Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier » July 27th, 2017, 9:07 am

Steve3007 wrote: What is your definition of an "illusion"? Do you use it as the opposite of "real"?
I realize that every word must be explained for clarity of conveyed thought because others my infer incorrect conclusions. "Real"... is in itself debatable but "illusion" has nothing to do with "real". Let me illustrate, I may perceive an object using my retina capable of perceiving certain wavelengths of light but someone else may view the same object using ultrasound. To both observers the object is "real" but both are under illusion of perceiving that object in their subjective view.
The red shift is evidence of expending accelerating universe...
It's best to be clear and stick to precisely what the observation appears to be evidence of. Red shift is not evidence of acceleration. It is evidence of motion. It is evidence that the object being observed is receding from us. But we must also remember that there could be other reasons why an object's EM emissions appear to be red shifted.
I refer to your judgement in this respect but if you should continue to monitor the red shift, you perhaps will not only notice stretching of light but continued increase in that stretching as acceleration. However I'm happy to concede in this regard.
...which you can figure out on your own through entropy... things tend to accelerate as in wood wants to become flame as kinetic energy of heat and light.

I don't recognise that as a description of the second law of thermodynamics.
Well, If you think about that statement you will realize the tendency of matter to convert to kinetic energy. Logically this implies conversion of mass as in E=mc^2 to kinetic energy of exponential increase in volume (hence c^2)
BB must provide plausible explanation, not even observation, of how matter can be created from nothing.

What do you mean by the word "explanation"? Why do you think that a theory which describes the expansion of the universe must also describe the creation of the universe?
Well, let me ask you now... Your understanding of BB is simply the description of the expansion of the universe? Because then I don't think we need BB, observation of red shift would suffice.
Matter and antimatter can annihilate into "energy", whatever that means, ...

It means that among the laws of quantum mechanics and particle physics (which have been very successful in describing and predicting observations) is the idea that every particle has an anti-particle with opposite electric charge. For example, the anti-particle of an electron is called a positron. Positrons are created in many different particle and nuclear reactions. These nuclear reactions routinely involve the conversion of matter into energy. For example, electron positron annihilation results in the mass of those two particles being converted into two gamma photons. This has been observed experimentally.

If you think that these kinds of theories don't do their job of describing and predicting experimental observations - if you think the concepts of particles, anti-particles and gamma photons are not useful - and you have a theory that does a better job, propose it, along with the experiments that you propose to test your theory.
Well, I'm perplexed in my ignorance. I hear people regurgitate the same thing over and over...we use mass to explain energy... and energy is mass... Do you feel empowered in your understanding of either one?
...reverse is not as simple because energy is not "nothing" and had to come from some source.

Just as mass is routinely converted to energy (we're both doing it right now) energy is also routines converted to mass. e.g. when an atom absorbs a photon it gets more massive.
Refer to above with this train of thought.
Again, if you think these statements are not useful as descriptions and predictors of observations, propose others.
All knowledge and different perspectives are useful. However, similar is true for religion where there is a threat to all thought being suspended in bliss of ignorance in belief in "knowing" that prevents to seek other perceptions of reality. There is a reason that GR was proposed hundred years ago and we're nowhere close in resolving the conflict with Quantum Mechanics. Just a thought that perhaps it's time...

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 732
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by -1- » July 27th, 2017, 11:12 pm

Ranvier wrote:Well, I'm perplexed in my ignorance. I hear people regurgitate the same thing over and over...we use mass to explain energy... and energy is mass... Do you feel empowered in your understanding of either one?
We regurgitate things because you question that we truly understand mass and energy etc.

The concepts of mass and energy are not to be understood. They are phenomenons, they are occurrances, which are not connecting in and by themselves parts of a system. Understanding requires that there be 1. more than one component and 2. the components relate to each other in some fashion.

Mass and energy are things. They do not respond to the consideration of understanding. Your enquiry, Ranvier, is asking a question that does not make sense. Your demand of needing to understand mass or energy is akin to these:

"Is reality wrong?"
"Why does light not travel faster than C?"
"How come a man called Andrew is not a sea slug? What IS the true reason for it (not a cause, but a reason)?
"Hunger: Is is it justified in a post-modernist pre-post-pissed past?"
Etc.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."

