelievably, often forgotten, the entire discipline of mathematics is also a fundamental principle of physics.

    The fundamental forces that are most usually considered are: gravity, light, the strong atomic force, and the weak atomic force; occasionally, several of these forces are considered as one by some physicists; and, others sometimes include inertia; or, as it's often known: the cosmological constant, or more recently, either Cosmic inertia; or even, enigmatic "dark" energy that emanates from the void.

    Thus, generally, the considered forces are between three and five; however, the general consensus is that there are four fundamental forces.

    The cosmological constant is often considered as a force because of its inertia-like opposition to gravity. Because of recent observations of galactic recession and other cosmic motions, the cosmological constant has been resurrected from a long discarded conceptual contrivance of Einstein's. However, for post-modern observation and application, Einstein was wrong about the cosmological constant being constant; and, he, also, misplaced the source and direction of its action. Astronomers often refer to a form of this force as the mysterious, observed "Great Attractor."

    The fundamental etiology and nature of all these concepts of orthogonal space, time, The Inverse Square Law, mathematics, and forces are little understood . . . if at all. Thus, an understanding of the "Why?" of these concepts, as professed by academia, requires much faith . . . a prerequisite for metaphysics.

    The fundamental concepts of physics have been invented/contrived to explain observed, natural happenings. And, thus, their proof is often mistaken because the natural happenings, happen to happen. This proof is circular, at best; these fundamental concepts are not presently provable with any currently acceptable theory. In fact all fundamental physics is "theory" because none of it is provable . . . a prerequisite for metaphysics.

    The current theories are little more than a form of symbolism that is useful for representing inexplicable, natural phenomena; and are thus, similar to the gods which were invented during early history to explain the stars, sun, thunder, lightning, life, consciousness, death, and so on. Quite likely, the ancients had a better natural understanding of god than the designing, anthropomorphic representations that modern religions now provide.

    An ancient person of learning was a combination scientist, theologian, and philosopher; a combination seldom seen in the modern "scientific" era; these disciplines, Science, Theology, and Philosophy, have gone their separate ways in search of the same goal: understanding and explaining our natural environment so that we can, by design, better live our lives. Today, rhe argot so obfuscates, that their is little interdiscipline dialogue.

    Space and time have been linked by Einstein's concept that has been labeled: space-time. Though there is much justification for such a linkage, it is still similar to linking the words "light-gravity" and their enigmatic connotations. The linkage of space and time, each a poorly understood concept, in itself, only creates confusion. Particularly, when space is no more than a relative illusion of our senses. And, time, two distinct concepts, is, both, confusingly, and often, circularly defined.

    Space, more appropriately time, is not only a function of speed, but it does not actually exist as usually envisaged . . . it is relative; and an illusion. There is no such thing as "space" where "something" such as light waves can not be found. In fact, all matter, no matter how dense, is composed entirely of wave phenomena. It is our senses that are not sensitive enough to perceive certain "dark" matter, "particles," rays, and waves, which completely fill all "space." Our senses, thus, create the illusion of matter from the motion of energy and resonance such that the energy (light) is contained; and, subsequently, the illusion of voids, or "space," between matter, which consists of various wave phenomena.

    Reality is without voids. Reality is causal and local; everything is in resonant contact with something . . . and everything . . . without concern for "time" . . . at some relative speed. The apparitions of Reality's non-local phenomena; such as tunneling, quantum teleportation, photon entanglement, universal gravitational and inertial action-at-a-distance, et cetera; are associated with Triquametric motion and speeds beyond that of light.

    Time, fundamentally, is a mystery to physicists. The label "time" refers to several phenomena, which are usually, deceptively commingled. There is cyclical time, linear time, electromagnetic time, et cetera; as well as, directional and reversible time that must be considered. No one has been able to clearly define whether time is directional; nor, differentiate, clearly, the differing concepts of time; nor, explain the generative origins of these "times." Time as a function of, or a form of, speed is the most fundamental, and thus mysterious, of concepts which underlie Reality. Time, currently, certainly qualifies as being metaphysical.

    No one can explain the "Why?" of gravity; only the "How?" is explainable. No one knows the speed of gravity, which must be near infinite otherwise the Cosmos would forsake "clockwork" for the action of billiard balls. However, infinite speed is not allowed by most interpretations of the theory of Special Relativity. But, then, if gravity's speed were as allowed by the usual interpretation of the theory of Special Relativity, gravitons and gravity "waves" should have been found by now. They have not been found; and, won't be; nor, has any other physical manifestation of the cause (Why?) of gravity's action-at-a-distance been observed or rationalized.

