A question...

[Fizz]

Rubbish. What holes? What physical laws does it break?

First law of thermodynamics.

Your turn. Explain.

Ah, the classic "something can not come out of nothing" argument.

First, you need to understand Quantum Field Theory. Things can in fact appear from nothing via vacuum fluctuations. For example, a positron and an electron can appear simultaneously from nothing out of the vacuum. Most often, they then recollide and annihilate one another, but not always. No violations of mass/energy or charge exist here. Look up the Casimir effect for experimental evidence of it.

Secondly, since time before the Big Bang is not definable, we can't even know whether the First Law would apply. Time was created at the Big Bang, so to talk of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (which requires time) before the Big Bang is meaningless.

Third, if you could define an energy before the Big Bang, then you don't have a problem so long as the total energy before and after the Big Bang is consistent. What might that be? One might guess 0 (no universe, no energy). Well, in fact cosmological evidence theorizes that total energy of the universe is in fact exactly 0. So you can't even say whether the 1st Law has been violated.

Fourth, the Big Bang Theory is not about the origin of the universe. It is about the evolution of the universe. We know the Big Bang occurred. We don't yet know why. Actually, string theory (more generally M-theory) has some ideas about how such events occur (it involves the collisions of cosmic "branes", which would produce the necessary energy). It's fascinating stuff.


-Fizz

[Fizz]

Its not even that it "breaks" any laws, and even with everything that is observable, there are many big, HUGE questions that will need to be answered. Like, for example, why do we have the "laws" that we have? How did they come out of complete randomness? Within a second of the "Big Bang"? Because everything we know at this point, says our Scientific Laws have been in place since the beginning. How? Why? Kind of critically important to figure out.

Plus, remember, the "Big Bang" is not a law, because of everything it doesn't answer.

True. There is a difference between a law and a theory. It's not the Law of Gravity, it's the Theory of Gravity (which is still being investigated and which string theory hopes to explain, though it got a boost with the discovery of the Higgs-Boson). Everything is up for review if the evidence demands it.

What you ask are good questions. Why are the constants in the universe as they are? Why is the charge of the electron not just a little bit more negative, or why isn't gravity a little bit smaller? They are fantastic questions, and we don't yet have an answer.

But such questions don't invalidate Big Bang Theory. In fact, BBT doesn't purport to explain these things. BBT is about the evolution of the universe.

M-theory (which is basically generalized string theory) very well might explain these cosmological constants, actually.

NOVA did a series The Fabric of the Cosmos that you might want to check out. It was written by physicist Brian Greene- hell of a smart person and great communicator- that discusses cosmology, including the Big Bang and why the universe is as it is (including those constants). Really interesting stuff.


-Fizz

[Arduin]

First, you need to understand Quantum Field Theory.

-Fizz

I do. It doesn't answer on the macro scale. We don't even know if it is NEW matter & energy or just what is tunneling from place to place. (and thus we are not witnessing created matter and energy) That you even point to that as the answer to where ALL the matter came to support such a theory shows a huge lack of understanding yourself.

Peace out.

[Fizz]

I do. It doesn't answer on the macro scale. We don't even know if it is NEW matter & energy or just what is tunneling from place to place. (and thus we are not witnessing created matter and energy) That you even point to that as the answer to where ALL the matter came to support such a theory shows a huge lack of understanding yourself.
Peace out.

Do you? Then why would you bring up the 1st Law?

But at no point did i say that all matter came from spontaneous particle creation. That was only to illustrate that using the 1st Law to say "nothing can't come from something" is patently false. And to use this "planet-sized hole" as you call it to refute BBT is completely incorrect.


-Fizz

[Treebore]

Its not even that it "breaks" any laws, and even with everything that is observable, there are many big, HUGE questions that will need to be answered. Like, for example, why do we have the "laws" that we have? How did they come out of complete randomness? Within a second of the "Big Bang"? Because everything we know at this point, says our Scientific Laws have been in place since the beginning. How? Why? Kind of critically important to figure out.

Plus, remember, the "Big Bang" is not a law, because of everything it doesn't answer.

Well, in science there are no Laws. It's not the Law of Gravity, it's the Theory of Gravity (which is still being investigated and which string theory hopes to explain, though it got a boost with the discovery of the Higgs-Boson). Everything is up for review if the evidence demands it.

What you ask are good questions. Why are the constants in the universe as they are? Why is the charge of the electron not just a little bit more negative, or why isn't gravity a little bit smaller? They are fantastic questions, and we don't yet have an answer.

But such questions don't invalidate Big Bang Theory. In fact, BBT doesn't purport to explain these things. BBT is about the evolution of the universe.

M-theory (which is basically generalized string theory) very well might explain these cosmological constants, actually.

NOVA did a series The Fabric of the Cosmos that you might want to check out. It was written by physicist Brian Greene- hell of a smart person and great communicator- that discusses cosmology, including the Big Bang and why the universe is as it is (including those constants). Really interesting stuff.


-Fizz

The Big Bang Theory is just the most popular "Theory" out there. Yes, it has a lot of evidence that suggests its a good theory, but it still has tons and tons of questions that need answered before we can consider it "THE ANSWER". Hard core Scientists, thankfully, know this. So keep their mind and research open to other possible answers, which is what all true Scientists, who adhere to the Scientific Method, do. Scientists who make the mistake of fixating on what they believe to be the answer can be wrong their entire lives. Then we have others who believe everyone else is wrong, but are wrong themselves, or a few, who end up being more correct than everyone else all along.

[Treebore]

For a great example, look at Einsteins Theory of relativity. Look at the history of how the Scientific community reacted, how long it took to "win over" the majority of the community. Read some of the writings of the people who disagreed with it. Even when you are right, its never easy to convince an entire community of it.

[Fizz]

The Big Bang Theory is just the most popular "Theory" out there. Yes, it has a lot of evidence that suggests its a good theory, but it still has tons and tons of questions that need answered before we can consider it "THE ANSWER". Hard core Scientists, thankfully, know this. So keep their mind and research open to other possible answers, which is what all true Scientists, who adhere to the Scientific Method, do. Scientists who make the mistake of fixating on what they believe to be the answer can be wrong their entire lives. Then we have others who believe everyone else is wrong, but are wrong themselves, or a few, who end up being more correct than everyone else all along.

Well i would say more than that- it's the only theory of the evolution of the universe that has any empirical evidence supporting it. There is no other theory that competes with it.

But i agree, absolutely there is a lot more to answer. If there weren't, i'd be out of a job. Heh. I certainly don't have all the answers and neither does anyone else. At the moment, BBT is our best understanding for the evolution of the universe. As more evidence comes to bear, the theory will be modified if needed. But at this point, there is so much evidence towards it that it would require something truly paradigm shiftiing to invalidate it.

Scientists will (and should) argue vehemently with each other- that's part of how science works. If you have a radical new idea, you need to back it up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

-Fizz

[Fizz]

For a great example, look at Einsteins Theory of relativity. Look at the history of how the Scientific community reacted, how long it took to "win over" the majority of the community. Read some of the writings of the people who disagreed with it. Even when you are right, its never easy to convince an entire community of it.

Yes, but when that solar eclipse was in effect in 1919, and the predicted bending of the suns rays was observed, there was no longer any doubt that Einstein was on to something big. It was accepted universally almost immediately after that evidence was published. That doesn't mean they stopped putting it to the test of course- every theory requires exhaustive testing.

I would say Quantum Mechanics had an even bigger problem with acceptance because the nature of it is so foreign to our daily lives. Einstein in particular didn't like a number of aspects of QM. But no experiment ever done has ever refutted QM, as crazy as it is to our classically-inclined brains. Lol.

-Fizz

[Arduin]

For a great example, look at Einsteins Theory of relativity. Look at the history of how the Scientific community reacted, how long it took to "win over" the majority of the community. Read some of the writings of the people who disagreed with it. Even when you are right, its never easy to convince an entire community of it.

GRB's have thrown doubt into the actual formula E=mc2. I remember when these were discovered outside the galaxy. MUCH gnashing of teeth and actual screaming, etc.

[Fizz]

First law of thermodynamics. The monopole problem. The flatness problem, Horizon problem, etc. Why go on. Those alone show that it doesn't qual as a theory.

Ah, i see you modified your message after i replied. Very well.

But you've changed the goal posts. First you said it violated a number of laws, and i addressed the first one. Now you're referencing problems, but these aren't issues that break the laws of physics. When problems that seemingly break the laws of physics are found, then we look for solutions that would not break the laws of physics. They recognize that the theory is missing something, but it doesn't necessarily break the whole theory.


The Flatness problem and the Horizon problem: these are both accounted for through the concept of Cosmic Inflation, the first evidence of which actually was just released a few months ago (April i think?). You can do a news search on it.

The Monopole problem involves heavy-duty gauge theory (in which i am not well-versed), but again i think Cosmic Inflation would account for this because it removes the conditions in the early universe that would have been required for monopoles and other exotic particles to form.


But these "problems" do not disprove or invalidate the theory. A valid theory does not have to explain everything right away- a theory is always a work in progress. These are not pieces of evidence that oppose BBT, because there is so much evidence for BBT otherwise. Rather, such observations need to be incorporated into BBT to complete it.


The crux of your argument seems to come down to this: "the theory doesn't know everything, therefore the entire theory is pure conjecture". And that's just not the case nor how any scientific endeavor or theory has ever been developed.


-Fizz

[Treebore]

Look, a 150 year old "Law" now is found to break down at the nano level...

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-facet-form ... cubes.html

[Fizz]

Look, a 150 year old "Law" now is found to break down at the nano level...

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-facet-form ... cubes.html

I know a guy at the Berkeley Lab, i should see if he knows anything about this.

Solid state physics is not my forte, but this isn't a law in the way "conservation of momentum" is a law. It looks like that in the past, predictions of growth have been based on the premise of energy minimization. But now they've demonstrated a different mechanism that drives the growth.

So, no new law or broken law here really. That's artistic license by the author i think.

But either way, very very cool. Thanks for the link!


-Fizz

[concobar]

I do. It doesn't answer on the macro scale. We don't even know if it is NEW matter & energy or just what is tunneling from place to place. (and thus we are not witnessing created matter and energy) That you even point to that as the answer to where ALL the matter came to support such a theory shows a huge lack of understanding yourself.
Peace out.

Do you? Then why would you bring up the 1st Law?

But at no point did i say that all matter came from spontaneous particle creation. That was only to illustrate that using the 1st Law to say "nothing can't come from something" is patently false. And to use this "planet-sized hole" as you call it to refute BBT is completely incorrect.


-Fizz

The first law is still the first law and science has not shown that matter or energy can spontaneously come into existence. Quantum mechanics may show particles appearing to a place from another.

[concobar]

First you said it violated a number of laws, and i addressed the first one.
-Fizz

You did not actually address the first law. The statement you made only addresses the 1st law if the particles appearing are new and not already existing particles that have traveled to the point where they are "observed" by some means.

The concept that matter or energy can self manifest is just about as unscientific as possible and is similar to the argument that matter and energy are eternal. This entire field of science is political science as it seeks to avoid the possibility of a supernatural agent.

[Arduin]

Look, a 150 year old "Law" now is found to break down at the nano level...

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-facet-form ... cubes.html

Incredible stuff. Crystaliron anyone?

Did you see them recently capture part of photosynthesis on the molecular scale using x-ray imagery? We're starting to really be able to see what is happening.

[Fizz]

You did not actually address the first law. The statement you made only addresses the 1st law if the particles appearing are new and not already existing particles that have traveled to the point where they are "observed" by some means.

I did address it, first by pointing out that "something from nothing", is actually possible. Then i explained why it's not a valid argument against BBT for 3 other reasons. You can go back and re-read them.

The first law is still the first law and science has not shown that matter or energy can spontaneously come into existence. Quantum mechanics may show particles appearing to a place from another.

Look up the Casimir Effect. Virtual particle creation is real and has been verified experimentally many times over. Heck we actually exploit it in nano-technology applications.