Steve3007
Posts: 4662
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 » July 28th, 2017, 7:45 am

Ranvier:
I may perceive an object using my retina capable of perceiving certain wavelengths of light but someone else may view the same object using ultrasound. To both observers the object is "real" but both are under illusion of perceiving that object in their subjective view.
OK. So you seem to be saying that the thing which our various different types of perception have in common - the object - is the thing you regard as "real". By this standard, isn't the concept of mass real? Mass certainly qualifies as something that is common to various different forms of perception.

If various sentient beings (e.g. me, my friend and my pet bat) have various different perceptions then it is very useful, I find, to assume that there is a real object which is the cause of those various perceptions and which explains the patterns and similarities between them.

Likewise, the concept of mass is very useful, I've found, for explaining various common features of all kinds of perceptions. Haven't you found it useful? If so, why not regard mass as real? I recommend it. It helps me to do things like buying potatoes.
I refer to your judgement in this respect but if you should continue to monitor the red shift, you perhaps will not only notice stretching of light but continued increase in that stretching as acceleration. However I'm happy to concede in this regard.
Yes, although one of the features of our observations of the large scale universe is that they are necessarily a near-instantaneous snapshot due to the shortness of human life. So we can't practically compare the red-shift now to what it was a significant time ago. But this is a side issue. I gather there are other more indirect inferences from observations like red-shift that are taken to indicate whether the expansion of the universe is accelerating or not.
Well, If you think about that statement you will realize the tendency of matter to convert to kinetic energy. Logically this implies conversion of mass as in E=mc^2 to kinetic energy of exponential increase in volume (hence c^2)
I don't know what you mean by "exponential increase in volume" here. The constant c2 in that famous equation is essentially just a way of converting between units that are commonly used to measure mass (e.g. kgs) and units that are commonly used to measure energy (e.g. Joules). A bit like converting between metres and yards. I don't see what volume or exponential relationships have to do with this. Incidentally, the mass of elementary particles is frequently quoted using units of energy. For example, the rest mass of an electron (its mass when it is not moving relative to the thing which is measuring the mass) is 511000 electron Volts (eVs). eV is a unit of energy.

I also don't know what you mean by "tendency to convert to kinetic energy". There are laws of physics which have been fairly successful in describing the relationship between mass and energy in various interactions. What do you mean by a tendency?
Well, let me ask you now... Your understanding of BB is simply the description of the expansion of the universe? Because then I don't think we need BB, observation of red shift would suffice.
I don't know a great deal about it, but I think the Big Bang Theory starts with the observed expansion of the universe and infers that it must have been in a much denser state in the past. There are then various associated theories as to how in a state of extreme density the 4 fundamental forces of nature were in some way unified in a form of symmetry that was broken during the very early stages of expansion. Stuff like that. As far as I'm aware, I don't think the BB Theory in itself says anything about how or whether all this mass/energy came into existence.
Well, I'm perplexed in my ignorance. I hear people regurgitate the same thing over and over...we use mass to explain energy... and energy is mass... Do you feel empowered in your understanding of either one?
If by "empowered" you mean that I think this knowledge could be put to some use, then yes. Maybe not by me personally, but a knowledge of the modern laws of physics, including QM, have, for example, allowed us to be talking to each other now using computers. To pick an example that is more specific to what we've been discussing: a knowledge of the existence of electrons and positrons and their interactions allowed somebody to invent the PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scanner. Very useful in medicine, I've heard.
All knowledge and different perspectives are useful. However, similar is true for religion where there is a threat to all thought being suspended in bliss of ignorance in belief in "knowing" that prevents to seek other perceptions of reality. There is a reason that GR was proposed hundred years ago and we're nowhere close in resolving the conflict with Quantum Mechanics. Just a thought that perhaps it's time...
It certainly seems to be true that the effort to unite General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics is taking quite a long time. I guess it must be very difficult! But if you think it's time the problem was solved, solve it! Or if you think the difficulties are caused by some kind of deep misunderstanding (as some people on this forum have done) let us know what you think has been misunderstood.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." - Eric Cantona.

