No Big Bang?

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Nofear said:

I know Stephen Hawking used such language (such as in his rather good documentary The Story of Everything). But, the point remains that classically The Big Bang theory can only go back to a point where the universe was extremely hot and extremely dense but still at a finite point in the past (the current visible universe occupied a volume of about a person). Hawking readily admits this. But, Penrose and Hawking also have their Singularity Theorem which classically would have guaranteed a singularity. But ... classically. The scientific community is all but certain that something has to change (ie not classical, but a quantum theory of gravity) and the singularity isn't guaranteed. Even if one sticks to classical relativity, recently Kerr (of Kerr black hole fame) claims that with any degree of rotation singularities don't exist.

The point here is that there is some degree of semantics about what we exactly mean with The Big Bang since there are subtleties and variant models. But basically when one wants to produce a theory where all the subtleties and variants basically produce the observational predictions I pointed out in my earlier post---that all starts at a finite point in the past. Beyond that point is pretty wide open speculation and speculate we do (link, link). As a consequence, the cosmological community has shifted away from trying to make The Big Bang the beginning of everything and limit the scope of the theory to scientifically sound footing*. It is a cultural shift and it's taking time to get everybody on board. I'm trying to do my part in propagating a more reliable/accurate zeitgeist. Hopefully you can get on board with that too.

 

* For example, one can still see photos and such of inflation being part of The Big Bang. However, it is more accurate to separate the two ideas as distinct. Inflationary models are used to set up the conditions necessary for The Big Bang but aren't the only game in town to do so (albeit they are the current favorite).

I am not at all someone who can "do his part" in propagating "a more reliable/accurate zeitgeist." 

Unless you have a greater mathematical background than I think you do, all you and I can do is decide which physicist(s) we prefer to follow along with. And your assessment that "[t]he scientific community is all but certain that something has to change..." is far from a consensus.

In short, the jury is still out, and as for me, I don't necessarily support one side or another. 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but you have to be careful of the word “theory”. Theory is simultaneously the highest level any scientific “rule” for the universe can reach (theory of gravity for example) can reach but can also mean that weird fringe idea half a dozen people hold. Saying evolution is only a theory sounds demeaning until you recognize that there isn’t some higher level it can be promoted to.

But there is a higher level a theory can be promoted to. That higher level is called a "Law." For example, the laws of thermodynamics are not mere theories, but they were theories at some point. In 1824 French engineer Sadi Carnot proposed a theory of heat that eventually became the second law of thermodynamics. Carnot is sometimes called the "Father of Thermodynamics." Newton's theory of gravitation was eventually "promoted" to a law.

I'm not saying that a scientific law could not be "demoted." Obviously, Newton's theory has been demoted due to general relativity. Although for nearly all practical purposes it remains universally useful. Will the laws of thermodynamics ever be demoted? Who can say? But I doubt it.

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Space and time are intertwined. Neither existed before the big bang.

My understanding is wildly outdated, there are theories that multiple big bangs occurred. Like one theory that our universe may return to a point of infinite density. The same dark energy that drives the universe to expand will transform itself to force it to contract, resulting in a Big Crunch. This would cause repeated bangs. Big Bangs before the Big Bang. Time before time. Non-sense? Maybe.

[the narrator]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

But there is a higher level a theory can be promoted to. That higher level is called a "Law."

Laws and theories are describing two different things. A law describes what occurs. A theory attempts to explain why. For example, a "law of gravity" simply describes the attraction and observable effects between two bodies of mass. A "theory of gravity" attempts to explain why the observed attraction occurs.

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Laws and theories are describing two different things. A law describes what occurs. A theory attempts to explain why. For example, a "law of gravity" simply describes the attraction and observable effects between two bodies of mass. A "theory of gravity" attempts to explain why the observed attraction occurs.

I was going to object to this, but upon further reflection and reading, I stand corrected. Sorry, @The Nehor.

[the narrator]

12 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

My understanding is wildly outdated, there are theories that multiple big bangs occurred. Like one theory that our universe may return to a point of infinite density. The same dark energy that drives the universe to expand will transform itself to force it to contract, resulting in a Big Crunch. This would cause repeated bangs. Big Bangs before the Big Bang. Time before time. Non-sense? Maybe.

I don't think many subscribe to a collapsing universe anymore. Rather some speculate that new universes are created on the other end of a black hole's singularity. If our universe came about this way, it wouldn't mean that there was a time or place before the universe but rather that there was another wholly other time and place and existence that caused ours to come into being.

[Nofear]

4 hours ago, the narrator said:

It does unless one wishes to radically redefine time as some sort of logical sequence that is entirely distinct from and not yet correlated to space-time. So, sure, there was a "prior" to the existence of space time very soon after the Big Bang, but it is as much "time" as yellow is the smell of corn.

