Started By
Message
re: Do you accept the notion of the Big Bang as the origin of our universe?
Posted on 1/5/18 at 7:31 pm to Perfect Circle
Posted on 1/5/18 at 7:31 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:
Aren't there many scientists who find fault with the Big Bang Theory?
Not really. There are a few competing theories but the BBT is, for all intents and purposes, universally accepted. That's because there's so much evidence for it.
quote:
Also, considering the rate that new discoveries are made, and the vastness of the universe, there has to be many discoveries in physics yet to be made.
Goodness yes, there is much more that we don't yet know than we do understand. That's why we say that when one question about nature is answered, another 100 questions arise.
quote:
These discoveries would probably have an impact on theories concerning the origin of the universe.
Yes! That the nature of scientific Theories. They all stand, are modified or fall based on evidence. New discoveries frequently force scientists to alter the way they think about and approach directions of studies, or Theories. Recall that a Theory is a system of ideas. One part could be wrong but that wouldn't negate the entire Theory. New evidence might enhance a part of the system or cause another part to be thrown out.
quote:
I just think it's premature to definitively say Big Bang Theory has been proven
Yes, of course it's too soon to say that. However, every new discovery seems to be adding to the already significant evidence that the BB happened.
quote:
Can we even contemplate an amount of time that vast? I mean supposedly, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. An inconceivable amount of time for us to comprehend. Double that number and add it to the earth's age and we're supposedly approaching the age of the universe!
Our insignificance is certainly magnified when we ponder the age and size of the Universe. However, we are equipped with a quantum computer that sits on our shoulders and it has great abilities.
quote:
Might the laws of physics change over such vast lengths of time? Might the laws of physics have been different in the past, or change in the future? Are there areas in the vastness of the universe were the laws of physics are different? Is it out of the realm of possibility for this to be true?
Yes and no. Yes it's possible because we haven't completely explored even the part of our Universe that we can see. And no, because our Universe originated as a homogeneous plasma soup that expanded into space from a common point. So the laws of physics should be the same everywhere in our Universe. Now, if the multiverse Theory is correct, we can definitely expect different laws of physics inother universes.
quote:
Modern astrophysics as a science is only 200 years old. Can we presume to say we have 13 billion years of history ascertained after so short a time?
Well, consider the study of the cosmos to be similar to paleontology. In effect we're studying fossil light and drawing conclusions from what we see in much the same way a paleontologist studies the fossils he digs out of the earth.
quote:
Plus, I just don't trust scientists. I'm sorry, but there's too much grant money at stake. Too much pride. Too many egos. More than a few have been known to skew or interpret data a certain way to support a preferred conclusion. Faulty data means faulty conclusions.
Scientists don't trust each other.
That's why peer review is so important. The consequences for publishing fraudulent data or conclusions are so high in the scientific community that a sort of "death penalty" is automatically applied to anyone who cheats. Believe me, it's effective. quote:
Based on the evidence, BBT is probably the leading explanation for the origin of the universe. I just think there's more evidence out there. Plus, time is against us. We have only a limited amount of time to study the universe before humanity's time is done.
Humanity is just one stage of intelligent life. I see humanity's main responsibility as being the birth of artificial intelligence. It will be a new species and will succeed us.
quote:
I don't think science has all the answers. I think there are answers science cant provide. I think scientists feel the absolute need to explain everything, and are resistant to admitting there are mysteries in the universe that cant be explained, or ever will be.
Science doesn't attempt to provide "all the answers." Science is reductionism and attempts to understand how nature works. Nothing more and nothing less. The "why" of existence is beyond the scope or interest of science. Scientists are interested only in "how" nature works.
1
Posted on 1/5/18 at 8:01 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Beyond the boundary we'll never see anything, even the light that's emitted.
Which is amazing as well, the universe can be much bigger than we will ever be able to see. But when the Hubble did it’s deep field though weren’t the galaxies seen early galaxies? I mean they are of course because of the distance, but weren’t they structurally early galaxies (larger stars etc)? To me seeing the early galaxies would mean that we are approaching some sort of boundary of the universe (it would be much further out but still ) because we are seeing the first galaxies.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 8:06 pm to Kentucker
I knew when I brought up humanity's time being limited you'd adduce AI! Thanks, Ken Tucker! Appreciate your input.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 8:20 pm to DavidTheGnome
Below is the oldest galaxy Hubble has ever seen. It dates to just 400 million years after the BB. That means it's now almost 13.4 billion years old. It looks young and fresh because we're seeing it at a young age. It may not even exist now.
That boundary should logically be the BB if we're on the right path of discovery, since our view of Galaxy GN-z11 is in that direction of time.
quote:
The remote galaxy GN-z11, shown in the inset, existed only 400 million years after the Big Bang when the universe was only 3 percent of its current age. It belongs to the first generation of galaxies in the universe, and its discovery provides new insights into the early universe. This is the first time that the distance of an object so far away has been measured from its spectrum, which makes the measurement extremely reliable.
GN-z11 is actually ablaze with bright young blue stars, but these look red in this image because its light was stretched to longer, redder wavelengths by the expansion of the universe.
quote:
To me seeing the early galaxies would mean that we are approaching some sort of boundary of the universe (it would be much further out but still ) because we are seeing the first galaxies.
That boundary should logically be the BB if we're on the right path of discovery, since our view of Galaxy GN-z11 is in that direction of time.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 8:42 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:
I knew when I brought up humanity's time being limited you'd adduce AI! Thanks, Ken Tucker! Appreciate your input.
Sorry for the reflexive response. It's just that I've studied evolution in depth and I love to take what I've learned and project it into the future. To me, human evolution has come to an end and the logical continuation of the evolution of sentient beings is via AI. Posted on 1/5/18 at 9:58 pm to Kentucker
quote:
That boundary should logically be the BB if we're on the right path of discovery, since our view of Galaxy GN-z11 is in that direction of time.
Right. Since that Galaxy is there we can assume more and more of those age galaxies and younger would come into view if enough time had elapsed for the light to travel. That would mean we are approaching the boundary of the universe I would think.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 10:22 pm to DavidTheGnome
And those are Hubble images. When the James Webb Space Telescope launches in October of this year we'll be able to see much closer to the BB. Next will be the WFIRST telescope in the mid 2020s that will bring the BB even closer. It's a good time to be interested in cosmological science.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 2:08 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Posted on 1/6/18 at 5:41 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The boundary logically should be the BB
I think you misspoke slightly. You would never actually be able to see the BB itself. For some undetermined amount of time after the BB the entire universe was opaque. It was a sea of individual atoms that were still superheated but did not emit light in the former of photons.
Scientists have pretty much confirmed the BB with the discovery of Cosmic Background Radiation which -simply put- is the leftover heat from the BB.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 7:06 pm to Paul B Ammer
quote:
I think you misspoke slightly. You would never actually be able to see the BB itself. For some undetermined amount of time after the BB the entire universe was opaque. It was a sea of individual atoms that were still superheated but did not emit light in the former of photons.
Semantics, I suppose. The goal is to see as close to the point of origin as possible. Just being able to look back to the first light will add validity to the BBT.
At the point of origin, even atoms couldn't form. There was a just plasma soup that was so hot that even the forces of the Standard Model were unified.
quote:
Scientists have pretty much confirmed the BB with the discovery of Cosmic Background Radiation which -simply put- is the leftover heat from the BB.
But of course this isn't the only evidence. I posted this earlier in the thread.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 7:20 pm to Kentucker
When I got to college (yes I am aware it was a long time ago) 3 things changed most of what I though and still think about today
Lobachevskian Geometry
Gravity Waves
Entropy and Thermodynamics
Big Bang theory is easy to accept but seems less discussion on how it will all end. Seems I once read we spend more to operate a local fast food joint than we do to look for objects that will create an ELE.
Lobachevskian Geometry
Gravity Waves
Entropy and Thermodynamics
Big Bang theory is easy to accept but seems less discussion on how it will all end. Seems I once read we spend more to operate a local fast food joint than we do to look for objects that will create an ELE.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 8:15 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Big Bang theory is easy to accept but seems less discussion on how it will all end.
We have known about the accelerating expansion of the Universe since 1998. That's only 20 years. The discovery is so profound that we've had to completely rethink the dynamics of the Universe.
The popular conclusion from the discovery is that the Universe will expand indefinitely and entropy will increase to 100%. That just seems too easy to me.??
We know that something happened to gravity 5-6 billion years ago and that the expansion started speeding up at an increasing rate. The popular take is that the repulsive Dark Force had been around since the Big Bang and that it overcame the attractive force of gravity then.
I think something more exotic took place. Because we know very little about gravity and how it works, my opinion is that gravity itself changed from an attractive to a repulsive state. Obviously it didn't change locally or we wouldn't be here.
However, it may be that distance in space is a factor in how it behaves. Now based on that, I think it could change again to an attractive force in the future, causing the Universe to contract.
So, there may not be an end.
quote:
Seems I once read we spend more to operate a local fast food joint than we do to look for objects that will create an ELE.
Yeah, NASA's total budget is $20 billion while our military budget is $600 billion. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined. It's sad that our priorities are so primitive.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 8:28 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Yeah, NASA's total budget is $20 billion while our military budget is $600 billion. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined. It's sad that our priorities are so primitive.
Ain't gonna be so primitive when we shovin' this AMERICAN DICK DOWN SOME CHINESE THROAT, HOOAH HOOAH.
I kind of think that us accruing debt by buying weapons is a good idea. Would love to see what country is willing to try and collect, while we use our real-world weapons to crush their real-world cities backed by fake currency.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 8:55 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
Ain't gonna be so primitive when we shovin' this AMERICAN DICK DOWN SOME CHINESE THROAT, HOOAH HOOAH.
But how big a dick do we need? Everybody knows that the Chinese are small down there.
The Chinese have developed a passionate interest in science. They're spending far more than us on scientific interests, especially space. It seems that they're happy with the US being the world's police so that they can spend their money on more interesting things.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 9:01 pm to Paul B Ammer
quote:
I think you misspoke slightly. You would never actually be able to see the BB itself. For some undetermined amount of time after the BB the entire universe was opaque. It was a sea of individual atoms that were still superheated but did not emit light in the former of photons.
This is true, for several (hundred?) million years after the Big Bang the universe was opaque.
Horizon documentary on the first stars that formed called Cosmic Dawn. Very well made like all of bbc's stuff
LINK
Posted on 1/6/18 at 9:31 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
This is true, for several (hundred?) million years after the Big Bang the universe was opaque.
Well, it can't have been more than 400 million years because the Hubble Telescope has recorded a well-formed galaxy at that time. Galaxy GN-z11 is young and full of new stars at that time but it probably too many millions of years for it to form.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 9:58 pm to Kentucker
Kentucker (or anyone else) do you have any thoughts on the following:
I have no problem accepting two up quarks and one down quark forming a proton given the conditions immediately after the BB. However, I have trouble seeing how an equivalent number of neutrons could form given that the two negatively charged down particles that (along with an up particle) compose it would be more likely to repulse themselves than unite.
It seems to me that you would have a universe with more stand-alone protons than protons that have combined with neutrons. Yet we only see proton neutron pairs or extra neutrons attached. Where did all the protons go?
I have no problem accepting two up quarks and one down quark forming a proton given the conditions immediately after the BB. However, I have trouble seeing how an equivalent number of neutrons could form given that the two negatively charged down particles that (along with an up particle) compose it would be more likely to repulse themselves than unite.
It seems to me that you would have a universe with more stand-alone protons than protons that have combined with neutrons. Yet we only see proton neutron pairs or extra neutrons attached. Where did all the protons go?
Posted on 1/6/18 at 9:59 pm to Kentucker
Just looked it up. LINK
quote:
About 300,000 years after the big bang, the universe was like a smoke-filled chamber from which light could not escape. By the time the universe was a billion years old, the smoke—actually a gas of light-trapping hydrogen—had cleared almost entirely, allowing stars and galaxies to become visible. But exactly what cut through the haze has been one of the big questions in astrophysics. Now, by analyzing images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, researchers have come close to confirming their best guess: the smoke was cleared away by a blaze of ultraviolet radiation from the earliest galaxies.
About 300,000 years after the big bang, the first atoms formed as protons combined with electrons to make hydrogen. Because hydrogen atoms trap light, the young universe entered its "dark ages." Then about a billion years later, some sort of radiation had ionized the hydrogen, turning it into a transparent broth of electrons and ions over a period of several hundred million years; the period is known as the Epoch of Reionization.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 10:12 pm to Paul B Ammer
quote:
It seems to me that you would have a universe with more stand-alone protons than protons that have combined with neutrons. Yet we only see proton neutron pairs or extra neutrons attached. Where did all the protons go?
Ever heard of a pentaquark? It's one of an increasing number of exotic particles that are being confirmed by the LHC in Geneva.
It seems there were many options for quarks to form particles other than the two-up/one-down protons we're so familiar with.
Posted on 1/6/18 at 10:13 pm to DavidTheGnome
While I do think it was a part. I don't think we have the entire answer. Missing key pieces. Obviously the Universe is expanding, but I simply can't find the answer to the obvious. What created that beginning? That amount of energy in something the size of an atom or whatever size they have speculated can't just happen with no origin. Something had to start that. Which is why I do believe in a higher entity. Just won't identify it because I think its far to much for the human mind to even grasp. We humanize Gods to make them like us. If an intelligent being created this Universe, it is not anything like a species only a few thousand years old that dies quickly and uses 12 percent of its brain power.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News