Evidence for/against YEC

[JRChadwick]

Your assumptions are based on ignorance. You lack even the rudimentary of time and quantum mechanics that I do and you are still holding on to a Euclidean view of time.

All assumptions are based on ignorance!

No. Good assumptions are based on what information is available and they are then tested to see if they make a valid hypothesis. Religious assumptions are based on bias and ignorance.

Congrats, you know more than I do when it comes to time and quantum mechanics, but that does not prove anything here. My position of time is still based on the BB and nothing more. If you can’t grasp that with your superior intellect, then I do not know what else to say.

Maybe you should try harder to form a coherent argument.

No, there is only one theory regarding the development of our universe.

I said nothing of the development of the universe. I said there were many competing theories about our universe. Unless of course you do not think these are competing theories: The Big Crunch, The Big Rip and The Big Freeze!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

Yeah, no competing theories here!

Wrong again! These are no competing theories. They are agreed upon outcomes of a closed, open, and flat universe. The only question is which one of those models describe our universe. That question was answered when it was discovered that the expansion of our universe is accelerating, indicating an open universe.

You don't know what a theory is!

Whatever you say oh wise one.

Anyone who claims a theory is just an assumption or conjecture and does not represent reality is displaying their utter ignorance.

The big bang theory has been successfully used to create models of predictive utility that accurately represent reality. That is what a theory is. What happened "before" the big bang is still a new field and while several successful predictions have been made, it still does yet not have all the evidence required for it to be granted the high praise of being called a theory.

You’re still stuck on the BB as if I don’t accept that as a valid theory. A Multi-Verse for example does not represent our reality as we know it. Which is really what this argument was about before you stepped in and made it a quasi-flamewar with your passive aggressive insults.

Actually, the multi-verse, or 11-string membrane hypothesis, has successfully made testable predictions that have been proven correct, such as the discovery of the graviton and the gluon particles. Thank you, large Hadron collider! And accepting the big bang theory is only part of the problem. You keep insisting on an external cause that is outside of reality. That is why I first started responding to you.

The problem seems to be that you are only reading the titles of these articles you posted. If you actually read the scientific papers they are quoting, you would find that they don't come close to unseating the big bang theory as the correct history of this phase of our universe. That was not even their intention.

Again, more passive aggressive insults. Show me where I said that these articles unseated the BB?!

Your point in linking me to those articles was to support your idea of some sort of "eternal" extra-univesal cause. I understand how such an assumption can be intuitive based on our day to day perceptions, but intuition like that can not be applied to this scale.

None of these articles support your position of a universe of infinite time. If the universe was of infinite time, we would not be here because the universe would be in a state of perfect entropy.

I’m not arguing for a universe of infinite time!! In fact I’m arguing just the opposite. You clearly have not been paying attention.

You have been arguing with me over eternal existence this whole time! And I have been trying to tell you that applying Euclidean time to the beginning of the universe is a waist of time!

I have not seen any proof of that.

More insults.

Cry me a river.

Perhaps I should link you to the actual papers quoted in these articles. Unfortunately, articles like these are designed to be attention grabbing to the laymen. They often portray a discovery as being controversial (especially in the title) even when it is not. That seems to be what has fooled you.

Perhaps you should stop being a fucking douche-bag, but I’m pretty sure you can’t help yourself. The only thing I have been fooled on, is carrying on this conversation with you in the hopes you would stop with the fucking insults. That said, I’m fucking done with you. You bring nothing to the table and you’re fucking boring the living shit out me.

Waaaaaaaahhh. Somebody call a waaaaambulance.

 

[Visaki]

Actually, the multi-verse, or 11-string membrane hypothesis, has successfully made testable predictions that have been proven correct, such as the discovery of the graviton and the gluon particles. Thank you, large Hadron collider! And accepting the big bang theory is only part of the problem. You keep insisting on an external cause that is outside of reality. That is why I first started responding to you.