Sorry. Not a good analogy. It is aceually a very viable idea that time extends into the infinite pas and at some point there was something akin to a “phase change” which was the big bang.

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I am not at all someone who can "do his part" in propagating "a more reliable/accurate zeitgeist." 

Unless you have a greater mathematical background than I think you do, all you and I can do is decide which physicist(s) we prefer to follow along with. And your assessment that "[t]he scientific community is all but certain that something has to change..." is far from a consensus.

In short, the jury is still out, and as for me, I don't necessarily support one side or another. 

I'm not sure what you think my background is. I'm not going to appeal to me being an authority. I could link you dozens of relatively recent articles from Science, Nature, Scientific American, etc. But, I'm also not that motivated. People on the internets are wrong all the time (myself included). I've given you rational and reason and linked some things. If that wasn't enough to persuade you to extrospectively challenge your current worldview… shrug. I can still agree with you elsewhere.

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

I don't think many subscribe to a collapsing universe anymore. Rather some speculate that new universes are created on the other end of a black hole's singularity. If our universe came about this way, it wouldn't mean that there was a time or place before the universe but rather that there was another wholly other time and place and existence that caused ours to come into being.

Indeed ekpryotic and other cyclic models perhaps are very likely a minority position. Not sure your second statement is correct though. This article nicely explains what is the plurality opinion to a lay audience: https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/when-cosmic-inflation-occurred/

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

Laws and theories are describing two different things. A law describes what occurs. A theory attempts to explain why. For example, a "law of gravity" simply describes the attraction and observable effects between two bodies of mass. A "theory of gravity" attempts to explain why the observed attraction occurs.

For a reference to what is said above: https://ncse.ngo/definitions-fact-theory-and-law-scientific-work

While I've broadly seen quite a few variations of the terms in articles and textbooks, it is a very good starting point to phrase things. Occasionally the words will be misplaced out of historical tradition or such.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

I'm not sure what you think my background is. I'm not going to appeal to me being an authority. I could link you dozens of relatively recent articles from Science, Nature, Scientific American, etc. But, I'm also not that motivated. People on the internets are wrong all the time (myself included). I've given you rational and reason and linked some things. If that wasn't enough to persuade you to extrospectively challenge your current worldview… shrug. I can still agree with you elsewhere.

LOL, I can find both support and opposition for any positions you or I might advocate. I've linked to things as well. I assume you're just like me: an amateur who is persuaded by one set of authorities in opposition to others.

But like the authorities we most support, we may later that find that we are wrong, partly wrong, or fully correct.

Things are far from settled. But the game is afoot, and it will be fun watching it unfold. I'm happy just watching it!

And I can cheerfully agree to disagree.

😀 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, the narrator said:

It does unless one wishes to radically redefine time as some sort of logical sequence that is entirely distinct from and not yet correlated to space-time. So, sure, there was a "prior" to the existence of space time very soon after the Big Bang, but it is as much "time" as yellow is the smell of corn.

As always, everything is semantics.

We need a little Wittgenstein around here

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

For example, a "law of gravity" simply describes the attraction and observable effects between two bodies of mass. A "theory of gravity" attempts to explain why the observed attraction occurs.

Yet both are human descriptions of human defined experience, pretending that there are more "ways to see it" which "correspond to reality".

It's impossible to get outside human- created structures/ paradigms/ theories to see "reality" WITHOUT the interference of human created created structures/ paradigms/ theories to know if those structures "correspond" to whatever we want to describe as ", real".

The best we can do is simply acknowledge that we simply throw away the illusion of "objectivity" and go with what works for us, and is "sweet" (Alma 32) per our experience, with how it benefits mankind.

I personally subscribe to William James' "Radical Empiricism" which takes all "human experience" as reality "AS WE KNOW IT", for all practical purposes.

That gives us also, as members, some interesting alternatives in theories about religious experience.

See James' "Varieties of Religious Experience" for an intro.

Radical Empiricism 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/radical-empiricism

Edited March 19 by mfbukowski

[Nofear]

36 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

LOL, I can find both support and opposition for any positions you or I might advocate.

For the semantics of what we call the Big Bang, perhaps so. The community of cosmologists have a lot of cultural inertia to overcome.

What we can say is that our theoretical model that matches observations only extend to a set of initial conditions that existed at a finite time in the past. I call that the big bang. If you want to say, oh, but the big bang theory really, actually goes further than that*, meh, it is a forgivable artifact of historical precedent.