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier » July 28th, 2017, 10:59 pm

-1- wrote:
"Is reality wrong?"
"Why does light not travel faster than C?"
"How come a man called Andrew is not a sea slug? What IS the true reason for it (not a cause, but a reason)?
"Hunger: Is is it justified in a post-modernist pre-post-pissed past?"
Etc.
Very good questions...

Which reality?
Why is light 299792458 m/s and not nice round 3M? It would be kind for much easier calculations
Are you sure that Andrew is not a slug?
Could it be equally justified in both?

-- Updated July 28th, 2017, 11:15 pm to add the following --

If you listen to most scientists they reveal in their language subconscious perception of mass as some kind of weight in Kg or g. That is a problem.
Energy...opposite of love. Too many concepts for one thing vs one term for too many things. That's the second problem.

-- Updated July 29th, 2017, 3:13 am to add the following --

To clarify the mass problem...what is the mass of 100g marble dropped on the foot on a rotating planet with angular momentum of 29820 m/s in the solar system that travels over 250k km/h around milky way galaxy found in an expending and accelerating faster than light universe. I suppose it's all relative but it's still only 100g...depending on height of the drop... lol

-- Updated July 29th, 2017, 4:23 am to add the following --

Steve 3007
The above was directed to you, I just realized I did not make that clear.

I don't know what you mean by "exponential increase in volume" here. The constant c2 in that famous equation is essentially just a way of converting between units that are commonly used to measure mass

I thought about natural forces since I was a child so some things are obvious in my mind. Ask yourself what is space? What does it mean? What is volume? Let it be said here first that dark matter is regular matter in a different "time zone" of light frequency (not exactly but that's best I can do in this short description). Ask yourself, how can we observe objects that no longer exist billions of light years away but their light only arrives to us now, yet we can't detect matter that is right next to us? When you look at the night sky you see dark matter because you see absence of light. Similarly as you look at a black object in color absorbing all frequencies of light. If we were to travel at the speed of light, we would no longer see our light but move to a different dimension or "time zone" of light frequency. That's what cosmic radiation is. The biggest conceptual challenge is in understanding that nothing can expand without something else getting smaller. Universe accelerates in its expansion because of convergent mass acceleration or in other words gravitational contraction. Both are true that Universe accelerates as well as matter contracts...as if we were in a black hole. There is no time nor space only relative concepts from our point of view. We can't perceive energy...this is a fundamental concept... we can only perceive change in frequency of energy states. To draw analogy, imagine a green fly on the green wall, you can't see it until it takes flight. That's what E=mc^2 means...energy change between states, where gravity creates volume of space and light generates distance of space. This is why I avoid using mass to prevent confusion by replacing this concept with matter. Time is an illusion of our perception in energy flow between states, time slows down as we move closer to the speed of light or conversely absolute zero of gravitational singularity. All natural forces are a single force perceived from a different point of view.

-- Updated July 29th, 2017, 4:39 am to add the following --

...not to say that the concept of mass or space-time wasn't useful but it only applies to specific set of coordinates not as an absolute measure.

Steve3007
Posts: 4662
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 » July 29th, 2017, 5:03 am

Ranvier:
Why is light 299792458 m/s and not nice round 3M? It would be kind for much easier calculations
These days the length of a metre is defined in terms of the speed of light, so light is that speed by definition. So, yes, good question. While they were at it, why didn't they define the metre such that light travels at exactly 300000000 m/s instead of exactly 299792458 m/s? I guess it would have meant changing the length of a metre by too much from its previous definition.
If you listen to most scientists they reveal in their language subconscious perception of mass as some kind of weight in Kg or g.
Sorry to be a pedant, but mass and weight are two different things. Weight is a force. Its units are not the same as the units of mass.
Energy...opposite of love. Too many concepts for one thing vs one term for too many things. That's the second problem.
Yes, it can be a problem in everyday language. In science, terms tend to have more precise singular definitions. Energy is the quantity that is measured in Joules (in S.I. units).
To clarify the mass problem...what is the mass of 100g marble...
Are you saying that 100g is its rest mass? Are you asking for its rest mass? If "yes and yes" then 100g. If "yes and no" then it depends how the marble is moving relative the measurer. If "no and no" or "no and yes" then what mass are you quoting?

