|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 12, 2010 17:03:05 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. Oh Yeah! I have still got another bollock you haven't pulled! ;D
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 12, 2010 17:30:34 GMT 1
Depends what you mean by nothing. You seem to be using the word 'nothing' to mean a cancellation of the net energy in the universe but you still have to have something existing to do the cancelling.
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Oct 12, 2010 18:30:18 GMT 1
By "nothing" I mean empty space. If the total energy of the universe is zero, relative to empty space, the universe could have come into existence spontaneously because no energy would be needed to create it. A quantum fluctuation could have grown into a universe.
In spite of what some may think, this is a plausible theory, based on the laws of physics.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 12, 2010 18:37:02 GMT 1
By "nothing" I mean empty space. If the total energy of the universe is zero, relative to empty space, the universe could have come into existence spontaneously because no energy would be needed to create it. A quantum fluctuation could have grown into a universe. In spite of what some may think, this is a plausible theory, based on the laws of physics. Could the 'quantum fluctuation' be God I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Oct 12, 2010 19:11:54 GMT 1
If God is responsible for quantum fluctuations, He must be very busy.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 12, 2010 19:28:08 GMT 1
You see, again, you talk of 'empty space' which is not actually nothing, is it?
There are ideas today that talk about additional dimensions to our familiar four so how do you know that something wasn't going on at some deeper level of reality that initiated the BB? No, I do not find the 'something out of nothing' idea satisfactory because it seems to exclude aspects of the universe that modern cosmology is beginning to seriously look at. Also, much to my disgust, I find I agree with STA here in that observational evidence in principle may be available if and when we aquire the means to obtain it. Frankly, I think the BB is running out of proponents and gradually being supplanted by better ideas that answer more mysteries.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 12, 2010 19:48:32 GMT 1
Well, the current 'orthodoxy' does appear to be a dead ringer for Genesis, doesn't it? The disturbing thing is if the BB is in fact correct then science can no longer ask any more questions about it since there is no causal link involved, just that something 'happened'. I do not think this is scientific because for one thing the whole idea becomes irrefutable which is very much against the scientific tradition.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 13, 2010 12:55:50 GMT 1
As regards quantum cosmology, the quantum fluctuation wasn't a thing that happened somewhere, there was no empty space in which it occurred, since the universe itself is space (and time).
What we have instead is just the universe itself, self-contained. As Cambridge says:
So, time and causality is an internal feature of our universe, and applies to events within it, not to the creation of universes themselves. And note the spontaneous, no creator needed..................
No, the energy budget of the universe is an internal thing, with the property that to get a long-lasting universe (ie one whose internal time can extend to allow interesting stuff to happen), you have to have zero net energy. You could imagine spontaneous creation of non-zero energy universes, but these have a very short history, and are not the universe we find ourselves in.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 13, 2010 15:36:53 GMT 1
This is not science; it is more like religious belief to be taken on trust. STA, you have been duped into accepting all this nonsense without one shred of evidence to support it. This claim is no better than 'God did it!', only at least God had to pre-exist as a cause, but your theory doesn't even support a cause! You have become a mystic, STA.
STA, I think what you seemed to have spectacularly failed to understand is that the BB theory has simply been a provisional 'placeholder' awaiting better ideas. Cosmologists have more sophisticated models of reality than used to be the case so that the BB theory has had its day and is now on the verge of becoming obsolete. Certainly, there does not seem to be a consensus anymore among cosmologists about the idea, so please, move on or risk becoming a dinosaur.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 13, 2010 16:02:23 GMT 1
It is perfectly respectable science, totally in line with what we know of quantum theory.
It is also testable science, in that, as Cambridge says:
Except we have the universe as we see it, the evidence that the universe evolved from a hot dense state, and the evidence from the rest of physics that nature is fundamentally quantum. Hence it is perfectly logical (given that we don't yet have a full quantum theory of gravity), to apply quantum methods to the entire universe. Which yields the interesting, testable results as detailed above.
It's nothing more than the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle writ large. Claiming it is not science is just daft mud slinging, as well as demonstrably incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 13, 2010 16:42:19 GMT 1
STA, let me try another approach.
To claim that the BB theory is correct and unassailable is scientific heresy because it effectively says we know how the universe came into existence and any competing ideas are simply nor permitted to see the light of day for all time. So, never question the 'orthodoxy' because that's just the way it is and we will never have any way of knowing any more.