    Gravity's attraction, or "action-at-a-distance," is an inexplicable mystery that has defied any interpretation.

    (Newton)...hinted that Gravity was direct, divine action, as were all forces.... Thus, (for Newton) gravity was spiritual. --Anna Marie Roos, Ph.D. History.

    Einstein considered action-at-a-distance as . . . "spooky."

    Richard Feynman, also a renowned physicist, stated: "Gravitation is...not understandable in terms of other phenomena."

    And, also: "The possibility exists...that gravity itself is a pseudo force." Feynman muses, "Is it not possible that perhaps gravitation is due simply to the fact that we do not have the right coordinate system?”

    Gravity, as currently understood, can easily be said to belong to the realm of metaphysics. Actually, it will be found that the phenomenon of gravitational "attraction" is a form of both relative, hierarchic compression and confluent congruence. Confluent congruence is a universal phenomenon that effects all events and occurs near Infinity, well beyond the speed of light; but, not quite within the realm of metaphysics.

    Light is understood even less than gravity, if that is possible. Sometimes, the phenomenon of light is explained as acting like a wave; and, at other times, light appears to act as a particle. The concepts of particle and wave are two concepts that cannot be more physically, or diametrically, opposed to one another; nor, when combined, as with the theory of light, more inexplicable without resorting to metaphysics.

    Light as a force seems to defy one of aeveral definitions of force as mass times acceleration. Generally, Light is considered as without mass and moving at a constant speed. Possible reconciliation is that the definition of force is inadequate and Light is also improperly understood. I suggest there is even more at fault with the fundamental, Natural, physical definitions that are provided by the pomo (thsnk you E. M.) elite.

    Also, of metaphysical interest, concerning light, is the current explanation of the speed of light as being relatively constant. This constant is unlike anything else known and defies all known logic. Again, a strong metaphysical faith is a requirement for understanding both light and its constant speed.

    The atomic strong and weak forces have been fabricated, admittedly, by physicists to explain observed subatomic phenomena. No one has ever been able to explain "Why?" these subatomic forces "work." Or, for that matter, there are no answers to the related questions of: How did such a tremendous amount of energy, as is observed, get into an atom?; and, What is holding this energy within the atom? There is much metaphysical faith required concerning an understanding of atomic theory, and particularly, the atomic strong and weak forces.

    And then, concerning inertia: there are very few physicists that will even acknowledge that there is an inertial force . . . despite many recent cosmic observations to the contrary. Newton incorrectly defined inertia as being straight and uniform. Inertia appears to act from the infinite, as opposed to gravity which appears to act from the infinitesimal. Thus, the source of inertia, being so far from the anthropic scale, appears to be without curvature or acceleration. Inertia's small force is quite apparent when applied to large cosmic bodies.

    Inertia's close relative, the cosmological constant, can hardly qualify as a force until it is acknowledged that it is not a constant. By definition, a mechanical force cannot be constant; it must entail acceleration. Einstein resorted to the cosmological constant because of structural necessity; but, he soon realized it was a mistake; as he had interpreted it. Though, Einstein can hardly be faulted; as an understanding of the source and etiology of both gravity and inertia is still quite erroneous . . . if interpreted at all.

    A form of a cosmological force that opposes gravity, and is, thus, structurally necessary, must be explainable if our environment is to be understood . . . and, most importantly, an inertial force, if it exists, and it does, can replace the considered necessity of the misleading Big Bang theory, and all of its absurdities, as the structural force, which opposes gravity. Such an inertial force is referred to as Cosmic Inertia, which together with gravity, its alter ego, is referred to as: Infinite Dynamics.

    Gravity, inertia, and the atomic forces are all very closely related to the enigmatic and ubiquitous phenomenon which has been described as exotic "dark" matter. It is this unknown, and unfound, "dark" matter that is generally considered to constitute almost all of the mass of the Universe. The etiology and internal geometry of this "dark" matter can rationalize Reality.

    The fantasy of science fiction pales when compared to modern theories of gravity and light.

    The thoughtful, imaginative dialogue of alternative concepts are a mark of great minds.
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 2, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Huh? :confused:
  4. Aug 2, 2005 #3

    Claude Bile

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I would say that physics is based first and foremost on observation, not metaphysics. The merit of a theorem lies not just in its ability to explain known phenomena but also to predict phenomena that have not yet been observed.