-- Updated Sat Jul 29, 2017 10:11 am to add the following --
I thought about natural forces since I was a child so some things are obvious in my mind....
You've made lots and lots of statements in that passage. If you want to study this kind of thing, just as if you want to study any subject, my personal view is that its best to start at the beginning. Start with basic physics. If you jump straight into advanced and exotic concepts like dark matter or general relativity without doing the groundwork it often seems to lead to confusion and a general impression that all the specialists in the field are speaking gobble-de-gook or making it all up. In my experience of talking to various people, that often seems to be what happens.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." - Eric Cantona.

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier » July 29th, 2017, 5:18 am

Are you saying that 100g is its rest mass? Are you asking for its rest mass? If "yes and yes" then 100g. If "yes and no" then it depends how the marble is moving relative the measurer. If "no and no" or "no and yes" then what mass are you quoting?

For some time now...we are addicted to vague imaginary statements such as rest...something. What I'm trying to convey is that this is precisely the problem and the reason why we are stuck in moving forward with unified theory of everything. What does it mean rest mass!! Just think about it. Nothing in our universe is at rest nor can it be, otherwise "time" stops. Even light in not at zero rest mass, if it was it would seize to exist to us!!

Steve3007
Posts: 4662
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 » July 29th, 2017, 5:30 am

For some time now...we are addicted to vague imaginary statements such as rest...something. What I'm trying to convey is that this is precisely the problem and the reason why we are stuck in moving forward with unified theory of everything. What does it mean rest mass!! Just think about it. Nothing in our universe is at rest nor can it be, otherwise "time" stops. Even light in not at zero rest mass, if it was it would seize to exist to us!!
Why is the concept of rest "vague and imaginary" to you? "Rest mass" is the number that you will come up with if you measure the mass of an object when it is not moving relative to you. It's a straightforward concept that you can look up in any physics textbook of you want to.

If you like, you can have a separate argument as to whether an object can ever be absolutely stationary relative to you, but that doesn't alter the definition of the term "rest mass".

You are right to point out that physicists have found it useful for describing and predicting various observations to propose the existence of a particle called a photon which is proposed to have zero rest mass. If you disagree that this proposal is useful in this way, then make a competing proposal and describes some experiments/observations that your proposal is useful for describing and predicting.

Do you find the concepts of motion and rest useful? Do you regard yourself as "at rest" relative to the chair you are currently sitting in? (If you're sitting in a chair.)
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." - Eric Cantona.

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier » July 29th, 2017, 5:41 am

Yeah, it's challenging to describe red color to minds that can only see ultrasound. Sure, I'm relative to my chair that is what precisely? Energy? Mass? Empty space? It's all relative...We can't go far with such thinking.

-- Updated July 29th, 2017, 5:50 am to add the following --

The term rest mass is absolutely meaningless...how can you measure rest mass? If the chair was at rest mass relative to me, it would seize to exist from my perspective.

-- Updated July 29th, 2017, 6:12 am to add the following --

I'm not giving up...knowledge shouldn't be difficult to understand if well presented. Let me try this way...the fact that I can perceive the chair at all, means that it can't be at "zero mass" relative to me. This is actually good, I must find a way that is clear and easy to convey. Please let me know if it clicks.

Steve3007
Posts: 4662
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 » July 29th, 2017, 6:28 am

As I said, if you want to understand physics, as with any subject, you need to start with the foundations. With any subject, if you dive straight into the upper levels without working your way up you'll get confused and, as I said, in my experience, many people who do that seem to come away with the feeling that it's all gobblydegook made up by specialists to keep their jobs or confuse the uninitiated or some such thing. It's an all too familiar path that you see to be walking,

It's obvious advice really. Start at the beginning and be clear about what you are setting out to achieve.

Good luck.

-- Updated Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:29 am to add the following --

There are lots of high school physics textbooks that are very well presented. I'd start there and work gradually up.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." - Eric Cantona.

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier » July 29th, 2017, 6:40 am

I love the condescending tone, I suppose it's well deserved. I seek solace in the fact that the greatest minds in physics are equally confused by gravity. Perhaps it's back to high school for all of us.

Steve3007
Posts: 4662
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 » July 29th, 2017, 7:11 am

I honestly don't intend a condescending tone. My simple point is that we are all specialists in some subjects and not in others. If any of us want to understand the more advanced subject matter of a subject in which we are not a specialist then we usually need to start with the groundwork in that subject and work up. That applies to you, me and everyone else. If I was talking to, say, an economist and she said some stuff to me that I didn't understand, my first assumption would not be that she was all confused and probably needed to take a completely different approach to economics. My initial assumption would be that I needed to read up on economics 101 and then see if I understood her any better.

That's why I suggest that if you want to understand what physicists mean when they refer to concepts like "rest mass" or the idea that there is such a thing as a photon and that it has zero rest mass, and other curious sounding ideas then it's no good just diving in at the deep end, drowning and then blaming our drowning on the pool being too deep. We have to start with boring stuff. Physics doesn't start with exotic ideas. It starts with common sense ideas about such everyday objects as elastic bands and balls rolling down hills and such. It works its way up from there,
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." - Eric Cantona.

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier » July 29th, 2017, 7:32 am

I presented a new model for the Universe and new explanation for gravity with entire new concept for physics to pursue...and you got stuck on the concept of rest mass of different thinking that holds us in place. I'm speechless.

-- Updated July 29th, 2017, 7:58 am to add the following --

It's entirely my fault, this is not a proper canvas for such presentation. I'm not sure what came over me.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2039
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Burning ghost » July 29th, 2017, 9:09 am

[rule-breaking content deleted - Mod]

We understand some things about the universe well enough to understand that we can literally measure (physically measure) the instant after the Big Bang (Which wasn't "big" and didn't "bang".) Technical jargon, such as "rest mass", should not be taken as meaning something at rest.

At the deepest level of understanding physics are still trying to understand better. Their understanding is already pretty good about the little we have at hand. Because of them we already know that what we thought was "all" may in fact be merely a slither. Here again there are numerous ideas and hypothesis posed that may or may not be ruled out in the near/far future.

Another issue with technical jargon is the term "theory" being completely misunderstood and misused to cast doubt on factual evidence. It happens. All things said, physics is pretty damn interesting and deeply problematic to translate into layman terms. Often analogies and metaphors, or even technical terms, can lead to very distorted pictures of what the evidence really shows us. Think back to the simplistic way children are taught about atoms as school. It is UTTER garbage! Yet we tend to stick to this blatant analogy of planets even though we know very well they don't represent the physical nature of atoms only help us to visualize them in a extremely simplified manner from which we can store some knowledge.
AKA badgerjelly

Steve3007
Posts: 4662
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 » July 29th, 2017, 1:15 pm

Ranvier:
I presented a new model for the Universe and new explanation for gravity with entire new concept for physics to pursue.
Did you? Sorry I haven't read all of the posts in this topic so missed it. If you can tell the post in which you did that I'd be interested to read it. You should be aware, though, that if you think you've demolished physics as we know it and solved problems that have eluded humanity for a hundred years then you'll have to get in line, because on this website alone there have been loads of other people who have been convinced that they've done the same thing.

-- Updated Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:44 pm to add the following --

I've now skimmed back through the topic. I don't see you presenting any new models of the universe, Ranvier. Was it in a different topic?
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." - Eric Cantona.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 732
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by -1- » July 29th, 2017, 2:40 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
Ranvier wrote:I presented a new model for the Universe and new explanation for gravity with entire new concept for physics to pursue.
Did you? Sorry I haven't read all of the posts in this topic so missed it. If you can tell the post in which you did that I'd be interested to read it. You should be aware, though, that if you think you've demolished physics as we know it and solved problems that have eluded humanity for a hundred years then you'll have to get in line, because on this website alone there have been loads of other people who have been convinced that they've done the same thing.

-- Updated Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:44 pm to add the following --

I've now skimmed back through the topic. I don't see you presenting any new models of the universe, Ranvier. Was it in a different topic?
Same here, Ranvier. Was it on different site, or in a publication? Where can we read that? Thanks.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."

Post Reply