-Fizz

[Fizz]

Incredible stuff. Did you see them recently capture part of photosynthesis on the molecular scale using x-ray imagery? We're starting to really be able to see what is happening.

Oh sweet. I read your note and instantly had to look it up. Awesome!

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-x-ray-lase ... ction.html

-Fizz

[Arduin]

First you said it violated a number of laws, and i addressed the first one.
-Fizz

You did not actually address the first law. The statement you made only addresses the 1st law if the particles appearing are new and not already existing particles that have traveled to the point where they are "observed" by some means.

Yes. This is a common "jumping the shark" error that happens when science is abandoned in favor of defending a poorly constructed hypothesis . Using non-theories to defend one that has been falsified.

When defense of an idea takes precedence over testing and observation, science is no longer being conducted.

[Arduin]

The concept that matter or energy can self manifest is just about as unscientific as possible and is similar to the argument that matter and energy are eternal. This entire field of science is political science as it seeks to avoid the possibility of a supernatural agent.

The funny thing is that, based on what we have been able to observe and test, it HAD to start at some point. BUT "starting" doesn't work either with the known physical laws. So we end up with "turtles all the way down".

Once someone posits that the universe just sprang to existence out of nothing then it is just as scientifically valid/invalid to posit that an other dimensional wizard used his wand to create matter/energy in this universe.

[Fizz]

Yes. This is a common "jumping the shark" error that happens when science is abandoned in favor of defending a poorly constructed hypothesis. Using non-theories to defend one that has been falsified.

When defense of an idea takes precedence over testing and observation, science is no longer being conducted.

Defense of an idea is important in science. The amount of rigour that goes into the process of science is unfathomable to most people who think hard science is what they do on Mythbusters (which is a fun show, but not hard science). Scientists get into massive debates about the nature of things because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

In the case of the 1st Law and BBT (theory, not hypothesis), here's how matter came into being and why it doesn't violate the 1st Law:
http://machineslikeus.com/news/big-bang ... ion-energy

Or to get to the point:

In the inflationary scenario, the mass-energy of matter was produced during that rapid initial inflation. The field responsible for inflation has negative pressure, allowing the universe to do work on itself as it expands. This is allowed by the first law of thermodynamics.

In other words, no energy was required to "create" the universe. The zero total energy of the universe is an observational fact, within measured uncertainties, of course. What is more, this is also a prediction of inflationary cosmology, which we have seen has now been strongly supported by observations. Thus we can safely say,

No violation of energy conservation occurred if the universe grew out of an initial void of zero energy.


-Fizz

[Fizz]

The funny thing is that, based on what we have been able to observe and test, it HAD to start at some point. BUT "starting" doesn't work either with the known physical laws. So we end up with "turtles all the way down".

Once someone posits that the universe just sprang to existence out of nothing then it is just as scientifically valid/invalid to posit that an other dimensional wizard used his wand to create matter/energy in this universe.

Except that there is direct observational evidence that this is case. See my previous post.

Remember that time was created at the Big Bang. So to speak of a "starting" point or a time "before" the Big Bang is meaningless. Can there be a "before" if there is no time?

Before you said the 1st Law was violated. I've shown that it is not. Then you brought up a number of problems, which Inflation explains. You even said that if i could explain those, i'd have a valid theory. Well, i have explained those. And please don't take my word on any of this- you can look up everything i've said quite easily. The finest minds in cosmology have been working on these issues for decades.

Then you suggest i'm the one clinging to to a position in spite of testing and observations? I would suggest that it is the opposite- it is you who is clinging to his idea in spite of testing and observations.


-Fizz

[DMSamuel]

Reading this thread makes me chuckle, considering my biology science geek out on that other thread...

[concobar]

Yes. This is a common "jumping the shark" error that happens when science is abandoned in favor of defending a poorly constructed hypothesis. Using non-theories to defend one that has been falsified.

When defense of an idea takes precedence over testing and observation, science is no longer being conducted.