Source please. I thought the graviton still alludes our efforts to detect it. Granted I'm not that active in following the scientific scene but I I've noticed a Nobel worthy discovery.

 

[JRChadwick]

Actually, the multi-verse, or 11-string membrane hypothesis, has successfully made testable predictions that have been proven correct, such as the discovery of the graviton and the gluon particles. Thank you, large Hadron collider! And accepting the big bang theory is only part of the problem. You keep insisting on an external cause that is outside of reality. That is why I first started responding to you.

Source please. I thought the graviton still alludes our efforts to detect it. Granted I'm not that active in following the scientific scene but I I've noticed a Nobel worthy discovery.

I misspoke. I was right about the gluon, but not the graviton. There have been other experiments testing the existence of hypothetical particles, but I have not read up on it for a while. I'm going on a trip for a week, maybe I will have time to do more research about it when I get back.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I was right about the gluon, but not the graviton.

Actually, the gluon arises from QCD, not any string framework. To my knowledge, only two unique, testable predictions have arisen from any stringy framework, namely supersymmetry, which is beginning to look on extremely shaky ground, and the prediction regarding the energy spectrum of primordial gravitational waves, and we've yet to detect any gravitational waves, let alone primordial ones. It's worth noting that if the B-mode polarisation is reliably observed in the CMBR, a prediction of inflationary theory, then brane-worlds will be falsified.

The idea that there's only one big bang theory is not correct, and any assertion that one of them shows the 'correct' history of the cosmos overlooks some of the core principles of science. No theory is ever proven correct, they merely withstand potential falsification.

 

[JRChadwick]

I was right about the gluon, but not the graviton.

Actually, the gluon arises from QCD, not any string framework. To my knowledge, only two unique, testable predictions have arisen from any stringy framework, namely supersymmetry, which is beginning to look on extremely shaky ground, and the prediction regarding the energy spectrum of primordial gravitational waves, and we've yet to detect any gravitational waves, let alone primordial ones. It's worth noting that if the B-mode polarisation is reliably observed in the CMBR, a prediction of inflationary theory, then brane-worlds will be falsified.

The idea that there's only one big bang theory is not correct, and any assertion that one of them shows the 'correct' history of the cosmos overlooks some of the core principles of science. No theory is ever proven correct, they merely withstand potential falsification.

I remember reading about a large haldron colider experiment that proved successful in providing evidence of the gluon in the previous decade, but particle physics is not something I've kept up on for a while. I'm not sure what you mean by multiple big bang theories, there is debate as to the beginning of our universe and it's distant future, but the expansion from a singularity is pretty robust and well supported. I have not heard of anyone who has a theory that is better supported. I'm glad you provided a method of falsifying 11-string membrane theory, I had not heard of one before. I vaguely remember reading about supersymmetry, but it was all hypothetical. Another prediction I remember regarding the membrane theory and the graviton is using a particle accelerator to detect minute losses of mater during collisions. The reasoning being that since gravity is so much weaker than the other forces, gravitons might be moving 11th deferentially out of our plain of existence. I mistakenly thought the experiment had already been conducted.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I'm not sure what you mean by multiple big bang theories, there is debate as to the beginning of our universe and it's distant future, but the expansion from a singularity is pretty robust and well supported.

Expansion, yes. Singularity, no. In fact, the authors of the singularity theorem, Hawking and Penrose, both repudiate the conclusion because it doesn't take QM into account, and the singularity is extremely problematic in QM, being an asymptote.

Here's Hawking:

The final result was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity is correct and the universe contains as much matter as we observe. There was a lot of opposition to our work, partly from the Russians because of their Marxist belief in scientific determinism, and partly from people who felt that the whole idea of singularities was repugnant and spoiled the beauty of Einstein’s theory. However, one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem. So in the end our work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity. It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, [b2]I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe – as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.[/b2]

I have not heard of anyone who has a theory that is better supported.

