Archimedes and Modern Science

[socrat44]

Archimedes and Modern Science
-----
"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world."
/Archimedes/
--
Science is the logical exposition of a system.
Science is systematized knowledge.
Science without a system is chaos.
Therefore, "the Standard Model of Particle Physics" was invented.
----
A scientific system (first of all) must have a reference system (a fulcrum) from which one can describe
the situation in a simple logical language. From this point of view, the "big bang" theory is not suitable
for a "fulcrum" on which "a lever can be placed to turn the world"
Why?
1 - The coordinate system of "big bang" is not known.
2- "big bang" theory does not explain where the matter came from
------
Conclusion:
''. . . at least one big idea is missing.”
/ Book: "The Trouble with Physics". Page 308. Lee Smolin /
=========.

[Skepdick]

Archimedes and Modern Science
-----
"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world."
/Archimedes/
--
Science is the logical exposition of a system.
Science is systematized knowledge.
Science without a system is chaos.
Therefore, "the Standard Model of Particle Physics" was invented.
----
A scientific system (first of all) must have a reference system (a fulcrum) from which one can describe
the situation in a simple logical language. From this point of view, the "big bang" theory is not suitable
for a "fulcrum" on which "a lever can be placed to turn the world"
Why?
1 - The coordinate system of "big bang" is not known.
2- "big bang" theory does not explain where the matter came from
------
Conclusion:
''. . . at least one big idea is missing.”
/ Book: "The Trouble with Physics". Page 308. Lee Smolin /
=========.

Origin turtleeees...

Suppose we do succeed at explaining whence matter came from.
Where did that whence matter comes from... come from.

If you aren't willing to accept some uncaused first cause then you are infinitely fucked. Embrace the abyss.

[Sculptor]

Archimedes and Modern Science
-----
"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world."
/Archimedes/
--
Science is the logical exposition of a system.
Science is systematized knowledge.
Science without a system is chaos.
Therefore, "the Standard Model of Particle Physics" was invented.
----
A scientific system (first of all) must have a reference system (a fulcrum) from which one can describe
the situation in a simple logical language. From this point of view, the "big bang" theory is not suitable
for a "fulcrum" on which "a lever can be placed to turn the world"
Why?
1 - The coordinate system of "big bang" is not known.
2- "big bang" theory does not explain where the matter came from
------
Conclusion:
''. . . at least one big idea is missing.”
/ Book: "The Trouble with Physics". Page 308. Lee Smolin /
=========.

What's your point?

[Flannel Jesus]

What's your point?

I think he's just saying that the big bang as a hypothesis doesn't satisfy him along some particular axis of thought (it doesn't satisfy his question about the origin of everything in the universe, or perhaps the origin of the universe itself - some question like that).

Which is fine, the big bang as a hypothesis isn't necessarily supposed to be satisfying in that particular way. Any particular idea doesn't have to (and realistically probably cannot) satisfy every intellectual direction of inquiry. They're meant to satisfy some particular thing, and not every thing.

[Harbal]

Of course, Archimedes didn't just contribute to science; he also wrote extensively on sex technique, and the Archimedes screw is still practiced among the more adventurous right up to this very day.

[Sculptor]

What's your point?

I think he's just saying that the big bang as a hypothesis doesn't satisfy him along some particular axis of thought (it doesn't satisfy his question about the origin of everything in the universe, or perhaps the origin of the universe itself - some question like that).

Which is fine, the big bang as a hypothesis isn't necessarily supposed to be satisfying in that particular way. Any particular idea doesn't have to (and realistically probably cannot) satisfy every intellectual direction of inquiry. They're meant to satisfy some particular thing, and not every thing.

Makes you wonder WTF Archimedes has to do with it?

He ought to accept that science is descriptive. It's job is not to explain the meaning of the universe but to describe and qualify it in terms of the underlying conditions (laws).
It sounds like he needs a priest or imam. For those guys the explanation is simple and requires no effort or working out. It does not even have to be rational, empirical or logical.

[Iwannaplato]

Science is the logical exposition of a system.
Science is systematized knowledge.
Science without a system is chaos.
Therefore, "the Standard Model of Particle Physics" was invented.

The Standard Model of Particle Physics was invented because without a system Science would be chaos?

I don't see how that conclusion follows the assertions before it.
And would it be chaos without the standard model of particle physics?
Would Biology be chaos without the SMPP? for example.