Defense of an idea is important in science. The amount of rigour that goes into the process of science is unfathomable to most people who think hard science is what they do on Mythbusters (which is a fun show, but not hard science). Scientists get into massive debates about the nature of things because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No any claim requires the normal amount of evidence. I appreciate you quoting that old showman Sagan but the facts are he was incorrect about a great many things and most of us would not know his name had he not been on that PBS show. Any evidence is evidence and what you are claiming, ie matter and energy from nothing, is not supported by actual evidence but is based instead on assumptions based on yet more assumptions.


In the case of the 1st Law and BBT (theory, not hypothesis), here's how matter came into being and why it doesn't violate the 1st Law:
http://machineslikeus.com/news/big-bang ... ion-energy

Or to get to the point:

In the inflationary scenario, the mass-energy of matter was produced during that rapid initial inflation. The field responsible for inflation has negative pressure, allowing the universe to do work on itself as it expands. This is allowed by the first law of thermodynamics.

The mass-energy might be produced as long as the net sum of information is not changed. If the base is a zero net sum of information than there can be no change without an out side agent.

In other words, no energy was required to "create" the universe. The zero total energy of the universe is an observational fact, within measured uncertainties, of course. What is more, this is also a prediction of inflationary cosmology, which we have seen has now been strongly supported by observations. Thus we can safely say,

No violation of energy conservation occurred if the universe grew out of an initial void of zero energy.
-Fizz

Did you really just say that something can be created from nothing.. again? Or that nothing currently exists?

[concobar]

This reminds me of when hawking argued that information was destroyed in black holes.

[Arduin]

Did you really just say that something can be created from nothing.. again? Or that nothing currently exists?

Yes he did. Once again using mere, untested ideas to support other unproven ideas. Now, as you know, massive amounts of matter/energy magically appear all the time.

Anyway, it is FAR more likely that an entity created rather than a posited field (that has NEVER been observed or tested) created out of "negative pressure" (negative as measured against? )

Anyway this is the near insanity that happens when a scientist becomes emotionally attached to an idea. (not referring to the poster, who isn't a scientist) All training goes out the window in a desperate, near hysterical attempt to DEFEND rather than observe and test.

[Fizz]

The mass-energy might be produced as long as the net sum of information is not changed. If the base is a zero net sum of information than there can be no change without an out side agent.

There is no outside. It's the universe. Remember that the Big Bang was not explosion in space, but an explosion of space.

Did you really just say that something can be created from nothing.. again? Or that nothing currently exists?

Yes, it can. But, what i put in italics are not my words, but the words of Alan Guth, one of the founders of modern cosmological theory. He knows far more about the subject that either of us. Did you not read the link?

You may find it difficult to believe. Many things from quantum mechanics are. But it is fact. It has been witnessed. The published peer-reviewed papers are available and you can read them. And this fact is already exploit this fact in certain nanotechnologies.


-Fizz

[Arduin]

Yes, it can. But, what i put in italics are not my words, but the words of Alan Guth, one of the founders of modern cosmological theory.

If when discussing science one makes an attempt to invoke "authority" as part of an argument, as you just did, you lose. It is automatic and unrecoverable. Belief systems revolve around authority, science is the opposite.

I broke my silence to you in the hopes of saving you from digging yourself in deeper. Take it as a gesture of goodwill. As it is.

[Fizz]

Yes he did. Once again using mere, untested ideas to support other unproven ideas. Now, as you know, massive amounts of matter/energy magically appear all the time.

Well, that's what you're not getting. It is tested. The observational evidence is there, and the models do support the observations. The fact that you are unwilling to even read the articles or scientific papers does not make it untrue. You cannot argue against something that you don't understand, and you have some significant misunderstandings about the very nature of BBT.

Anyway this is the near insanity that happens when a scientist becomes emotionally attached to an idea. (not referring to the poster, who isn't a scientist) All training goes out the window in a desperate, near hysterical attempt to DEFEND rather than observe and test.

No emotion here really (well, glee- i love talking about this stuff), just following the evidence. I'm willing to listen if you have alternative evidence, but you have provided none. That you are not willing to even entertain the available observational evidence is your own emotional limitation.

I'm not an active scientist no, but i'm starting my doctorate soon, so that will change in a few years if all goes well. Either way, i'm more of one than you are: i'm willing to look at the observational evidence, whereas you clearly are not. All you can say is "hypothetical" with no substance to back it up.

As i have said, as the link i provided shows, as any 5 second internet search will show, or any search of peer-reviewed cosmology papers of the last 50 years show, there IS evidence for the Big Bang. It is there for your viewing.

Here is another link that discusses many of the misconceptions people have about BBT, the evidence towards it, and many of the common misguided attempts to debunk it. If you are in fact wanting to learn the science, then you'll read it and see your misconceptions. It addresses every falsehood you have tried to pander here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html


-Fizz

[Fizz]

Yes, it can. But, what i put in italics are not my words, but the words of Alan Guth, one of the founders of modern cosmological theory.

If when discussing science one makes an attempt to invoke "authority" as part of an argument, as you just did, you lose. It is automatic and unrecoverable. Belief systems revolve around authority, science is the opposite.

I broke my silence to you in the hopes of saving you from digging yourself in deeper. Take it as a gesture of goodwill. As it is.

Lol. I didn't lose anything. I'm the same as i was before. You're the one losing out on expanding your horizons.

An appeal to authority is only a fallacy if misused. I didn't misuse it. Guth is an expert in the field, there is no significant disagreement in the field (not on this specific piece of BBT anyways).

You asked for evidence, i gave it. There is not enough space or time on these boards for a full treatise on cosmological theory. If you are going to demand such, then you are setting an impossibly high bar. If you want to go debate an active cosmologist, go study up, read Guth's and the other thousands of peer-reviewed papers on the subject, and then try to counter it.

As i acknowledged, i am not yet a true expert in the subject. I do not have the expertise to explain everything about the BBT. But that's not the issue.

Your original premise was that BBT was not a theory. You tried to provide "facts" as to why it couldn't be. I told you why those "facts" were invalid and did not disprove BBT. You have provided nothing to counter that, and yet still wouldn't accept it from me. So i thought maybe you'd believe a real cosmologist who does this for a living. Since he is an expert in the field, this is a legitimate appeal to authority.

(Actually, the links i provided, nothing different is said than anything i said previously- more consicely and elegantly stated to be sure, but substantively no different.)

Science is built on the works of others. It is a group effort. When an astronomer writes a paper, he doesn't have to re-derive every equation that Newton or Kepler ever did. Citing the works of others is quite common in scientific literature. You keep demanding evidence, and that's good. But that evidence is already widely available, if only you'd seek it yourself.

But what i failed to realize is that you don't seem interested in pursuing it- you seem mired in your own beliefs and nothing will convince you otherwise. So all i can do is encourage you to challenge your own preconceptions- get out there and read those papers and see the evidence (start with the link in my last post- you have many misconceptions). It's truly fascinating awesome stuff. Then you can discover just how amazing this universe really is.


-Fizz

[concobar]

There is no outside. It's the universe. Remember that the Big Bang was not explosion in space, but an explosion of space.

Nothing outside the universe? really? How do you know?
Is it not possible that we live in a multi-verse or a multi-dimensional universe as some string theory proponents have suggested? regardless I would love to hear all about how you know there is nothing outside of the universe and wait anxiously for you to produce the evidence of your declaration.

Yes, it can. But, what i put in italics are not my words, but the words of Alan Guth, one of the founders of modern cosmological theory. He knows far more about the subject that either of us. Did you not read the link?

I read it and think it is absolutely wrong. further I do not concede that Dr. Guth is more intelligent than you or I and no more intelligent than many other scientists that disagree with him. As Hawkins was wrong about black holes destroying information from the universe i believe Guth is wrong about information creating itself from nil. As I said before and repeat. When "scientists" begin looking for answers while dismissing some possibilities out of hand they are no longer doing scientific work, they are promoting an agenda.

You may find it difficult to believe. Many things from quantum mechanics are. But it is fact. It has been witnessed. The published peer-reviewed papers are available and you can read them. And this fact is already exploit this fact in certain nanotechnologies.


-Fizz

No. No one has observed matter and energy creating itself from nil.