Well, the problem is that all models have expansion, which is what the big bang deals with, but it's not just one theory, and indeed, the theory that most people talk about as the big bang is not what it once was, because cosmologists talk about inflationary theory, which is itself an alternative to the classical big bang. The classical big bang has been dead for decades because of unsolvable problems.

There simply isn't any one theory called 'the big bang theory', it's a group of theories that deal with the expansion of the cosmos, and has exactly nothing to say on origin, because we're limited theoretically to the Planck time, and observationally until the surface of last scattering, which is 380,000 years or so after the Planck time.

Edit: It's worth reading the 'before the big bang' thread, in which I deal with all the current thinking in cosmology.

 

[tuxbox]

Greetings,

Not to disagree with Kaku but I'm not sure that "caused" is the right word - the Higgs boson's properties are fundamental to how/why our space-time "bubble" is the way it is.

Here is Kaku talking about the Higgs Boson starting the BB.

https://youtu.be/XWzPmK8KdL0?t=12m25s

Granted this is just his opinion on what occurred and I have also heard him talk a about a Multi-Verse as well. Which is the point I was trying to with JRChadwick, that there are competing theories out there, not just one.

It's inconceivable that a state of Nature that resulted in our space-time "bubble" coming into existence hasn't caused other "bubbles" - if it can happen once, what's to stop it happening multiple times? Similarly to biogenesis - if it can happen on Earth, it can happen anywhere.

If Dark Matter is behaving like a known particle, it's fairly likely that it's made up totally or mostly of that particle.


Kindest regards,

James

How is it inconceivable? This is the only bubble that we know of, but I do believe it is a possibility. However, I have not seen conclusive evidence that is case.

As far as the DM particle is concerned, what particle does it behave like? How can we know this if DM is not detectable yet?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Not to disagree with Kaku but I'm not sure that "caused" is the right word - the Higgs boson's properties are fundamental to how/why our space-time "bubble" is the way it is.

Here is Kaku talking about the Higgs Boson starting the BB.

https://youtu.be/XWzPmK8KdL0?t=12m25s

Granted this is just his opinion on what occurred and I have also heard him talk a about a Multi-Verse as well. Which is the point I was trying to with JRChadwick, that there are competing theories out there, not just one.

It's inconceivable that a state of Nature that resulted in our space-time "bubble" coming into existence hasn't caused other "bubbles" - if it can happen once, what's to stop it happening multiple times? Similarly to biogenesis - if it can happen on Earth, it can happen anywhere.

If Dark Matter is behaving like a known particle, it's fairly likely that it's made up totally or mostly of that particle.

Kindest regards,

James

How is it inconceivable? This is the only bubble that we know of, but I do believe it is a possibility. However, I have not seen conclusive evidence that is case.

If it can blow one "bubble", it can blow many.

It makes no sense that the state would occur that resulted in one "bubble", and then the state doesn't cause any others to arise.

As far as the DM particle is concerned, what particle does it behave like? How can we know this if DM is not detectable yet?

Unknown, as of yet.

Dark Matter can be detected through observing how it behaves - it has effects, and thus its properties can be deduced.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[tuxbox]

Greetings,

If it can blow one "bubble", it can blow many.

What is blowing the bubbles. This is a rhetorical question. Do need to respond.

It makes no sense that the state would occur that resulted in one "bubble", and then the state doesn't cause any others to arise.

Not making sense, does not equal it happened. This universe could have been a freak occurrence.

Unknown, as of yet.

Dark Matter can be detected through observing how it behaves - it has effects, and thus its properties can be deduced.

Kindest regards,

James

I agree DM can be observed which is why I believe it exists, or something exists that we are observing. DM supposedly passes through regular matter and if so it behaves differently to other particles, does it not?

 

[tuxbox]

Waaaaaaaahhh. Somebody call a waaaaambulance.

LMAO, now that is funny! Too bad you were not that funny from the start or maybe we would have gotten along.