I'm not sure what is being said here. I am also unclear what Archimedes has to do with this. I am not he doesn't have something to do with or that quote of his doesn't. I just don't understand.
----

A scientific system (first of all) must have a reference system (a fulcrum) from which one can describe
the situation in a simple logical language. From this point of view, the "big bang" theory is not suitable
for a "fulcrum" on which "a lever can be placed to turn the world"

This seems like an odd criterion. The Big Bang theory isn't like a fulcrum. Could you come at this another way? I would take that in itself as indicating that we can't use the theory to do something.

Why?
1 - The coordinate system of "big bang" is not known.

It seems to be an expanding one.

2- "big bang" theory does not explain where the matter came from

It seems like here you are saying that it does not answer all questions. Scientific theories don't do this. Probably other theories from other approaches don't either. Is this a criticism and observation? Does it mean you think it isn't a theory, just a hypothesis? Or that it is wrong?

It seems like something is missing from this thread. Is it a part of some other conversation where the context would help us understand it?
------

Conclusion:
''. . . at least one big idea is missing.”
/ Book: "The Trouble with Physics". Page 308. Lee Smolin /

And??
this may contain a very good point, but I'm not sure what it is.

[socrat44]

Before the Big Bang, there was no space and no time.
Before the Big Bang, there was no atmospheric pressure.
Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).
Pure airless space is called "cosmic vacuum" and has a temperature of zero: T=0K.
That means,
a "singular point of big bang" had a cosmic vacuum as a reference frame for its development.

[Harbal]

Before the Big Bang, there was no space and no time.
Before the Big Bang, there was no atmospheric pressure.
Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).
Pure airless space is called "cosmic vacuum" and has a temperature of zero: T=0K.
That means,
a "singular point of big bang" had a cosmic vacuum as a reference frame for its development.

It was probably also really, really quiet before the big bang. You could put that on your list, if you like.

[socrat44]

Before the Big Bang, there was no space and no time.
Before the Big Bang, there was no atmospheric pressure.
Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).
Pure airless space is called "cosmic vacuum" and has a temperature of zero: T=0K.
That means,
a "singular point of big bang" had a cosmic vacuum as a reference frame for its development.

It was probably also really, really quiet before the big bang. You could put that on your list, if you like.

Probably, the "cosmic vacuum" is the missing idea of modern physics.

[Harbal]

Before the Big Bang, there was no space and no time.
Before the Big Bang, there was no atmospheric pressure.
Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).
Pure airless space is called "cosmic vacuum" and has a temperature of zero: T=0K.
That means,
a "singular point of big bang" had a cosmic vacuum as a reference frame for its development.

It was probably also really, really quiet before the big bang. You could put that on your list, if you like.

Probably, the "cosmic vacuum" is the missing idea of modern physics.

I believe Dyson are set to go into production later this year, and it could be in the shops before Christmas.

[Iwannaplato]

Before the Big Bang, there was no space and no time.
Before the Big Bang, there was no atmospheric pressure.

Aren't atmospheres around planets?

Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).

But your first sentence says there was no space. Now you are saying there was airless space. Can you explain.
Pure airless space is called "cosmic vacuum" and has a temperature of zero: T=0K.

That means,
a "singular point of big bang" had a cosmic vacuum as a reference frame for its development.

Do you mean frame of reference? and in generally what do you mean here and how is it a conclusion from what went before?

[Age]

Before the Big Bang, there was no space and no time.
Before the Big Bang, there was no atmospheric pressure.
Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).
Pure airless space is called "cosmic vacuum" and has a temperature of zero: T=0K.
That means,
a "singular point of big bang" had a cosmic vacuum as a reference frame for its development.

And you, supposedly, KNOW 'this' how, EXACTLY?

[Skepdick]

Before the Big Bang, there was no space and no time.
Before the Big Bang, there was no atmospheric pressure.
Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).
Pure airless space is called "cosmic vacuum" and has a temperature of zero: T=0K.
That means,
a "singular point of big bang" had a cosmic vacuum as a reference frame for its development.

Yes. Every paradigm needs a First Miracle.

This is not new. It's a basic fact about the limits of human knowledge.

You are observing the principle of explosiion ( ex falso sequitur quodlibet) in action. From felsehood (nothingness, vacuum, the void) anything follows.

[Skepdick]

Before the Big Bang, there was airless space (pure airless space).

But your first sentence says there was no space. Now you are saying there was airless space. Can you explain.

The most general conception of a "space" is the Mathematical one and it's used in many different senses.

It's so polymorphic that it's better left undefined and understood intuitively, but if you want a metaphor - it's the Construct from The Matrix.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_(mathematics)
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/space