Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.sthitapragya wrote: And don't make the mistake of assuming that infinite is a number
it simply means that the temperature was hot but undefined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
=======
Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.sthitapragya wrote: And don't make the mistake of assuming that infinite is a number
it simply means that the temperature was hot but undefined.
There is no crisis in Physics, there is only a crisis among a few who do not understand the principles of physics.socratus wrote: Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.
What's your background? I'm asking because I'm a bit fed up with the crap being pushed of the Big Bang AND the fact that there's hardly anyone in our skeptic community questioning this.thedoc wrote:There is no crisis in Physics, there is only a crisis among a few who do not understand the principles of physics.socratus wrote: Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.
Strong agreement, as well as 1 / infinity... Both do not exist in the real world :(socratus wrote: ...
Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
=======
I completely understood expansion but it doesn't support a Big Bang interpretation strictly. Hoyle suggested an extension of time as a requirement for the "Cosmological Principle" to which I agree. What needs to be asked though begins with logic and to Zeno's paradoxes[Source for all his paradoxes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes.uwot wrote:The idea that the universe started out very small was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre; he called the original tiny universe the primeval atom or, more poetically the 'cosmic egg'. The thing that the hypothesis was meant to account for was the observed red shift of distant galaxies, first noted by Vesto Slipher, but made famous by Edwin Hubble.
The Red Shift is almost certainly due to the Doppler Effect. There are alternative explanations, 'tired photons' being one, but they are very much on the fringe and the overwhelming probability is that distant galaxies really are moving away and the universe is getting bigger. By reversing the process, there is no obvious point to stop and say the universe began with any particular size; so you keep going until it has no size at all.
Ironically the Big Bang got its name from one of its most vocal critics. The English astronomer, Fred Hoyle, was a cantankerous Yorkshireman, think Harbal with a telescope. He was an atheist and didn't like the suggestion that the universe had a moment of 'creation'; the fact that Georges Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest probably didn't help.
Nice summary. If the universe is expanding then it must have once been much smaller. Same for us and everything else for that matter. However, while we all start out small, none of us seemingly we start out as a Planck scale singularity. The singularity is widely acknowledged to be just a theoretical construct, a placeholder in lieu of understanding. I personally lean towards the "white hole" model because the ∞ would be due to to an inside-out dynamic leading to another reality that is entirely inaccessible and out reach of this universe's physical laws. The "singularity" would then be a point of flow rather than an exploding point.uwot wrote:The idea that the universe started out very small was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre; he called the original tiny universe the primeval atom or, more poetically the 'cosmic egg'. The thing that the hypothesis was meant to account for was the observed red shift of distant galaxies, first noted by Vesto Slipher, but made famous by Edwin Hubble.
The Red Shift is almost certainly due to the Doppler Effect. There are alternative explanations, 'tired photons' being one, but they are very much on the fringe and the overwhelming probability is that distant galaxies really are moving away and the universe is getting bigger. By reversing the process, there is no obvious point to stop and say the universe began with any particular size; so you keep going until it has no size at all.
Ironically the Big Bang got its name from one of its most vocal critics. The English astronomer, Fred Hoyle, was a cantankerous Yorkshireman, think Harbal with a telescope. He was an atheist and didn't like the suggestion that the universe had a moment of 'creation'; the fact that Georges Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest probably didn't help.
The thing about data is that it supports any hypothesis that is consistent with that data.Scott Mayers wrote:I completely understood expansion but it doesn't support a Big Bang interpretation strictly.
Sorry, I can't comment on that, I've no idea what Hoyle suggested.Scott Mayers wrote:Hoyle suggested an extension of time as a requirement for the "Cosmological Principle" to which I agree.
Personally, I don't think it's a paradox, because Zeno forgot about 'time'. For a more familiar example than ancient Greek gods, modern movie cameras film 24 (I think) frames per second, which is enough for the human brain to smooth the edges and create a continuous flow. If the film is slowed down, then it becomes apparent that the action jumps from image to image. Originally, there were over 40 versions of Zeno's argument. 7 (again, I think) have come down to us, but they're much of a muchness. In the context of film, the argument would be that for completely smooth action, there would have to be an infinite number of frames, but an infinite number of frames would take forever to show. Well, it would if you played it back at less than the speed you filmed it.Scott Mayers wrote:What needs to be asked though begins with logic and to Zeno's paradoxes...The reason the Achilles and Tortoise paradox is not paradoxical is because it has an endpoint such that there is MORE beyond it.
Well, in terms of what we can actually 'see', there is a wall at about 300 000 years after the big bang. Before that, there were no free photons; the cosmic microwave background radiation is the fading embers of that flash. Some of the excitement about the detection of gravity waves is that we might now be able to probe back even further, possibly to the big bang itself. At the moment though, all talk of big bangs is inferential, but the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive. As for singularities, or white holes, Greta, you're back to the point above; any hypothesis that isn't flatly contradicted by the evidence, could be true.Scott Mayers wrote:He also argued similarly with the Dichotomy using just a wall to which one approaches it but never reaches it. But while the wall is a limit, it is still only a relative limit knowing that there is something beyond that wall. So you have to ask yourself whether in respect to the universe we see, does our perception that derives a singularity mean that it is an "origin" in the same sense?
Well things in our 'universe' began to happen.Scott Mayers wrote:If time and space itself 'begins' there...
Is there any reason to assume that because we are rational, that the universe behaves in a way we find agreeable?Scott Mayers wrote:...unlike the resolution of the Zeno paradoxes, the singularity is a very extreme limit just as a wall that has nothing behind it. If we came to some limit of space, we should never see a wall because it begs there is some means for us to actually sense it in some direct way at that place. This is irrational and so you have to default to assuming that the appearance of an origin at a singularity is just that: an appearance.
I don't think religion has much to do with acceptance of the big bang theory; I know too many atheists who believe it.Scott Mayers wrote:You are right, though, about the religious favor for the Big Bang. And I suspect that the theory as it stands is more about politics, not actual science.
Thank you.Greta wrote:Nice summary.
One of the attractions of the big bang theory is that it solves the problem of why the universe isn't collapsing under gravity. Newton proposed that the universe is infinite, so there was an equal pull in every direction. But, regardless of whether the universe is infinite, it is demonstrably the case that gravity isn't uniform. Einstein famously had to invent a force that exactly counterbalanced gravity, the cosmological constant. He later called it his greatest blunder, because without it, he could have predicted that the universe is expanding with general relativity. Some people equate dark energy with the cosmological constant, but they're not quite the same thing.Greta wrote:I don't mind the idea of "tired light".
It's pretty compelling, but throw in tired light and the sums don't add up.Greta wrote:...my understanding is that the observational science and math behind the fact of its expansion is pretty watertight.
You do not have to assume nothing as a base to begin with from what I have understood, as we look back, we come to a place where there was no space at all between all the matter and energy in the universe. The nothing misconception seems to have started when people misunderstood Hawking when he said that since there can be no transfer of information between our universe and whatever existed before the big bang, we might just as effectively say that there was nothing. And everyone seems to have run with just the nothing part.Scott Mayers wrote:
Now, as a skeptic, the fact that 'we' question things like religion AND in specific ways, I'm finding it odd that the same rationality isn't being applied with the Big Bang Theory. That is, we have to assume nothing as a base to begin with but there seems to be a lot of prerequisite effort to "read the Bible", so to speak that is hypocritical of the intent of being skeptical.
I was talking about the fact that the 'strongest' initial claim of 'support' for the Big Bang to this day is still Hubble expansion. This presumption ignores the Steady State theory OR any others when it is sold as relevant when it isn't. It is as though I assert a 'theory' about the source of someone entering my house with some claim like, "Since the person came through my front door, this is the most astounding evidence that SUPPORTS my theory that they just came from their home prior to that." In other words, it is NOT such a unique 'support'. It is most likely that the person coming in my front door HAS a home and so it is at least safe to say this as I can later adjust any proof that they were somewhere else just before they came in by pushing my claim to be interpreted further back. "Prior to that" simply means ANY time before that person entered my house, right? But we can safely assume they have a home but this is NOT relevant as "support".uwot wrote:The thing about data is that it supports any hypothesis that is consistent with that data.Scott Mayers wrote:I completely understood expansion but it doesn't support a Big Bang interpretation strictly.
He presumed a default to the "Perfect" Cosmological Principle. To continue from above,Sorry, I can't comment on that, I've no idea what Hoyle suggested.Scott Mayers wrote:Hoyle suggested an extension of time as a requirement for the "Cosmological Principle" to which I agree.
Zeno wasn't being stupid as it may appear. It was as obvious to him that Achilles would catch up to the tortoise or that a flying arrow IS in fact 'moving', etcetera. What he was pointing out was based on what becomes the basis for "limits" in Calculus. To give you a better example of the problem by restricting ourselves with a two-dimensional construct, think of two different squares that represent some two distinct 'areas', say 1m square and a 2m one.Personally, I don't think it's a paradox, because Zeno forgot about 'time'. For a more familiar example than ancient Greek gods, modern movie cameras film 24 (I think) frames per second, which is enough for the human brain to smooth the edges and create a continuous flow. If the film is slowed down, then it becomes apparent that the action jumps from image to image. Originally, there were over 40 versions of Zeno's argument. 7 (again, I think) have come down to us, but they're much of a muchness. In the context of film, the argument would be that for completely smooth action, there would have to be an infinite number of frames, but an infinite number of frames would take forever to show. Well, it would if you played it back at less than the speed you filmed it.Scott Mayers wrote:What needs to be asked though begins with logic and to Zeno's paradoxes...The reason the Achilles and Tortoise paradox is not paradoxical is because it has an endpoint such that there is MORE beyond it.
The 'wall' I'm referring to a 'real' wall, not the 'perceptual' one. The difference is that to those even using the term, Big Bang, implies a BELIEF that a beginning origin exists contrary to denials of asserting this by some. If 'time' itself originates AT the singularity, it acts as a definite wall, even theoretically for speaking it. Then we have to default to the logic of acceleration from the start, not the 'constant' assumed velocity interpreted from expansion originally. But this was (a) added post hoc AND (b) only suggested as being witnessed in 1999 as being minimally necessary to treat the Big Bang hypothesis as remotely valid. That is, the Cosmic Background was inappropriately credited as overthrowing Steady State when discovered because the logic still requires proving how an origin of 'time' could even be possible.Well, in terms of what we can actually 'see', there is a wall at about 300 000 years after the big bang. Before that, there were no free photons; the cosmic microwave background radiation is the fading embers of that flash. Some of the excitement about the detection of gravity waves is that we might now be able to probe back even further, possibly to the big bang itself. At the moment though, all talk of big bangs is inferential, but the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive. As for singularities, or white holes, Greta, you're back to the point above; any hypothesis that isn't flatly contradicted by the evidence, could be true.Scott Mayers wrote:He also argued similarly with the Dichotomy using just a wall to which one approaches it but never reaches it. But while the wall is a limit, it is still only a relative limit knowing that there is something beyond that wall. So you have to ask yourself whether in respect to the universe we see, does our perception that derives a singularity mean that it is an "origin" in the same sense?
And thus we circle back to a religious justification for a God too! That it (He) works in "mysterious ways"!Well things in our 'universe' began to happen.Scott Mayers wrote:If time and space itself 'begins' there...Is there any reason to assume that because we are rational, that the universe behaves in a way we find agreeable?Scott Mayers wrote:...unlike the resolution of the Zeno paradoxes, the singularity is a very extreme limit just as a wall that has nothing behind it. If we came to some limit of space, we should never see a wall because it begs there is some means for us to actually sense it in some direct way at that place. This is irrational and so you have to default to assuming that the appearance of an origin at a singularity is just that: an appearance.
I don't think it requires a forceful 'conspiracy' although this too would likely be a part of it at many times and places. I think though that all religion evolved as original 'science' and/or secular society and politics that were based on contemporary reality distinct from the irrationality we default to presume upon our ancestors. When we become better at understanding our world at some stage, AND the real economic, political, and cultural climate of the times find 'truth' too threatening as a reality, the tendency is to reinterpret the last era of wisdom in authoritative ways that turn into formal religions when we lose the information that inevitably gets destroyed to serve those changes in practice.I don't think religion has much to do with acceptance of the big bang theory; I know too many atheists who believe it.Scott Mayers wrote:You are right, though, about the religious favor for the Big Bang. And I suspect that the theory as it stands is more about politics, not actual science.
No, I don't base anything on Hawking on this. My "nothing" assumptions are also most broad to include questioning the nature of logic too which goes beyond just science as a practice. The act of assuming nothing as a skeptic for science or philosophy is necessary if we are to try to understand reality without bias. But I understand it isn't easy for us considering it also implies that we too are insignificant to nature if we remove those biases. I think if we all had it perfectly 'favorable' to us, we'd all default to preferring ignorance and bliss, not science nor any rationalizing.sthitapragya wrote:You do not have to assume nothing as a base to begin with from what I have understood, as we look back, we come to a place where there was no space at all between all the matter and energy in the universe. The nothing misconception seems to have started when people misunderstood Hawking when he said that since there can be no transfer of information between our universe and whatever existed before the big bang, we might just as effectively say that there was nothing. And everyone seems to have run with just the nothing part.Scott Mayers wrote:
Now, as a skeptic, the fact that 'we' question things like religion AND in specific ways, I'm finding it odd that the same rationality isn't being applied with the Big Bang Theory. That is, we have to assume nothing as a base to begin with but there seems to be a lot of prerequisite effort to "read the Bible", so to speak that is hypocritical of the intent of being skeptical.
Oh, I am sorry. I thought you meant the assumption people make about the universe beginning from nothing.Scott Mayers wrote:No, I don't base anything on Hawking on this. My "nothing" assumptions are also most broad to include questioning the nature of logic too which goes beyond just science as a practice. The act of assuming nothing as a skeptic for science or philosophy is necessary if we are to try to understand reality without bias. But I understand it isn't easy for us considering it also implies that we too are insignificant to nature if we remove those biases. I think if we all had it perfectly 'favorable' to us, we'd all default to preferring ignorance and bliss, not science nor any rationalizing.sthitapragya wrote:You do not have to assume nothing as a base to begin with from what I have understood, as we look back, we come to a place where there was no space at all between all the matter and energy in the universe. The nothing misconception seems to have started when people misunderstood Hawking when he said that since there can be no transfer of information between our universe and whatever existed before the big bang, we might just as effectively say that there was nothing. And everyone seems to have run with just the nothing part.Scott Mayers wrote:
Now, as a skeptic, the fact that 'we' question things like religion AND in specific ways, I'm finding it odd that the same rationality isn't being applied with the Big Bang Theory. That is, we have to assume nothing as a base to begin with but there seems to be a lot of prerequisite effort to "read the Bible", so to speak that is hypocritical of the intent of being skeptical.
I thought that that was Fritz Zwicky so did Slipher discover red shift before he did [ I have never actually heard of him before ]uwot wrote:
The thing that the hypothesis was meant to account for was the observed red shift of distant galaxies first noted by Vesto Slipher