Can you see how ridiculous your position is? It seems to me that you and this bloke you are quoting are a bit like religious dogmatists who stick to their 'beliefs' come hell or high water and refuse to be open to new ideas.
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Oct 14, 2010 11:28:24 GMT 1
Events happen without a cause all the time.
For example, a radium atom spontaneously decays and emits an alpha particle. There is nothing that causes that particular atom to disintegrate at that particular time. It might not have happened until next year, or the year after that.
We don't often see such random occurrences in ordinary life, because what we usually observe is the average behaviour of a very large number of atoms, but an event does not always need a proximate cause.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 14, 2010 12:00:32 GMT 1
I NEVER said that current cosmology is correct and unassailable. That is not the same as saying -- there is good evidence to support the current Big Bang model, hence it is a good scientific theory. But just because (as I have already said), we know that relativity is in some way incomplete (it isn't a quantum theory of gravity), so that the classical predictions may be modified (and quantum cosmology is one such modification), doesn't mean that it isn't still a good theory.
As I suspected, you've run out of ideas, and just reverted to the usual numpty total misunderstanding of science position of trying to compare scientific ideas adn current best ideas with some or religious orthodoxy -- a tired and nonsensical non-argument.
The reason why it is HARD to replace current scientific ideas is not orthodoxy, but because they WORK (agree with the evidence), and other ideas usually don't agree as well. That is why, not any stick-in-the-mud orthodoxy from scientists. Indeed, if you look at what theoretical physicists actually do, some of the ideas they come up with are wilder than anything the challenge-the-scientific-orthodoxy supposedly freer-thinkers come up with.
Just because you're an idiot, don't assume I'm one as well............
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 14, 2010 12:08:38 GMT 1
Well, the radium atom already exists, doesn't it, so although it can spontaneously decay there is always something pre-existing that can give rise to particle behaviour and it's a very big step to suggest that space, particles and energy arose out of literally nothing way back at the BB. The main problem with this idea is that it seems to reduce all of reality to a non-examinable end to scientific investigation since there is no way you can ever think about before the BB event. This does appear to be a scientific cul-de-sac and kind of imposes a straight-jacket on ideas and offers nothing better than, say, the Genesis paradigm. I think some scientists, at least, feel there must be more to the universe than that; other models, such as brane cosmology, the ekpyrotic model, chaotic inflation and so have been proposed as speculative alternatives and it may be just a question of time before observational evidence is forthcoming in support of one or more of these proposals. Fundamentally, though, it is difficult to accept that Homo-Sapiens, who have evolved in a 4 dimensional spacetime environment, and who's science has only just got going, have already cracked the mystery of existence. Even Sir Roger Penrose, in the Horizon programme the other evening admitted that he now considers that people have been thinking in rather a rut about the BB model. Why should I question him?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 14, 2010 12:19:13 GMT 1
I NEVER said that current cosmology is correct and unassailable. That is not the same as saying -- there is good evidence to support the current Big Bang model, hence it is a good scientific theory. But just because (as I have already said), we know that relativity is in some way incomplete (it isn't a quantum theory of gravity), so that the classical predictions may be modified (and quantum cosmology is one such modification), doesn't mean that it isn't still a good theory. As I suspected, you've run out of ideas, and just reverted to the usual numpty total misunderstanding of science position of trying to compare scientific ideas adn current best ideas with some or religious orthodoxy -- a tired and nonsensical non-argument. The reason why it is HARD to replace current scientific ideas is not orthodoxy, but because they WORK (agree with the evidence), and other ideas usually don't agree as well. That is why, not any stick-in-the-mud orthodoxy from scientists. Indeed, if you look at what theoretical physicists actually do, some of the ideas they come up with are wilder than anything the challenge-the-scientific-orthodoxy supposedly freer-thinkers come up with. Just because you're an idiot, don't assume I'm one as well............ Total rubbish, full of inconsistencies and personal abuse (as usual). It is hardly worth my while dignifying such crap with a reply STA. When you learn how to debate like a grow-up woman and not a petulant child then perhaps we might have a fruitful discussion that benefits both of us but I do not see that happening anytime soon. You do seem to have some kind of psychological problem, STA, and I for one do not wish to continue to be a victim of it. You cannot be reasoned with.
|
|