    We don't look to physics to provide us with universal truths, just explanations for what we observe in the world around us. You allude to concepts such as space and time as being illusions, but what else can we work with? If there is a spark of wisdom somewhere that has not yet been unearthed, that reveals space and time as illusions, then so be it, however the relevance to my world, and the things that I observe is limited.

    The same argument you provide in the latter half of your post can apply to all forces, not just Gravity. In fact, the same argument can be applied to any concept in science, if you keep asking 'Why?' eventually you get to a point where you cannot explain a phenomenon in terms of more fundamental phenomena. This is because no system of logic can be self-contained. If physics is based on metaphysics, then any system of logic is also based on metaphysics.

    I regard physics as not as a religion to help me find universal truths, but as a tool, to be summoned and utilitised as I require it.

  5. Aug 2, 2005 #4
    Need a little more input

    Pick a concept paragraph; or, whatever; and, I'll try my best to clarify.

    Basic idea is that the fundamentals of physics are little better than the gods of ancient mythology.

    This in no way takes away from that which "works" within the limited parameters of the irreconcilable paradigms.

    Einstein, probably, understood better than anyone else the ludicrousness of fundamental physics theory as related to Natural phenomena. For the last 10, or so, years, most world-class theoretical physicists have come to the same conclusion as they are beginning to call for a "new physics" in anticipation of a paradigm shift as described by Thomas Khun.
  6. Aug 2, 2005 #5
    I agree with you

    I could not more strongly agree with you.

    There is nothing in my statements that I see as disagreeing with anything that you state.

    We are merely discussing at different levels.
  7. Aug 2, 2005 #6
  8. Aug 4, 2005 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor


    I only got through the first few paragraphs, but your point appears to be that physics only "works" if you start with contrived assumptions about how it should work. That isn't correct. Things like the constancy of C may be assumptions, but if they didn't jive with physical reality, the theories based on these postulates wouldn't work.
  9. Aug 4, 2005 #8
    You have missed the point.

    There are about 30 paragraphs. You seem to have missed the point. Not too difficult to do considering the diatribe.

    I am not concerned with whether or not physics works; It does work . . . magnificently so; I am in awe of most all the “names” in physics subsequent to Einstein’s death. Had you bothered to read my reply to Claude Bile, titled: “I agree with you,” you might better understand the subtleties of my argument.

    I am concerned that the post-modern theoretical physicist has not been honest with the lay public concerning secular faith. And, it is for this reason that fundamentalism, of any and all stripes, has found fertile ground to grow. Many persons world-wide have been allowed to believe in a god of anthropic manner and design; all with little counter heard from the “highest” discipline. Physics is mired in its faith within every paradigm; that is, more and more, treated as sacred Scripture as it is mindlessly repeated as a catechism of faith.

    In this age of global communication, physics must confront its myopia before it can assist others.

    You are wrong. The assumptions of theoretical physics do not “jive” with physical reality. And the lay public seems more aware of this than the acolytes and peer reviewers that “toe the line” defending the faith; such as genuflecting to the Big Bang, and voodoo forces as proven fact. My concern is that there is no debate that is understandable for the lay public with regard to the failure of theoretical physics in being able to “jive” with common knowledge and observation. Religion is widely know to be “faith based”’ not so concerning the fundamentals provided by the theoretical physicists. In fact, just the opposite.

    One of many examples: Most everyone reads of black holes at the centers of galaxies in the most revered publications . . . as fact; without caveat. Yet, black holes, massive and minuscule, are theories concocted from paradigms (GR and ST) stretched beyond their useful parameters. World-class astronomers are well aware that galactic cohesion is due to an “outside” force and not the attraction of a massive, central black hole, which otherwise fly in the face of galactic motion. Even Hawking has publicly disavowed black holes many years ago at Caltech, only recently have a few become aware of this. The lay public has no doubt the “bang, holes, strings, and attraction-at-a-distance” are fact. Just as man has been god. All I ask is that an example be set by providing caveats . . . loud and clear.

    Other examples: The lay public is unaware that the fundamentals of light and gravity are inexplicable . . . little more than secular faith. Why shouldn’t they believe in disabling creeds of faith? I ask not for answers that would destroy grants and sinecures; just for some caveats from “on high.” The lay public seems more aware of irreconcilable paradigms and mystifying enigmas than the Pomo elitists. Can you blame them for faith related confusion that allows their easy manipulations by those that seek personal gain?