 

[tuxbox]

I was right about the gluon, but not the graviton.

Actually, the gluon arises from QCD, not any string framework. To my knowledge, only two unique, testable predictions have arisen from any stringy framework, namely supersymmetry, which is beginning to look on extremely shaky ground, and the prediction regarding the energy spectrum of primordial gravitational waves, and we've yet to detect any gravitational waves, let alone primordial ones. It's worth noting that if the B-mode polarisation is reliably observed in the CMBR, a prediction of inflationary theory, then brane-worlds will be falsified.

The idea that there's only one big bang theory is not correct, and any assertion that one of them shows the 'correct' history of the cosmos overlooks some of the core principles of science. No theory is ever proven correct, they merely withstand potential falsification.

Potential falsification? What does not mean? Or is it obvious by the phrase?

 

[JRChadwick]

I'm not sure what you mean by multiple big bang theories, there is debate as to the beginning of our universe and it's distant future, but the expansion from a singularity is pretty robust and well supported.

Expansion, yes. Singularity, no. In fact, the authors of the singularity theorem, Hawking and Penrose, both repudiate the conclusion because it doesn't take QM into account, and the singularity is extremely problematic in QM, being an asymptote.

Here's Hawking:

The final result was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity is correct and the universe contains as much matter as we observe. There was a lot of opposition to our work, partly from the Russians because of their Marxist belief in scientific determinism, and partly from people who felt that the whole idea of singularities was repugnant and spoiled the beauty of Einstein’s theory. However, one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem. So in the end our work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity. It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, [b2]I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe – as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.[/b2]

Is not this part of the grand unification theory? The attempt to find a theory that can describe both quantum mechanics and the large scale of our universe as a whole?

I have not heard of anyone who has a theory that is better supported.

Well, the problem is that all models have expansion, which is what the big bang deals with, but it's not just one theory, and indeed, the theory that most people talk about as the big bang is not what it once was, because cosmologists talk about inflationary theory, which is itself an alternative to the classical big bang. The classical big bang has been dead for decades because of unsolvable problems.

The way I have heard the singularity described is a representation of where the mathematical equations of the relevant fields break down and are no longer describe the universe in the state that it was in at that time.

There simply isn't any one theory called 'the big bang theory', it's a group of theories that deal with the expansion of the cosmos, and has exactly nothing to say on origin, because we're limited theoretically to the Planck time, and observationally until the surface of last scattering, which is 380,000 years or so after the Planck time.

That time period you mention is what I have heard described as the period where the fundamental forces completely separated allowing light to travel through the early universe thus making it observable.

Also, that is something I have had to explain to many creationists; the big bang does is not the same theory as the origin of the universe because they were controlled by different mechanisms.

Edit: It's worth reading the 'before the big bang' thread, in which I deal with all the current thinking in cosmology.

I'm on my way out of town for a week, but I will try to read it. Thanks for the info.

 

[JRChadwick]

Potential falsification? What does not mean? Or is it obvious by the phrase?

To us it is, not so sure about you. For a theory, or even a hypothesis to be viable, it has to have a means to be falsified. In other words, there has to be a way to disprove it. Want to disprove common decent for example? Find where the taxonomic and phylogenetic trees do not match.

Waaaaaaaahhh. Somebody call a waaaaambulance.

LMAO, now that is funny! Too bad you were not that funny from the start or maybe we would have gotten along.

I really don't care.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Is not this part of the grand unification theory? The attempt to find a theory that can describe both quantum mechanics and the large scale of our universe as a whole?

Well precisely! If we have no theory that deals with events that dovetail both arenas, then there's no good theory to deal with the singularity.

The way I have heard the singularity described is a representation of where the mathematical equations of the relevant fields break down and are no longer describe the universe in the state that it was in at that time.

Certainly, and in fact that's the rigorous definition of singularity, but it isn't thge popular image of one, which is an area of infinite density and infinite curvature. The point is that we have models on the table that remove the singularity under either definition. Also, because of that rigorous definition, we can hardly say we have a theory in which the cosmos arises from a singularity, because we have no theory to treat such an event. In short, all pre-Planck attempts are thus far empirically equivalent, and there are no front-runners, let alone any single theory.

That time period you mention is what I have heard described as the period where the fundamental forces completely separated allowing light to travel through the early universe thus making it observable.

No, the surface of last scattering is nothing to do with unification. Again, I deal with all of this in the 'before the big bang' thread, so it seems a bit pointless to go over it all again here. What allowed light to travel unimpeded was simply the expansion/cooling to below a certain level. Unification occurred long before this time, somewhere not far from the very beginning.

Also, that is something I have had to explain to many creationists; the big bang does is not the same theory as the origin of the universe because they were controlled by different mechanisms.

Well, the big bang was certainly formulated as a theory of cosmic origin, but it fails in that regard, because it can't get to the origin. The mechanisms are still not entirely known, so to say that they were different is probably a bit premature. The best guess is some sort of runaway quantum fluctuation that was taken over by repulsive gravity, but that's not nailed-on.

I'm on my way out of town for a week, but I will try to read it. Thanks for the info.

My pleasure.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Potential falsification? What does not mean? Or is it obvious by the phrase?

This has been covered, but just for super-clarity:

For any model to be scientific, there has top be a way to show that the model is wrong. Indeed, it can be argued that scientific knowledge only progresses by showing that a given model is not correct. This is the only place for 'proof' in science, because it's the only place in science where you have an axiomatically complete system of deductive logic. I covered this in one of the early posts in the 'before the big bang' thread, in which I detailed how falsification works in terms of propositional calculus.

 

[tuxbox]

I really don't care.

I never thought you did nor did I expect you to respond to that post. That said, your hostility towards me is and was unwarranted. It takes a lot to piss me off, but one of things I will not stand for is being called a liar or dishonest which you did without any evidence to the contrary. What peaked my interest in this thread is when Dragon Glas made a claim that Nature was eternal. I questioned him on that and that was subject of this argument. If you did not like my inquire into this matter or disliked me for whatever reason, then you did not have to respond. However, you did respond and I would like to know why you responded with such hostility? My skepticism's of everything, including scientific theories are just. Or is skepticism in your book only for everything else other than scientific theories? I make inquires in this forum to learn, to adjust my own positions and think outside of my box. That is the bottom line. Even Hackenslash meets my stupid questions and inquires without being hostile as do most of the other Atheists in this forum. I’m not expecting you to respond to this, but felt the need to put this out on the table.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

If it can blow one "bubble", it can blow many.

What is blowing the bubbles. This is a rhetorical question. Do need to respond.

It makes no sense that the state would occur that resulted in one "bubble", and then the state doesn't cause any others to arise.

Not making sense, does not equal it happened. This universe could have been a freak occurrence.

Sense, here, meaning mathematical.

The idea that a state exists that causes just one space-time "bubble" to come into existence doesn't make sense.

Unknown, as of yet.

Dark Matter can be detected through observing how it behaves - it has effects, and thus its properties can be deduced.

Kindest regards,

James

I agree DM can be observed which is why I believe it exists, or something exists that we are observing. DM supposedly passes through regular matter and if so it behaves differently to other particles, does it not?

From what I've read, Dark Matter appears to behave like pions, which has yet to be confirmed.

Kiindest regards,

James

 

[tuxbox]

Dragan Glas

I'm no longer a skeptic of the Multiverse and I have a better understanding of Dark Matter now. Thanks for your response.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Alright, tuxbox.

Back on topic...

French teen finds 560,000 year-old tooth

Kindest regards,

James

 

[tuxbox]

Greetings,

Back on topic...

French teen finds 560,000 year-old tooth

Kindest regards,

James

Sweet!