 

* Though, one might note that position also runs mildly afoul of what we in more contemporary times call a “scientific theory” (as per earlier in the thread) since we lack obsevational evidence for pushing beyond what I call the big bang making it more the big bang hypothesis or even big bang idea. But doing so belies the vast amount of data that we do have that is met by what (most) cosmologists mean now when they say the big bang. Hence the push to clarify and narrow the language. Alas, well meaning but ultimately misguided hobbyists push back in much the same way they do  when they still call Pluto a planet. You can be that person who struggles against the tide of precision of language. But you don't have to be that person. Nobody will think less of you (well, no scientist). And if that isn't the path you'll take, meh. We, even faithful latter-day saints, make mistakes. Won't shun you.

[OGHoosier]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We need a little Wittgenstein around here

Oh, we need a little Ludwig

Right this very minute

Do some language gaming

It's both duck and rabbit

Yes we need a little Ludwig

'Cause it's all semantics

We need a little Ludwig now.

 

[the narrator]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We need a little Wittgenstein around here

Indeed.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Oh, we need a little Ludwig

Right this very minute

Do some language gaming

It's both duck and rabbit

Yes we need a little Ludwig

'Cause it's all semantics

We need a little Ludwig now.

 

The BEST!!! 👍👍👍

[Doctor Steuss]

To some, it is given an understanding of theoretical and astrophysics.  To others, it is given to believe on their words…

D&C (Distance modulas & Copheid variables) 13 Billion

 

As it is written, so shall it be done.

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, the narrator said:

I don't think many subscribe to a collapsing universe anymore. Rather some speculate that new universes are created on the other end of a black hole's singularity. If our universe came about this way, it wouldn't mean that there was a time or place before the universe but rather that there was another wholly other time and place and existence that caused ours to come into being.

But of course these guys don't believe in religion.

Uh huh. Got some math, though, another expression of human created language/ logic, right?

Did God create man, or did man create God?

Seems to me that Human Intelligence did both! 

At least if God is the image of the Ideal Human.

But something's out there whapping us with qualia. 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But of course these guys don't believe in religion.

Maybe, maybe not…

https://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html

Quote

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found….

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.

"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.

Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Maybe, maybe not…

https://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html

 

Thanks, but I stand by my words.

The discussion was about cosmology, therefore "these guys" referred to cosmologists, and it appears that the vast majority do not believe in God.

Note also that LDS Doctrine unifies spirituality and materialism.  Also God must be immanent to have "children"

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/#:~:text=Prepared for God and Physical,22%2C 622 (2005).

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

Edited March 20 by mfbukowski

[Nofear]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The discussion was about cosmology, therefore "these guys" referred to cosmologists, and it appears that the vast majority do not believe in God.

For my part, my study and understanding in cosmology both informs and enhances my faith in God. Likewise my study and understanding of our theology both informs and enhances my perspective on the universe.

Both aspects are quite important to me. Which is why I get frustrated when I see nonsense posted. Not that I am surprised. I see so many of faith treat cosmology with disdainful rejection much in the same way that atheists treat religion with disdainful rejection.

“'Mormonism' includes all truth. There is no truth but what belongs to the Gospel.” – Brigham Young

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

For my part, my study and understanding in cosmology both informs and enhances my faith in God. Likewise my study and understanding of our theology both informs and enhances my perspective on the universe.

Both aspects are quite important to me. Which is why I get frustrated when I see nonsense posted. Not that I am surprised. I see so many of faith treat cosmology with disdainful rejection much in the same way that atheists treat religion with disdainful rejection.

“'Mormonism' includes all truth. There is no truth but what belongs to the Gospel.” – Brigham Young

Oh yes!

Could not agree more.  I joined the church for that! The more I learn from the BOM the more I see its brilliance.  Moroni 10 and Alma 32 alone fit perfectly with many contemporary philosophies.

No way Joseph could have pulled that out of a hat, literally, by himself.

[The Nehor]

The idea that science and religion are at odds was one of Voltaire’s worst gifts to the world. That a lot of American fundamentalists are proud of being the caricature hasn’t helped things.

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that science and religion are at odds was one of Voltaire’s worst gifts to the world. That a lot of American fundamentalists are proud of being the caricature hasn’t helped things.

The Enlightenment did have a few not-so-enlightened perspectives. Though to be fair, much of religion at the time was dogmatic and violent. Galileo is sometimes presented as anti-religious, but he wasn't really (heck, his illegitimate daughter he sent to become a nun). The Catholics had created this fairly nice and coherent merger of Aristotelian physics and Christianity. Problem was the science was crappy and as a result, the resultant theology was likewise diluted with error. What Galileo tried to do was separate bad science from the theology. It's a problem we still wrestle with today.