    Nearly every day, new problems with the standard paradigms arise. To paraphrase Weinberg, “…with every answer, more questions are raised.”

    Theoretical physics has run amuck since Einstein’s death.

    ”Click” to directly E-mail Me
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2005
  10. Aug 4, 2005 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    These two statements directly contradict each other. If the assumptions didn't jive with physical reality, the predictions wouldn't either - physics would not work.
    As the name implies, "theoretical physics" is highly theoretical. So it just doesn't make any sense to say that theoretical physics is based on faith and pseudo-religious dogma. Physicists don't cling to the Big Bang Theory because of faith, they cling to it because it is the best explanation for what we observe. And you will never, ever hear a physicist say something like dark energy (one of those forces you no doubt dislike) is a proven fact because they simply don't believe it is. I don't know where you get the idea that scientists think like that, but they don't.

    Also, you're starting to mix the theories and the postulates. They are not interchangeable. Your distaste for the Big Bang Theory has nothing whatsoever to do with your main point because the Big Bang Theory is a theory, not a postulate. So to help clarify, could you give some examples of postulates you think do not fit with physical reality? A good place to start would be the two postulates of Special Relativity - that C is constant and that the laws of the universe are consistent. Do you think those postulates are reasonable?
    Same problem as above. Black holes are two things, and neither of them is a postulate (so they have nothing to do with your point): Black holes are a theory (mathematically predicted as part of general relativity) and an observational fact (discovered and having exactly the properties of what was predicted, the observed phenomena was therefore labeled a "black hole").

    Also, your assertions about what "world class astronomers" think or some mysterious retraction of Hawkings' own theory smell like crackpottery/conspiracy theory. At the very least, you severely misunderstand what you are talking about.
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2005
  11. Aug 4, 2005 #10

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    brunardot, I've just read through your opening post, and I have to agree with Danger: "Huh?" That has got to be one of the most confused, misguided stream-of-consciousness essays I've read in a long time.

    For instance...

    What does that even mean? It's not as though there is just one "metaphysics". On which metaphysic do you claim physics is based? Materialism? Idealism? If the former, then is it reductive? Eliminative? If the latter, then is it objecive? Subjective?

    "Metaphysics" does not equal "faith".

    Furthermore, there is no one set of postulates of metaphysics.

    "Academia" doesn't say that, because that's not how physics is done. Physics works by reductionism. That is, the development of theories with fewer and fewer postulates and that make increasingly accurate predictions on increasingly wider classes of phenomena, is considered "progress".

    None of these are fundamental principles of physics. The fundamental principles of physics can be nothing other than the most fundamental of the known laws of physics. The Standard Model would be a prime example.

    Also, these principles are enunciated with mathematics. Mathematics itself does not consitute the principles of physics, nor any subset thereof.

    Skipping over your confused bit on forces (that can be for another time), we arrive at:

    What's your basis for this claim? The inverse square law, for instance, is completely understood in terms of a more fundamental theory, namely QFT.

    "Academia" doesn't even attempt to answer "why" questions. That's not what science does, nor is it what science is designed to do.

    And as for faith being a prerequisite to metaphysics, I don't follow you there. The only prerequisites that one would need to do metaphysics are experiential knowledge and reasoning ability. You seem to not know what "metaphysics" means.

    This is completely wrong. Good physical theories make predictions on what will happen in an experiment, without prior knowledge of the outcome. If a prediction [itex]d[/itex] can be deduced from the conjunction of postulates [itex]{p_i}[/itex], and the prediction does not match observed reality, then the theory is overturned. The logic is modus tollens, and proceeds as follows:

    \bigwedge_{i=1}^np_i\longrightarrow d
    \neg d
    \therefore \neg (\bigwedge_{i=1}^np_i)
    \therefore \bigvee_{i=i}^n(\neg p_i)

    meaning that one or more of the postulates is in error.

    And as for positive experimental results, it is widely acknowledged that that does not constitute "proof" of the postulates, but merely their tentative acceptance. More positive experimental results result in a stronger inductive basis for accepting the theory, not a deductive proof of it.

    So whether experiment says "yay" or "nay", in neither case is the logic circular, as you claim it is.

    And now we can add the word "theory" to the list of terms whose meanings you do not know.

    You have no basis for this claim. Scientific theories differ from religious myths in that the former are falsifiable, while the latter are not.

