Why do scientists think there was a big bang?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Shoulda called it something else.

Post by uwot » Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:09 pm

Greta wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:31 pm
...I hitch onto the conversations, be they "appropriate" or not.
Quite right too, and precisely how I treat this forum.
Greta wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:31 pm
If you want useful feedback you'd need to at least point people to the specific parts that changed - what has changed, and maybe even comparing with what came before and give the rationale for making the change.
Well, you know and I know that there's only a limited number of people on this forum who will give useful feedback.
Greta wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:31 pm
For the record, not too sure about the angle that quarks and electrons are slowed by big bang stuff. It's like saying that big bang stuff is slowed by big bang stuff.
Yeah, that's a bit ad hoc. The speed of waves through materials is complicated
Greta wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:31 pm
PS. Only WIMPS talk about dark matter :|
Ba-doom-cha!
Seriously; thank you.

Atla
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Why do scientists think there was a big bang?

Post by Atla » Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:50 am

Greta wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:52 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:08 am
Greta wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:01 pm
From an article I was reading this morning:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/big-boun ... -20180131/

In terms of narrative, I currently prefer the idea of a "big birth", where a new universe may form from the void left by the last.
assuming your thesis (for discussion's sake ( I'm lightyears too dumb to understand Astrophystics)) is correct, then when the "big Rip" happens, there will be "enough void" to birth a new future universe in 15 billion years time.
Not my thesis. I'm also not smart enough.

The big rip strikes me as an oddly mechanistic and unnatural notion. It's as if no thresholds or state changes will occur in the future. It's akin to imagining that a baby will grow to the point where it bursts out of its skin. Or thinking that a healthy baby will continue growing until it achieves hydrostatic equilibrium and becomes a spheroid object under the force of its own gravity.
If the Big Rip is the case, and the universe has a beginning but no end, then we can safely throw out all logic out the window.

Walker
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re:

Post by Walker » Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:41 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:39 pm
HA!

Yeah, step one: prove 'god'.

Easy-peasy.
It's beginning to look like step one is, prove dark matter.

Walker
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Why do scientists think there was a big bang?

Post by Walker » Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:35 pm

Atla wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:50 am
If the Big Rip is the case, and the universe has a beginning but no end, then we can safely throw out all logic out the window.
Dark matter comprises 85% of the universe, but no one has ever seen dark matter?

That’s like a 100-point science test with a monster curve.

You only need to know 15 out of 100 to pass the peer-review that defines reality.

Atla
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Why do scientists think there was a big bang?

Post by Atla » Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:38 pm

Walker wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:35 pm
Atla wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:50 am
If the Big Rip is the case, and the universe has a beginning but no end, then we can safely throw out all logic out the window.
Dark matter comprises 85% of the universe, but no one has ever seen dark matter?

That’s like a 100-point science test with a monster curve.

You only need to know 15 out of 100 to pass the peer-review that defines reality.
Dark matter doesn't contradict logic, it just means that the universe has parts we didn't find/discover yet.

Walker
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Why do scientists think there was a big bang?

Post by Walker » Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:43 pm

- 15 out of 100 may be peer acceptable, but it's not exactly a podium of absolute authority from which to define reality.

The mind is the most subtle and complex detection instrument known to man, but like a telescope it can get foggy, although not always from temperature change. Hubris is a more subtle fog, for a more subtle instrument.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4089
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Shoulda called it something else.

Post by Greta » Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:22 pm

uwot wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:09 pm
Greta wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:31 pm
For the record, not too sure about the angle that quarks and electrons are slowed by big bang stuff. It's like saying that big bang stuff is slowed by big bang stuff.
Yeah, that's a bit ad hoc. The speed of waves through materials is complicated
I guess the point is that it's all big bang stuff, but some - like quarks and whatever's in the middle of supermassive black holes - are more primal than others, preserved fragments of earlier states.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4089
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Why do scientists think there was a big bang?

Post by Greta » Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:23 pm

Walker, what are your thoughts about gravitational lensing?

Nick_A
Posts: 3341
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Why do scientists think there was a big bang?

Post by Nick_A » Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:42 am

Walker wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:35 pm
Atla wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:50 am
If the Big Rip is the case, and the universe has a beginning but no end, then we can safely throw out all logic out the window.
Dark matter comprises 85% of the universe, but no one has ever seen dark matter?

That’s like a 100-point science test with a monster curve.

You only need to know 15 out of 100 to pass the peer-review that defines reality.
That is because the interactions of dark matter take place above Plato's divided line and what we are able to sense.

Walker
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Why do scientists think there was a big bang?

Post by Walker » Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:20 am

Greta wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:23 pm
Walker, what are your thoughts about gravitational lensing?
Hello. I’m still wondering about a philosophical observation that was made earlier, and repeated below. I think there’s enough data and logic on the table to make the answer to that inquiry a yes, and the question certainly has merit. Just ask around. Do you think it does not, or you don’t have an answer, or it doesn’t light your fire?

I understand that it may not be on topic per se, since it relates more to the philosophy of science rather than the particular thread topic, and this is a big bang party. I also understand that’s a good reason to ignore philosophical observations about science.

So, no more on this unless anyone wants, and I don't think that's the case. It's uwot's thread and this is not his specific topic.

:)

So, it can’t be seen or touched by scientists, and it’s believed by scientists to exist by inference of action upon the observable.

Are you talking about God, or dark matter?

If talking about dark matter, then logically, shouldn't this same standard of proof be acceptable as evidence of God, by those who infer the existence of dark matter?

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4089
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Why do scientists think there was a big bang?

Post by Greta » Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:15 am

I didn't quite pick up those thoughts on gravitational lensing, Walky.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Why do scientists think there was a big bang?

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Oct 16, 2018 6:49 am

Walker wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:20 am
So, it can’t be seen or touched by scientists, and it’s believed by scientists to exist by inference of action upon the observable.

Are you talking about God, or dark matter?

If talking about dark matter, then logically, shouldn't this same standard of proof be acceptable as evidence of God, by those who infer the existence of dark matter?
The same standard of evidence is acceptable. But are we talking about the same phenomenon and simply calling it different names?

How do you reconcile phenomenological perception with the English labelling of said phenomena?

Simply: is God a synonym for dark matter?

If the answer is “No” then which methametical artefact/variable in Physics equations do you call ‘God’?

Atla
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Why do scientists think there was a big bang?

Post by Atla » Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:04 am

Just like Uranus, Neptune, Pluto were "synonims for God" / "above Plato's divided line" until they found them right?

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Why do scientists think there was a big bang?

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:08 am

Atla wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:04 am
Just like Uranus, Neptune, Pluto were "synonims for God" / "above Plato's divided line" until they found them right?
a.k.a God of the gaps

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4089
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Why do scientists think there was a big bang?

Post by Greta » Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:32 am

Atla wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:04 am
Just like Uranus, Neptune, Pluto were "synonims for God" / "above Plato's divided line" until they found them right?
The planets and stars themselves were the gods, which seems reasonable to me considering the size and scope of these objects.

Pluto, of course, signified the underworld, furthest from the light. Now it seems that Pluto is actually in the inner system, a long way within the heliosphere and Oort Cloud.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests