Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

[Present awareness]

I agree, time works as a concept, and is very useful. the practical use of NOW, is that we can use NOW, to think about the past, present or future, but at no point in this mental fantasy may we actually step out of the NOW.

[Eduk]

Exactly how is that practical? If you argue that past and future are mental structures with no corresponding parallel with reality. Then how is the concept of now any different. Why does that have a reality.

[Present awareness]

I'm not saying "that which was, is not real" I'm saying that which was, is here, now. It is the same with that which will be. The humans that will inhabit the earth in 100 years from now, are here, now, alive in the eggs and sperm of their great grandparents.

[Moreno]

Science doesn't necessarily contradict itself with the Big Bang, but it does acknowledge that there were state/times that do not follow the rules that are currently in place: standard particle physics and general relativity. This is fine, but once you open the door to rules not applying at certain times/(places) it does give a different metaphysics: rules and laws (and perhaps constants) can change over time and perhaps are different in different places. This is also fine and can be part of a meta-science that includes the possibilities for change, but it is a difference and a big one. There are indications that laws and constants have not remained the same even over much humbler periods of time that further support the need to challenge the timeless laws ideas which has been a metaphysical fundament of science.

[Atreyu]

Is the total matter/energy of the universe increasing over time?

I believe so, yes.

[Sy Borg]

We can speak of models and the like but it's very likely that the universe is expanding and that, if it's expanding, then it must have been smaller, and smaller again. The only issue I have with that is the possibility that the expansion is a perspective effect. However, numerous observations suggest that something like a big bang really physically happened - an incredible expansion of the universe from something very much smaller.

That seems to have been (and in a sense still is) the actual physical reality, not just a model. It's one thing to focus on the models and calculate, Steve (hi again, LTNS), but it's another to know that the models are not pure math, just an exercise, but they have real physical correlates.

I know you know that well, but you seemed overly effacing to me on behalf of science earlier on. Science didn't bring us to this point because its models were unrelated to physical reality :)

[Woodart]

We can speak of models and the like but it's very likely that the universe is expanding and that, if it's expanding, then it must have been smaller, and smaller again. The only issue I have with that is the possibility that the expansion is a perspective effect. However, numerous observations suggest that something like a big bang really physically happened - an incredible expansion of the universe from something very much smaller.

That seems to have been (and in a sense still is) the actual physical reality, not just a model. It's one thing to focus on the models and calculate, Steve (hi again, LTNS), but it's another to know that the models are not pure math, just an exercise, but they have real physical correlates.

I know you know that well, but you seemed overly effacing to me on behalf of science earlier on. Science didn't bring us to this point because its models were unrelated to physical reality

The idea the universe is expanding is speculation. How long have we noticed the universe expanding? 50 to 100 years? I do not know – but – not very long. Maybe the universe is breathing? Just the idea that things are expanding does not make sense. If the universe is infinite – how does it get more infinite? Bigger infinite seems like a contradiction of terms. Doesn’t it seem more plausible to say the universe is moving?

[Eduk]

Woodart This may be to do with how you define infinite. For example if you think of the entire universe as one probability wave then this wave has a length. Of course it's very long but very long is infinitely far from infinite. Now you can perhaps argue that if the universe is expanding then if you have an infinity of time that would give you an infinitely large probability wave. But this is only true if time is infinite and perhaps more to the point potentially infinite.
So I would say we are not starting with an infinite universe and expanding. Anything that can be measured is finite.
Of course you could ask what it's expanding into. Perhaps an infinity of nothing.

[Woodart]

Woodart This may be to do with how you define infinite. For example if you think of the entire universe as one probability wave then this wave has a length. Of course it's very long but very long is infinitely far from infinite. Now you can perhaps argue that if the universe is expanding then if you have an infinity of time that would give you an infinitely large probability wave. But this is only true if time is infinite and perhaps more to the point potentially infinite.
So I would say we are not starting with an infinite universe and expanding. Anything that can be measured is finite.
Of course you could ask what it's expanding into. Perhaps an infinity of nothing.

Speculation - just like the big bang - weak speculation.

[Eduk]

Your reply is too vague and general. It is a simple axiomatic statement with no logic or specifics to back that statement up. It could easily be described as an ad-hominem which as a moderator you should perhaps avoid? Also while I am not a cosmologist and I am relatively happy to have any ideas that I have on cosmology be described as speculation are you saying that the greatest cosmological minds in the world are also speculating and weakly too? This feels like quite the arrogant statement to me? If that is your intended implication of course.

[Woodart]

Your reply is too vague and general. It is a simple axiomatic statement with no logic or specifics to back that statement up. It could easily be described as an ad-hominem which as a moderator you should perhaps avoid? Also while I am not a cosmologist and I am relatively happy to have any ideas that I have on cosmology be described as speculation are you saying that the greatest cosmological minds in the world are also speculating and weakly too? This feels like quite the arrogant statement to me? If that is your intended implication of course.

All statements about the big bang are speculation based upon evidence that we can see. The operative statement here is “that we can see” – which is very little. Of course our best minds come up with theories – but – we don’t see very much and therefore cannot be sure about our speculation – theories. I think in a hundred or so years we will have better theories.

[Eduk]

Words are tricky. In a sense all science could be described as speculation. All science only fits the available evidence. All science is open to change and modifications to theories. This is the scientific process. On the other hand science works and brings results.
NASA puts this well

Like any field of science, cosmology involves the formation of theories or hypotheses about the universe which make specific predictions for phenomena that can be tested with observations. Depending on the outcome of the observations, the theories will need to be abandoned, revised or extended to accommodate the data.

But, and please correct me if I am wrong, you seem to be implying that the big bang theory is 'bad' science, weak speculation? Now I don't pretend to be a cosmologist but I believe the evidence for the big bang is extensive and conclusive and highly technical and well beyond any common understanding. It has a lot of moving parts. It's incomplete and quite likely incorrect in certain specifics, it's also quite likely correct in other specifics.

[Sy Borg]

We can speak of models and the like but it's very likely that the universe is expanding and that, if it's expanding, then it must have been smaller, and smaller again. The only issue I have with that is the possibility that the expansion is a perspective effect. However, numerous observations suggest that something like a big bang really physically happened - an incredible expansion of the universe from something very much smaller.

That seems to have been (and in a sense still is) the actual physical reality, not just a model. It's one thing to focus on the models and calculate, Steve (hi again, LTNS), but it's another to know that the models are not pure math, just an exercise, but they have real physical correlates.

I know you know that well, but you seemed overly effacing to me on behalf of science earlier on. Science didn't bring us to this point because its models were unrelated to physical reality :)

The idea the universe is expanding is speculation. How long have we noticed the universe expanding? 50 to 100 years? I do not know – but – not very long. Maybe the universe is breathing? Just the idea that things are expanding does not make sense. If the universe is infinite – how does it get more infinite? Bigger infinite seems like a contradiction of terms. Doesn’t it seem more plausible to say the universe is moving?

Expansion is less speculative than any other idea in the area, though. The universe has been expanding for as long as observations have been made. That's what we know. Note that a huge number of tests have been run by people know who many times more than us about this that have all confirmed the idea of Alan Guth's cosmic inflation theory. This is not just intuition or guesswork but the conclusions so far on the basic of numerous observations and testing of conditions. Scientists particularly tested cosmic inflation because it was counter intuitive but the results of observations have largely been consistent with the concept, so far.

[Woodart]

Greta wrote:
Expansion is less speculative than any other idea in the area, though. The universe has been expanding for as long as observations have been made. That's what we know. Note that a huge number of tests have been run by people know who many times more than us about this that have all confirmed the idea of Alan Guth's cosmic inflation theory. This is not just intuition or guesswork but the conclusions so far on the basic of numerous observations and testing of conditions. Scientists particularly tested cosmic inflation because it was counter intuitive but the results of observations have largely been consistent with the concept, so far.

The key concept is “so far” – we have only been observing for short time. What if it is just moving? I think moving is as plausible as expanding.

Eduk wrote:
But, and please correct me if I am wrong, you seem to be implying that the big bang theory is 'bad' science, weak speculation?

I did not say bad science – I said weak speculation because the evidence is slim. See my answer above to Greta. In addition, I think the best we can do now is weak speculation. Hopefully evidence will improve when we get the new telescope up in 10 years or so. As I said before – in 100 years I think we will see things differently.

[Eduk]

The key concept is “so far” – we have only been observing for short time. What if it is just moving? I think moving is as plausible as expanding.

So you accuse all cosmologists of weak speculation. How would you describe what you are saying? Where is your empirical evidence? Where are your peer reviewed papers? What popular science books have you published on your theory? What technical books have you written on your theory? What predictions does your theory make? What is the mechanism which explains your theory? What falsifiable experiments can be made? How many independent teams of cosmologists have the same results as you from the falsifiable experiments you have made?