    If the sun were to fail to rise tomorrow a scientist would try to figure out why Newton's laws failed to predict it. If repeatable experiments consistently showed the same failing, then the scientist would try to formulate a new theory that accounts for the new observation.

    However if the sun had ever failed to rise for the Ancient Greeks, they would have simply said, "Apollo chose not to appear today". There would be no revision of beliefs that failed to match observations, because the beliefs are formulated to always match observations.

    Seeing as the rest of your opening post is just more unsubstantiated rambling, I have decided to stop commenting at what you said is your main point, which is that physics has not much more to offer than ancient mythology.

    My main point is that you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.
  12. Aug 4, 2005 #11


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Clarification of my assumption going into this thread:
    The way I read that is that brunardot is saying physics is based on assumptions that are contrived and therefore invalid (ie, not really using the term "metaphysics" correctly, but thats ok because this isn't really about metaphysics anyway). My responses have followed that line of reasoning...

    As the rest of your post implies, Tom, I think the problem here is that brunardot simply doesn't understand the concept of "science".
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2005
  13. Aug 4, 2005 #12
    I read brunardot's essay and found no lack of "understanding of the concept of science" in it. But I did find, in many replies, a lack of understanding of the concepts he is talking about.

    Physics does a good job at providing knowledge that can be used to build the marvels of modern society, but it does a terribly lousy job coming up with a decent cosmology. Everyone knows that all this stuff about big bangs and blackholes amount to no more than wild speculation, yet no one publicly admits it. The average person, who seldom has an understanding of the concept of science, seriously believes the universe started with an explosion some billions of years ago, that it is inflating like a baloon, that space is warped like a matress with a heavy ball on top, and all those entertaining but wrong caricatures drawn from mathematical equations of whose meaning no one is certain.

    The point I think brunardot is making, with which I agree entirely, is that physics advances thanks to the fancy of physicists. It is to their great imagination that we owe whatever little we know about the world, but it remains products of their imagination nonetheless. The true meaning of physics is in its equations; everything else is a fanciful interpretation strongly founded on unproven, likely mistaken, often inconsistent set of metaphysical concepts.

    I fail to see why this whole imagery of explosions and inflating balloons serves any purpose beyond being useful tools for physicists themselves. Unless, I fear, it is promoted as a more fashionable answer to the deep questions that used to be the domain of religion. And if scientists really are doing that, then shame on them for having corrupted the true spirit of science. As soon as science enters the domain of religion, it inherits all its vices without inheriting any of its virtues.
  14. Aug 4, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Of course, from a certain point on, it is speculation (as is every boundary of current research), but what's wrong with the standard big bang model, which predicts correctly several measurable quantities, such as the H/He ratio, the cosmic background radiation and so on ? In what way is that a less deserving scientific theory than, say, the calculated band structure of silicon, or plate tectonics, or the solar model, for that matter ?
  15. Aug 4, 2005 #14
    That is a question for physicists. I'm only criticizing the philosophical aspects of the theory. Keep in mind this is a philosophy forum, not a physics forum (it's the philosophy section, anyway).

    Do you honestly believe the big bang model, which no one can fully understand, is as correct and useful as our description of the solar system, which any child in first grade can correctly grasp? No offense but you must have entirely misunderstood my point to make a comment like that.
  16. Aug 4, 2005 #15

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    He quite clearly has exhibited a lack of understanding of science. This is most clearly evident in two of the points I answered (about circular logic and about falsifiability).

    Actually, your post exhibits that more than any other. You distilled what he wrote into, "physics advances thanks to the fancy of physicists". The other people reading the thread took his point to be, "physics has no better claim to authority in knowledge of the natural world than does religion."

    And guess what? He explicitly stated that that is his point in Post #4.

    And you think this because...?

    So which one is it? :confused:

    Does everyone know that the big bang is just wild speculation, or does the average person seriously believe that it is undisputed truth?

    Again, see post #4.

    Such as...?

    And from your next post:

    Why? You're the one who said that the cosmology produced by physics is "lousy". Surely you have reasons for saying so, yes? Well, in the quote above you are being asked for them.

    So it's a question for you.

    Where, exactly, did you criticize the philosophical aspect of anything?

    According to burnardot, with whom you claim to agree, no one can understand the solar model. He explcitly listed the "Inverse Square Law" (which undergirds the solar model) as one of those metaphysical fundamentals of physics.

    And in any case, there is no reason whatsoever that the accessibility of a physical theory to a child or even an untrained adult should have anything to do with the merit of the theory.
  17. Aug 5, 2005 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Eh, yes.
    You can even explain the big bang model on the same level of accuracy as the solar system to first graders (meaning: seriously simplified).

    I agree with you: I miss your point. Let's compare:

    Simple (first grader) picture:
    - solar model: planets run around the sun
    - big bang: about 15 billion years ago, the universe was terribly hot and in thermal equilibrium, and things expanded from there on and cooled down.

    Graduate level picture:
    - solar model: stability of orbits, relativistic corrections (Mercury...), equilibrium equations of the sun, nuclear fusion reaction rates at the core temperature and pressure and composition, neutrino flux from sun, planet albedos...
    - big bang: Solutions to Einstein's equations, local thermal equilibrium hypothesis, particle reactions, formation of the first few atoms (first nucleae, then atoms), "transparancy" (decoupling of the background radiation)...

    What's so terribly different ?
    In both cases, you take some starting hypotheses, and work out, from there what it predicts, using the laws of known physics, and amongst those predictions, you try to find what's measurable. If that fits, you can be reasonably happy, no ?
  18. Aug 5, 2005 #17
    Reasonably Happy: The Bang vs. The Solar system.

    I do contend that Jr. High students can, with little effort, understand more about Reality than most physics' post-docs, providing that a rational, reconcilable alternative theory is proposed.

    That the Universe can be other than singular, and perpetual, would seem to defy all logic.

    I expect Mach would find the Bang quite questionable. Certainly, his student, Einstein; and, also, Sir Fred would agree concerning a singularity and perpetuity; who amongst us should disagree with such persons without careful thought; except maybe, ST mavens, who of all people, should know better.

    As for the Solar system vs. the Big Bang; the Solar system is there to observe. The Big Bang is not; and, as most cosmologists are well aware the Bang is on quite shaky ground: The Big Bang cannot explain most current Cosmic observation . . . and never will. Thus Weinberg muses concerning a need for a "new physics.".

    ”Click” to directly E-mail Me
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2005
  19. Aug 5, 2005 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Two remarks: first of all that is just a statement, with no proof. The contrary can just as well be stated. But second, that's not at all what the standard big bang model says (usually people stretch this model much further than what it really says, and then attack these extrapolations - I think that's what you are doing).

    The big bang model, contrary to popular belief, doesn't state anything about an "initial moment" or so. It just claims that long ago, the universe was much hotter than today. We can go only back so far, because we KNOW that we don't know what happened before. Now when you start from simply that hypothesis, that the universe was terribly hot back then, and you APPLY the known laws of physics (general relativity and quantum field theory) within their supposed ranges of validity, you can deduce several observable and falsifiable properties, which fit with observation.
    As it doesn't go back entirely to an "initial moment" (where we KNOW that GR and quantum field theory as we know it are outside of their scope of validity), we still need to specify some "initial conditions". But we cannot just fiddle with them endlessly to fit just any observation. Nevertheless, and that's where more speculative things such as inflation enter the picture, we can try to find even reasonable explanations for those initial conditions. This is admittedly speculative. That's how science is done: speculate and see what it gives. It is not part of the standard big bang model, but just "underbuilds it".
    Don't you find it quite amazing that from a few simple hypotheses, we can deduce, by applying the known laws of physics, corrrect predictions of certain cosmological parameters ?
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2005
  20. Aug 5, 2005 #19


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Proposed by whom? Nasty little catch-22, isn't it?
    The result of the Big Bang (the universe as we see it) is around. There is plenty of evidence around to collect and piece-together what happened. If we required a re-creation of the actual event to figure out what happened, we'd never solve any crimes. :rolleyes:
    They are? I've never heard one say that and we have quite a number of physicists here who are "plugged-in" to the mainstream physics community. Can you substantiate that?

    The closest I've seen to a mainstream cosmologist who strongly disputes the BBT is Art, but he doesn't have a lot of company among mainstream physicists.
    It can't? What about the observations already listed? Most importantly, the observation that the universe is expanding pretty strongly implies a Big Bang. How about CMB?

    You too - you're making some pretty wild assertions/allegations, but you aren't substantiating anything you are saying. It just sounds to me like you are making up a reality that suits you and to heck with the way the universe really works.
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2005
  21. Aug 5, 2005 #20
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook