|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 11, 2010 18:50:59 GMT 1
Tonight's Horizon programme (11/10/2010, 21.00 BBC2) deals with the subject of what happened before the big bang. I, for one, shall be avidly watching.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Oct 11, 2010 18:57:09 GMT 1
Abacus I'm out of the UK at the momewnt and can't get "I" player. Can you give me the gist of what the programme says after you've seen it? thanks BTW have not got Internet until Thurs, so don't be offended if I don't post. P
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 11, 2010 19:23:46 GMT 1
Abacus I'm out of the UK at the momewnt and can't get "I" player. Can you give me the gist of what the programme says after you've seen it? thanks BTW have not got Internet until Thurs, so don't be offended if I don't post. P Of course, principled, glad to oblige.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 11, 2010 22:00:18 GMT 1
principled, in short, most researches now appear to believe that the BB was not the beginning of everything. There are a number of alternative ideas which have yet to be supported by observational evidence but it seems the big bang is becoming out of vogue because it does not satisfy all the unanswered problems and perhaps one day will be shown to be rather naive and replaced, in fact, it seems inevitable. Even Sir Roger Penrose is having doubts about the BB in its current form. Please see the programme though, it is fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 12, 2010 8:12:42 GMT 1
principled, in short, most researches now appear to believe that the BB was not the beginning of everything. There are a number of alternative ideas which have yet to be supported by observational evidence but it seems the big bang is becoming out of vogue because it does not satisfy all the unanswered problems and perhaps one day will be shown to be rather naive and replaced, in fact, it seems inevitable. Even Sir Roger Penrose is having doubts about the BB in its current form. Please see the programme though, it is fascinating. What we must bear in mind, however fascinating these hypotheses are, is that thaey are simply that and are, certainly in our current state of knowledge, untestable in principle With that in mind they have no more validity than the observations and hypothetical construction of a God based on those observations. Both constructions, the BB (or variants upon that ) and God are mental constructions of the human mind. The very fact that scientists disagree on hypotheses on the origins of the universe indicates that there is no 'truth', purely belief derived from differing interpretions of observations.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 12, 2010 9:35:56 GMT 1
Let's not forget that we, basically a highly developed primate, are trying to work out how the universe we observe came from, a universe that is immensely old and immensely huge, yet something as tiny as us are making models of it. It is, therefore, inevitable I think that we are going to get it wrong and improve our understanding of reality in the light of the latest observational evidence. We are only able to form ideas of the universe based on what we know to date and in the case of the current BB model the 'fit' has been very good but not perfect in various aspects. Roger Penrose summed it up in last night's Horizon program when he noted that he thought he was in a 'rut' in thinking about the model of the BB and perhaps it was time to consider newer, more refined ideas about where our universe originated. They showed a sealed construction where all the atoms and all other 'stuff' had been removed from so that it formed a perfect vacuum, but even then what was left had properties such as dimension and energy so the point is, it seems inconceivable that the BB could have come from absolutely nothing, which is one of the perplexing aspects of the traditional model. Originally, there didn't seem enough observational evidence in support of the BB theory yet over time evidence was found to support it and it may be that in time evidence could be found to support one of the current alternatives to the BB. I think it all depends what you are looking for. If you know what to look for the chances are you will, sooner or later find it, but we shall see.
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Oct 12, 2010 9:40:01 GMT 1
The Horizon program was disappointing, I thought. A mish-mash of half explained theories. Of course, the frontiers of science are a bit like that.
However, I do wish the beeb would do science seriously. They seem to believe that viewers have the attention span of a gnat and that we will lose interest in anything but a superficial treatment.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 12, 2010 10:04:37 GMT 1
The Horizon program was disappointing, I thought. A mish-mash of half explained theories. Of course, the frontiers of science are a bit like that. However, I do wish the beeb would do science seriously. They seem to believe that viewers have the attention span of a gnat and that we will lose interest in anything but a superficial treatment. I agree. Pictures of a lady scientist striding through a campus with a slit skirt exposing a provative thigh or drinkiing coffee in Starbucks as she ponders the Universe, grown men playing with wooden puzzles, pictures of enormous cavities that are evacuated, exploding fireballs etc, add nothing to our understanding, divert ones attention and waste time and show a paucity of imagination and understanding. How different from the discussions with Feynman which consist of him just sitting there and talking - now that was both exciting and informative - to see a great lucid and articulate brain at work. The BBC used to do that in the old days when they respected their audiences
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 12, 2010 10:41:29 GMT 1
I don't think you can expect people to understand advanced physics and maths in a popular science programme, especially after a hard day's graft at work - you're just being daft now; people would simply turn off in their droves. It's really up to you if you wish to delve deeper into this subject. Why do people always have to 'knock' things?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 12, 2010 10:50:36 GMT 1
Well, you have to remember that the BBC were trying to present a variety of alternative theories about the BB, so you can hardly expect them to have dealt with every one of them in depth. I would certainly have been baffled, together with most other viewers, I think. They have to try to make things a bit entertaining too and I think they did a good job. Programmes like Horizon are not intended to be for physics undergraduates. I mean, let's be honest, when STA attempts to give us the benefit of her knowledge about physics it can be hard going, to say the least! Also, different people learn by different approaches and the visual aspects of last night's program may have appealed to some people more than others.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 12, 2010 11:50:56 GMT 1
Well, you have to remember that the BBC were trying to present a variety of alternative theories about the BB, so you can hardly expect them to have dealt with every one of them in depth. I would certainly have been baffled, together with most other viewers, I think. They have to try to make things a bit entertaining too and I think they did a good job. Programmes like Horizon are not intended to be for physics undergraduates. I mean, let's be honest, when STA attempts to give us the benefit of her knowledge about physics it can be hard going, to say the least! Also, different people learn by different approaches and the visual aspects of last night's program may have appealed to some people more than others. Good points! Can't really argue with that!
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Oct 12, 2010 14:55:12 GMT 1
But what is the point of interviewing leading cosmologists and then not giving them time to present their ideas properly. I appreciate that the program was for ordinary viewers but that is all the more reason to devote time to explaining things. The problem is that the BBC are not willing to give enough time to science. It would have been better to choose, say, four of the scientists and give them a half hour program each. As for a cosmologist fiddling with a wooden puzzle! I think most of us got the point the first time. Did they have to make them all do it?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 12, 2010 15:02:13 GMT 1
This is just daft, you are mixing up untestable in practice, and untestable in principle, two very different things.
So, a hypothesis may be testable in principle (there are observations of the universe now that would enable us to distinguish between two hypotheses), but they may be untestable in practice (i.e, if they required a particle accelerator the size of the galaxy, for example).
This is just silly, there is a lot of difference something that is testable in principle, and something that (as usually defined), is not testable.
Although I should of course add that science doesn't actually deal with testable hypotheses, but falsifiable hypotheses.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 12, 2010 15:36:36 GMT 1
This is just daft, you are mixing up untestable in practice, and untestable in principle, two very different things. So, a hypothesis may be testable in principle (there are observations of the universe now that would enable us to distinguish between two hypotheses), but they may be untestable in practice (i.e, if they required a particle accelerator the size of the galaxy, for example). No. I mean in principle! Unless there is some method of producing something from nothing at all as the BB theory has it! Although I should of course add that science doesn't actually deal with testable hypotheses, but falsifiable hypotheses. And how are they falsifiable except through testing under various circumstances? My, my! You are an argumentative girl!
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Oct 12, 2010 16:08:28 GMT 1
They have an answer to that. The negative potential energy due to gravity balances the positive energy of matter ( mc2=E ). So no energy was needed to create the universe. It could appear spontaneously out of nothing.
|
|