|
Big Bang Theory CERN (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| *~LiSa-LoO~* |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Science
Lisa,
In extrapolating back our observations of the universe and from theoretical grounds we have good evidence for a rapid expansion of spacetime in the distant past. This is what is commonly referred to as the big bang.
There is also a distribution of radiation density in the universe which is consistent with the idea that it was once tightly packed together where quantum mechanical fluctuations would alter the energy density. Once the large expansion occurred the energy separated and was no longer flucuation however the current distribution looks very much like a magnified quantum fluctuation. This is another reason we believe the big bang occurred. Also, there is no real controversy in science about how the earth was formed. The creationists like to manufacture that idea but its a lie.
Someone mentioned earlier that science is only "theories". You have to realize that science does not use the word theory like you would in say a murder mystery. A theory is science is a self-consistent framework that not only explains all observed phenomena but also make predictions that can be confirmed by future experiment. |
There were some things in there that I didn't understand :( But I read it a couple times and I think I see where you were going with it. Thanks for the explanation :) |
|
|
| evil_cookie |
| quote: | Originally posted by *~LiSa-LoO~*
There were some things in there that I didn't understand :( But I read it a couple times and I think I see where you were going with it. Thanks for the explanation :) |
Take a quick read through Hubble's Law - it is one of the more self-evident proofs in support of the big bang. |
|
|
| *~LiSa-LoO~* |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_cookie
Take a quick read through Hubble's Law - it is one of the more self-evident proofs in support of the big bang. |
Will do when I get a chance.
I never took Physics, and didn't do OAC chemistry, only OAC Bio and ALL my maths! So there are a lot of things you guys talk about that I don't get! Haha |
|
|
| spolitta |
| quote: | Originally posted by *~LiSa-LoO~*
I don't know much about the big bang theory, but how do we know it happened? I thought that was the whole controversy about how the world started...some people believe God started it, others believe the big bang theory, others believe other things.... |
"Natural Section vs Intelligent Design" is a very outdated argument. The big bang was only a split of a second and the very early universe is still poorly understood. While big bang theory explains the basics just fine the details are largely based on educated guesses. Hopefully once the scientists analyze CERN's LHC experiment, then our puzzle would be more complete. |
|
|
| *~LiSa-LoO~* |
| quote: | Originally posted by spolitta
"Natural Section vs Intelligent Design" is a very outdated argument. The big bang was only a split of a second and the very early universe is still poorly understood. While big bang theory explains the basics just fine the details are largely based on educated guesses. Hopefully once the scientists analyze CERN's LHC experiment, then our puzzle would be more complete. |
:D |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by *~LiSa-LoO~*
I don't know much about the big bang theory, but how do we know it happened? I thought that was the whole controversy about how the world started...some people believe God started it, others believe the big bang theory, others believe other things.... |
The only reason many/most god-believers dont believe in the big bang theory is bc it doesnt subscribe to the way the world and universe was create as per stated in their bible.
If it wasnt for that fact, im sure there'd be very little doubt or controversy among the general population as to the validity of the big bang theory.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Science
You have to realize that science does not use the word theory like you would in say a murder mystery. A theory is science is a self-consistent framework that not only explains all observed phenomena but also make predictions that can be confirmed by future experiment. |
True, good point to note. Scientists use the term "theory" to mean "explanation."
Just as examples:
We have "cell theory," which explains the structure an function of living cells... but no scientist doubts that cells actually exist.
Or we have "gravitational theory," which explains how celestial objects are attracted to each other... but no scientist doubts that gravitation is real. |
|
|
| *~LiSa-LoO~* |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jem_hadar
The only reason many/most god-believers dont believe in the big bang theory is bc it doesnt subscribe to the way the world and universe was create as per stated in their bible.
If it wasnt for that fact, im sure there'd be very little doubt or controversy among the general population as to the validity of the big bang theory.
|
I guess one religious way to think of it would be "God created the Big Bang" hehe |
|
|
| Dr. Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_cookie
Physics and its prime forces: gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear force, are THE governing forces in our universe—thus, in observing the world everything is as a result of understanding our fundamental laws of physics, which when broken down provide us with other fields; like mathematics.
You wouldn’t call a chemist a biologist, but the matter of fact is, his field of study exists only because of our understanding of biology. As it stands, the same is true for physics and math. As our understanding of physics and quantum mechanics expands, so we are able to translate this understanding toward technological advances; just like we have been doing. Physics and its laws are regarded as THE governing forces for a reason...everything else comes as a result of. |
I see you're going in the right direction, but you're on the wrong trail.
The 4 forces are the only ones observed by us (so far). Apart from knowning they are there, we still have a theory (an educated guess supported by enough evidence, and enough accuracy to warrant a hypothesis) about the way they function. However, if you look at the scope of our immediate reality, we are conserned with phenomena that occur in the 10^-15 to 10^27. Modern understanding of Forces accounts for probably 99% of that range, while high school understanding of those forces accounds for maybe 50%. There is still the unexplored <10^-15 and >10^27 realm.
The problem with doing scientific experiment or using science is that everytime you use "laws" or equations in physics, they are built on initial axioms which are theories. Therefore, their accuracy is lower or equal to the axioms themselves. This is why every paper, every thesis, every conclusion, every calculation is an approximation. Some are very good, and unfortunately some are very bad.
Regarding Math: Math is very special. Math is not a field of study, or a natural observable. Math is a tool. It is a set of rules created by human power (very important) to help our measly brains understand how the universe works. The Earth doesn't really care that the sun is 10^11m or that 10^11 is divisible by two. It feels the presence of the Sun, and attracts due to gravity trough some (unknown to us yet) way.
Since we have developed these rules based on logic, we can arrive at 100% accurate solutions. If we define 1+1=2. Then if you were to get an equation 1+1, you could say the solution is 2 and you would prove it it's 2 by referencing the given 1+1=2. By defining more rules, like the derivative, we get higher functionality.
That should be sufficient for the proof vs theory topic. |
|
|
| evil_cookie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. Z
The 4 forces are the only ones observed by us (so far). Apart from knowning they are there, we still have a theory (an educated guess supported by enough evidence, and enough accuracy to warrant a hypothesis) about the way they function.
|
You got it the other way around.
A hypothesis, when applied and conducted can turn out to be nothing but a case of discontinuity unless its consistent with its premise through the trials; in which case it’s not a hypothesis anymore, it’s a theory—a scientific theorem. Science is very specific language—in this context your notion of “theory” is unsound. For instance, the curvature in space which results in gravity is not a hypothesis; rather, it’s a consistent theory.
I suspect the commons misconception regarding the word “theory” is that people like yourself, are under the impression that the process is merely depended on an educated guess. Where as, on the contrary, the only reason why nothing in science is ever declared one hundred sound is due to the relevancy of time. In short: until time has come to an halt, the utmost degree of proof will still be our scientific theories—empirical and approached in a posteriori manner.
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. Z
The problem with doing scientific experiment or using science is that everytime you use "laws" or equations in physics, they are built on initial axioms which are theories. |
How else would this be done?
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. Z
Regarding Math: Math is very special. Math is not a field of study, or a natural observable. Math is a tool. It is a set of rules created by human power |
Exactly what I said: it is a result of applying the laws of physics. We use numbers and their given associations to make things easier (the same meddling could never be done with the laws of the universe). Whereas you suggested that physics is a derivative of math; which is not true.
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. Z
Since we have developed these rules based on logic, we can arrive at 100% accurate solutions. If we define 1+1=2. |
I’m surprised you refer to simple mathematics where in the context we are discussing abstract/pure mathematics is the topic of argument—as it relates to physics. (even metaphysics!) In which case it’s not hard to see that abstract math is dynamic—in a flux. Yet even in the realm of abstracts there are fundamental governing laws. Albeit we far from understand them, quantum mechanics is leading the way. Nevertheless, even if we were to examine elementary mathematics, there are always paradoxes that exist within the founding doctrines; like my all time favorite, Achilles and The Tortoise.
So be careful in throwing around the “one hundred percent” assertion. After all, elementary math is a minuscule part of the study of mathematics—and in the grand scheme of things all are subject to natural laws; and only in their premise will you find one hundred percent objectivity. |
|
|
| spolitta |
| quote: | Originally posted by *~LiSa-LoO~*
I guess one religious way to think of it would be "God created the Big Bang" hehe |
Who cares what they say, the common god is man's best imaginary friend. |
|
|
| Dr. Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_cookie
You got it the other way around.
A hypothesis, when applied and conducted can turn out to be nothing but a case of discontinuity unless its consistent with its premise through the trials; in which case it’s not a hypothesis anymore, it’s a theory—a scientific theorem. Science is very specific language—in this context your notion of “theory” is unsound. For instance, the curvature in space which results in gravity is not a hypothesis; rather, it’s a consistent theory.
|
Yes Hypothesis and Theory have very different meaning, but what I was trying to illustrate above is that they both have inhearent inaccuracies. That is why a theory or a hypothesis cannot be used as proof. Thats all I was descibing above...
| quote: |
I suspect the commons misconception regarding the word “theory” is that people like yourself, are under the impression that the process is merely depended on an educated guess. Where as, on the contrary, the only reason why nothing in science is ever declared one hundred sound is due to the relevancy of time. In short: until time has come to an halt, the utmost degree of proof will still be our scientific theories—empirical and approached in a posteriori manner.
|
Not correct. There are plenty of theories wich are only partly accurate without the time factor. For an example. Einstien's mass energy equation E = MC^2. This equation is an approximation to a larger equation which has several terms. E = MoC^2 + 1/2mk^2 + etc...
However, since we apply the equation to relatively stationary objects in the 10^-12m to 10^9m range, we can approximate the Energy conversion equation to E = MC^2, and say it is 95% accurate. If we add all the other terms, that number of accuracy would go up; and if we were god we would have infinitely many terms in the equation covering the infinitely small to infinitely large for all time and would be 100% accurate. (If you need another example, the Gas equation. PV = nRT is used for normal gases, but it is completely flawed when dealing with P >> 0.)
| quote: |
How else would this be done?
|
No other way. But it's okay, it's what makes us human.
| quote: |
Exactly what I said: it is a result of applying the laws of physics. We use numbers and their given associations to make things easier (the same meddling could never be done with the laws of the universe). Whereas you suggested that physics is a derivative of math; which is not true.
|
No no no no no, I never suggested physics is a derivative of math. I should have highlighted the sentence math is a tool originially. That's it, it's only a tool. There is no direct relationship between math and physics. What happens in the world, and how forces act has nothing to do with the rules set forth in math, and what rules you create in math has nothing to do with the way the world works.
| quote: |
I’m surprised you refer to simple mathematics where in the context we are discussing abstract/pure mathematics is the topic of argument—as it relates to physics. (even metaphysics!) In which case it’s not hard to see that abstract math is dynamic—in a flux.
|
That's all math is. It is just a construct of very basic rules. I have done everything from elementary math to quantum physics, and it doesn't get very complicated once you understand where it comes from. There is no "change of theme" when you do algebra in high school, or when you're doing multi dimensional integration in quantum field theory.
| quote: |
Yet even in the realm of abstracts there are fundamental governing laws. Albeit we far from understand them, quantum mechanics is leading the way.
|
Quantum Mechanics doesn't struggle to discover math, it struggles to underdestand the way particles approximately the size of electrons behave. That is it. However, it uses statistics to understand it. Inhearently flawed, but it's our best tools so far.
| quote: |
Nevertheless, even if we were to examine elementary mathematics, there are always paradoxes that exist within the founding doctrines; like my all time favorite, Achilles and The Tortoise.
|
These are not paradoxes. They seem like paradoxes to the untrained user. You will never get a paradox if you follow your definitions. There is a solution to each one, especially the one where it shows 1 = 0 by stealthly dividing by 0.
| quote: |
So be careful in throwing around the “one hundred percent” assertion. After all, elementary math is a minuscule part of the study of mathematics—and in the grand scheme of things all are subject to natural laws; and only in their premise will you find one hundred percent objectivity. |
I'm not sure what you tried to say here. |
|
|
| DJ_Science |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. Z
Quantum Mechanics doesn't struggle to discover math, it struggles to underdestand the way particles approximately the size of electrons behave. That is it. However, it uses statistics to understand it. Inhearently flawed, but it's our best tools so far.
|
What makes you think quantum mechanics is inherently flawed? Everything we know about quantum field theory tells us that the world is in fact non-deterministic. |
|
|
|
|
